When do diagrams enhance learning? A framework for designing relevant representations

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL

Volumn , Issue PART 1, 2008, Pages 191-198

  Davenport, Jodi L ^a   Yaron, David ^a   Klahr, David ^a   Koedinger, Kenneth ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE PROCESSING; COGNITIVE THEORY OF MULTIMEDIA LEARNING; ENHANCE LEARNING; INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNER; LEARNING OBJECTIVES; LEARNING SITUATION; TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION; VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS;

DESIGN; GRAPHIC METHODS; STUDENTS;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 84880434899     PISSN: 15734552     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
2. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 669-681.
3. Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417-423.
4. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from Text with Diagrams: Promoting Mental Model Development and Inference Generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182-19716.
5. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-Explanations - How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182.
6. Chi, M. T. H., Deleeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477.
7. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
8. Davenport, J. L. (2007). Consistency effects between objects in scenes. Memory & Cognition, 35(3), 393-401.
9. Davenport, J. L., Klahr, D., & Koedinger, K.R. (2006, November). The influence of external representations on chemistry problem solving. Paper presented at the Forty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Houston, Texas.
10. Davenport, J. L., Klahr, D., & Koedinger, K. R. (2007). The influence of diagrams on chemistry learning. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Hungary, Budapest.
11. Davenport, J. L., McEldoon, K., & Klahr, D. (2007). The influence of molecular-level diagrams in Chemistry instruction. Paper presented at the 29th Annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Nashville, TN.
12. Davenport, J. L., & Potter, M. C. (2004). Scene Consistency in Object and Background Perception. Psychological Science, 15(8), 559-564.
13. Davenport, J. L., Yaron, D., Karabinos, M., Klahr, D., & Koedinger, K. R. (2007). Chemical equilibrium: An evaluation of a new type of instruction. Paper presented at the Gordon Conference for Chemistry Education Research and Practice, Lewiston, ME.
14. Foxe, J. J., and Morocz., I. A., Murray, M. M., Higgins, B. A., and Javitt., D. C., & Schroeder, C. E. (2000). Multisensory auditory- somatosensory interactions in early cortical processing revealed by high-density electrical mapping. Cognitive Brain Research, 10(1-2), 77-83.
15. Giard, M. H., & Peronnet, F. (1999). Auditory-Visual Integration during Multimodal Object Recognition in Humans: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(5), 473-490.
16. Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: when and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 239-244.
17. Grill-Spector, K., & Kanwisher, N. (2005). Visual recognition: as soon as you know it is there, you know what it is. Psychological Science, 16(2), 152-160.
18. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414-434.
19. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing Mental Models of Machines from Text and Diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(6), 717-742.
20. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40(1), 1-17.
21. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Multimedia Learning of Chemistry. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
22. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
23. Lowe, R. K. (1996). Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11(4), 377-397.
24. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240-246.
25. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139.
26. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.
27. Petre, M., & Green, T. R. G. (1993). Learning to read graphics: Some evidence that 'seeing' an information displat is an acquired skill. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 4, 55-70.
28. Potter, M. C. (1993). Very short-term conceptual memory. Memory & Cognition, 21(2), 156-161.
29. Potter, M. C. (1999). Chapter 2 Understanding Sentences and Scenes: The Role of Conceptual Short-Term Memory. Fleeting Memories: Cognition of Brief Visual Stimuli.
30. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(2), 185-213.
31. Schnotz, W. (2005). An Integrated Model of Text and Picture Comprehension. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.
32. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141-156.
33. Simons, D. J., & Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(7), 261-267.