International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2015, Vol.9, No. 1, pp. 47-55

Collaborative Research on Applying the Graphic Organizer as an
Instructional Method~ A Case Study of In-Service Training for Developing Higher Order
Cognitive Skills for Chinese Elementary School Teachers ~Makiko Kishi
Meiji University, Japan
Kikuko Miyake
Kansai University Elementary School, Japan
Kenichi Kubota
Kansai University, Japan
Li KedongSouth China Normal University, China
The objective of this research is to clarify the process of how Chinese teachers apply an instructional
method for developing children's higher order cognitive skills in their classes. The authors conductedcollaborative research between Japan and China and worked on developing instructions for higher ordercognitive skills in primary schools. As a result, the authors clarified that the teachers in both countries
recognize the graphic organizer as effective tools for visualizing the cognitive process and useful in
employing them in the classroom. At the same time, Chinese teachers used the graphic organizer
differently from that of Japanese teachers.
Keywords: Higher Order Cognitive Skill, Graphic Organizer, Collaborative Research

Introduction
Learners are required to acquire higher order cognitive skills rather than simply remembering facts in 21stcentury education. However, many elementary school teachers have taught in a traditional manner, mass
teaching, by instructing learners to memorize facts. Memorization is located at the bottom of the pyramid in
Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956). Teachers need to improve their teaching skills to teach higher order cognitive
skills, such as creating, evaluating, and analyzing as shown in Figure 1 (Ralph, 2005). Educational experts havedeveloped the skills and knowledge learners need to succeed in life and work to attain 21st-century learning
outcomes, such as key competencies (OECD, 2003) and 21st-century skills (ACT21S). The Central Education
Council (2008) in Japan recommended that teachers use “higher order cognitive skills such as comparing,
categorizing, and connecting” in elementary schools. Taizan and Miyake (2013) and Taizan, Kojima, andKurokami (2014) explained that it was important to teach the higher-order cognitive skills in a systematicmanner.

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 47-55 ISSN 1882–2290

47

Figure 1. Bloom's Revised Taxonomy (based on Krathwohl, 2002)
Teachers at Kansai University Elementary School in Osaka, Japan selected six graphic organizers appropriate
for elementary students to enhance thinking practices in various subjects since 2011. The teachers publishedfour books that explained how to teach the skills to disseminate these instructional methods in Japan (Kansai
University Elementary School, 2012; Miyake, Taizan, & Kubota, 2012).
These instructional methods can be transferred not only to Japanese elementary schools, but also to othercountries, such as China. The authors at Kansai University (KU) and South China Normal University(SCNU) have collaborated since 2012. They decided to disseminate instructional methods that use graphicorganizers to Chinese elementary schools. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to ascertain how toeffectively transfer instructional methods that use graphic organizers to develop thinking skills at Chineseelementary schools.

Research Background
Education in China has also been very traditional. Cramming is the main technique of learning at Chinese
schools because students need to pass entrance examinations to enroll in better educational institutions. The
Chinese government published an article concerning educational innovation and development in 1993. To
improve exam-oriented education, the Chinese government promulgated “guidelines on the development andreform of China's education,” (The Council of Local Authorities for International Relation, 2008), andproposed “quality education” as educational innovation. Quality education means that schools need toprovide high-quality education for children to acquire higher order cognitive skills such as creativity andcritical thinking. Achieving quality education became a slogan that promotes the reform of primary andsecondary education in China. Cross-curricular learning, “Integrated Practical Study,” was introduced in 1998
for developing a whole individual as a pathway to quality education (Japan Science and Technology Agency,2013).
Japanese educational reform has also moved in the same direction during this time. Educators were interested
in competency, which the Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA) attempted to measure(Tatsuta, 2014). Competency is not defined by an amount of knowledge, but by attaining higher ordercognitive skills. The Japanese government also focused on higher-order cognitive skills to make learners think
deeply rather than simply memorizing. A new curriculum, called “the course of study,” included teaching
higher order cognitive skills at the primary level, so Japanese teachers shifted toward nurturing thinking skills.
From these movements in China and Japan, both countries are focused on designing lessons to help students
think deeply and learn autonomously.
Since teachers do not have enough experiences in teaching that focused on nurturing higher order thinking,they looked for instructional methods that applied to their classrooms. With such strong needs, Japaneseteachers examined various instructional methods for nurturing higher order thinking such as a jigsaw method,a type of group project-based learning (Toyama, 2003); a balloon method in which students write theirthinking process in speech balloons in mathematics (Kameoka & Komoto, 2014); and graphic organizers(Kansai University Elementary School, 2012; Miyake, Kishi, Kubota, & Li, 2013; Miyake & Taizan, 2014).
Kishi, Kubota, and Ito (2012) insisted that these instructional methods should make sense to students so thatthey can relate what they learn to their everyday lives. Teachers in Japan and China may use different teachingstrategies, which are suitable for each person's social and cultural contexts, or teachers may employ them

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 47-55 ISSN 1882–2290

48

differently even though they use the same strategies. Nu Nu Wai, Kubota, and Kishi (2010) concluded thatnew teaching strategies introduced by Japanese experts may not work well in other countries because ofdifferences in social and cultural contexts.

Research Objective
The objective of this research is to clarify the process of how Chinese teachers apply an instructional methodfor developing children's higher order cognitive skills in their classes. In this case, the authors attempted totransfer instructional methods developed in Japanese schools to Chinese schools. The instructional method iscalled “six graphic organizers” developed at Kansai University Elementary School over four years.
The research questions are:(1) How do Chinese teachers change their teaching practices after they learned the instructional methods of
how to apply the graphic organizers in class?
(2) How do Chinese teachers use graphic organizers differently from Japanese teachers? Or In what ways do
Chinese and Japanese teachers use graphic organizers differently?
To answer these research questions, the authors initiated collaborative research between Japan and China on
designing instruction to develop higher order cognitive skills in primary schools.

Methodology
Outline of the workshop
The authors introduced instructional methods for developing higher order cognitive skills to Chineseelementary school teachers through the workshop in Guangzhou Province, China to learn how to use thegraphic organizers as “innovation” for Chinese teachers. After the workshop, the authors received feedback
from the teachers through interviews and questionnaires.
The Japanese authors visited China three times: September 2012, March 2013, and March 2014 (see detail in
Table 1) to conduct the workshops. About 35 Chinese teachers from three elementary schools in Guangzhou
participated in the workshops. They learned how to use the graphic organizers in class at the first workshop.
After the first workshop, they used the graphic organizers in their teaching. When the Japanese researchersvisited in March 2013, they observed classroom activities and discussed how to teach effectively with theteachers who participated in the first workshop. In the second workshop, new teachers from three otherschools participated. The Japanese authors conducted the third workshop in March 2014, in which teachers
from six elementary schools participated.
The Japanese authors introduced the graphic organizers shown in Table 2. These graphic organizers are used
to organize logical thinking and articulate a student’s thoughts. It is important for students to visualize theirthinking process to clarify their logical explanations. It enables Chinese teachers to change their way ofteaching from asking students to memorize to letting them think critically by themselves.

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 47-55 ISSN 1882–2290

49

Table 1.	
  Outline of the Workshops
The 1st workshop
The 2nd workshop
To understand how to use To solve problems thatthe graphic organizers in Chinese teachers facedclass based on the case whenusinggraphic
studies of Kansai University organizers for thinking skills
Elementary School and development in primary
design teaching strategies education.
with graphic organizers.
The authors introduced how Chinese teachers reported
to use graphic organizers in their experiences using theclass. Chinese teachers graphic organizers.
The
worked on some activities authors advised teachers
using
two
graphic how to improve theirorganizers.
teaching practices.

Objective

Activities

Date
Place

2012/9/8
Guangzhou
CenterParticipants

Educational

2013/3/28
South
China
NormalUniversity,
Guangzhou,
China
About 30 teachers, staff ofGuangzhou
Educational
Center,andgraduatestudents

The 3rd workshop
To reflect on their own
practice through group
discussion by filling in good
points and points needed
for improvement in the PMI
sheet.
The authors conducted aworkshop about Case Based
Reasoning (Aamodt &Plaza, 1994). The sevencases were prepared basedon class observations by theauthors and SCNU such as
how to evaluate students’
thinking, how to support
students to receive multiple
viewpoints, and how to set
up learning goals in thinking
activities. Teachers also
reflected on their own
practicesfrom
PMI
viewpoints.
2014/3/28
South
China
NormalUniversity,
Guangzhou,
China
About 30 teachers, staff ofGuangzhou
Educational
Centerandgraduatestudents

About 25 teachers, staff ofGuangzhou
Educational
Centerandgraduatestudents
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
 
Table 2. Graphic Organizers Introduced to Chinese Teachers.

Venn Diagram

X chartFish Born Diagram

Concept map

PMI sheet

Pyramid Chart

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 47-55 ISSN 1882–2290

50

Data collection and analysis
Data was collected as follows.
(1) Interviews and observations
The authors interviewed teachers to clarify how Chinese teachers change their teaching practices after theylearned the instructional methods of how to apply the graphic organizers in class. After the workshops, theauthors observed classes and discussed with teachers how they used the graphic organizers in class effectively.
(2) A record of reflections in 3rd workshop
The authors analyzed reflection statements about the teachers’ experiences to identify how Chinese teachers
used the graphic organizers in class. In the 3rd workshop, the authors conducted the following activity toencourage teachers to reflect on their teaching practices:
STEP1: Teachers formed several groups composed of 6-8 members.
STEP2: Teachers shared their teaching experiences with each other.
STEP3: Teachers summarized good and bad points of using the graphic organizers in class.
STEP4: Each group wrote the results of their discussions on paper as shown in Tables 3 to 6.
The authors analyzed the outcomes by comparing how Chinese teachers used organizers differently fromJapanese teachers, or how differently each group of teachers put graphic organizers to use.

Findings and Discussion
The process of Chinese teachers changing their teaching practices after learning
how to apply graphic organizers in class
During the first workshop, Chinese teachers were excited about learning new instructional methods. They
were eager to apply graphic organizers in class. However, some teachers found that students needed moretime to develop their ideas than the teachers expected. The teachers said that they could not control thestudents’ behaviors when allowing students to think on their own. The teachers were afraid of uncontrolledchaos in the classroom.
In the second workshop, the teachers reported that they became accustomed to letting students use graphicorganizers in class. The teachers realized that using graphic organizers were effective in visualizing thinking. It
also allowed students to enjoy using graphic organizers. When the authors visited the schools and observed
class activities, the students showed their products using graphic organizers as shown in Figure 2. The
students neatly drew the graphic organizers.

Figure 2. Examples of Student Products
In the third workshop, through the group reflections, Chinese teachers shared more details of how to use
thinking tools in their classroom as well as their possibilities and difficulties (see detail below under 5.2). They
also discussed how to utilize better graphic organizers. The Chinese teachers shared ideas and experiences foroccasions when graphic organizers were useful. Through the workshop, it became clearer that the Chinese

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 47-55 ISSN 1882–2290

51

teachers paid more attention to using graphic organizers for preparation before a lesson and for reviewing
what students already learned. Chinese students enjoyed drawing graphic organizers neatly as well as
preparing and reviewing them. The Chinese teachers noticed that students spent more time for preparing andreviewing. The students enjoyed self-learning more than ever before.
All teachers agreed that students could visualize their thinking processes with graphic organizers better than
before. The teachers reaffirmed that they would apply graphic organizers in future class activities.

How Chinese teachers used graphic organizers in their classes
Based on group reflection data from four groups (A-D) in the third workshop, the authors identified how the
Chinese teachers used graphic organizers in class (Tables 3 to 5).
Table 3. Group A Outcomes

1.

2.

Plus Points
Teacherscanheightenthinking
ability.
Whenstudents develop stories,
they produce a wide variety
of stories.
Students enjoy learning inclass. They are strongly
motivated.

Table 4. Group B Outcomes
Minus Points
1． They create stories with thegraphic organizer. Theirstories are not so interestingin grade 3.
2． Since students have limited
vocabulary and grammar,
they did not produce newideas. Example: As there are
events about Christmas and
New Year in the textbook,
students did not create new
events other than these two.

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 47-55 ISSN 1882–2290

1.
2.

3.

4.

Interesting Points
How we can make all
students more motivated?
How can we implement bothcreative thinking and logicalthinking together in a
Chinese class?
How to make good exercisesforlistening,speaking,
reading, and writing with thegraphic organizers.
In composition class, how tomake students develop theirthinking skills and not belimitedbygraphicorganizers.

52

1.
2.

3.

1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

Plus Points
Students can think logically.
It is effective for preparing
Chinese lessons
Effectiveforanalyzing
characteristics of people who
appear in the textbook(grade 5 Chinese)
Students can select thegraphic organizers based on
their preferences.

Plus Points
Students can understandessays through the use ofgraphic organizers. It solved
the problems of preparation.
Students
cananalyze
distinctive
featuresofcharacters in a novel byusing the fishbone graphicorganizer.
Students
understandrelationships
amongcharacters in the novel.
Students can analyze glassfeatures and utilization byusing the fish-bone graphicorganizer, and they enjoyedlearning.
Students apply the graphicorganizers to learn classic
novels in extra curricula
activities.
Students easily remember
the content because of
combination of graphics andwriting.
Student can grasp therelationship between theoverview and the detailed
parts just by looking.

Table 5. Group C Outcomes
Minus Points
1． Students care much more
about the appearance of thegraphic organizers rather
than learning itself.
2． Students did not have a clear
understanding about thegraphic organizers.

1.
2.

Table 6. Group D Outcomes
Minus Points
Students did not think
deeply because they just cut
and paste the contents.
Students focused on drawing
rather than the thinking
process. It took a long time
to complete.

1.
2.
3.

1.

2.
3.

4.

5.
6.
7.

8.

Interesting Points
It is useful to arrange theirknowledge and problems.
How to instruct those who
think more actively.
The graphic organizers may
sometimes hinder theirthinking in mathematics
classes.

Interesting Points
Students can understand thecharacteristics of geometricalfigures
easilythroughgraphic organizers.
Students can develop their
imagination.
Teachers found students
understand better, if the Y
diagram was introduced in
Math class.
Since
students
enjoyeddrawingthegraphicorganizers by themselves,
they did not like to work
together.
There is not enough time toshare their products in class.
Some students cannot finish
within class time.
How do teachers makestudents solve problems
within certain time, and beinterested in Chinese?
Teachers must consider
which graphic organizers fit
certain contents.

The summaries of group discussions (Tables 3, 4, and 5) indicated the following about using graphicorganizers: First, Chinese teachers stated that students are motivated to learn with graphic organizers. For
instance, Chinese teachers in Group A (Table 3) said, “Students enjoy learning in Chinese class. They arestrongly motivated.” Teachers in other groups mentioned that thinking tools motivate students to learn more.
On the other hand, there were some students who use graphic organizers incorrectly. They "focused on
drawing rather than the thinking process (Table 6)”, and “cared too much about appearances of the graphicorganizers rather than learning itself (Table 5)” as shown in Figure 2. It is because “students do not have clear
understanding of how to use graphic organizers” as Group B mentioned.
Second, the Chinese teachers identified that students were able to sort out their ideas and organize themusing graphic organizers. Therefore, the students were able to understand the lesson contents deeply. At thesame time, however, some students just copied and pasted the information from the book and the Internet

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 47-55 ISSN 1882–2290

53

into graphic organizers. The teachers in Group A stated, “Since students have limited vocabulary andgrammar, they could not come up with new ideas.” The same issue has been reported in the research ongraphic organizers in Japan (Kishi, Konno, Sakata, Miyake, Kurokami, & Kubota, 2008). A Japanese teacher
mentioned that teachers need to consider the developmental levels of students when students use the graphicorganizers. A certain level of linguistic ability is necessary for nurturing higher order cognitive skills.
Third, Chinese teachers had difficulties integrating the graphic organizers into their lessons because of time
limitations. Since students take time writing on graphic organizers, it is difficult for teachers to complete
lessons within time limits. As shown in Figure 2, Chinese students draw graphic organizers very neatly. In
contrast, teachers at Kansai University Elementary School allow students to make use of graphic organizers
to help their thinking processes, and not the outcomes of their thinking (Figure 3). Students can think inconstructive ways by using the graphic organizers. (Khaw, 2005) Graphic organizers can help students focus
on how to think and what to think. Therefore, Japanese students do not intend to complete graphicorganizers. They jot down their ideas to grasp the relationship between the overview and the details visuallyand to add more of their ideas.

Figure 3. Example of the Graphic Organizer used in
Kansai University Elementary School

Conclusions and Future Direction
This research revealed that as Chinese teachers gradually became more familiar with graphic organizers theyfelt more comfortable using them because the tools supported thinking processes as well as motivatedstudents to learn more deeply.
At the same time, the Chinese teachers used graphic organizers differently from the Japanese. Japaneseteachers think that visualizing the cognitive process can help students think more critically, so teachers usually
use graphic organizers at the front end. On the other hand, Chinese teachers usually used the graphicorganizer for reviewing what students already learned. Therefore, Chinese teachers asked students to use thegraphic organizer as assignments for reviewing. Chinese students spent a large amount of time drawing thegraphic organizer neatly. In other words, the Chinese teachers applied an instructional method for developing
higher order cognitive skills, according to their classroom context.
The authors clarified that teachers in both countries recognized graphic organizers as effective tools forvisualizing cognitive processes and useful in employing them in the classroom. At the same time, it isnecessary for teachers to consider what kinds of situations learners are in, and decide when to, how to, andwhy use graphic organizers. Future research will be conducted to determine how to apply graphic organizers
in different learning contexts.

References

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 47-55 ISSN 1882–2290

54

Agnar, A., & Enric, P. (1994). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methdological variations, andsystem approaches. Journal of AI communications, 7 (1), 39-59.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay
Co Inc.
Japan Science and Technology Agency (2013). Development and reform of primary and secondary education in China.
Retrieved from http://www.spc.jst.go.jp/investigation/downloads/r_201312_01.pdf
Kameoka, M., & Komoto, A. (2014). Balloon method for class design of mathematics–visualizing and understanding
pupils’ thinking process. Tokyo: Toyokan-Publishing. (Japanese)
Kansai University Elementary School (2012). Thinking methods at Kansai University Elementary School. Tokyo:
Sakura-sha. (Japanese)
Khaw C. E. (2005). Thinking smart: You are how you think. Selangor Darul Ehsan: Pelanduk Publications(M)
SDN.BHD.
Kishi M., Konno, T., Sakata, A., Miyake, K., Kurokami, H., & Kubota, K. (2008). The practice of using
thinking tool from the perspective of socio-cultural approach. Japanese Journal of Educational
Technology, JSET08(3), 11-18. (Japanese)
Kishi, M., Kubota, K., & Ito, T. (2012). A case study of implementing lesson study for pre-service training for
education in Myanmar. Journal of Educational Technology and Research, 35, 1-10.
Kishi, M., & Kubota, K. (2011). How does social norm be transferred in an international cooperation in
educational field? Case study of education college in Myanmar. Journal of International Research Institutefor Studies in Language and Peace, Kyoto University of Foreign Studies, 77, 29-45. (Japanese)
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Miyake, K., Taizan, Y., & Kubota, K. (2012). Implementation and evaluation of lessons for nurturing
thinking skills at elementary school. The 28th Japan Society of Educational Technology Annual Conference
Proceedings, 489-490. (Japanese)
Miyake, K., Kishi, M., Kubota, K., & Li, Kedong. (2013). Analyzing lessons in Chinese primary schools basedon Japanese teachers’ viewpoints – A case study of nurturing higher order thinking. Retrieved fromhttp://icome2013.iwd.jp/program/pdf/1p_PDF/A04.pdf
Miyake, K., & Taizan, Y. (2014). Evaluation of curriculum for acquisition and application of thinking skill.	
 Japanese Journal of Educational Technology, 38(Suppl.), 41-44.
Nu Nu Wai, Kubota, K., & Kishi, M. (2010). Strengthening learner-centered approach (LCA) in Myanmar
primary school teacher training: Can initial practices of LCA be seen? International Journal for
Educational Media and Technology, 4, 46-56.
Ralph, P. (2005). Improving thinking in the classroom. Victoria: Hawker Brownlow Education.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2003). The definition andselectionofkeycompetencies(executive
summary).
Retrievedfrom
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf
Taizan, Y., Kojima, A., & Kurokami, H. (2014). A study of subject-common thinking skill for systematic
information education – From analysis of the government curriculum guidelines and commentary to
it. Japanese Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 375-386. (Japanese)
Taizan, Y., & Miyake, K. (2013). Effects of learning higher ordered cognitive skills in problem solving process.
Japanese Journal of Educational Technology, 37(suppl.), 17-20. (Japanese)
Tatsuta, K. (2014). Practice of key competencies: Teacher as a lifelong learner. Tokyo: Akashi-Shoten. (Japanese)
The Central Education Council (2008). Improving the course of study in pre-school, elementary school,
lower middle school, upper secondary school and special education school. Ministry of Education(report). Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/news/20080117.pdf(Japanese)
The Council of Local Authorities for International Relations (n.d.). Chinese compulsory education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.clair.or.jp/j/forum/c_report/pdf/325.pdf
Toyama, S. (2003). Study on project-based learning in community media arts projects learning media literacy
with community informatics. Journal of Japan Information-Culturology Society, 10(1), 31-38.

IJEMT, Vol.9, No. 1, 2015, pp. 47-55 ISSN 1882–2290

55