Probably Good Diagrams for Learning: Representational Epistemic Recodification of Probability Theory
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (3):475-498 (2011)
The representational epistemic approach to the design of visual displays and notation systems advocates encoding the fundamental conceptual structure of a knowledge domain directly in the structure of a representational system. It is claimed that representations so designed will benefit from greater semantic transparency, which enhances comprehension and ease of learning, and plastic generativity, which makes the meaningful manipulation of the representation easier and less error prone. Epistemic principles for encoding fundamental conceptual structures directly in representational schemes are described. The diagrammatic recodification of probability theory is undertaken to demonstrate how the fundamental conceptual structure of a knowledge domain can be analyzed, how the identified conceptual structure may be encoded in a representational system, and the cognitive benefits that follow. An experiment shows the new probability space diagrams are superior to the conventional approach for learning this conceptually challenging topic
|Keywords||Representation Diagrams Probability Problem solving Learning|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Peter C.‐H. Cheng (2002). Electrifying Diagrams for Learning: Principles for Complex Representational Systems. Cognitive Science 26 (6):685-736.
L. Cosmides (1996). Are Humans Good Intuitive Statisticians After All? Rethinking Some Conclusions From the Literature on Judgment Under Uncertainty. Cognition 58 (1):1-73.
Ruma Falk (1992). A Closer Look at the Probabilities of the Notorious Three Prisoners. Cognition 43 (3):197-223.
Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic & Amos Tversky (eds.) (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press.
Eldar Shafir (1994). Uncertainty and the Difficulty of Thinking Through Disjunctions. Cognition 50 (1-3):403-430.
Citations of this work BETA
Benjamin Sheredos, Daniel Burnston, Adele Abrahamsen & William Bechtel (2014). Why Do Biologists Use So Many Diagrams? Philosophy of Science 80 (5):931-944.
Similar books and articles
Chad Kidd (2011). Phenomenal Consciousness with Infallible Self-Representation. Philosophical Studies 152 (3):361-383.
Brent Mundy (1986). On the General Theory of Meaningful Representation. Synthese 67 (3):391 - 437.
Joël Bradmetz (2002). A Topological Model of Epistemic Intentionality. Axiomathes 13 (2):127-146.
Tomer Fekete (2010). Representational Systems. Minds and Machines 20 (1):69-101.
Michael D. Lee (2001). Extending Bayesian Concept Learning to Deal with Representational Complexity and Adaptation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (4):685-686.
Letitia Meynell (2008). Why Feynman Diagrams Represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (1):39 – 59.
Josef Perner & Zoltan Dienes (1999). Deconstructing RTK: How to Explicate a Theory of Implicit Knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):790-801.
Christopher D. Viger (2005). Learning to Think: A Response to the Language of Thought Argument for Innateness. Mind and Language 20 (3):313-25.
Fernando Martínez-Manrique (2010). On the Distinction Between Semantic and Conceptual Representation. Dialectica 64 (1):57-78.
Tarja Knuuttila (2011). Modelling and Representing: An Artefactual Approach to Model-Based Representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2):262-271.
Added to index2010-08-11
Total downloads8 ( #176,468 of 1,099,734 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #66,629 of 1,099,734 )
How can I increase my downloads?