Opening the information bottleneck in complex scheduling problems with a novel representation: STARK diagrams

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

Volumn 2317, Issue , 2002, Pages 264-278

  Cheng, Peter C H ^a   Barone, Rossano ^a,b   Cowling, Peter I ^b   Ahmadi, Samad ^a,b  

^a School of Psychology   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SCHEDULING;

COGNITIVE DEMANDS; COMPLEX SCHEDULING; CONSTRAINT VIOLATION; DESIGN PRINCIPLES; INFORMATION BOTTLENECK; SCHEDULING PROBLEM; SCHEDULING SOFTWARE;

GRAPHIC METHODS;

EID: 84893130387     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-46037-3_26     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Anderson, M., Cheng, P C-H., & Haarslev, V. (eds.): Theory and Application of Diagrams: First International Conference, Diagrams 2000. Berlin: Springer (2000).
2. Barwise, J., & Etchemendy, J.: Heterogenous Logic. In: Glasgow, J., Narayanan, N. H., & B. Chandrasekaran, B., (eds.): Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. AAAI Press Menlo Park, CA (1995) 211-234.
3. Burke, E.K., Elliman, D., Ford, P., Weare, R.: Examination Timetabling in British Universities: A Survey, Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling I, Vol. 1153. Springer LNCS (1996) 76-90.
4. Carter, M. W., Laporte, G.: Recent Developments in Practical Examination Timetabling, Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling I, Vol. 1153. Springer LNCS (1996) 3-21.
5. Casner, S. M.: A task-analytic approach to the automated design of graphic presentations. ACM Trans. on Graphics, 10(2), (1991) 111-151.
6. Cheng, P. C-H.: Law encoding diagrams for instructional systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 7(1), (1996) 33-74.
7. Cheng, P. C-H.: Interactive law encoding diagrams for learning and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 9(4), (1999) 309-326.
8. Cheng, P. C-H.: Unlocking conceptual learning in mathematics and science with effective representational systems. Computers in Education, 33(2-3), (1999) 109-130.
9. Chi, M. T. H.: Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: examples from learning and discovery in science. In: Giere, R. N. (ed.): Cognitive models of science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (1992) 129-186.
10. Glasgow, J., Narayanan, N. H., & Chandrasekaran, B. (eds.): Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press (1995) .
11. Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A.: Why are some problems hard? Cognitive Psychology, 17, (1985) 248-294.
12. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, (1987) 65-99
13. Palmer, S. E.: Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In: Rosch, E., & B. B. Lloyd, B. B. (eds.): Cognition and Catergorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum (1978) 259-303.
14. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y.: External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, (1996) 185-213.
15. Simon, H. A.: Models of Discovery and other topics in the methods of Science. Dordrect: Reidel (1977).
16. Vincente, K. J.: Improving dynamic decision making in complex systems through ecological interface design: A research overview. Systems Dynamics Review, 12(4), (1996) 251-279.
17. Zhang, J.: A representational analysis of relational information displays. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45, (1996) 59-74.
18. Zhang, J.: The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), (1997) 179-217.