Conjoint retention of maps and related discourse

Kulhavy, Raymond W.; Lee, J.Brandon; Caterino, Linda C.

doi:10.1016/0361-476x(85)90003-7

Cited by 118 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Upon presentation of a knowledge map, it is hypothesized that both the spatial (perceptual and imagic) and verbal (syntactic and propositional) systems of the learner are activated. This dual-system distinction parallels that suggested by Paivio (1986) and Kulhavy et al (1985). Each system can contribute independently or interactively to overall processing.…”

Section: Preliminary Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 56%

Multirelational semantic maps

et al. 1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Preliminary Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 56%

Multirelational semantic maps

et al. 1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several authors have studied the processing of geographical maps in search of empirical support for Paivio's (1986) dual codification model. In fact, the early studies along these lines showed that processing maps requires dual -verbal and spatial-codification (Kulhavy, Lee and Caterino, 1985;Kulhavy, Stock, Peterson, Pridemore and Klein, 1992) and, in contrast to previous work, they focused on an analysis of the influence of different variables on the cognitive processing of maps.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

On the Road to Graphicacy: The learning of graphical representation systems

Postigo

Pozo

2004

Educational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esta es la versión de autor del artículo publicado en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in: El acceso a la versión del editor puede requerir la suscripción del recurso Access to the published version may require subscription ABSTRACTThis article examines the learning of different types of graphic information by subjects with different levels of education and knowledge of the content represented. Three levels of graphic information learning were distinguished (explicit, implicit and conceptual information processing) and two experiments conducted looking at graph and geographical map learning.The graph study (experiment 1) examined the influence of the variables' numerical relationship structure on adolescent students with different levels of education and knowledge of social sciences and also assessed their proportional reasoning skills. The map study (experiment 2) looked at the learning of a geographical map studied spontaneously by secondary school and university students with different geographical knowledge (experts and novices) and also assessed their spatial skills..The results of both studies show that graph and map learning performance improves with the subjects' educational level. The groups' differential performance varied according to the type of information involved (explicit, implicit or conceptual). The subjects' knowledge of the domain in question determined the level at which they processed the information. Verbal and superficial processing of graphic information were also found to predominate. This has important educational implications, suggesting the need for differential treatment in teaching of the different types of information. The results of the study also raise interesting issues regarding the type of expertise involved in learning graphic information: expertise related to the content represented, to knowledge of the syntax (graphicacy) and/or the system of knowledge graphically represented -spatial in the case of maps, numerical in the case of graphs.On the road to graphicacy 3

show abstract

“…Evidence from the cognitive sciences shows that visual displays do enhance learning (Vekiri, 2002;Winn, 1991). Visual mapping allows the separate encoding of information in memory in visual and well as propositional form, a phenomenon called "conjoint retention" or "dual coding" (Kulhavy, Lee, & Caterino, 1985;Paivio, 1971Paivio, , 1983Schwartz, 1988). In the former hypothesis, representations are encoded as separate intact units; in the latter, visual representations are synchronously organised and processed simultaneously and verbal representations are hierarchically organised and serially processed (Vekiri, 2002).…”

Section: The Effects Of Visual Mapping On Students' Critical Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%