Dynamics of mental model construction from text and graphics

European Journal of Psychology of Education

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 1105-1126

  Hochpöchler, Ulrike ^a   Schnotz, Wolfgang ^a   Rasch, Thorsten ^a   Ullrich, Mark ^b   Horz, Holger ^b   McElvany, Nele ^c   Baumert, Jürgen ^d  

^a Rheinland Pfälzische Technische Universität Kaiserslautern Landau   (Germany)

^b GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c TU DORTMUND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^d MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cognitive processing; Reading; Textbooks

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892364830     PISSN: 02562928     EISSN: 18785174     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10212-012-0156-z     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers in Education, 33, 131-152.
2. Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
3. Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2004). Contributions to the theory of practice of computerized adaptive testing. Enschede: University of Twente.
4. Falkenheiner, B., Forbus, K. D., & Gentner, D. (1989/1990). The structure-mapping engine: algorithm and examples. Artificial Intelligence, 41, 1-63.
5. Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Kail & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
6. Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 117-133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-241). London: Cambridge University Press.
8. Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 311-335). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
9. Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189.
10. Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95-123.
11. Hartman, H. J. (2001). Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
12. Hasselhorn, M. (1996). Kategoriales Organisieren bei Kindern: Zur Entwicklung einer Gedächtnisstrategie. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
13. Hegarty, M. (2004). Mechanical reasoning as mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 280-285.
14. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717-742.
15. Hyönä, J., Radach, R., & Deubel, H. (Eds.). (2003). The mind's eye: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research. Amsterdam: North Holland.
16. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.
17. Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2005). Perspective effects on expository text comprehension: evidence from think-aloud protocols, eyetracking and recall. Discourse Processes, 40, 239-257.
18. Keehner, M., Hegarty, M., Cohen, C. A., Khooshabeh, P., & Montello, D. R. (2008). Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: what matters is what you see, not whether you interact. Cognitive Science, 32, 1099-1132.
19. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Kruley, P., Sciama, S. C., & Glenberg, A. M. (1994). On-line processing of textual illustrations in the visuospatial sketchpad: evidence from dual-task studies. Memory & Cognition, 22, 261-272.
21. Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., & Kealy, W. A. (1993). How geographic maps increase recall of instructional text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 47-62.
22. Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., & Caterino, L. C. (1994). Reference maps as a framework for remembering text. In W. Schnotz & R. Kulhavy (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 153-162). Amsterdam: North Holland.
23. Levie, H. W., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustration: a review of research. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30, 195-232.
24. Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration (pp. 51-85). New York: Springer.
25. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19.
26. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Mayer, R. E. (2005a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Mayer, R. E. (2005b). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: theories, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
31. Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369-383.
32. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
33. Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73-126). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
34. Rickards, J. P., & Denner, P. R. (1978). Inserted questions as aids to reading text. Instructional Science, 7, 313-346.
35. Rigney, D. (2010). The Matthew effect: how advantage begets further advantage. New York: Columbia University Press.
36. Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: from text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
37. Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478-493.
38. Rozenblit, L., Spivey, M., & Wojslawowicz, J. (1998). Mechanical reasoning about gear-and-belt diagrams: Do eye movements predict performance? In Proceedings of Mind III: The Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society of Ireland, 158-165.
39. Schnotz, W. (1993). On the relation between dual coding and mental models in graphics comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 3, 247-249.
40. Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(2), 101-120.
41. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (1999). Einfluesse der Visualisierungsform auf die Konstruktion mentaler Modelle beim Text- und Bildverstehen [Influence of the type of visualization on the construction of mental models during picture and text comprehension]. Zeitschrift fuer Experimentelle Psychologie, 46, 217-236.
43. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
44. Schnotz, W., Horz, H., McElvany, N., Schroeder, S., Ullrich, M., Baumert, J., Hachfeld, A., & Richter, T. (2010). Das BITE-Projekt: integrative Verarbeitung von Bildern und Texten in der Sekundarstufe I. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 56, 143-153.
45. Schnotz, W., Ullrich, M., Hochpöchler, U., Horz, H., McElvany, N., Schroeder, S., & Baumert, J. (2011). What makes text-picture integration difficult? A structural and procedural analysis of textbook requirements. Ricerche di Psicologia, 1, 103-135.
46. Sims, V. K., & Hegarty, M. (1997). Mental animation in the visuospatial sketchpad: evidence from dual-tasks studies. Memory & Cognition, 25, 321-332.
47. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407.
48. Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific Foundations and New frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.
49. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185-233.
50. Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition, 18, 97-159.
51. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.
52. Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 21(1), 14-23.
53. Weaver, C. A., III, Mannes, S., & Fletcher, C. R. (Eds.). (1995). Discourse comprehension. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
54. Weidenmann, B. (1989). When good pictures fail: An information-processing approach to the effects of illustrations. In H. Mandl & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures (pp. 157-170). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
55. Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of organization in perceptual forms in a source book for Gestalt Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
56. Winn, W. D. (1990). A theoretical framework for research on learning from graphics. International Journal of Educational Research, 14, 553-564.
57. Zelazny, G. (2006). Say it with charts: the executive's guide to visual communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
58. Zenisky, A. L., Hambleton, R. K., & Sireci, S. G. (2002). Identification of local item dependencies in the Medical College Admissions Test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39(4), 291-301.