Abstract
Visuo-spatial text adjuncts such as static or animated pictures, geographic maps, thematic maps, graphs, and knowledge maps that have been analyzed in the articles contained in this special issue provide complex pictorial information that complements the verbal information of texts. These spatial text adjuncts are considered as depictive representations that can support communication, thinking, and learning. An essential precondition of this supportive function is that the visuo-spatial displays interact appropriately with human visual perception and the individual's cognitive system, which is characterized by prior knowledge, cognitive abilities, and learning skills. Accordingly, effective learning with visuo-spatial text adjuncts can be fostered by instructional design and by adequate processing strategies, both dependent on sufficient understanding of how the human cognitive system interacts with these displays. Perspectives for further research in this area are provided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Comput. Educ. 33: 131–152.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory, Science 255: 556–559.
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: 293–332.
Clark, J. M., and Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 3: 149–210.
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K. D., and Gentner, D. (1989-90). The structure-mapping enginge: Algorithm and examples. Artif. Intell. 41: 1–63.
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: 439–462.
Garrod, S.C. (1985). Incremental pragmatic interpretation versus occasional inferencing during fluent reading. In Rickheit, G., and Strohner, H. (eds.), Inferences inText Processing, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 161–181.
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. 197–241.
Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., and Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 48: 163–189.
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:Atheoretical analysis. J. Mem. Lang. 29: 133–159.
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. 351–381.
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: 261–272.
Kulhavy, R.W., Stock, W. A., and Kealy, W. A. (1993). How geographic maps increase recall of instructional text. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 41: 47–62.
Larkin, J. H., and Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn. Sci. 11: 65–99.
Levie, H. W., and Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educ. Commun. Technol. J. 30: 195–232.
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. 51–86.
Lowe, R. K. (1993). Constructing a mental representation from an abstract technical diagram. Learn. Instr. 3(3): 157–179.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educ. Psychol. 32: 1–19.
Mokros, J. R., and Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 24(4): 369–383.
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. 259–303.
Peirce, C. S. (1906). Prolegomena to an apology for pragmaticism. Monist 492-546.
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. 73–126.
Schmalhofer, F., and Glavanov, D. (1986). Three components of understanding a programmer's 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: 247–249.
Schnotz, W. (1994). Aufbau vonWissenstrukturen. Untersuchungen zur Kohärenzbildung 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 Learning–Cognitive and Instructional Issues, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 9–29.
Schnotz, W., and Bannert, M. (1999). Support and interference effects in learning from multiple representations. In Bagnara, S. (ed.), European Conference on Cognitive Science, 27th-30th 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: 417–447.
Shuell, T. J. (1988). The role of the student in the learning from instruction. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 13: 276–295.
Sims, V. K., and Hegarty, M. (1997). Mental animation in the visuospatial sketchpad: Evidence from dual-tasks studies. Mem. Cogn. 25: 321–332.
Tufte, E. R. (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT.
Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition 18: 97–159.
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): 14–23.
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. 157–170.
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. 3–27.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schnotz, W. Commentary: Towards an Integrated View of Learning from Text and Visual Displays. Educational Psychology Review 14, 101–120 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013136727916
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013136727916