Improving students diagram comprehension with classroom instruction

Journal of Experimental Education

Volumn 81, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 511-537

  Cromley, Jennifer G ^a   Perez, Tony C ^a   Fitzhugh, Shannon L ^a   Newcombe, Nora S ^a   Wills, Theodore W ^a   Tanaka, Jacqueline C ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

inference; instruction; knowledge; multiple representations; student learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84883551891     PISSN: 00220973     EISSN: 19400683     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2012.745465     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Ainsworth, S. 2006. DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16: 183-198.
2. Bartholomé, T., and, Bromme, R. 2009. Coherence formation when learning from text and pictures: What kind of support for whom?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101: 282-293. doi: 10.1037/a0014312
3. Bell, P., and, Linn, M. C. 2000. Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22: 797-817.
4. Bodemer, D., and, Faust, U. 2006. External and mental referencing of multiple representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 22: 27-42.
5. Butcher, K. 2006. Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98: 182-197.
6. Canham, M., and, Hegarty, M. 2010. Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20: 155-166. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.014
7. Cook, M., Carter, G., and, Wiebe, E. N. 2008. The interpretation of cellular transport graphics by students with low and high prior knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 30: 241-263. doi: 10.1080/09500690601187168
8. Cromley, J., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., and, Luciw-Dubas, U. A. 2010. Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35: 59-74. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.002
9. Durik, A., and, Matarazzo, K. 2009. Revved up or turned off? How domain knowledge changes the relationship between perceived task complexity and task interest. Learning and Individual Differences, 19: 155-159. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.08.005
10. Dutke, S., and, Rinck, M. 2006. Multimedia learning: Working memory and the learning of word and picture diagrams. Learning and Instruction, 16: 526-537
11. Ekstrom, R., French, J., and, Harman, H. 1979. Cognitive factors: Their identification and replication. Multivariate Behavioral Research Monographs, 79: 84-84.
12. Ekstrom, R., French, J., Harman, H., and, Derman, D. 1976. Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests (rev. ed.), Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
13. Faraday, P., and, Sutcliffe, A. An empirical study of attending and comprehending multimedia presentations. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 265-275.
14. Florax, M., and, Ploetzner, R. 2010. What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20: 216-224. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.021
15. Gathercole, S., Alloway, T., Willis, C., and, Adams, A. 2006. Working memory in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93: 265-281.
16. Graesser, A., Lu, S., Olde, B., Cooper-Pye, E., and, 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. Hannus, M., and, Hyönä, J. 1999. Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24: 95-123.
18. Hegarty, M. 1992. Mental animation: Inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18: 1084-1102.
19. Hegarty, M. 2010. " Components of spatial intelligence ". In The psychology of learning and motivation Edited by: Ross, B. H. Vol. 52, 265-297.
20. Hegarty, M., and, Just, M. 1993. Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory & Language, 32: 717-742.
21. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., and, Cate, C. 2003. The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21: 325-360.
22. Hegarty, M., and, Sims, V. 1994. Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22: 411-430.
23. Hegarty, M., and, Waller, D. A. 2005. " Individual differences in spatial abilities ". In The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking, Edited by: Shah, P. and Miyake, A. 121-169. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
24. Heiser, J., and, Tversky, B. 2006. Arrows in comprehending and producing mechanical diagrams. Cognitive Science, 30: 581-592.
25. Johnson, G., and, Raven, P. 2006. Holt biology, Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
26. Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27. Kirsch, I. S. 2001. The framework used in developing and interpreting the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS). European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16: 335-361. doi: 10.1007/BF03173187
28. Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M., and, Hegarty, M. 2007. Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Science, 31: 549-579.
29. Kriz, S., and, Hegarty, M. 2007. Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65: 911-930. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.06.005
30. Larkin, J., and, Simon, H. 1987. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11: 65-100.
31. Mayer, R. 2005. " Cognitive theory of multimedia learning ". In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Edited by: Mayer, R. 31-48. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
32. McTigue, E. M. 2009. Does "multimedia learning theory" extend to middle school students?. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34: 143-153.
33. Miyake, A., Friedman, N., Rettinger, D., Shah, P., and, Hegarty, M. 2001. How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130: 621-640.
34. Münzer, S., Seufert, T., and, Brünken, R. 2009. Learning from multimedia presentations: Facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 19: 481-485. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.05.001
35. Narayanan, H., and, Hegarty, M. 1998. On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48: 267-301.
36. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2006. Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006, Paris, France: Author.
37. Ozcelik, E., Karakus, T., Kursun, E., and, Cagiltay, K. 2009. An eye-tracking study of how color coding affects multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 53: 445-453. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.002
38. Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., and, McNamara, D. 2009. Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19: 228-242. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
39. Pressley, M., and, Harris, K. 2006. " Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction ". In Handbook of educational psychology, Edited by: Alexander, P. and Winne, P. 265-286. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. RAND Reading Research Study Group. 2002. Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension, Washington, DC: Author.
41. Sanchez, C., and, Wiley, J. 2006. An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34: 344-355.
42. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., and, Catrambone, R. 2006. Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior, 22: 9-25.
43. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., Imhof, B., and, Kammerer, Y. 2009. The effects of realism in learning with dynamic visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 19: 481-494. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.08.001
44. Schnotz, W. 2005. " An integrated model of text and picture comprehension ". In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Edited by: Mayer, R. 49-69. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
45. Schwamborn, A., Thillmann, H., Opfermann, M., and, Leutner, D. 2011. Cognitive load and instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27: 89-93. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.028
46. Schwonke, R., Berthold, K., and, Renkl, A. 2009. How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23: 1227-1243. doi: 10.1002/acp.1526
47. Seufert, T. 2003. Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13: 227-237.
48. Seufert, T., and, Brünken, R. 2006. Cognitive load and the format of instructional aids for coherence formation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20: 321-331.
49. Seufert, T., Schütze, M., and, Brünken, R. 2009. Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: An aptitude-treatment- interaction study. Learning and Instruction, 19: 28-42. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc. 2008.01.002y
50. Sims, V., and, Hegarty, M. 1997. Mental animation in the visuospatial sketchpad: Evidence from dual-task studies. Memory & Cognition, 25: 321-332.
51. St. Clair-Thompson, H., and, Gathercole, S. 2006. Executive functions and achievements in school: Shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59: 745-759.
52. Swanson, H. L. 1989. Verbal coding deficits in learning disabled readers: A multiple stage model. Educational Psychology Review, 1: 235-277.
53. Sweller, J. 2005. " Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning ". In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Edited by: Mayer, R. 19-30. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54. Van Meter, P., and, Garner, J. 2005. The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17: 285-325.
55. Velicer, W. F. 1976. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41: 321-327. doi: 10.1007/BF02293557
56. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., and, Bryden, M. P. 1995. Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 250-270. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.2. 250