How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 1227-1243

  Schwonke, Rolf ^a   Berthold, Kirsten ^a   Renkl, Alexander ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; EYE FIXATION; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; GAZE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; LEARNING; MALE; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VISION;

EID: 70449370183     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1526     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198.
2. Ainsworth, S. E., Bibby, P. A., & Wood, D. J. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 25-61.
3. Anzai, Y. (1991). Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In K. A. Ericsson, & J. Smith (Eds.), Towards a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 64-92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Cox, R. (1996). Analytical reasoning with multiple external representations. Unpublished PhD thesis, Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh.
5. 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, 239-302.
6. Elby, A. (2000). What students' learning of representations tells us about constructivism. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 481-502.
7. Ericsson, K. A. (2003). Valid and non-reactive verbalization of thoughts during performance of tasks: Towards a solution to the central problems of introspection as a source of scientific data. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 1-18.
8. Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95-123.
9. Hegarty, M., Narayanan, N. H., & Freitas, P. (2002). Understanding machines from multimedia and hypermedia presentations. In J. Otero, A. C. Graesser, & J. Leon (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 357-384). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. 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.
11. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction into statistical mediation analysis. New York: Erlbaum.
12. MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S.,Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 384-389.
13. McKendree, J., Small, C., Stenning, K., & Conlon, T. (2002). The role of representation in teaching and learning critical thinking. Educational Review, 54, 57-67.
14. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 372-422.
15. Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 159-194.
16. Rötting, M. (2001). Parametersystematik der Augen- und Blickbewegungen für arbeitswissenschaftliche Untersuchungen [Taxonomy of eye movement parameters and gaze parameters for studies in ergonomics]. Aachen: Shaker.
17. Scanlon, E. (1998). How beginning students use graphs of motion. In M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9-40). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
18. Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, H. G. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 191-203.
19. Tabachneck-Schijf, H. J. M., & Simon, H. A. (1998). Alternative representations of instructional material. In D. Peterson (Ed.), Forms of representation (pp. 28-46). Exeter: Intellect Books.
20. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., &Witte, P. (2005). Uncovering the problem-solving process: Cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 237-244.
21. Yerushalmy, M. (1991). Student perceptions of aspects of algebraic function using multiple representation software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 42-57.