Text learning using scientific diagrams: Implications for classroom use

Contemporary Educational Psychology

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 487-499

  Verdi, Michael P ^a   Kulhavy, Raymond W ^b   Stock, William A ^b   Rittschof, Kent A ^b   Johnson, Janet T ^b  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030268660     PISSN: 0361476X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/ceps.1996.0033     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. ALEXANDER, P., FIEGEL, M., FOEHER, S., HARRIS, A., KRAJKOVICH, J. MAY, K., TZIMOPOULOS, N., & VOLTMER, R. (1990). Life science. Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett & Gin.
2. ARMS, K., & CAMP, P. (1982). Biology (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Saunders College Publishing.
3. BERTIN, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics: Diagrams, networks, maps (William J. Berg, Trans.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
4. BRANDSFORD, J. D., & JOHNSON, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.
5. EMMEL, T. (1977). Worlds within worlds: An introduction to biology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
6. HEIMLER, C. S., & PRICE, J. (1989). Focus on physical science. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
7. JANTZEN, P., & MICHEL, J. (1989). Life science. New York: Macmillan.
8. JOHNSON, J. T., VERDI, M. P., JIANG, B. ARECI, A., & KULHAVY, R. W. (April 1996) Increased map structure plus robust instruction improves passage fact recall. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
9. KEALY, W. A., & WEBB, J. M. (1995). Contextual influences of maps and diagrams on learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 340-358.
10. KULHAVY, R. W., & STOCK, W. A. (1996). How cognitive maps are learned and remembered. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 86(1), 123-145.
11. KULHAVY, R. W., STOCK, W. A., & KEALY, W. A. (1993). How geographic maps improve memory for instructional text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 47-62.
12. KULHAVY, R. W., STOCK, W. A., VERDI, M. P., RITTSCHOF, K., & SAVENYE, W. (1993). Why maps improve memory for text: The influence of structural information on working memory operations. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 375-392.
13. KULHAVY, R. W., STOCK, W. A., WOODARD, K. A., & HAYGOOD, R. C. (1993). Comparing elaboration and dual coding theories: The case of maps and text. American Journal of Psychology, 106, 483-498.
14. LARKIN, J. H., & SIMON, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
15. PAIVIO, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
16. RITTSCHOF, K. A., GRIFFIN, M. M., & SEIER, W. L. (April 1996). Individual difference in learning from thematic maps and text. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
17. SCHWARTZ, N. H., KNIGHT, B., & GRAHAM, L. (April 1996). Prior knowledge of a map: Does it affect passage retention? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Consortium for Instruction and Cognition, New York.
18. SCHWARTZ, N. H., & KULHAVY, R. W. (1981). Map features and the recall of discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 151-158.
19. STOCK, W. A., KULHAVY, R. W., PETERSON, S. E., HANCOCK, T. E., & VERDI, M. P. (1995). Mental representations of maps and verbal descriptions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 237-256.
20. TYNER, J. A. (1992). Introduction to thematic cartargrophy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21. VAN DIJK, T. A., & KINTSCH, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
22. WEIER, T., BARBOUR, M., STOCKING, C., & ROST, T. (1982). Botany: An introduction to plant biology. New York: Wiley.