Successful learning with multiple graphical representations and self-explanation prompts

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 107, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 30-46

  Rau, Martina A ^a   Aleven, Vincent ^b   Rummel, Nikol ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b Carnegie Mellon University   (United States)

^c RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Classroom experiment; Fractions; Intelligent tutoring systems; Multiple representations; Self explanation prompts

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925821871     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: 19392176     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0037211     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
2. Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 25-61. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_2
3. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27, 669-681. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00033-8
4. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy:Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26, 147-179. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2602_1
5. Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Sewall, J., & Koedinger, K. (2009). A new paradigm for intelligent tutoring systems: Example-tracing tutors. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19, 105-154.
6. Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 215-241. doi:10.1023/A:1024312321077
7. Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774-783. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.774
8. Bennett, J. M. (2004). Holt middle school math. New York, NY: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
9. Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H. S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting selfexplanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37, 345-363. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9051-z
10. Bodemer, D., Plötzner, R., Bruchmüller, K., & Häcker, S. (2005). Supporting learning with interactive multimedia through active integration of representations. Instructional Science, 33, 73-95. doi:10.1007/s11251-004-7685-z
11. Charalambous, C. Y., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2007). Drawing on a theoretical model to study students' understandings of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 293-316. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-9036-2
12. Chi, M. T., 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: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13, 145-182. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(89)90002-5
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Science & Education, 92, 848-867. doi:10.1002/sce.20262
15. Cramer, K., Wyberg, T., & Leavitt, S. (2008). The role of representations in fraction addition and subtraction. Mathematics teaching in the middle school, 13, 490-496.
16. de Jong, T., Ainsworth, S. E., Dobson, M., Van der Meij, J., Levonen, J., Reimann, P.,... Swaak, J. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. In M. W. Van Someren, W. Reimers, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9-40). Bingley, England: Emerald.
17. Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Schüler, A. (2013). How inspecting a picture affects processing of text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 451-461. doi:10.1002/acp.2922
18. Fitzgerald, F., Lappan, P., & Fey, J. T. (2004). Connected mathematics (number and operations Grade 6, bits and pieces I understanding rational numbers). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
19. Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Chi, M. T. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22, 47-61. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.06.002
20. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
21. Gobert, J. D., O'Dwyer, L., Horwitz, P., Buckley, B. C., Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Examining the relationship between students' understanding of the nature of models and conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 653-684. doi:10.1080/09500691003720671
22. Gutwill, J. P., Frederiksen, J. R., & White, B. Y. (1999). Making their own connections: Students' understanding of multiple models in basic electricity. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 249-282. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1703_2
23. Hake, S. (2004). Saxon math 5/6. Norman, OK: Saxon.
24. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1246-1252. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.025
25. Kafai, Y. B., Franke, M. L., Ching, C. C., & Shih, J. C. (1998). Game design as an interactive learning environment for fostering students' and teachers' mathematical inquiry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3, 149-184. doi:10.1023/A:1009777905226
26. Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239-264. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9049-0
27. Koedinger, K. R., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive Tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28. Kordaki, M. (2010). A drawing and multi-representational computer environment for beginners' learning of programming using C: Design and pilot formative evaluation. Computers & Education, 54, 69-87. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.012
29. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Models and modeling in science education: Vol. 1. Visualization in science education (pp. 121-145). Houten, the Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_8
30. Mack, N. (1995). Confounding whole-number and fraction concepts when building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 422-441. doi:10.2307/749431
31. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6
32. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004
33. Moss, J., & Case, R. (1999). Developing children's understanding of the rational numbers: A new model and an experimental curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 122-147. doi:10.2307/749607
34. Nathan, M. J., Walkington, C., Srisurichan, R., & Alibali, M. W. (2011, June). Modal engagements in precollege engineering: Tracking math and science concepts across symbols, sketches, software, silicone, and wood. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Available at http://www. asee.org/public/conferences/1/papers/315/view
35. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success:Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Board Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
36. Pane, J. F., Griffin, B. A., McCaffrey, D. F., & Karam, R. (2013). Effectiveness of cognitive tutor algebra I at scale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 127-144. doi:10.3102/0162373713507480
37. Rau, M., Aleven, V., Rummel, N., & Rohrbach, S. (2013). Why interactive learning environments can have it all: Resolving design conflicts between competing stakeholder goals. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 109-118). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
38. Rau, M. A., Rummel, N., Aleven, V., Pacilio, L., & Tunc-Pekkan, Z. (2012). How to schedule multiple graphical representations? A classroom experiment with an intelligent tutoring system for fractions. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 64-71). International Society of Learning Sciences.
39. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., Imhof, B., & 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
40. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49-70). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819.005
41. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8
42. Siegler, R. S., Carpenter, T., Fennell, F., Geary, D., Lewis, J., Okamoto, Y.,... Wray, J. (2010). Developing effective fractions instruction: A practice guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
43. Sweller, J., van Merrienboër, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205
44. van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students' learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 199-212. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.007
45. van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2011). The effects of directive self-explanation prompts to support active processing of multiple representations in a simulation-based learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 411-423. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00411.x
46. Van Someren, M. W., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & de Jong, T. (1998). Multiple representations in human reasoning. In M. W. Van Someren, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 1-5). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
47. Wylie, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (in press). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
48. Yerushamly, M. (1991). Student perceptions of aspects of algebraic function using multiple representation software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 42-57. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00223
49. Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1177-1198. doi:10.1002/tea.20443