http://cogprints.org/904/3/hollywoodsquares.pdf

Representation, space and Hollywood Squares: looking at things that aren't there anymore

Interactive wayfinding: Use of cues by men and women

In recent years, advances in computer software have made it possible for persons with little knowledge of text design to construct graphic organizers (GOs) with the intention of helping students learn more effectively from textbooks. Consequently, the use of GOs in textbooks has increased dramatically. Unfortunately, the guidelines used in constructing GOs have not been based on empirical evidence, but rather on the authors’ intuition. This is probably due to the lack of consensus among educators regarding what makes a GO effective, because GO research has been nonsystematic. This paper provides a rationale for the use of GOs, traces their history and development, reviews sixteen studies that have used GOs as text adjuncts, and, unlike other recent reviews of GOs, discusses limitations that have made GO research nonsystematic and provides suggestions for how future research may answer the question, “How should GOs be constructed for use in classrooms?”

Graphic organizers as aids to text learning

Hasher and Zacks (1979) claimed that spatial location information is automatically encoded. Evaluation of the empirical basis for this claim, however, casts doubt on some of the evidence for the automaticity position. This evaluation led to four experiments in which five criteria for testing the automaticity of cognitive processes were examined using a recognition task. Results of these experiments clearly show thatrecognition memory for spatial location information is influenced by intention, age of subjects, competing task loads, practice, and individual differences. The reported results, which extend those reported by Naveh-Benjamin (1987) for spatial locationrecall memory, are at odds with the claim that memory for spatial location information is exclusively mediated by automatic encoding processes. The concept of automaticity and the appropriateness of the criteria suggested for testing the automaticity of cognitive processes are discussed in light of the current results and recent findings on other features of the environment (e.g., frequency of occurrence) previously claimed to be automatically encoded.

/pdf/recognition-memory-of-spatial-location-information-another-3f5z7khzdx.pdf

Recognition memory of spatial location information: another failure to support automaticity

Six experiments were conducted to test whether the spatial properties of cognitive maps constructed from verbal descriptions are similar to those of representations derived from visual experience. Data from spatial priming, distance comparison, and mental scanning experiments all suggest that people are able to convert verbal descriptions of configurations into mental representations that reflect the spatial extension of these configurations. In addition, cognitive maps constructed from descriptions exhibit reliable metric properties which make them structurally isomorphic to the corresponding spatial configurations.

Analog properties of cognitive maps constructed from verbal descriptions

Four experiments examine whether spatial location information is more likely to be encoded with the memory representation of objects than of words. Sixteen objects or the one-word verbal labels for each were studied on a matrix display, followed by a recall test and then a relocation test. In each experiment, an independent variable known to affect item recall was introduced to test whether spatial location memory would concern itantly vary for both objects and words. In Experiment 1, recall of both objects and words increased with age of the subjects. However, relocation accuracy increased for objects but not for words. In Experiment 2, visual imagery instructions generally improved memory for words without affecting relocation accuracy. In Experiments 3 and 4, prolonging the test delay diminished recall for objects and words. However, relocation accuracy decreased only for the objects. In each experiment, item memory was affected independently of location memory for words but not for objects. The results suggest that different processes are involved in encoding item and location information for words but not for objects.

Kelly Godfrey Sobolik

Papers

Spatial Memory for Objects and Words