SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Åberg-Bengtsson, L. (1998). Entering a graphicate society: Young children learning graphs and charts (Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 127). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
  • Åberg-Bengtsson, L. (1999). Dimensions of performance in the interpretation of diagrams, tables, and maps: Some gender differences in the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 565582.
  • Åberg-Bengtsson, L. (in press). Separating quantitative and analytic dimensions in the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
  • Åberg-Bengtsson, L. & Erickson, G. (2004). Dimensions of national test performance in language and mathematics: A two-level approach. Manuscript submitted.
  • Åberg-Bengtsson, L. & Ottosson, T. (2004). Students' ways of making sense of line graphs and scatter plots in open-ended questions. Manuscript submitted.
  • Ainley, J. (2000). Transparency in graphs and graphing tasks: An iterative design process. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 365384.
  • Andersson, A. (1998). The dimensionality of the leaving certificate in the Swedish compulsory school. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 42, 2540.
  • Arbuckle, J.L. (1997). Amos users' guide, version 3.6. Chicago, IL: Small Waters Corporation.
  • Beniger, J.R. & Robyn, D.L. (1978). Quantitative graphics in statistics: A brief history. The American Statistician, 32, 111.
  • Berg, C.A. & Smith, P. (1994). Assessing students' abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple choice and free response instruments. Science Education, 78, 527554.
  • Bowen, G.M., Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M.K. (1999). Interpretation of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Toward a social practice view of scientific practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 10201043.
  • Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A.Bollen & J.S.Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clement, J. (1989). The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11, 7787.
  • Eriksson, L. (1998). Världen i siffror: Upplaga 98 [The world in numbers: Year 1998.] (6th ed.) Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
  • Goldberg, F.M. & Anderson, J.H. (1989). Student difficulties with graphical representations of negative values of velocity. Physics Teacher, 27, 254260.
  • Guthrie, J.T., Weber, S., & Kimmerly, N. (1993). Searching documents: Cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 186221.
  • Gustafsson, J.-E. (1988a). Hierarchical models of individual differences and cognitive abilities. In R.J.Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence ( vol. 4, pp. 3571). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Gustafsson, J.-E. (1988b). Models of intelligence. In P.J.Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 437441). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  • Gustafsson, J.-E. & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 407434.
  • Gustafsson, J.-E. & Stahl, P.A. (2000). STREAMS user's guide: Version 2.5 for Windows. Mölndal, Sweden: MultivariateWare.
  • Gustafsson, J.-E. & Undheim, J.O. (1996). Individual differences in cognitive functions. In D.C.Berliner & R.C.Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 186242). New York: Macmillan.
  • Gustafsson, J.-E. Wedman, I., & Westerlund, A. (1992). The dimensionality of the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 2139.
  • Halpern, D.K. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Horn, J.L. & Cattell, R.B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253270.
  • Jones, G.A., Thornton, C.A., Langrall, C.W., Mooney, E.S., Wares, A., Perry, B., & Putt, I. (2000). A framework for characterizing children's statistical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2, 269307.
  • Jöreskog, K.G. & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user's reference guide (2nd ed.) Chicago: Scientific Software International.
  • Kealy, W.A. & Webb, J.M. (1995). Contextual influences of maps and diagrams on learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 340358.
  • Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K.Hart (Ed.), Children's understanding of mathematics: 1–16 (pp. 120136). London: John Murray.
  • Köhler, P.O. (1994). Skolans tabeller: Tabeller och diagram för grundskolans orienteringsämnen [School statistics: Tables and diagrams for social subjects in primary school] (2nd ed.) Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
  • Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R.E. (2002). Revising the visualizer–verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 4777.
  • Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M.K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 164.
  • Lewandowsky, S. & Spence, I. (1989). The perception of statistical graphs. Sociological Methods and Research, 18, 200242.
  • Lindwall, O. (1998). Samarbete och problemlösande i mikrodatorbaserade laborationer [Collaboration and problem solving in micro computer based laboratory lessons] (Magisteruppsatser från Tema K, 1998:2). Linköping: Linköping University, Tema K.
  • Lindwall, O. & Ivarsson, J. (2004). What makes the subject matter matter? Contrasting probeware with graphs & tracks. Manuscript submitted.
  • Linn, M.C., Layman, J.W., & Nachmias, R. (1987). Cognitive consequences of microcomputer-based laboratories: Graphing skills development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 244253.
  • Lowe, R.K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157176.
  • Nemirovsky, R. & Noble, T. (1997). On mathematical visualization and the place where we live. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 99131.
  • Nemirovsky, R. & Tierney, C. (2001). Children creating ways to represent changing situations: On the development of homogenous space. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45, 67102.
  • Nemirosky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 119172.
  • Ottosson, T. (1987). Map-reading and wayfinding (Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 65). Göteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
  • Ottosson, T. (1988). What does it take to read a map? Cartographica, 25, 2835.
  • Ottosson, T. & Åberg-Bengtsson, L. (1995, August). Children's understanding of graphically represented quantitative information. Paper presented at the sixth EARLI conference, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
  • Preece, J. (1983). Graphs are not straightforward. In T.R.G.Green, S.J.Payne, & G.C.van der Veer (Eds.), The psychology of computer use (pp. 4156). London: Academic Press.
  • Roth, W.-M. (2003). Toward an anthropology of graphing: Semiotic and activity theoretic perspectives. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Roth, W.-M. & McGinn, M.K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68, 3559.
  • Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141156.
  • Skolverket [the Swedish National Agency for Education]. (2003). The Swedish school system. [From the official homepage of the Swedish National Agency for Education.] Available: http://www.skolverket.se/english/system/index.shtml (June 2003).
  • Stage, F.K. (1990). LISREL: An introduction and application in higher education research. In J.Smart (Ed.), Higher education handbook of theory and research ( vol. 6). New York: Agathon Press.
  • Tufte, E.R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
  • Verdi, M.P., Kulhavy, R.W., Stock, W.A., Rittschof, K.A., & Johnson, J.T. (1996). Text learning using scientific diagrams: Implications for classroom use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 487499.
  • Veriki, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychological Review, 14, 261312.
  • Wainer, H. (1980). A test of graphicacy in children. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 331340.
  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 211247.
  • Winn, W. (1993). An account of how readers search for information in diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 162185.
  • Winn, W. & Holliday, W. (1982). Design principles for diagrams and charts. In P.H.Jonassen (Ed.), The technology of texts ( vol. 1, pp. 277299). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.