Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 227-237

  Seufert, Tina ^a  

^a Landau University   (Germany)

Author keywords

Coherence formation; Directivity of help; Multiple representations; Prior knowledge; Structure mapping

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037400330     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0959-4752(02)00022-1     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131-152.
2. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
3. Cox, R., & Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: the need for flexible learning environments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2/3), 239-302.
4. Gentner, D., & Markmann, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 25, 45-56.
5. Jäger, A. O., & Althoff, K. (1983). Der WILDE-Intelligenz-Test (WIT). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
6. Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 43(9), 949-968.
7. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousands words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
8. Lowe, R. K. (1996). Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 377-398.
9. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19.
10. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320.
11. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
12. Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128-148.
13. Scanlon, E. (1998). How beginning students use graphs of motion. In M. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 67-86). Oxford: Elsevier.
14. Schnotz, W., Bannert, W., & Seufert, T. (2002). Towards an integrative view of text and picture comprehension: Visualization effects on the construction of mental models. In A. Graessser, J. Otero & J.A. Leon (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 475-522.
16. Tabachnek, H. J. M., & Simon, H. A. (1998). One person, multiple representations: an analysis of a simple, realistic multiple representation learning task. In M. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 197-236). Oxford: Elsevier.
17. van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & DeJong, T. (Eds.). (1998). Learning with multiple representations. Oxford: Elsevier.
18. Wygotski, L. S. (1987). Ausgewählte Schriften, Bd. 2. Berlin: Volk und Wissen.
19. Yerushalmy, M. (1991). Student perceptions of aspects of algebraic function using multiple representation software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 42-57.