![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
ABSTRACT The effect of instructional materials enhanced with textual metaphors versus graphical metaphors was investigated. In the text‐plus‐textual metaphor material, the learning content described computer programming logic patterns (i.e. sequence, selection and repetition control structures) in a generic text format, followed by expository examples in the form of textual metaphors. The text‐plus‐graphical metaphor material consisted of the generic text instruction with the expository examples replaced by graphical metaphors (pictures). A total of 37 adult learners attended one lecture and two tutorials to learn how to write programming algorithms. All of the participants completed Riding and Cheema's (1991) Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) to measure their position on two cognitive style dimensions: Wholist‐Analytic and Verbal‐Imagery. The participants were paired based on their similar CSA ratios. One participant from each pair was given the text‐plus‐textual metaphor treatment, while the other was given the text‐plus‐graphical metaphor treatment. The treatment groups were controlled for instructional format and cognitive style. These independent variables were used to test for their effect on learning abstract computer programming concepts. Performance, as measured by the difference between pre‐test and post‐test scores, was analysed using statistical means and the QUEST probability analysis program. Both methods show that graphical metaphors improve participants’ performance. They also show that the best performance is achieved by Verbalisers, given the graphical metaphor instructional material.
