Electrifying diagrams for learning: Principles for complex representational systems

Cognitive Science

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 685-736

  Cheng, Peter C H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Conceptual learning; Diagrams; Electricity; Problem solving; Representations; Science education; Task analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036838105     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00086-1     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Bertin, J. (1983). Seminology of graphics: Diagrams, networks, maps. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
2. Breithaupt, J., & Dunn, K. (1983). A level physics. London: Letts Education.
3. Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4(2), 75-100.
4. Cheng, P. C.-H. (1996a). Scientific discovery with law encoding diagrams. Creativity Research Journal, 9(2/3), 145-162.
5. Cheng, P. C.-H. (1996b). Law encoding diagrams for instructional systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 7(1), 33-74.
6. Cheng, P. C.-H. (1996c). Learning qualitative relations in physics with law encoding diagrams. In G. W. Cottrell (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 512-517). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Cheng, P. C.-H. (1998). A framework for scientific reasoning with law encoding diagrams: Analysing protocols to assess its utility. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Cheng, P. C.-H. (1999a). Interactive law encoding diagrams for learning and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 9(4), 309-326.
9. Cheng, P. C.-H. (1999b). Networks of law encoding diagrams for understanding science. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(2), 167-184.
10. Cheng, P. C.-H. (1999c). Representational analysis and design: What makes an effective representation for learning probability theory? (Technical Report No. 65). ESRC Centre for Research in Development, Instruction and Training.
11. Cheng, P. C.-H. (1999d). Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems. Computers in Education, 33(2/3), 109-130.
12. Cheng, P. C.-H. (2000). Representations for problem solving in electricity: AVOW diagrams versus Equations (Technical Report No. 68). ESRC Centre for Research in Development, Instruction and Training.
13. Cheng, P. C.-H. (2001). AVOW diagrams: A novel representational system for understanding electricity. In M. Anderson, B. Meyer, & P. Olivier (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and reasoning (pp. 512-534). Berlin: Springer.
14. Cheng, P. C.-H., Barone, R., Cowling, P. I., & Ahmadi, S. (2002). Opening the information bottleneck in complex scheduling problems with a novel representation: STARK diagrams. In M. Hegarty, B. Meyer, & N. H. Narayanan (Eds.), Diagrammatic representations and inference: Second International Conference, Diagrams 2002 (pp. 264-278). Berlin: Springer.
15. Cheng, P. C.-H., & Pitt, N. G. (in press). Diagrams for difficult problems in probability. Mathematical Gazette.
16. Cheng, P. C.-H., & Shipstone, D. M. (in press, a). Supporting learning and promoting conceptual change with box and AVOW diagrams. Part 1: Representational design and instructional approaches. International Journal of Science Education.
17. Cheng, P. C.-H., & Shipstone, D. M. (in press, b). Supporting learning and promoting conceptual change with box and AVOW diagrams. Part 2: Their impact on student learning at A-level. International Journal of Science Education.
18. Cheng, P. C.-H., & Simon, H. A. (1995). Scientific discovery and creative reasoning with diagrams. In S. Smith, T. Ward, & R. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 205-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Cleveland, W. S., & McGill, R. (1985). Graphical perception and graphical methods for analysing scientific data. Science, 229, 828-833.
21. Cohen, R., Eylon, B., & Ganiel, U. (1983). Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A study of students' concepts. American Journal of Physics, 51(5), 406-413.
22. Duncan, T. (1973). Advance physics: Material and mechanics. London: John Murray.
23. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Glasgow, J. I., Narayanan, H., & Chandrasekaran, C. (Eds.). (1995). Diagrammatic reasoning. Cambridge, MA: AAAI/MIT Press.
25. Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1998). Expert chess memory: Revisiting the chunking hypothesis. Memory, 6(3), 225-255.
26. Hewitt, P. G. (1992). Conceptual physics (7th ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.
27. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: Elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Science, 14, 511-550.
28. Kosslyn, S. M. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 185-226.
29. Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248-294.
30. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
31. Lane, P. C. R., Cheng, P. C.-H., & Gobet, F. (1999). Learning perceptual schemas to avoid the utility problem. In M. Bramer, A. Macintosh, & F. Coenen (Eds.), Research and development in intelligent systems XVI: Proceedings of ES99, the Nineteenth SGES International Conference on Knowledge Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence (pp. 72-82). Cambridge, UK: Springer.
32. Lane, P., Cheng, P. C.-H., & Gobet, F. (2000). CHREST+: How humans learn to solve problems using diagrams. AISB Quarterly, 103, 24-30.
33. McDermott, L. C., & Shaffer, P. S. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60(11), 994-1003.
34. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
35. Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and catergorisation (pp. 259-303). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. Peterson, D. (Ed.). (1996). Forms of representation. Tunbridge Wells: Intellect.
37. Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73-126). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38. Pople, S. (1996). Advanced physics through diagrams. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Shipstone, D. S., & Cheng, P. C.-H. (2001). Electric circuits: A new approach - part 1. School Science Review, 83(303), 55-63.
40. Shipstone, D. M., & Cheng, P. C.-H. (2002). Electric circuits: A new approach - part 2. School Science Review, 83(304), 73-81.
41. Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19(1), 97-140.
42. Tabachneck-Schijf, H. J. M., Leonardo, A. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). CaMeRa:A computational model of multiple representations. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 305-350.
43. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179-217.
44. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognition tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 87-122.