The functions of multiple representations

Computers and Education

Volumn 33, Issue 2-3, 1999, Pages 131-152

  Ainsworth, Shaaron ^a  

^a University Park NG7 2RD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000966103     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0360-1315(99)00029-9     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Ainsworth S.E., Wood D.J., Bibby P.A. Co-ordinating multiple representations in computer based learning environments. Brna P., Paiva A., Self J. Proceedings of the European conference of artificial intelligence in education. 1996;336-342 Ediçoes Colibri, Lisbon.
2. Ainsworth S.E., Wood D.J., Bibby P.A. Evaluating principles for multi-representational learning environments. Vosniadou S., Matsagouras K., Maridaki-Kassotaki K., Kotsanis S. 7th European conference for research on learning and instruction. 1997;500-501 Gutenberg University Publications, Athens.
3. Ainsworth S.E., Wood D.J., Bibby P.A. Analysing the costs and benefits of multi-representational learning environments. van Someren M., Boshuizen H.P.A., de Jong T., Reimann P. Learning with multiple representations. 1998;120-134 Elsevier Science, Oxford.
4. Ainsworth S.E., Wood D.J., O'Malley C. There's more than one way to solve a problem: Evaluating a learning environment to support the development of children's multiplication skills. Learning and Instruction. 8:(2):1998;141-157.
5. Anderson J.R. The architecture of cognition. 1983;Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
6. Bibby P.A., Payne S.J. Internalization and the use specificity of device knowledge. Human-Computer Interaction. 8:(1):1993;25-56.
7. Cheng P.C.-H. Law encoding diagrams for instructional systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 7:(1):1996;33-74.
8. Confrey J. 1992. Function Probe©. Santa Barbara, CA: Intellimation library for the Macintosh.
9. Cox R., Brna P. Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: The need for flexible learning environments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 6:(2/3):1995;239-302.
10. Cronbach L.J., Snow R.E. Aptitudes and instructional methods. 1977;Irvington, New York.
11. Dienes Z. The six stages in the process of learning mathematics. 1973;NFER-Nelson, Slough.
12. Dugdale S. Green globs: A micro-computer application for graphing of equations. Mathematics Teacher. 75:1982;208-214.
13. Ehrlich K., Johnson-Laird P.N. Spatial descriptions and referential continuity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour. 21:1982;296-306.
14. Gilmore D.J., Green T.R.G. Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 21:1984;31-48.
15. Giunchiglia F., Walsh T. A theory of abstraction. Artificial Intelligence. 57:1992;323-389.
16. Hennessy S., Twigger D., Driver R., O'Shea T., O'Malley C., Byard M., Draper S., Hartley R., Mohamed R., Scanlon E. Design of a computer-augmented curriculum for mechanics. International Journal of Science Education. 17:(1):1995;75-92.
17. Kaput J.J. Linking representations in the symbol systems of algebra. Wagner S., Kieran C. Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra. 1989;167-194 Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
18. Kaput J.J. Technology and mathematics education. Grouws D.A. Handbook of teaching and learning mathematics. 1992;515-556 Macmillan, New York.
19. Larkin J.H., Simon H.A. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science. 11:1987;65-99.
20. Meyer J., Shinar D., Leiser D. Multiple factors that determine performance with tables and graphs. Human Factors. 39:(2):1997;268-286.
21. Oliver M. 1998. Visualisation and manipulation tools for modal logic. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Open University.
22. Oliver M., O'Shea T. Using the model-view-controller mechanism to combine representations of possible worlds for learners of modal logic. Brna P., Paiva A., Self J. Proceedings of the European conference of artificial intelligence in education. 1996;357-363 Ediçoes Colibri, Lisbon.
23. Pheasey K., O'Malley C., Ding S. A distributed collaborative micro-world to teach Newtonian mechanics. Vosniadou S., Matsagouras K., Maridaki-Kassotaki K., Kotsanis S. 7th European conference for research on learning and instruction. 1997;Gutenberg University Publications, Athens.
24. Resnick L. From protoquantities to operators: Building mathematical competence on a foundation of everyday knowledge. Leinhardt G., Putnam R., Hattrup R.A. Analysis of arithmetic for mathematics education. 1992;375-429 Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
25. Resnick L., Omanson S. Learning to understand arithmetic. Glaser R. Advances in instructional psychology volume 3. 1987;41-95 LEA, Hillsdale, NJ.
26. Roberts M.J., Wood D.J., Gilmore D.J. The sentence-picture verification task: Methodological and theoretical difficulties. British Journal of Psychology. 85:1994;413-432.
27. Scaife M., Rogers Y. External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 45:1996;185-213.
28. Schoenfeld A. On having and using geometric knowledge. Hiebert J. Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. 1986;225-265 Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
29. Schoenfeld A.H., Smith J.P., Arcavi A. Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. Glaser R. Advances in instructional psychology volume 4. 1993;55-175 Erlbaum, Hillside, NJ.
30. Schwartz D.L. The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 4:(3):1995;321-354.
31. Sfard A. On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 22:1991;1-36.
32. Snow R.E., Yalow E. Education and intelligence. Sternberg R.J. A handbook of human intelligence. 1982;493-586 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
33. Stenning K., Oberlander J. A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science. 19:1995;97-140.
34. Tabachneck H.J.M., Koedinger K.R., Nathan M.J. Towards a theoretical account of strategy use and sense making in mathematical problem solving. Ram A., Eiselt K. Proceedings of the 16th annual conference of the cognitive science society. 1994;836-841 Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
35. Tabachneck H.J.M., Leonardo A.M., Simon H.A. How does an expert use a graph? A model of visual & verbal inferencing in economics. Ram A., Eiselt K. Proceedings of the 16th annual conference of the cognitive science society. 1994;842-847 Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
36. Tabachneck-Schijf H.J.M., Leonardo A.M., Simon H.A. CaMeRa: A computational model of multiple representations. Cognitive Science. 21:(3):1997;305-350.
37. Thompson P.W. Notations, conventions and constraints: Contributions to effective uses of concrete materials in elementary mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 23:(2):1992;123-147.
38. Underwood J., Underwood G. Data organisation and retrieval by children. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 57:1987;313-329.
39. Winn B. Charts, graphs and diagrams in educational materials. Willows D.M., Houghton H.A. The psychology of illustration. 1987;152-198 Springer, New York.
40. Wood D.J., Bruner J.S., Ross G. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 17:1976;89-100.
41. Yerushalmy M. Student perceptions of aspects of algebraic function using multiple representation software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 7:1991;42-57.