Learning about dynamic systems by drawing

Learning in the Disciplines: ICLS 2010 Conference Proceedings - 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 2, Issue , 2010, Pages 164-171

  Ainsworth, Shaaron ^a   Nathan, Mitchell J ^b   Van Meter, Peggy ^c   Zhang, Helen Z ^d   Linn, Marcia C ^d   Johnson, Chelsea V ^b   Van Joolingen, Wouter R ^e   Bollen, Lars ^e   Leenaars, Frank ^e   Kenbeek, Wout ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE; SELF EXPLANATIONS; TECHNOLOGICAL SUPPORTS; THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK;

EID: 84880521605     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
2. Ainsworth, S. E., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 669-681.
3. Alesandrini, K. L. (1981). PictorialQverbal and analyticQholistic learning strategies in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 358-368.
4. Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2004). Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 317-337.
5. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
6. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
7. Engle, R. A. (1998). Not channels but composite signals: Speech, gesture, diagrams and object demonstrations are integrated in multimodal explanations. In M. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 321-326). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 365-387.
9. Forbus, K. D., & Usher, J. (2002). Sketching for knowledge capture: A progress report. IU'02, San Francisco.
10. Gobert, J., & Clement, J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 39-53.
11. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 325-360.
12. Leenaars, F., Bollen, L., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (submitted). Facilitating model construction during inquiry learning with self-generated drawings.
13. Lesgold, A. M., Levin, J. R., Shimron, J., & Guttman, J. (1975). Pictures and young children's learning from oral prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 636-642.
14. Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 284-289.
15. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
16. Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2005). Students' reasoning during modeling in an inquiry learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 441-461.
17. Kenbeek, W. K., Van Joolingen, W. R., & De Jong, T. (submitted). Representational drawings as a scaffold for dynamic computer modelling.
18. Kindfield, A. (1993/1994). Biology diagrams: Tools to think with. The Journal of the Learning. Sciences, 3, 1-36.
19. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205-226.
20. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal Teaching and Learning: the rhetorics of the science classroom (London, Continuum). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
21. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.) Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
22. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 364-368.
23. Nathan, M. J., Eilam, B. & Kim, Suyeon (2007). To disagree, we must also agree: How intersubjectivity structures and perpetuates discourse in a mathematics classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 525-565.
24. Paulson, B., & Hammond, T. (2008). Accurate primitive sketch recognition and beautification. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2008), Spain.
25. Penner, D. E. (2001). Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: Building knowledge and meaning through modelling. Review of Research in Education, 25, 1-37.
26. Prangsma, M., Van Boxtel, C., & Kanselaar, G. (2008). Developing a 'big picture': Effects of collaborative construction of multimodal representations in history. Instructional Science, 36(2), 117-136.
27. Ohlsson, S., Moher, T., Johnson, A., Deep Learning in Virtual Reality: How to Teach Children that the Earth is Round, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, PA
28. Radford, L., Demers, S., Guzmán, J. & Cerulli, M. (2003). Calculators, graphs, gestures and the production of meaning. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Doherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.), Proc. 27th Conf. of the Int. Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol 4, pp. 55-62). Honolulu, USA.
29. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(2), 185-213.
30. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321-354.
31. Sins, P. H. M., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices' reasoning during computer-based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1695-1721.
32. Spector, J. M. (2000). System dynamics and interactive learning environments: Lessons learned and implications for the future. Simulation Gaming, 31, 528-535.
33. Tversky, B. (2005). Visuospatial reasoning. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 209-249.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129-140.
35. Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285-325.
36. Vygotsky, L. S. 1986. Thought and Language (revised and edited by A. Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 521-534.
38. Zhang, Z. & Linn, M. (2008) Using drawings to support learning from dynamic visualizations, Proceeding. of the 8th International Conference on the Learning Sciences, vol. 3, 161-162.