Visuospatial cognition in electronic learning

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 315-324

  Shah, Priti ^a   Freedman, Eric G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1842714189     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/QYVJ-Q59L-VE7C-EHUV     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Blades, M., & Spencer, C. (1989). Young children's ability to use coordinate references. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 150, 5-18.
2. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149-210.
3. Freedman, E. G., & Shah, P. S. (2002). Toward a model of knowledge-based graph comprehension. In M. Hegarty, B. Meyer, & N. Hari Narayanan (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 8-31). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
4. Gyselinck, V., Cornoldi, C., Dubois, V., De Beni, R., & Ehrlich, M.-F. (2002). Visuospatial memory and phonological loop in learning from multimedia. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 665-685.
5. Halpern, D. F., & Collaer, M. L. (in press). Sex differences in visuospatial abilities: More than meets the eye. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), Handbook of visuospatial thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717-742.
7. Hegarty M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Spatial abilities, working memory and mechanical reasoning. In J. Gero & B. Tversky (Eds.) Visual and spatial reasoning in design. Sydney, Australia: Key Centre of Design and Cognition.
8. Hegarty, M., Quilici, J., Narayanan, N. H., Holmquist, S., & Moreno, R. (1999). Designing multimedia manuals that explain howmachines work: Lessons from evaluation of a theory-based design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 119-150.
9. Hegarty, M., & Sims, V. K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22, 411-430.
10. Hegarty, M., & Steinhoff, K. (1997). Individual differences in use of diagrams as external memory in mechanical reasoning, Learning and Individual Differences, 9, 19-42.
11. Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer (2002). Revising the visualizer/verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 47-78.
12. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
13. Mayer, R. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 253-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89, 55-71.
16. Mayer, R. E. (in press). Multimedia learning: Guiding visuospatial thinking with instructional animation. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), Handbook of visuospatial thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
18. Michas, I. C., & Berry, D. C. (2001). Learning a procedural task: Effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 555-575.
19. Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.) (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Narayanan, N. H., & Hegarty, M. (1998). On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48, 267-301.
21. Oestermeier, U., & Hesse, F. W. (2000). Verbal and visual causal arguments. Cognition, 75, 65-104.
22. Pane, J. F., Corbett, A. T., & John, B. E. (1996). Assessing dynamics in computer-based instruction. In M. J. Tauber (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 797-804), Vancouver: ACM.
23. Park, O., & Gittelman, S. S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 40, 27-38.
24. Rieber, L. P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics with science instruction with children. Journal of Educational Psychology; 82, 135-140.
25. Robinson, D. H., & Skinner, C. H. (1996). Why graphic organizers facilitate search processes: Fewer words or computionally efficient indexing? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 166-180.
26. Schwartz, D. L., & Black, J. B. (1996). Analog imagery in mental model reasoning: Depictive models. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 154-219.
27. Shah, P. (2001). Graph comprehension: The role of format, content, and individual differences. In M. Anderson, B. Mayer, & P. Olivier (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and reasoning (pp. 173-185). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
28. Shah, P. (in press). Memory for graphics, diagrams, and videos. In Encyclopedia of education. New York: Macmillan.
29. Shah, P., Freedman, E. G., & Vekiri, I. (in press). The presentation and comprehension of graphically-presented data. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), Handbook of visuospatial thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 47-69.
31. Shah, P., Mayer, R. E., & Hegarty, M. (1999). Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 690-702.
32. Somerville, S. C., & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Young children's use of spatial coordinates. Child Development, 56, 604-613.
33. Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. M. (1994). Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 13-32.
34. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
35. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
36. van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12, 121-138.
37. VanderStoep, S. W., Fagerlin, A., & Feenstra, J. S. (2000). What do students remember from introductory psychology? Teaching of Psychology, 27, 89-92.
38. Vekiri, I. (2001). An investigation of the role of graphical design and student characteristics in scientific reasoning with weather maps. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
39. Wickens, C. D., Vincow, M., & Yeh, M. (in press). Design applications of visual spatial thinking: The importance of frame of reference. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), Handbook of visuospatial thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing originals from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311.
41. Winn, B. (1987). Charts, graphs, and diagrams in educational materials. In D. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration. New York: Springer-Verlag.
42. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21, 179-217.
43. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87-122.