The importance of both diagrammatic conventions and domain-specific knowledge for diagram literacy in science: The hierarchy as an illustrative case

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4045 LNAI, Issue , 2006, Pages 1-11

  Novick, Laura R ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746216098     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11783183_1     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Catley, K. M., Lehrer, R., & Reiser, B. (2005). Tracing a prospective learning progression for developing understanding of evolution. Paper Commissioned by the National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement, (a copy can be downloaded from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ bota/Evolution.pdf)
2. Catley, K. M., & Novick, L. R. (2006). Reasoning From Cladograms: A Comparison Across Levels of Biological Knowledge, Manuscript in preparation.
3. Day, R. S. (1988). Alternative representations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 261-305). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4. Dufour-Janvier, B., Bednarz, N., & Belanger, M. (1987). Pedagogical considerations concerning the problem of representation. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 109-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Gattis, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 231-239.
6. Gauvain, M., de la Ossa, J. L., & Hurtado-Ortiz, M. T. (2001). Parental guidance as children learn to use cultural tools: The case of pictorial plans. Cognitive Development, 16, 551-575.
7. Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 641-668). NY, NY: Longman.
8. Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press
9. Hurley, S. M., & Novick, L. R. (in press). Context and structure: The nature of students' knowledge about three spatial diagram representations. Thinking & Reasoning.
10. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1-17.
11. Kindfield, A. C. H. (1993/1994). Biology diagrams: Tools to think with. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 1-36.
12. Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949-968.
13. Lynch, M. (1990). The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 153-186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Maienschein, J. (1991). From presentation to representation in E. B. Wilson's The Cell. Biology and Philosophy, 6, 227-254.
15. Mevarech, Z. R., & Stern, E. (1997). Interaction between knowledge and contexts on understanding abstract mathematical concepts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 68-95.
16. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
17. Novick, L. R. (2001). Spatial diagrams: Key instruments in the toolbox for thought. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 279-325). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18. Novick, L. R. (2004). Diagram literacy in pre-service math teachers, computer science majors, and typical undergraduates: The case of matrices, networks, and hierarchies. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 307-342.
19. Novick, L. R. (in press). Understanding spatial diagram structure: An analysis of hierarchies, matrices, and networks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
20. Novick, L. R., & Catley, K. M. (2006). The role of perceptual and conceptual principles in students' ability to translate between alternative hierarchical forms: Evidence from dadograms in biology. Manuscript in preparation.
21. Novick, L. R., & Hurley, S. M. (2001). To matrix, network, or hierarchy: That is the question. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 158-216.
22. Novick, L. R., Hurley, S. M, & Francis, M. (1999). Evidence for abstract, schematic knowledge of three spatial diagram representations. Memory & Cognition, 27, 288-308.
23. Whitley, K. N., Novick, L. R., & Fisher, D. (2006). Evidence in favor of visual representation for the dataflow paradigm: An experiment testing LabVIEW's comprehensibility. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 281-303.
24. Winn, W. (1989). The design and use of instructional graphics. In H. Mandl & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures (pp. 125-144). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
25. Zacks, J., & Tversky, B. (1999). Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Memory & Cognition, 27, 1073-1079.