Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
C 2002)
Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2002 (
Commentary
Visual displays play an increasingly important role not only in our daily
life, but also in the field of learning and instruction where instructional materials today include more pictures, diagrams, and graphs than a few decades
ago. From a historical perspective, the use of pictorial information in learning
and instruction has a long tradition. In the seventeenth century, Comenius
(influenced by John Lockes sensualism) published his Didacta Magna,
1 Department of General and Educational Psychology, University of Koblenz Landau, Landau,
Germany.
2 Correspondence
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
102
8:41
Schnotz
REPRESENTATIONAL ISSUES
Symbols and Icons
Representations are objects or events that stand for something else
(Peterson, 1996). Texts and visual displays are external representations.
These external representations are understood when a reader or observer
constructs internal mental representations of the content described in the
text or shown in the picture. Comprehension is usually task-oriented. That is,
the mental construction is performed by the individual in a way that allows
him or her to deal effectively with current or anticipated requirements. In
other words, comprehension of text and pictures is a task-oriented construction of mental representations.
Text and visual displays are based on different sign systems. A fundamental distinction between different sign systems was introduced by Peirce
(1906): the differentiation between symbols and icons. According to Peirce,
symbols have an arbitrary structure and are associated with the designated object by a convention. Words and sentences of natural language are
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
103
examples of symbols. Icons, on the contrary, do not have an arbitrary structure. Instead, they are associated with the designated object by similarity.
Accordingly, all kinds of static as well as animated realistic pictures (or pictorial illustrations, respectively) and all kinds of geographic maps can be
considered icons. However, graphs and knowledge maps do not possess similarity with what they represent, and parts of their structure are specified
by convention. One could therefore argue that they are symbols rather than
icons. Nevertheless, graphs and knowledge maps have more in common with
icons than with symbols. This becomes obvious if one characterizes icons in
a more general way: Icons can be defined as signs that are associated with
their designated object by common structural properties. Similarity, then, is
only one kind of structural commonality that is typical for realistic pictures,
pictorial illustrations, and geographic maps. Graphs, on the contrary, are
characterized by a more abstract kind of structural commonality with the
designated object. Knowledge maps that visualize the macrostructure of a
learning content can be considered a pictorial display of the corresponding
knowledge structure.
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
104
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
Schnotz
irrelevant for other tasks, so it is possible to define the informational content of a representation with respect to a specific set of tasks. Accordingly,
two representations are (in a task-specific sense) informationally equivalent
if both allow the extraction of the same information required to solve the
specific tasks.
When two representations are informationally equivalent they can nevertheless differ in their usefulness. Representations are used to retrieve information about what they represent. Depending on the structure of the representation and the processes operating on it, information retrieval (which
often means the computation of new information) can be easy or difficult.
Representations, which are not only informationally equivalent, but also
equivalent in terms of retrieving information, are referred to as computationally equivalent (Larkin and Simon, 1987). Two representations are (in
a task-specific sense) computationally equivalent if each task-relevant information can be retrieved from one representation as easily as from the
other representation. Shah and Hoeffner (this issue) address this issue with
regard to graph design. They argue that there is no specific graph format
that is generally better then others. Designing graphs or any other external representations always requires taking into account the interplay between the representation and the task demands. The relevant questions are:
What kind of procedures have to be performed to solve the task, and how
easily can these procedures be performed with the given representation
structure?
Descriptive representations and depictive representations have different uses for different purposes. Descriptive representations have a higher
representational power than depictive representations. For example, there
is no problem in a descriptive representation to express a general negation
(No pets allowed !) or a general disjunction (Seat reserved for infirm people
and for mothers with babies). In a depictive representation, however, one
can express only specific negations (e.g., a picture showing a dog combined
with a prohibitive sign). Disjunctions are depicted through a series of pictures (e.g., a picture showing an old man plus a picture showing a mother
with her baby). On the other hand, depictive representations encompass
a specific class of information in its entirety. For example, it is possible to
read from a geometric figure (such as a triangle) all its geometric properties. Similarly, a picture of an object is not limited to information about its
form, but also has information about its size and its orientation in space.
In contrast, in a description it is possible to mention only a few geometric
characteristics of a figure or to specify only the form of the object without
providing information about its size or orientation. Accordingly, depictive
representations are especially useful to gain new information from already
known information. A depiction constructed on the basis of already known
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
105
information contains further information that has not been made explicit
so far (Kosslyn, 1994). If one draws a triangle based on information about
two sides and one angle, one can read the size of the third side, the size
of the other two angles, the area of the triangle, and many more geometric
characteristics. The new information is not generated in the sense of a logical
conclusion, but rather can be read directly from the representation (JohnsonLaird, 1983). These have sometimes been called pseudo-inferences (Garrod,
1985).
Mental Representations
The distinction between descriptions and depictions can be applied not
only to external representations such as texts and pictures, but also to internal
mental representations, which are constructed during text and picture comprehension. Current approaches in text comprehension research assume that
in understanding a text a reader constructs multiple mental representations.
The representations include a surface representation of the text, a propositional text base, a mental model of what the text is about, a communication
level, and a genre level (Graesser et al., 1997). The text surface representation includes the detailed linguistic information, such as the specific words,
phrases, and syntactic structures. The text base represents the semantic content of the text in the form of propositions. The mental model represents the
referential content of the text. In narrative texts this is frequently referred
to as a situation model (van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983). The mental model is
constrained both by the text base and by domain-specific world knowledge.
The communication level represents the pragmatic context of the communication between reader and writer. The genre level captures knowledge about
the class of text and its corresponding text function. Evidence for a differentiation between the surface code, the text base, and the mental model level
has been found in several investigations (Kintsch et al., 1990; Schmalhofer
and Glavanov, 1986).
In picture comprehension, the individual also constructs multiple mental representations. These include a surface structure representation, a mental model, a propositional representation as well as a communication level
and a genre level representation. The surface structure representation corresponds to the perceptual (visual) image of the picture in the individuals
mind. The mental model represents the subject matter shown in the picture on the basis of common structural features (i.e., based on an analogy)
between the picture and its referential content. The propositional representation contains information that is read from the model and that is encoded in a propositional format. The communication level represents the
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
106
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
Schnotz
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
107
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
108
Schnotz
and that processing results in the parallel construction of two kinds of mental
models that are finally mapped onto each other. Accordingly, an individual
understanding a text with pictures selects relevant words, constructs a propositional representation or text base, and then organizes the selected verbal
information into a verbal mental model of the situation described in the
text. Similarly, the individual selects relevant images, creates what is called a
pictorial representation or image base, and organizes the selected pictorial
information into a visual mental model of the situation shown in the picture.
The final step is to build connections through a one-to-one-mapping between
the text-based model and the picture-based model. Integrative processing
is most likely to occur if verbal and visual information are simultaneously
available in working memory, that is, the corresponding entities in the two
models are mentally available at the same time (Baddeley, 1992; Chandler
and Sweller, 1991).
An Integrative Model of Text and Picture Comprehension
The parallelism of text processing and picture processing assumed in
Mayers model is problematic, however, because texts and pictures are based
on different sign systems and use quite different principles of representation.
Thus, Schnotz and Bannert (1999) have proposed an integrative model of text
and picture comprehension that gives more emphasis to representational
principles (cf. Schnotz, 2001). An outline of this model is shown in Fig. 1.
It consists of a descriptive (left side) and a depictive (right side) branch
of representations. The descriptive branch comprises the (external) text,
the (internal) mental representation of the text surface structure, and the
propositional representation of the texts semantic content. The interaction
between these descriptive representations is based on symbol processing.
The depictive branch comprises the (external) picture, the (internal) visual
perception or image of the picture, and the (also internal) mental model of
the subject matter presented in the picture. The interaction between these
depictive representations is based on processes of structure mapping due to
the structural correspondences (i.e., analogy relations) between the representations (Gentner, 1989).
In text comprehension, the reader constructs a mental representation of
the text surface structure, generates a propositional representation of the semantic content, and constructs from this so-called text base a mental model
of the described subject matter (van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983; Schnotz, 1994;
Weaver et al., 1995). These construction processes are based on an interaction of bottom-up and top-down activation of cognitive schemata that have
both a selective and an organizing function. The selection of task-relevant
information is performed by top-down processing, whereas the organizing
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
109
function is based on the interaction of bottom-up and top-down processing. This interaction results in a specific configuration of activated cognitive
schemata that fits best to the incoming information and organizes it into a coherent structure. Text information is processed with regard to morphologic
and syntactic aspects by verbal organization processes that lead to a mental
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
110
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
Schnotz
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
111
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
112
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
Schnotz
directions and distances between objects, that is, knowledge about spatial
structures and their location (Kosslyn, 1991). One can find patients with
partial brain damage who can localize objects but are unable to say what
these objects are, and one can find patients who can identify objects but
cannot localize them (Farah et al., 1988).
TOOLS FOR COMMUNICATION, THINKING, AND LEARNING
The articles in this special issue deal with various kinds of visual displays: static or animated pictures, geographic maps, thematic maps, graphs,
and knowledge maps. These visual displays can be considered as complex
pictorial signs, and like other kinds of signs, they can help to communicate information and support thinking or learning processes. Like sentences
of natural language (as complex verbal signs), these pictorial signs can be
analyzed under a syntactic, a semantic, and a pragmatic perspective. The
syntactic perspective deals with the well-formedness of signs. The semantic perspective deals with the meaning of the pictorial signs. The pragmatic
perspective deals with the use of pictorial signs in communication, thinking,
and learning.
Syntactic constraints on the well-formedness of visual displays derive
from the need to maintain similarity or a structural commonality with what
they represent and from the requirements of human perception. The syntactic constraints of pictorial illustrations and geographic maps are based on
similarity (cf. Carney and Levin, this issue; Verdi and Kulhavy, this issue).
The syntactic constraints of graphs and knowledge maps derive from the
conventional representation formats (e.g., pie charts, bar charts, line graphs,
scatter plots, and box plots), from structural commonalities with the represented subject matter, and from the mechanism of human visual perception,
especially the Gestalt laws. As ODonnell et al. (this issue) point out, knowledge maps that were constructed according to the Gestalt laws resulted in
better learning than other kinds of knowledge maps. Semantic constraints of
visual displays are implicitly addressed by all the contributors when they analyze conditions that make comprehension and learning with these displays
easier. Finally, all articles deal with the pragmatic perspective on pictorial
signs.
When Carney and Levin (this issue) distinguish between representation, organization, interpretation, transformation, and decoration as possible functions of pictorial illustrations, they refer to the pragmatic perspective.
Similarly, Verdi and Kulhavy (this issue) point out the facilitative function
of maps. As an amendment, it should be noted that both pictorial illustrations and maps can also serve as tools for thinking. An example is the use of
pictures by Abraham Wald during World War II: In order to find out which
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
113
areas of airplanes required more armor, he copied the bullet holes from
a large number of returning aircraft on an outline picture of the airplane
and put extra armor everyplace else (Wainer, 1992). Another example is
Dr John Snows use of a map of Central London in 1854, when he plotted
the location of deaths from cholera and found that the decease came from
the Broad Street water pump (Tufte, 1983). ODonnell et al. (this issue) also
report about the use of knowledge maps as a tool for communication and
thinking: These maps can be used, for example, in a counselling setting where
a counseller and a client try to attain a common understanding of a problem
situation. Similarly, graphs can be used both by novices and experts in order
to communicate about a problem. Shah and Hoeffner (this issue) emphasize
that graphs should generally be designed according to their intended usage.
If individuals should understand the interaction between three variables, for
example, one three-dimensional display would be better suited than there
exact values from a graph.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Visuo-spatial text adjuncts and other forms of visual displays can support communication, thinking, and learning only if they interact appropriately with the individuals cognitive system. Accordingly, the effects of
visuo-spatial adjunct aids depend on prior knowledge, cognitive abilities,
and learning skills. These factors are, of course, age-dependent. Children in
the kindergarten age range are generally skilled in understanding realistic
pictures, whereas verbal literacy (as result of learning to read and a prerequisite of reading to learn) is attained in primary school. Finally, visual literacy,
which includes understanding graphs, is acquired (if at all) still later (Shah
and Hoeffner, this issue).
Carney and Levin (this issue) point out that pictorial illustrations can
have a decorative and motivational function in materials for first graders
who learn to read. However, these pictures should not illustrate what children are expected to understand from reading the text. Individuals seem to
be experts in cognitive economy. They are therefore skillful in finding shortcuts for solving cognitive tasks. Generally speaking, one should not provide
alternative routes for understanding when the learner should be trained in
understanding a specific kind of representation.
Among readers, visual displays can have a supporting function for
understanding and learning difficult materials. The more difficult a learning content is, the higher is the learners frequency of looking at adjunct
visual displays (Carney and Levin, this issue). The supportive function of
visuo-spatial adjuncts seems to be especially evident with learners of low
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
114
8:41
Schnotz
prior knowledge and low verbal skills. Previous research has pointed out
that comprehension among learners with low domain knowledge (but sufficient visuo-spatial cognitive skills) is increased when pictures are added to a
text. Learners with high domain knowledge, on the contrary, are able to construct a mental model without pictorial support (Mayer, 1997). Carney and
Levin (this issue) draw a similar conclusion when they argue that a text that is
simple and can be easily envisioned by the learner does not need additional
pictures. However, if the subject matter is complex and/or if learners have low
prior knowledge, then visual displays increase comprehension. This is true
not only for pictorial illustrations, but also for knowledge maps. Knowledge
maps are especially helpful for learners with low prior knowledge and for
learners with low verbal skills (ODonnell et al., this issue).
Verdi and Kulhavy (this issue) also emphasize the role of prior knowledge: Learners with high prior knowledge better recall map information than
learners with low prior knowledge. However, maps are highly familiar both
for novices and for experts. Both groups show comparable ability in processing map information. Abstract kinds of visual displays such as graphs,
however, require knowledge about specific forms of representations. The
individual has to acquire specific cognitive schemata (graph-schemata) in
order to understand these so-called logical pictures (Pinker, 1990; Shah and
Hoffner,
this issue).
INSTRUCTIONAL CONSEQUENCES
Effective learning with visuo-spatial text adjuncts can be fostered
through instructional design by the teacher or author of instructional material and through adequate processing strategies by the learner. The contributions of this Special Issue include both of these perspectives.
Instructional Design
All contributors agree that effective learning with visuo-spatial text
adjuncts is not dependent on the professional appearance of visuals, but
rather on the relation between these displays and the task demands and on
the learners prior knowledge and cognitive abilities. Instructional design of
visual displays therefore requires sufficient understanding of how the human
cognitive system interacts with these displays.
The authors agree on various points with regard to instructional design:
First, if verbal and pictorial information is provided to learners, both kinds
of information should be coherent with some semantic overlap (Carney
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
115
and Levin, this issue; Shah and Hoeffner, this issue; Mayer and Moreno,
this issue). Second, both kinds of information should enter working memory simultaneously in order to make interconnections between them more
likely; simultaneous availability of information requires spatial or temporal contiguity (Mayer and Moreno, this issue). Third, semantic processing
of verbal and pictorial information requires activation of thematically related prior knowledge. Access to prior knowledge is facilitated in comprehending geographic or thematic maps and graphs if meaningful symbols,
colors, or icons are used that can be easily associated with their referent
(Verdi and Kulhavy, this issue). Access to prior knowledge is more difficult if a legend is used in a map or a graph because this requires an additional step in order to associate a color or a visual pattern with its external referent (Shah and Hoeffner, this issue). Fourth, if possible, verbal
and pictorial information should not enter working memory through the
visual channel in order to avoid cognitive overload. Fifth, the same verbal
information should not be presented simultaneously through the visual and
the auditive channel (Mayer and Moreno, this issue). There is also agreement that visual displaysranging from concrete pictorial illustrations to
abstract graphs or knowledge mapsshould be designed according to the
requirements of the human perceptual apparatus. They should, for example, include visual features that can be easily distinguished, and they should
arrange visual features according to the Gestalt laws. Finally, visual displays
should be designed according to the aim of communication or of teaching and
learning.
Sometimes, text and picture cannot be presented simultaneously. Based
on their own research, Verdi and Kulhavy (this issue) suggest that in this case
the picture should be presented first and the text later. The authors argue that
when text processing occurs first most of the capacity of working memory is
used leaving little capacity for processing the following picture. Processing a
picture first requires little space in working memory and, thus, leaves enough
capacity for processing text. Thereafter, I believe that an alternative and
probably more simple explanation would be that a text never describes a
subject matter with enough detail to allow only one kind of envisioning. A
mental model or visual image constructed only from the text is therefore
likely to differ from the picture presented afterwards and, thus, interferes
with the picture (cf. Fig. 1). This kind of interference can be avoided by
presenting the picture before the text.
Processing Strategies
Visual displays can support communication, thinking, and learning.
However, they do not provide this support automatically. Learners often
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
116
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
Schnotz
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
117
FURTHER PERSPECTIVES
The articles contained in this special issue show that visual displays are
powerful devices to support teaching and learning as well as other kinds
of communication. There is converging evidence that specific principles of
designing visuals and of combining them with texts are important to support
comprehension and learning. There is also converging evidence that prior
knowledge about representation formats and active processing of visuals
based on adequate strategies are crucial for effective support of comprehension and learning. Nevertheless, there are still a number of open questions
that require investigation.
Learning from verbal and pictorial information has generally been considered as (potentially) beneficial for learning. However, research on knowledge acquisition from multiple representations has made obvious that the
use of more representational formats does not only have cognitive benefits but also cognitive costs (Ainsworth, 1999). Learning from verbal and
pictorial information has also frequently been associated with individual
representational preferences and cognitive styles. Examples of this are the
distinction between visualizers and verbalizers and between field independency and field dependency (cf. Verdi and Kulhavy, this issue). Research
on the relevance of such preferences and cognitive styles, however, has not
attained clear results yet, and it is unknown whether matching the learners
individual preferences really will result in better learning. Accordingly, it
remains an open question whether we need to adapt texts and visuo-spatial
adjuncts to the assumed aptitudetreatment effects hypothesized by some
researchers.
The development of new technologies is a specific challenge for the
use of verbal and pictorial information in learning and instruction. While
traditional print material allows only static visual displays to be presented,
computer-based instruction makes it possible to show animated displays.
Many practitioners and researchers consider animation an ideal form for
presenting change and development. Empirical results, however, do not
generally support this assumption. Further research on the conditions for
using animations effectively is required. This research should be based on
a well supported cognitive theory (cf. Mayer and Moreno, this issue). The
development of new technologies also casts some well-known kinds of visual displays into a new light. Knowledge maps, for example, can be used
not only as schaffolds for generating semantic macrostructures, they can also
be used as external visual models of an information space. Thus, tools for
communication, thinking, and learning also become tools for information
search. Despite these developments, I doubt whether we have to repeat the
research on learning from verbal and pictorial information with print media
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
118
8:41
Schnotz
under the conditions of the new electronic media. I also doubt that the design
principles for the new media will be fundamentally different from the design
principles developed for the traditional print media. The essential point in
this context is whether there are really new qualities emerging from the use
of new technologies that are relevant for cognitive processing.
Another essential point is whether and in what respect learners might
differ in the future from todays learners. The general constraints of the
human cognitive system will certainly not change as a result of new technologies. However, future learners could have new attitudes and processing
habits. As humans are exposed to an increasing mass of information that
frequently dazzles the eyes, ears, and mind, new standards of presenting information emerge. For example, television stations present short, dynamic,
and entertaining information sequences, and most mass media provide an
increasing amount of pictorial information that allow easy and rapid information processing. One can assume that learners who have much experience
with electronic media and with new kinds of information presentation might
have new expectations, new attitudes, and new processing habits that affect
their cognitive processing.
Cognitive processing, however, is only one factor that contributes to
effective learning. Affective and motivational factors must be considered
as well. If new media have appeal for young learners and if these learners are motivated to interact with a computer-based learning environment
longer than with traditional print materials (because it is more fun), then
this could justify the use of new technologies even when the cognitive effects would be about the same as with traditional print media. Research on
learning from text with visuo-spatial adjuncts will have to be conducted not
only from a cognitive, but also from an affective, motivational, and social
perspective to reach adequate educational decisions.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Comput. Educ. 33: 131152.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory, Science 255: 556559.
Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cogn.
Instr. 8: 293332.
Clark, J. M., and Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 3:
149210.
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., and Gentner, D. (198990). The structure-mapping enginge:
Algorithm and examples. Artif. Intell. 41: 163.
Farah, M. J., Hammond, K. M., Levine, D. N., and Calvanio, R. (1988). Visual and spatial mental
imagery: Dissociable systems of representation. Cogn. Psychol. 20: 439462.
Garrod, S. C. (1985). Incremental pragmatic interpretation versus occasional inferencing during
fluent reading. In Rickheit, G., and Strohner, H. (eds.), Inferences in Text Processing, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, pp. 161181.
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
119
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In Vosniadou, S., and Ortony,
A. (eds.), Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England, pp. 197241.
Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., and Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 48: 163189.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models. Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Interference, and Consciousness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Johnson-Laird, P. N., and Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Kintsch, W., Welsch, D., Schmalhofer, F., and Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical
analysis. J. Mem. Lang. 29: 133159.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1991). A cognitive neuroscience of visual cognition: Further developments. In
Logie, R. H., and Denis, M. (eds.), Mental Images in Human Cognition, North-Holland,
Amsterdam, pp. 351381.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and Brain. The Resolution of the Imagery Debate, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Kruley, P., Sciama, S. C., and Glenberg, A. M. (1994). On-line processing of textual illustrations
in the visuospatial sketchpad: Evidence from dual-task studies. Mem. Cogn. 22: 261272.
Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., and Kealy, W. A. (1993). How geographic maps increase recall of
instructional text. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 41: 4762.
Larkin, J. H., and Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand
words. Cogn. Sci. 11: 6599.
Levie, H. W., and Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educ.
Commun. Technol. J. 30: 195232.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., and Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of
pictures in prose. In Willows, D. M., and Houghton, H. A. (eds.), The Psychology of Illustration, Vol. 1, Springer, New York, pp. 5186.
Lowe, R. K. (1993). Constructing a mental representation from an abstract technical diagram.
Learn. Instr. 3(3): 157179.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educ. Psychol.
32: 119.
Mokros, J. R., and Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer based labs on childrens
ability to interpret graphs. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 24(4): 369383.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, England.
Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In Rosch, E., and Lloyd,
B. B. (eds.), Cognition and Categorization, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 259303.
Peirce, C. S. (1906). Prolegomena to an apology for pragmaticism. Monist 492546.
Peterson, D. (1996). Forms of Representation, Intellect, Exeter.
Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In Freedle, R. (ed.), Artificial Intelligence
and the Future of Testing, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 73126.
Schmalhofer, F., and Glavanov, D. (1986). Three components of understanding a programmers
manual: Verbatim, propositional, and situational representations. J. Mem. Lang. 25: 279
294.
Schnotz, W. (1993). On the relation between dual coding and mental models in graphics comprehension. Learn. Instr. 3: 247249.
Schnotz, W. (1994). Auf bau von Wissenstrukturen. Untersuchungen zur Koharenzbildung beim
Wissenserwerb mit Texten, Pschologie Verlags Union, Weinheim.
Schnotz, W. (2001). Sign sytems, technologies, and the acquisition of knowledge. In Rouet, J. F.,
Levonen, J., and Biardeau, A. (eds.), Multimedia LearningCognitive and Instructional
Issues, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 929.
Schnotz, W., and Bannert, M. (1999). Support and interference effects in learning from multiple
representations. In Bagnara, S. (ed.), European Conference on Cognitive Science, 27th30th
Oct. 1999, Istituto di Psicologia Consiglio, Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy, pp. 447
452.
Shepard, R. N. (1984). Ecological constraints on internal representations: Resonant kinematics
of perceiving, thinking, and dreaming. Psychol. Rev. 91: 417447.
P1: FYJ
Educational Psychology Review [jepr]
120
PP317-edpr-363440
8:41
Schnotz
Shuell, T. J. (1988). The role of the student in the learning from instruction. Contemp. Educ.
Psychol. 13: 276295.
Sims, V. K., and Hegarty, M. (1997). Mental animation in the visuospatial sketchpad: Evidence
from dual-tasks studies. Mem. Cogn. 25: 321332.
Tufte, E. R. (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Graphics Press, Cheshire,
CT.
Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition 18: 97159.
Van Dijk, T. A., and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension, Academic
Press, New York.
Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educ. Res. 21(1): 1423.
Weaver, C. A., III, Mannes, S., and Fletcher, C. R. (eds.). (1995). Discourse Comprehension,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Weidenmann, B. (1989). When good pictures fail: An information-processing approach to the
effects of illustrations. In Mandl, H., and Levin, J. R. (eds.), Knowledge Acquisition From
Text and Pictures, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 157170.
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms in a Source Book for Gestalt
Psychology, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Winn, W. D. (1994). Contributions of perceptual and cognitive processes to the comprehension
of graphics. In Schnotz, W., and Kulhavy, R. (eds.), Comprehension of Graphics, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 327.