Using spatial analogy to facilitate graph learning

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

Volumn 7463 LNAI, Issue , 2012, Pages 196-209

  Smith, Linsey A ^a   Gentner, Dedre ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Analogical Comparison; Analogy; Graphical Reasoning; Spatial Learning; Structural Alignment

Indexed keywords

ANALOGICAL COMPARISON; ANALOGY; COMPLEX INTERACTION; GRAPHICAL REASONING; REASONING PROBLEMS; SPATIAL LEARNING; SPATIAL REASONING; TRAINING EXPERIENCES;

ALIGNMENT; FORECASTING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84868243212     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-32732-2_13     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (45)

1. Gentner, D.: The development of relational category knowledge. In: Gershkoff-Stowe, L., Rakison, D.H. (eds.) Building Object Categories in Developmental Time, pp. 245-275. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (2005)
2. Namy, L.L., Gentner, D.: Making a silk purse out of two sow's ears: Young children's use of comparison in category learning. J. Experimental Psychology: General 131(1), 5-15 (2002)
3. Star, J.R., Rittle-Johnson, B.: It pays to compare: An experimental study on computational estimation. J. Experimental Child Psychology 101, 408-426 (2009)
4. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L.: Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. J. of Educational Psychology 95(2), 393-405 (2003)
5. Loewenstein, J., Gentner, D.: Spatial mapping in preschoolers: Close comparisons facilitate far mappings. J. of Cognition and Development 2(2), 189-219 (2001)
6. Gentner, D.: Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2), 155-170 (1983)
7. Gentner, D., Markman, A.B.: Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52, 45-56 (1997)
8. Gick, M.L., Holyoak, K.J.: Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology 15(1), 1-38 (1983)
9. Gentner, D.: Why we're so smart. In: Gentner, D., Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.) Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, pp. 195-235. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)
10. Gentner, D.: Bootstrapping children's learning: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science 34(5), 752-775 (2010)
11. Christie, S., Gentner, D.: Where hypotheses come from: Learning new relations by structural alignment. J. Cognition and Development 11(3), 356-373 (2010)
12. Gentner, D., Medina, J.: Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition 65, 263-297 (1998)
13. Markman, A.B., Gentner, D.: Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology 25, 431-467 (1993)
14. Gentner, D., Gunn, V.: Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory and Cognition 29(4), 565-577 (2001)
15. Gentner, D., Markman, A.B.: Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science 5(3), 152-158 (1994)
16. Markman, A.B., Gentner, D.: Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. J. Memory and Language 32, 517-535 (1993)
17. Gentner, D., Sagi, E.: Does "different" imply a difference? A comparison of two tasks. In: Sun, R., Miyake, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 261-266. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2006)
18. Carpenter, P., Shah, P.: A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. J. Experimental Psychology: Applied 4, 75-100 (1998)
19. Tversky, B.: Spatial schemas in depictions. In: Gattis, M. (ed.) Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought, pp. 79-111. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)
20. Pinker, S.: A theory of graph comprehension. In: Freedle, R. (ed.) Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing, pp. 73-126. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1990)
21. Gattis, M.: Mapping relational structure in spatial reasoning. Cognitive Science 28(4), 589-610 (2004)
22. Bell, A., Janvier, C.: The interpretation of graphs representing situations. For the Learning of Mathematics 2(1), 34-42 (1981)
23. Booth Sweeney, L., Sterman, J.D.: Bathtub Dynamics: Initial Results of a Systems Thinking Inventory. System Dynamics Review 16, 249-294 (2001)
24. Culbertson, H.M., Powers, R.D.: A study of graph comprehension difficulties. AV Communication Review 7, 97-110 (1959)
25. Gattis, M., Holyoak, K.J.: Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. J. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22, 231-239 (1996)
26. Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., Mayer, R.E.: Revising the visualizer/verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction 20, 47-77 (2002)
27. Maichle, U.: Cognitive processes in understanding line graphs. In: Schnotz, W., Kulhavy, R.W. (eds.) Comprehension of Graphics, pp. 207-226. Elsevier Science, New York (1994)
28. Shah, P., Carpenter, P.A.: Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. J. Experimental Psychology: General 124, 43-61 (1995)
29. Sterman, J.D., Booth Sweeney, L.: Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming. System Dynamics Review 18, 207-240 (2002)
30. Sterman, J.D., Booth Sweeney, L.: Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults' Mental Models of Climate Change Violate Conservation of Matter. Climatic Change 80, 213-238 (2007)
31. Cronin, M.A., Gonzalez, C., Sterman, J.D.: Why don't well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108, 116-130 (2009)
32. Cronin, M., Gonzalez, C.: Understanding the building blocks of system dynamics. System Dynamics Review 23(1), 1-17 (2007)
33. Pala, Ö., Vennix, J.A.M.: Effect of system dynamics education on systems thinking inventory task performance. System Dynamics Review 21(2), 147-172 (2005)
34. Catrambone, R., Holyoak, K.J.: Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. J. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15(6), 1147-1156 (1989)
35. Gentner, D., Namy, L.: Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development 14, 487-513 (1999)
36. Mutafchieva, M., Kokinov, B.: Does the family analogy help young children to do relational mapping? In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Science, pp. 407-412. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (2007)
37. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., Hung, B.: Comparison facilitates children's learning of names for parts. J. Cognition and Development 8, 285-307 (2007)
38. Gentner, D., Ratterman, M.J., Forbus, K.D.: The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology 25, 524-575 (1993)
39. Gentner, D., Toupin, C.: Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy. Cognitive Science 10, 277-300 (1986)
40. Paik, J.H., Mix, K.S.: Preschooler's use of surface similarity in object comparisons: Taking context into account. J. Experimental Child Psychology 95(3), 194-214 (2006)
41. Richland, L.E., Morrison, R.G., Holyoak, K.J.: Children's Development of Analogical Reasoning: Insights from Scene Analogy Problems. J. Experimental Child Psychology 94, 246-273 (2006)
42. Gentner, D., Kurtz, K.: Relations, objects, and the composition of analogies. Cognitive Science 30, 609-642 (2006)
43. Gentner, D., Levine, S., Dhillon, S., Poltermann, A.: Using structural alignment to facilitate learning of spatial concepts in an informal setting. In: Kokinov, B., Holyoak, K.J., Gentner, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Analogy. NBU Press, Sofia (2009)
44. Kurtz, K.J., Miao, C., Gentner, D.: Learning by analogical bootstrapping. J. Learning Sciences 10(4), 417-446 (2001)
45. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1980)