Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Spatial Analogy to Facilitate Graph Learning

  • Conference paper
Spatial Cognition VIII (Spatial Cognition 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 7463))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Graphical depictions of complex interactions pose a challenge to spatial reasoning. In this research, we tested whether analogical processes can be harnessed to help students learn to solve complex graphical reasoning problems. Specifically, we asked whether a brief training experience using spatial analogies could help students learn about stock-and-flow graphs. The basic idea of our intervention was to juxtapose contrastive graphs and encourage students to compare them. In two studies, we test the following predictions derived from structural alignment theories of analogy: (1) comparing contrastive graphs during training will lead to better performance in a graph-understanding task than will studying the same exemplars sequentially; and (2) comparing high-similarity pairs will lead to better performance than will comparing low similarity pairs. The results support both of these predictions, indicating that even a brief analogical comparison task can confer relational insight. Further, these results corroborate prior evidence that a structural alignment process underlies analogical comparison.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gentner, D.: The development of relational category knowledge. In: Gershkoff-Stowe, L., Rakison, D.H. (eds.) Building Object Categories in Developmental Time, pp. 245–275. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Namy, L.L., Gentner, D.: Making a silk purse out of two sow’s ears: Young children’s use of comparison in category learning. J. Experimental Psychology: General 131(1), 5–15 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Star, J.R., Rittle-Johnson, B.: It pays to compare: An experimental study on computational estimation. J. Experimental Child Psychology 101, 408–426 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L.: Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. J. of Educational Psychology 95(2), 393–405 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Loewenstein, J., Gentner, D.: Spatial mapping in preschoolers: Close comparisons facilitate far mappings. J. of Cognition and Development 2(2), 189–219 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gentner, D.: Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7(2), 155–170 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gentner, D., Markman, A.B.: Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52, 45–56 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gick, M.L., Holyoak, K.J.: Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology 15(1), 1–38 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gentner, D.: Why we’re so smart. In: Gentner, D., Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.) Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, pp. 195–235. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gentner, D.: Bootstrapping children’s learning: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science 34(5), 752–775 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Christie, S., Gentner, D.: Where hypotheses come from: Learning new relations by structural alignment. J. Cognition and Development 11(3), 356–373 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gentner, D., Medina, J.: Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition 65, 263–297 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Markman, A.B., Gentner, D.: Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology 25, 431–467 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gentner, D., Gunn, V.: Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Memory and Cognition 29(4), 565–577 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gentner, D., Markman, A.B.: Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science 5(3), 152–158 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Markman, A.B., Gentner, D.: Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. J. Memory and Language 32, 517–535 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gentner, D., Sagi, E.: Does “different” imply a difference? A comparison of two tasks. In: Sun, R., Miyake, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 261–266. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Carpenter, P., Shah, P.: A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. J. Experimental Psychology: Applied 4, 75–100 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tversky, B.: Spatial schemas in depictions. In: Gattis, M. (ed.) Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought, pp. 79–111. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pinker, S.: A theory of graph comprehension. In: Freedle, R. (ed.) Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing, pp. 73–126. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gattis, M.: Mapping relational structure in spatial reasoning. Cognitive Science 28(4), 589–610 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bell, A., Janvier, C.: The interpretation of graphs representing situations. For the Learning of Mathematics 2(1), 34–42 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Booth Sweeney, L., Sterman, J.D.: Bathtub Dynamics: Initial Results of a Systems Thinking Inventory. System Dynamics Review 16, 249–294 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Culbertson, H.M., Powers, R.D.: A study of graph comprehension difficulties. AV Communication Review 7, 97–110 (1959)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gattis, M., Holyoak, K.J.: Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. J. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22, 231–239 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., Mayer, R.E.: Revising the visualizer/verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction 20, 47–77 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Maichle, U.: Cognitive processes in understanding line graphs. In: Schnotz, W., Kulhavy, R.W. (eds.) Comprehension of Graphics, pp. 207–226. Elsevier Science, New York (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Shah, P., Carpenter, P.A.: Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. J. Experimental Psychology: General 124, 43–61 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sterman, J.D., Booth Sweeney, L.: Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming. System Dynamics Review 18, 207–240 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sterman, J.D., Booth Sweeney, L.: Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults’ Mental Models of Climate Change Violate Conservation of Matter. Climatic Change 80, 213–238 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cronin, M.A., Gonzalez, C., Sterman, J.D.: Why don’t well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108, 116–130 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cronin, M., Gonzalez, C.: Understanding the building blocks of system dynamics. System Dynamics Review 23(1), 1–17 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pala, Ö., Vennix, J.A.M.: Effect of system dynamics education on systems thinking inventory task performance. System Dynamics Review 21(2), 147–172 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Catrambone, R., Holyoak, K.J.: Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. J. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15(6), 1147–1156 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gentner, D., Namy, L.: Comparison in the development of categories. Cognitive Development 14, 487–513 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mutafchieva, M., Kokinov, B.: Does the family analogy help young children to do relational mapping? In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Science, pp. 407–412. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., Hung, B.: Comparison facilitates children’s learning of names for parts. J. Cognition and Development 8, 285–307 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gentner, D., Ratterman, M.J., Forbus, K.D.: The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology 25, 524–575 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gentner, D., Toupin, C.: Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy. Cognitive Science 10, 277–300 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Paik, J.H., Mix, K.S.: Preschooler’s use of surface similarity in object comparisons: Taking context into account.  J. Experimental Child Psychology 95(3), 194–214 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Richland, L.E., Morrison, R.G., Holyoak, K.J.: Children’s Development of Analogical Reasoning: Insights from Scene Analogy Problems. J. Experimental Child Psychology 94, 246–273 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gentner, D., Kurtz, K.: Relations, objects, and the composition of analogies. Cognitive Science 30, 609–642 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gentner, D., Levine, S., Dhillon, S., Poltermann, A.: Using structural alignment to facilitate learning of spatial concepts in an informal setting. In: Kokinov, B., Holyoak, K.J., Gentner, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Analogy. NBU Press, Sofia (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kurtz, K.J., Miao, C., Gentner, D.: Learning by analogical bootstrapping. J. Learning Sciences 10(4), 417–446 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1980)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, 2029 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA

    Linsey A. Smith & Dedre Gentner

Authors
  1. Linsey A. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dedre Gentner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Science, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Georges-Koehler-Allee 79, 79110, Freiburg, Germany

    Cyrill Stachniss

  2. Cognitive Neuroinformatics, University of Bremen, Enrique-Schmidt-Str. 5, 28359, Bremen, Germany

    Kerstin Schill

  3. Department of Psychology and School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, 2029 Sheridan Road, 60208-2710, Evanston, IL, USA

    David Uttal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Smith, L.A., Gentner, D. (2012). Using Spatial Analogy to Facilitate Graph Learning. In: Stachniss, C., Schill, K., Uttal, D. (eds) Spatial Cognition VIII. Spatial Cognition 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7463. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32732-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32732-2_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32731-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32732-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation