Context and structure: The nature of students' knowledge about three spatial diagram representations

Thinking and Reasoning

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 281-308

  Hurley, Sean M ^a,b   Novick, Laura R ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746604375     PISSN: 13546783     EISSN: 14640708     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13546780500363974     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bertin, J. (1981). Graphics and graphic information-processing. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
2. Cheng, P. W., & Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 77, 391-416.
3. Cheng, P. W., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Oliver, L. M. (1986). Pragmatic versus syntactic approaches to training deductive reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 293-328.
4. D'Andrade, R. (1982, April). Reason versus logic. Paper presented at the Symposium on the Ecology of Cognition: Biological, Cultural, and Historic Perspectives, Greensboro, NC.
5. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 524-575.
7. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
8. Glasgow, J., Narayanan, N. H., & Chandrasekaran, B. (Eds.). (1995). Diagrammatic reasoning: Cognitive and computational perspectives. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.
9. Hinsley, D. A., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1977). From words to equations: meaning and representation in algebra word problems. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
10. Holyoak, K. J. (1985). The pragmatics of analogical transfer. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 19, pp. 59-87). New York: Academic Press.
11. Hurley, S. M., & Novick, L. R. (2005). Establishing the conventions associated with constructing and drawing inferences from matrix, network, and hierarchy diagrams. Manuscript submitted for publication.
12. Kindfield, A. C. H. (1993/1994). Biology diagrams: Tools to think with. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 1 -36.
13. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
14. Malt, B. C. (1989). An on-line investigation of prototype and exemplar strategies in classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 75,539-555.
15. Markman, A. B. (1999). Knowledge representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
16. Medin, D. L., & Ross, B. H. (1989). The specific character of abstract thought: Categorization, problem solving, and induction. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 5, pp. 189-223). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
17. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
18. Nosofsky, R. M., Palmeri, T. J., & McKinley, S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning. Psychological Review, 101, 53-79.
19. Novick, L. R. (1990). Representational transfer in problem solving. Psychological Science, 1, 128-132.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Novick, L. R. (in press). Understanding spatial diagram structure: An analysis of hierarchies, matrices, and networks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
23. Novick, L. R., & Hmelo, C. E. (1994). Transferring symbolic representations across non-isomorphic problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1296-1321.
24. Novick, L. R., & Hurley, S. M. (2001). To matrix, network, or hierarchy: That is the question. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 158-216.
25. Novick, L. R., Hurley, S. M., & Francis, M. (1999). Evidence for abstract, schematic knowledge of three spatial diagram representations. Memory & Cognition, 27, 288-308.
26. Roberts, M. J., Welfare, H., Livermore, D. P., & Theadom, A. M. (2000). Context, visual salience, and inductive reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 6(4), 349-374.
27. Ross, B. H. (1984). Remindings and their effects in learning a cognitive skill. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 371-416.
28. Sanfey, A., & Hastie, R. (1998). Does evidence presentation format affect judgment? An experimental evaluation of displays of data for judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 99-103.
29. Schwartz, D. L. (1993). The construction and analogical transfer of symbolic visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1309-1325.
30. Schwartz, S. H. (1971). Modes of representation and problem solving: Well evolved is half solved. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 91, 347-350.
31. Siegler, R. S. (1999). Strategic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 430-435.
32. Smith, E. E., Langston, C., & Nisbett, R. E. (1992). The case for rules in reasoning. Cognitive Science, 16, 1-40.
33. Wason, P. C. (1996). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 135-151). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.