Abstract
In two experiments, university students solved kinship problems as they studied family trees or lists of statements about who was whose parent. Subjects were given problems to solve requiring the application of rules to the statements or trees. In the first experiment, response latency was less for subjects seeing trees than for those seeing statements. It was also found that latency increased as the problems became more difficult. In the second experiment, response latencies for subjects seeing no rules were less on difficult problems than for subjects working with rules involving English and nonsense kinship terms. This difference disappeared with practice. These findings provided support for an account of diagram interpretation based on the facilitation of search and computation through the spatial arrangement of concepts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1982).Idea mapping: The technique and its use in the classroom, or simulating the “ups” and “downs” of reading comprehension. Reading Education Report #36. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Center for the Study of Reading.
Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1984). Mapping: Representing informative text graphically. In C. D. Holley & D. F. Dansereau (Eds.),Spatial learning strategies. New York: Academic Press.
Carrier, C., Post, T. R., & Heck, W. (1985). Using microcomputers with fourth-grade students to reinforce arithmetic skills.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 45–51.
DeKleer, J., & Brown, J. S. (1981). Mental models of physical mechanisms and their acquisition. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.),Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ericsson, K. A., & Polson, P. G. (1988). A cognitive analysis of exceptional memory for restaurant orders. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.),The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data.Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.
Greeno, J. G. (1989). Situations, mental models, and generative knowledge. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.),Complex information processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Guri-Rozenblit, S. (1988a). Impact of diagrams on recalling sequential elements in expository texts.Reading Psychology, 9, 121–139.
Guri-Rozenblit, S. (1988b). The interrelationships between diagrammatic representations and verbal explanations in learning from social science texts.Instructional Science, 17, 219–234.
Holliday, W. G., Brunner, L. L., & Donais, E. L. (1977). Differential cognitive and affective responses to flow diagrams in science.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 129–138.
Hughes, R. E. (1988).Radial outlining: An instructional tool for teaching information processing. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Johnson, D. D., Pittelman, S. D., & Heimlich, J. E. (1986). Semantic mapping.The Reading Teacher, 39, 778–783.
Jonassen, D., & Hawk, P. (1984). Using graphic organizers in instruction.Information Design Journal, 4, 58–68.
Kirk, R. E. (1968).Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Larkin, J. H. (1989). Display-based problem solving. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.),Complex information processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words.Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
Milliken, G. A., & Johnson, D. E. (1984).Analysis of messy data, Volume 1: Designed experiments. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Moore, D. W., & Readance, J. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research.Journal of Educational Research, 78, 11–17.
Pomerantz, J. R. (1981). Perceptual organization in information processing. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.),Perceptual organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pomerantz, J. R., Pristach, E. A., & Carson, C. E. (1989). Attention and object perception. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.),Object perception: Structure and process. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pomerantz, J. R., & Schwaitzberg, S. D. (1975). Grouping by proximity: Selective attention measures.Perception and Psychophysics, 18, 355–361.
Rock, I. (1986). The description and analysis of object and event perception. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.),The handbook of perception and human performance, Volume 2.
Schwartz, R. M., & Raphael, T. E. (1985). Concept of definition: A key to improving students' vocabulary.The Reading Teacher, 39, 198–205.
Simon, H. A. (1989). The scientist as problem solver. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.),Complex information processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G. (1973). Skill in chess.American Scientist, 61, 394–403.
Wertheimer, M. (1938).Laws of organization in perceptual forms in a source book for Gestalt Psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Winn, W. D. (1980). The effect of block-word diagrams on the structuring of concepts as a function of general ability.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 201–211.
Winn, W. D., & Sutherland, S. W. (1989). Factors influencing the recall of elements in maps and diagrams and the strategies used to encode them.Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 33–39.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Data from the first experiment reported here were presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, March 1989.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Winn, W., Li, TZ. & Schill, D. Diagrams as aids to problem solving: Their role in facilitating search and computation. ETR&D 39, 17–29 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298104
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298104