The Frequency, Variation, and Function of Graphical Representations within Standardized State Science Tests

School Science and Mathematics

Volumn 109, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 435-449

  Yeh, Yi Fen Y ^a   McTigue, Erin M ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953158252     PISSN: 00366803     EISSN: 19498594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb18291.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ainsworth, S., Bibbym P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 25–61.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford: University Press.
3. Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W.-M. (2002). Why students may not learn to interpret scientific inscriptions. Research in Science Education, 32, 303–327.
4. Cobb, P., Heath, S. B., Vansledright, B. A., Yore, L. D., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., et al. (2004). New directions in research: Cross-disciplinary collaborations. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 332–352.
5. Frederiksen, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning. American Psychologist, 39, 193–202.
6. Gay, L. R. (1980). The comparative effects of multiple-choice versus short-answer tests on retention. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17, 45–50.
7. Hannus, M., & Hyona, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95–123.
8. Henderson, G. (1999). Learning with diagrams. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 45, 17–25.
9. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
10. Martins, I. (2002). Visual imagery in school science texts. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 73–90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Moline, S. (1995). I see what you mean. York, ME: Stenhouse.
12. Moss, G. (2001). To work or play? Junior age nonfiction as objects of design. Reading, 35, 106–110.
13. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales (NCES 2007-482). Washington, DC: Author.
14. Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail?. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203–218.
15. Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3, 227–238.
16. Samuels, S. J., Tennyson, S. P., Mulcahy, N. L., Schermer, N., & Hajovy, H. (1988). Adults' use of text structure in the recall of a scientific journal article. Journal of Educational Research, 18, 171–174.
17. Schnotz, W., Picard, E., & Hron, A. (1993). How do successful and unsuccessful learners use text and graphics?. Learning and Instruction, 3, 181–199.
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. Tan, E. S., Imbos Tj., & Does, R. J. M. M. (1994). A distribution-free approach for comparing growth of knowledge. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 51–65.
20. Thissen, D., Wainer, H., & Wang, X. (1994). Are tests comprising both multiple-choice and free-response items necessarily less unidimensional than multiple-choice tests? An analysis of two tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 31, 113–123.
21. Van Parreren, C. F. (1983). Teaching pupils to “read” pictures. In R. Briel (Ed.), Media science (pp. 65–71). Durban, South Africa: Butterworth.
22. Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning?. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 261–312.
23. Walpole, S. (1999). Changing texts, changing thinking: Comprehension demands of new science textbooks. The Reading Teacher, 52, 358–369.
24. Wheeler, A. E., & Hill, D. (1990). Diagram-ease. Why children misinterpret diagrams. The Science Teacher, 57, 58–63.
25. Winn, W. (1987). Charts, graphs, and diagrams in educational materials. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration: Vol. 1. Basic research. (1st ed., pp. 152–198). New York: Springer.
26. Winn, W. (1994). Contributions of perceptual and cognitive processes to the comprehension of graphics. In W. Schnotz & R. W. Kulhavy (Eds.), Advances in psychology: Vol. 108. Comprehension of graphics (pp. 3–27). Amsterdam: Elsevier.