Advertisement

The Importance of Both Diagrammatic Conventions and Domain-Specific Knowledge for Diagram Literacy in Science: The Hierarchy as an Illustrative Case

  • Laura R. Novick
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4045)

Abstract

As noted so eloquently by Lynch (1990), diagrams are critically important in science. Hegarty, Carpenter, and Just (1991) classified scientific diagrams into three categories: iconic, schematic, and charts and graphs. Iconic diagrams, such as photographs and line drawings, provide a depiction of concrete objects in which the spatial relations in the diagram are isomorphic to those in the referent object. Accurate representation of spatial relations can be critical, for example to distinguish the venomous coral snake from the similarly-colored non-venomous Arizona mountain king snake. In the life sciences, iconic representations help students understand the structure of objects that are not easily open to visual inspection. For example, side-by-side drawings of the stomachs of people and cows, with the parts labeled, would provide insight into why digestion works differently in these two taxa.

Keywords

Background Student Rock Hyrax Scientific Diagram Euler Circle Diagram Selection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Catley, K.M., Lehrer, R., Reiser, B.: Tracing a prospective learning progression for developing understanding of evolution. Paper Commissioned by the National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement (2005), a copy can be downloaded from, http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Evolution.pdf
  2. Catley, K.M., Novick, L.R.: Reasoning From Cladograms: A Comparison Across Levels of Biological Knowledge (manuscript) (in preparation, 2006) Google Scholar
  3. Day, R.S.: Alternative representations. In: Bower, G.H. (ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 22, pp. 261–305. Academic Press, San Diego (1988)Google Scholar
  4. Dufour-Janvier, B., Bednarz, N., Belanger, M.: Pedagogical considerations concerning the problem of representation. In: Janvier, C. (ed.) Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics, pp. 109–122. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1987)Google Scholar
  5. Gattis, M., Holyoak, K.J.: Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22, 231–239 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gauvain, M., de la Ossa, J.L., Hurtado-Ortiz, M.T.: Parental guidance as children learn to use cultural tools: The case of pictorial plans. Cognitive Development 16, 551–575 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P.A., Just, M.A.: Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In: Barr, R., Kamil, M.L., Mosenthal, P., Pearson, P.D. (eds.) Handbook of reading research, vol. 2, pp. 641–668. Longman, NY (1991)Google Scholar
  8. Hennig, W.: Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1966)Google Scholar
  9. Hurley, S.M., Novick, L.R.: Context and structure: The nature of students’ knowledge about three spatial diagram representations. Thinking & Reasoning (in press)Google Scholar
  10. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Sweller, J.: Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors 40, 1–17 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kindfield, A.C.H.: Biology diagrams: Tools to think with. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 3, 1–36 (1993/1994)Google Scholar
  12. Kozma, R.B., Russell, J.: Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34, 949–968 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lynch, M.: The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. In: Lynch, M., Woolgar, S. (eds.) Representation in scientific practice, pp. 153–186. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  14. Maienschein, J.: From presentation to representation in E. B. Wilson’s The Cell. Biology and Philosophy 6, 227–254 (1991)Google Scholar
  15. Mevarech, Z.R., Stern, E.: Interaction between knowledge and contexts on understanding abstract mathematical concepts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 65, 68–95 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and standards for school mathematics. Author, Reston, VA (2000)Google Scholar
  17. Novick, L.R.: Spatial diagrams: Key instruments in the toolbox for thought. In: Medin, D.L. (ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 40, pp. 279–325. Academic Press, San Diego (2001)Google Scholar
  18. Novick, L.R.: Diagram literacy in pre-service math teachers, computer science majors, and typical undergraduates: The case of matrices, networks, and hierarchies. Mathematical Thinking and Learning 6, 307–342 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Novick, L.R.: Understanding spatial diagram structure: An analysis of hierarchies, matrices, and networks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (in press)Google Scholar
  20. Novick, L.R., Catley, K.M.: The role of perceptual and conceptual principles in students’ ability to translate between alternative hierarchical forms: Evidence from cladograms in biology (manuscript) (in preparation, 2006)Google Scholar
  21. Novick, L.R., Hurley, S.M.: To matrix, network, or hierarchy: That is the question. Cognitive Psychology 42, 158–216 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Novick, L.R., Hurley, S.M., Francis, M.: Evidence for abstract, schematic knowledge of three spatial diagram representations. Memory & Cognition 27, 288–308 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Whitley, K.N., Novick, L.R., Fisher, D.: Evidence in favor of visual representation for the dataflow paradigm: An experiment testing LabVIEW’s comprehensibility. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 281–303 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Winn, W.: The design and use of instructional graphics. In: Mandl, H., Levin, J.R. (eds.) Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures, pp. 125–144. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zacks, J., Tversky, B.: Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Memory & Cognition 27, 1073–1079 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura R. Novick
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Psychology & Human DevelopmentVanderbilt UniversityNashville

Personalised recommendations