Representation guidance with abstract and contextualized representation: Effects on engineering learning performance in technological literacy education

ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages

  Ozogul, Gamze ^a   Johnson, Amy M ^b   Reisslein, Martin ^a   Butcher, Kirsten R ^c  

^a Arizona State University   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACTING; COMPUTER AIDED ANALYSIS; ELECTRIC NETWORK ANALYSIS; ELECTRIC NETWORK PARAMETERS; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; NETWORK COMPONENTS; STUDENTS;

ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT; ENGINEERING LEARNING; ENGINEERING PROBLEMS; ENGINEERING SYSTEMS; HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS; PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS; REPRESENTATION CONDITIONS; TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 85029074741     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21535965     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (60)

1. ASEE Technological Literacy Constituent Committee (2011). Engineering for non-engineers and technological literacy, Bibliography and reference resources, http://www.hope.edu/academic/engineering/PDFs/TechLit-Bibliography-2011-v1.pdf
2. Krupczak, J. Jr. & Ollis, D.F. (2005). Improving the technological literacy of undergraduates: Identifying the research issues. Final report on workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation and held at the National Academy of Engineering, Washington D.C., April 18-19, 2005.
3. Pearson, G. & Young, A.T., (Eds.) (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology, Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.
4. th.
5. Krupczak, J. Jr., Ollis, D.F., Carlson, B., Neely, K., Pimmel, R., & Pearson, G. (2007). Technological literacy of undergraduates: Developing standard models. Final report on workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation and held at the National Academy of Engineering, Washington D.C., March 26-27, 2007.
6. Littlefield, J. & Rieser, J. (1993). Semantic features of similarity and children's strategies for identifying relevant information in mathematical story problems. Cognition and Instruction, 11(2), 133-188.
7. Cook, J.L. (2006). College students and algebra story problems: strategies for identifying relevant information. Reading Psychology, 27, 95-125.
8. Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problemsolving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 347-362.
9. Bodner, G.M. & Domin D.S. (2000). Mental models: the role of representations in problem solving in chemistry. University Chemistry Education, 4(1), 24-30.
10. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
11. Lovett, M.C., & Anderson, J.R. (1994). Effects of solving related proofs on memory and transfer in geometry problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 366-378.
12. Schonborn, K.J. & Anderson, T.R. (2009). A model of factors determining students' ability to interpret external representations in biochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 193-232.
13. Jonassen, D. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94.
14. Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Abstract planning and perceptual chunks: Elements of expertise in geometry. Cognitive Science, 14, 511-550.
16. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. & Amann, K. (1990). Image dissection in natural scientific inquiry. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15, 259-283.
17. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-143.
18. st Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp.385-391). Columbus, OH; ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
19. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
20. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.) (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
21. Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 155-166.
22. Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 146-154.
23. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65-100.
24. Winn, W. & Solomon, C. (1993). The effect of spatial arrangement of simple diagrams on the interpretation of English and nonsense sentences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 29-41.
25. Schroeder, S., Richter, T., McElvany, N., Hachfeld, A., Baumert, J., Schnotz, W., Horz, H., & Ullrich, M. (2011). Teachers' beliefs, instructional behaviors, and students' engagement in learning from texts with instructional pictures. Learning and Instruction, 21, 403-415.
26. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(2), 101-120.
28. Schnotz, W., Bannert, M., & Seufert, T. (2002). Towards an integrative view of text and picture comprehension: Visualization effects on the construction of mental models. In A. Graesser, J. Otero, & J. A. Leon (Eds.), The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension (pp. 385-416). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3, 227-238.
30. Winn, W., Li, T. & Schill, D. (1991). Diagrams as aids to problem solving: Their role in facilitating search and computation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 17-29.
31. Butcher, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2008). Diagram interaction during intelligent tutoring in geometry: Support for knowledge retention and deep understanding. In B. C. Love, K. McRae & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1736-1741). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society
32. Keig, P.F., & Rubba, P.A. (1993). Translation of representations of the structure of matter and its relationship to reasoning, gender, spatial reasoning, and special prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 883-903.
33. Orgill, M. & Crippen, K. (2010). Teaching with external representations: the case of a common energy-level diagram in chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(1), 78-84
34. Shah, P. & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 47-69.
35. Schwonke, R., Berthold, K. & Renkl, A. (2009), How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1227-1243.
36. Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70-87.
37. Seufert, T. (2003) Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227-237.
38. Butcher, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Integrating visual and verbal knowledge during classroom learning with computer tutors. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 137-142). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
39. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511-525.
40. Rappoport, L. T. & Ashkenazi, G. (2008). Connecting levels of representation: emergent versus submergent perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1585-1603.
41. Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 414-466.
42. Petre, M, & Green, T. R. G. (1993). Learning to read graphics: Some evidence that 'seeing' an information display is an acquired skill. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 4(1), 55-70.
43. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
44. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52-70.
45. Cordova, D.I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715-30.
46. Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2), 129-64.
47. Jennings, C. M., Jennings, J. E., Richey, J., & Dixon-Krauss, L. (1992). Increasing interest and achievement in mathematics through children's literature. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(2), 263-267.
48. Yang, E.-M., Greenbowe, T.J., & Andre, T. (2004). The effective use of an interactive software program to reduce students' misconceptions about batteries. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(4), 587-595.
49. Tiancheng, L. & Jonassen, D.H. (1996). The effect of lesson structures on predication and inference. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations-National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 423-429.
50. Moreno, R., Reisslein, M, & Ozogul, G. (2009). Pre-college electrical engineering instruction: Do abstract or contextualized representations promote better learning?. In Layton, R. A., Mina, M., & Cordes, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference, (pp. M4J-1-M4J-6), Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
51. Reisslein, M., Moreno, R., & Ozogul, G. (2010). Pre-college electrical engineering instruction: the impact of abstract vs. contextualized representation and practice on learning, Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 225-235.
52. De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., Van Dooren, W., Deprez, J., & Roelens, M. (2011). Abstract or concrete examples in learning mathematics? A replication and elaboration of Kaminski, Sloutsky, and Heckler's study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(2), 109-126
53. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., Heckler, A. F. (2008). The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320(5875), 454-455.
54. Dwyer, F.M. (1968). The effectiveness of visual illustrations used to complement programmed instruction. Journal of Psychology, 70(2), 157-62.
55. Dwyer, F.M. (1969). The effect of varying the amount of realistic detail in visual illustrations designed to complement programmed instruction. Programmed Learning, 6(3), 147-53.
56. Joseph, J.H. & Dwyer, F.M. (1984). Effects of prior knowledge, presentation mode, and visual realism on student achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 52(2), 110-21.
57. Butcher, K.R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182-97.
58. Moreno, R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2011). Teaching with concrete and abstract visual representations: Effects on students' problem solving, problem representations, and learning perceptions, Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 32-47.
59. Goldstone, R.L., & Son, J.Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69-110.
60. Schwartz, D. L., & Black, J. B. (1996). Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: Induction and fallback. Cognitive Science, 20(4), 457-497.