Identifying representational competence with multi-representational displays

Cognition and Instruction

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 123-145

  Stieff, Mike ^a   Hegarty, Mary ^b   Deslongchamps, Ghislain ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78651334545     PISSN: 07370008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2010.507318     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131-152.
2. Ainsworth, S.(2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16,183-198.
3. Ainsworth, S. E., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 25-61.
4. Ainsworth, S. E., & Peevers, G. J. (2003). The interaction between informational and computational properties of external representations on problem-solving and learning. In R. Altmann & D. Kirsch (Eds.), Proceedings of 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society.
5. Alibali, M. W. (2005). Gesture in spatial cognition: Expressing, communicating, and thinking about spatial information. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 5, 307-331.
6. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. Brünken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2003). How instruction guides attention in multimedia learning. In H. Niegemann, R. Brünken, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 113-126). Münster: Waxmann.
8. Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 75-100.
9. Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science Education, 92, 848-867.
10. 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(2/3), 239-302.
11. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 293-331.
12. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 385-398.
13. Emmorey, K., & Casey, S. (2001). Gesture, thought and spatial language. Gesture, 1, 35-50.
14. Ericcson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251.
15. Gilmore, D. J., & Green, T. R. G. (1984). Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21, 31-48.
16. Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Olde, B. A., Cooper-Pye, E., & Whitten, S. (2005). Question asking and eye tracking during cognitive disequilibrium: Comprehending illustrated texts on devices when the devices break down. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1235-1247.
17. Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static diagrams of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 1084-1102.
18. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717-742.
19. Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., Kriz, S., & Keehner, M. (2005). The role of gestures in mental animation. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 5, 333-356.
20. Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (2004). Scene perception for psycholinguists. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 1-58). New York: Psychology Press.
21. Hoffmann, R. (1997). The same and not the same. New York: Columbia University Press.
22. Hoffmann, R., & Laszlo, P. (1991). Representation in chemistry. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 30, 1-16.
23. Irwin, D. (2004). Fixation location and fixation duration as indices of cognitive processing. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 105-134). New York: Psychology Press.
24. Itti, L., & Koch, C. (2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Research, 40, 1489-1506.
25. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441-480.
26. Kozma, R. B., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The role of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 105-144.
27. Kozma, R., & 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.
28. Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
29. Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049-1050.
30. Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257-257.
31. Nathan, M. J., Stephens, A. C., Masarik, D. K., Alibali, M. W., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002, October). Representational fluency in middle school: A classroom based study. In D. Mewborn, P. Szatajn, D. White, H. Wiegel, R. Bryant, & K. Nooney (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
32. Parkhurst, D., Law, K., & Niebur, E. (2002). Modeling the role of salience in the allocation of overt visual attention. Vision Research, 42, 107-123.
33. Patrick, M. D., Carter, G., & Wiebe, E. N. (2005). Visual representations of DNA replication: Middle grades students' perceptions and interpretations. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 14, 1573-1839.
34. Peebles, D., & Cheng, P. C-H. (2003). Modeling the effect of task and graphical representation on response latency in a graph-reading task. Human Factors, 45, 28-46.
35. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
36. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
37. Russell, J., Kozma, R., Jones, T., Wykof, J., Marx, N., & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 330-334.
38. Salvucci, D. D., & Goldberg, J. H. (2000). Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. In A. Duchowski (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eye Tracking Research and Applications Symposium (pp. 71-78).New York: ACM Press.
39. Smallman, H. S., and St. John, M. (2005). Naïve realism: Misplaced faith in the utility of realistic displays. Ergonomics in Design, 13, 6-13.
40. Stieff,M.(2005).Connectedchemistry-A novel modeling environment for the chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 82, 489-493.
41. Stieff, M., & McCombs, M. (2006). Increasing representational fluency with visualization tools. In S. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (Vol. 1, pp. 730-736). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry-Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 285-302.
43. Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
44. van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Uncovering expertise-related differences in troubleshooting performance: Combining eye movement and concurrent verbal protocol data. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 205-221.
45. Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 13-74). London: University College London Press.
46. Wu, H.-K., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting conceptual understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821-842.