Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198

www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc

DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with

multiple representations
Shaaron Ainsworth*
School of Psychology and Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

Abstract

Multiple (external) representations can provide unique benefits when people are learning complex new ideas. Unfortunately,
many studies have shown this promise is not always achieved. The DeFT (Design, Functions, Tasks) framework for learning
with multiple representations integrates research on learning, the cognitive science of representation and constructivist theories
of education. It proposes that the effectiveness of multiple representations can best be understood by considering three fundamental
aspects of learning: the design parameters that are unique to learning with multiple representations; the functions that multiple rep-
resentations serve in supporting learning and the cognitive tasks that must be undertaken by a learner interacting with multiple
representations. The utility of this framework is proposed to be in identifying a broad range of factors that influence learning, rec-
onciling inconsistent experimental findings, revealing under-explored areas of multi-representational research and pointing forward
to potential design heuristics for learning with multiple representations.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multiple representations; Diagrams; Pictures; Multimedia

1. Introduction

Research on learning with representations has shown that when learners can interact with an appropriate repre-
sentation their performance is enhanced. Recently, attention has been focused on learning with more than one
representation, seemingly predicated on the notion ‘that two representations are better than one’. Yet, as research
on learning with multiple external representations (MERs) has matured, it is increasingly recognised that the issue
is not whether MERs are effective but rather concerns the circumstances that influence the effectiveness of MERs
(see Goldman, 2003).
The most common approach to considering the effectiveness of representations emphasises the sensory channel
and/or the modality of the representations (i.e. either auditory/visual, or textual/pictorial). Two theories that are
particularly associated with this approach are the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (e.g., Mayer,
1997) and Cognitive Load theory (e.g., Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998). They share a focus on the nature
of working memory (and its relation to long term memory) with its multiple, modality-specific limited capacity
subsystems. Presenting information in multiple modalities is advantageous to learners who actively process such

* Tel.: þ44 115 9515314; fax: þ44 115 9515324.

E-mail address: shaaron.ainsworth@nottingham.ac.uk

0959-4752/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
184 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198

information. Schnotz (2002; Schnotz & Bannert, 2003) focuses not on pictures and text per se, but on depictive
(iconic) and descriptive (symbolic) representations. In this approach, mapping happens at the level of mental
model construction and what results is not an integrated representation but complementary representations that
can communicate with one another.
The purpose of this paper is to present an alternative approach addressing different aspects of learning with rep-
resentations. Instead of focusing on the form of the representational system, it suggests that there are a number of
additional design factors that should be considered. Given its wider scope it is premature to advance design principles.
So instead of proposing predictive guidance, it aims to suggest a complementary set of factors that should guide re-
search into the design of effective multi-representational software. Thus, this paper serves as a review of research on
MERs, an argument about the importance of acknowledging a wide range of factors that influence learning with MERs
and some proposed applications of this approach.
The DeFT (Design, Functions, Tasks) framework suggests that many dimensions combine to influence whether
someone will be able to benefit from learning with a particular combination of representations. The dimensions con-
sidered in DeFT are the design parameters that are unique to learning with more than one representation, the different
pedagogical functions that MERs can play, and the cognitive tasks that must be undertaken by a learner when inter-
acting with MERs. This framework has been developed by reviewing a broad range of current research from a variety
of perspectives (e.g., cognitive psychology/science, education, artificial intelligence, and curriculum studies), address-
ing methodologies such as case studies, experiments and computational modelling, and from empirical work con-
ducted in domains such as mathematics, physics, biology, and alchemy.
Understanding the role played by MERs first requires understanding how external representations influence learn-
ing. Consequently, this paper begins by briefly describing the design factors that DeFT addresses before turning to the
advantages of employing the right representation (the functions aspect of the framework) and cognitive tasks associ-
ated with learning with a single external representation (tasks). Then these same issues are reconsidered addressing
learning with multiple representations. The final section reviews how DeFT might be applied to increase understand-
ing of the impact of different designs on learning with MERs.

2. Design parameters in DeFT

There are a number of ways to design multi-representational systems that influence the processes and outcomes of
learning. Systems differ in their content, in the target users of the system and in the teaching strategies they employ.
Often there are specific reasons to use a particular representation. An external representation consists of (1) the rep-
resented world, (2) the representing world, (3) what aspects of the represented world are being represented, (4) what
aspects of the representing world are doing the modelling and (5) the correspondence between the two worlds (Palmer,
1977). So when considering the effectiveness of a representation both the information provided in the representation
(represented world) and the way it is presented (representing world) must be considered. Consequently, designing ef-
fective representations is substantial endeavour in its own right. However, there are a set of design dimensions that
uniquely apply to multi-representational systems and it is these that are reviewed here: (a) number of representations;
(b) the way that information is distributed; (c) form of the representational system; (d) sequence of representations;
and (e) support for translation between representations.
Number: Multi-representational systems employ at least two representations, but commonly many more are avail-
able, either simultaneously or at some point during a learner’s interaction with a system.
Information: Multi-representational systems allow flexibility in the way that information is distributed over repre-
sentations, impacting both upon the complexity of each representation and the redundancy of information between
representations. At one extreme, each representation can convey completely different content (refer to different rep-
resented worlds). In this case, there is no redundancy across representations. Distributing information in this way sim-
plifies each representation but at the cost of requiring additional representations, which learners may then be required
to integrate. Systems can also be partially redundant, so that some of the information is constant across (some of) the
representations. Finally, each representation can express the same information and so the only difference between rep-
resentations is in their computational properties (representing worlds).
Form: A typical multi-media system can display pictures, text, animations, sound, equations, and graphs e a key
question is whether it should. Much research has focussed on heterogeneous systems e ones that combine text and
graphics (Mayer, 1997; Schnotz, 2002) or multi-sensory systems such as written text or pictures presented with
 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198 185

spoken narration (Kalyuga, 2000). However, form can refer to many different aspects of representations such as di-
mensionality, abstraction or dynamism. Consequently, much is still unknown about how the form of a representational
system influences learning. Unfortunately, it is not sufficient to consider each type of representation in isolation e
representations interact with one another in a form of ‘‘representational chemistry’’. As a result, there is a potentially
vast space to explore.
Sequence: If not all representations are drawn upon simultaneously, a number of further issues arise. The first issue
is the sequence in which the representations should be presented or constructed and even if this is known, the learner or
the system still needs decide at what point to add a new representation or switch between the representations.
Translation: Computerised environments have a wide variety of ways to indicate the relation between representa-
tions. Two dimensions have received some attention. Firstly, how active a role the environment plays in supporting
learners. Secondly, whether support is provided at the syntactic level or the semantic level (also called surface and
deep levels, or representation and domain levels (Seufert & Brünken, 2004).
In the next sections, the pedagogical functions and cognitive tasks associated with learning with one representation
and then with multiple representations are considered. Subsequently, these dimensions are reconsidered to examine if
considering learning in this way helps designers with these complex decisions.

3. Learning with an external representation

3.1. The functions of an appropriate representation

There is abundant evidence showing the advantages that external representations play in supporting learning. Much
research has shown that matching the type of representation to the learning demands of the situation can significantly
improve performance and understanding. Scaife and Rogers (1996) proposed that external representations differ in
their advantages for learning by varying the extent to which they support computational offloading, re-representation
or graphical constraining. Consequently, combinations of representations can play a number of functions in supporting
learning (discussed in detail in Section 5).
Computational offloading is the extent to which different external representations reduce the amount of cognitive
effort required to solve equivalent problems. Larkin and Simon (1987) argue that representations that are information-
ally equivalent still differ in their computational properties. For example, diagrams can exploit perceptual processes
by grouping together relevant information so making search and recognition easier.
Re-representation refers to the way that external representations that have the same abstract structure differentially
influence problem solving. Zhang and Norman (1994) showed that problem solving with isomorphic versions of the
Towers of Hanoi was enhanced when representations externalised more information. By utilizing external perceptual
processes rather than cognitive operations, graphical representations can often be more effective.
Graphical constraining describes the limits on the range of inferences that can be made about the represented con-
cept. Stenning and Oberlander (1995) argue that text permits expression of ambiguity in a way that graphics cannot
easily accommodate. It is this lack of expressiveness that makes diagrams more effective for solving determinate prob-
lems. Schnotz (2002) makes a similar point when emphasising the distinction between descriptive (symbolic) and de-
pictive (iconic) representations. Thus, depictive representations are most useful to provide concrete information and
are often efficient as specific information can just be read off. Alternatively, descriptive representations can more eas-
ily express abstract information as well as more general negations and disjunctions.

3.2. Cognitive tasks involved in learning with an external representations

Unfortunately, the benefits of an appropriate representation do not come for free. Learners are faced with complex
learning tasks when they are first presented with a novel representation. They must understand how it encodes infor-
mation and how it relates to the domain it represents. In addition, learners may need to select an appropriate repre-
sentation or to construct one for themselves, which can provide advantages but also new cognitive tasks. The
following sections describe these cognitive tasks and the problems learners can face in mastering them. It should
be noted that although these cognitive tasks are presented in sequence, it is not meant to imply that learners would
approach the task of understanding a new representation in this same order.
186 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198

3.2.1. Learners should understand the form of representation

Learners must know how a representation encodes and presents information (the ‘format’). In the case of a graph,
the format would be attributes such as lines, labels, and axes. They must also learn what the ‘operators’ are for a given
representation. For a graph, operators to be learnt include how to find the gradients of lines, maxima and minima, and
intercepts.
A number of studies have shown how complex this is (e.g., Friel, Curcio, & Bright, 2001). Children have difficulty
in applying and understanding the format and operators of graphs. They may have trouble with reading and plotting
points, interpret intervals as points, or confuse gradients with maxima and minima. Petre and Green (1993) describe
some similar effects with adults using a visual interface. Novices lacked proficiency in secondary notation (i.e., per-
ceptual cues that are not described by the formal semantics of a representation) and found navigation of graphical
representations difficult as they don’t have the required reading and search strategies.
Additionally, the operators of one representation are often used inappropriately to interpret a different representa-
tion e for example, when graphs are interpreted iconically, learners use the operators for pictures (e.g., Leinhardt,
Zaslavsky, & Stein, 1990). When learners are given a velocityetime graph of a cyclist travelling over a hill, they
should select a U shaped graph, yet many show a preference for graphs with a hill shaped curve. Elby (2000) proposes
that in many of these cases learners tend to rely on an intuitive knowledge element, what-you-see-is-what-you-get, and
that this is cued by the most compelling visual attribute of a representation (e.g., straight lines mean constancy, hill
shape means hill). Learning to interpret a representation can involve learning to ignore this intuition.

3.2.2. Learners should understand the relation between the representation and the domain
Interpretation of representations is an inherently contextualised activity (Roth & Bowen, 2001) as learners must
also come to understand the relation between the representation and the domain that it represents. This task will be
particularly difficult for learning, as opposed to problem solving or professional practise, as this understanding must
be forged upon incomplete domain knowledge. Learners need to determine which operators to apply to a represen-
tation to retrieve the relevant domain information. For example, when attempting to read the velocity of an object
from a distanceetime graph, children often examine the height of line, rather than its gradient (Leinhardt et al.,
1990). These problems do not only arise with abstract representations. Boulton-Lewis and Halford (1990) point
out that even concrete representation such as Dienes blocks and fingers still need to be mapped to domain knowl-
edge. Processing loads may be too high for children to obtain the anticipated benefits of such apparently simple
representations.

3.2.3. Learners may need to understand how to select an appropriate representation

In some situations learners select a representation that they find most appropriate, and so they may have to consider
factors such as the representation and task characteristics as well as individual preferences. There is evidence that
learners can select effective representations. Zacks and Tversky (1999) found that people were successful at choosing
bar graphs to represent discrete comparisons between data points and line graphs to depict trends. Novick, Hurley, and
Francis (1999) found that students were able to choose which of hierarchical, matrix or network representations was
most appropriate to represent the structure of a story problem. diSessa (2004) argues that students often have a deep
meta-representational competence which includes their abilities to judge the value of representations along such
dimensions as epistemic fidelity, compactness, parsimony, systematicity and conventionality. However, there may
well be individual differences in insight into the effectiveness of representations (Roberts, Gilmore, & Wood,
1997). Selecting appropriate representations will be more difficult for novices than experts as they can lack under-
standing of the deep nature of the tasks they are trying to solve (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981). Indeed one charac-
teristic of expertise is the knowledge of what representations are appropriate for what tasks (Kozma & Russell, 1997).
One key unsolved issue is how explicitly these skills should be taught; with some researchers arguing that teaching is
crucial (McKendree, Small, Stenning, & Conlon, 2002).

3.2.4. Learners may need to understand how to construct an appropriate representation

In many situations learners may construct or even invent a representation rather than interpret a presented repre-
sentation. Indeed, diSessa (2004) argues that learners are often strikingly good at designing their own representations.
Furthermore, even if learners construct their representations inaccurately, they sometimes still draw the correct infer-
ence even so (Cox & Brna, 1995). There is evidence that creating representations can lead to a better understanding of
 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198 187

the situation. Grossen and Carnine (1990) found that children learned to solve logic problems more effectively if they
drew their responses to problems rather than selected a pre-drawn diagram. This may in part be due to the support they
were provided with during the construction process. Van Meter (2001) found that drawing was most helpful in learn-
ing from science texts when students were prompted with guidance questions whilst creating diagrams. However,
there is unlikely to be a simple relationship between interpretation and construction of a representation. Cox and
Brna gave students reasoning problems which could be solved with Euler diagrams. They found six students made
errors in constructing representations but not in interpreting them, and four students made errors in interpreting
diagrams but not in constructing them.

4. Learning with multiple representations

Early research on learning with MERs concentrated on the ways that presenting pictures alongside text could im-
prove readers’ memory for text comprehension (e.g., Levin, Anglin, & Carney, 1987). In the last two decades, the
explosive increase in multi-media learning environments have widened the debate to include combinations of repre-
sentations such as diagrams, equations, tables, text, graphs, animations, sound, video, and dynamic simulations. Fur-
thermore, a number of influential educational theories discuss the importance of MERs. For example, Dienes (1973)
argues that perceptual variability (the same concepts represented in varying ways) provides learners with the oppor-
tunity to build abstractions about mathematical concepts. In cognitive flexibility theory, the ability to construct and
switch between multiple perspectives of a domain is fundamental to successful learning (Spiro & Jehng, 1990).
Research on analogical reasoning shows how comparison processes help people make new inferences (Gentner &
Markman, 1997). However, research on the benefits of providing learners with more than one representation has pro-
duced mixed results. For example, a number of studies have found that learners benefit from MERs (e.g., Cox & Brna,
1995; Mayer & Sims, 1994; Tabachneck, Koedinger, & Nathan, 1994), but unfortunately, just as many studies fail to
find these benefits (e.g., Chandler & Sweller, 1992; Van Someren, Reimann, Boshuizen, & de Jong, 1998).
In the next sections, the benefits that MERs can bring to learning situations are reviewed. The functions aspect of
the DeFT framework proposes that there are many advantages of MERs and that these should be clearly identified as
they often have different design implications. These functions of MERs are only possible if learners master the cog-
nitive tasks associated with their use. Learning to use MERs requires learners to understand each individual represen-
tation. This is a complex process in its own right (see Section 3.2). But, in addition, when interacting with MERs,
learners must often understand the relationship between representations and many studies have shown that learners
tend to treat representations in isolation and find it difficult to integrate information from more than one source.

FUNCTIONS

Complementary Constrain Construct Deeper

Roles Interpretation Understanding

Different Different Constrain by Constrain Abstraction Relation

Processes Information Familiarity by Inherent Extension
Properties

Strategies Tasks
Individual
Differences

Fig. 1. A functional taxonomy of multiple representations.

188 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198

5. Functions

Ainsworth (1999) suggest there are three key functions of MERs: to complement, constrain and construct (see
Fig. 1).

5.1. Complementary functions

When MERs complement each other they do so because they differ either in the processes each supports or in the
information each contains. By combining representations that differ in these ways, it is hoped that learners will benefit
from the advantages of each of the individual representations.

5.1.1. Complementary processes

Representations that theoretically contain the same information still differ in their advantages for learning in cer-
tain situations due to the extent to which they support computational offloading, re-representation or graphical con-
straining. Consequently, by providing MERs complementary processes can be supported. This can be advantageous
for a number of reasons.
Individual differences: Theorists following a learning styles approach argue that if learners are presented with
a choice of representations, they can choose to work with the representation that best suits their needs (e.g., Dunn
& Dunn, 1993). There is limited evidence that this can improve learning. For example, Plass, Chun, Mayer, and Leut-
ner (1998) found that students comprehended a story in a second language better when they had the opportunity to
receive their preferred mode of annotation (visual/verbal/both). However, the assumption that ‘visualisers’ will nec-
essarily do better with visual representations is not always warranted (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004;
Klein, 2003; Roberts et al., 1997). Alternative accounts of the individual differences effect emphasise differing exper-
tise with the subject studied or with the representations. For example, Stenning, Cox, and Oberlander (1995) found
that high performing students benefited from graphical instruction of logic but lower performing students performed
better when given traditional textual instructions. ChanLin (2001) found novices learning physics benefited from the
use of still graphics rather than text but found no differences between formats for experienced students.
Task: Performance is most likely to be facilitated when the structure of information required by the problem
matches the form provided by the representational notation (Gilmore & Green, 1984). Learners given MERs can
benefit from choosing the best representation for the current task. For example, Tapiero (2001) found that when sub-
jects were given textual descriptions of a city, they performed spatial judgement tasks more accurately than those
given a map of the city. However, when presented with a transfer task of a map of a modified city, the reverse was
true e map subjects performed better than text subjects.
Strategy: Different forms of representation can encourage learners to use more or less effective strategies (Ains-
worth & Loizou, 2003). MERs encourage learners to try more than one strategy to solve a problem. Tabachneck
et al. (1994) examined the representations that learners created to solve algebra word problems and found that
each representation was associated with a different strategy. The use of MERs and hence multiple strategies was about
twice as effective as any strategy used alone. As each strategy had inherent weaknesses, switching between strategies
made problem solving more successful by compensating for this.

5.1.2. Complementary information

Multiple representations are used to provide complementary information when each representation in the system
contains (some) different information. This may occur if a single representation would be very complicated if it pre-
sented all the information or if the information is on radically different scales.

5.2. Constraining functions

A second advantage of using MERs is that certain combinations of representations can help learning when one
representation constrains interpretation of a second representation. This can be achieved in two ways. Firstly, learners’
familiarity with one representation can constrain interpretation of a less familiar one. For example, concrete anima-
tions are often employed in simulations alongside complex and unfamiliar representations such as graphs. Secondly,
these constraints can be achieved by taking advantages of inherent properties of representations. Graphical
 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198 189

representations are generally more specific than textual representations (Stenning & Oberlander, 1995). The phrase
‘the cat is by the dog’, is ambiguous about which side of the dog the cat is sitting, but in a picture, the cat must be
either on the left or the right of the dog. So, when these two representations are presented together, interpretation
of the first (ambiguous) representation may be constrained by the second (specific) representation. Depictions can per-
form this same role for descriptions (Schnotz, 2002).

5.3. Constructing functions

Multiple representations support the construction of deeper understanding when learners integrate information
from MERs to achieve insight that would be difficult to achieve with only a single representation. Furthermore, insight
achieved in this way increases the likelihood that it will be transferred to new situations (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999).
Abstraction is the process by which learners create mental entities that serve as the basis for new procedures and
concepts at a higher level of organization. Learners can construct references across MERs that then expose the un-
derlying structure of the domain represented. Schwartz (1995) showed that the representations that emerge with col-
laborating peers are more abstract than those created by individuals e abstracted representation may emerge as
a consequence of requiring a single representation that could bridge both individuals’ representations.
Extension can be considered as a way of extending knowledge that a learner has from a known to an unknown to
representation, but without fundamentally reorganizing the nature of that knowledge. For example, learners may know
how to interpret a velocityetime graph in order to determine whether a body is accelerating. They can subsequently
extend their knowledge to such representations as tables or accelerationetime graphs.
Relational understanding is the process by which two representations are associated again without reorganization
of knowledge. The goal of teaching relation between representations can sometimes be an end in itself. For example,
much mathematical education concerns how to construct a graph given an equation. On other occasions, it may serve
as the basis for abstraction.
It should also be noted that the functions that representations serve often depend upon learners’ knowledge and
goals not system designer’s intent. For example, one learner may be familiar with tables and extend his or her knowl-
edge to graphs (extension), another may already be familiar with both but not have considered their relationship
(relation). The differences between these functions of MERs are subtle and all may be present at some stage in the
life cycle of encouraging deeper understanding with a multi-representational environment.

5.4. Functions summary

MERs can play many advantageous roles in learning complex material and these different roles fall into three dis-
tinct categories. However, the picture is complicated by the need to acknowledge that MERs can support more than
one of these roles simultaneously. For example, Ainsworth, Wood, and O’Malley (1998) found that a combination of
table and place-value representations in a primary maths environment provided different information and supported
complementary processes, constrained interpretation in two alternative ways and might also have supported
abstraction.

6. Cognitive task: learners may need to understand how to relate representations

Many of the proposed benefits of MERs result from the integration and coordination of more than one source of
information and a characteristic of expertise is the ability to integrate different representational formats. Unfortu-
nately, a very large number of studies have observed that learners find translating between representations difficult
(e.g., Anzai, 1991; Schoenfeld, Smith, & Arcavi, 1993). Learners can fail to notice regularities and discrepancies be-
tween representations (Dufour-Janvier, Bednarz, & Belanger, 1987) and in the worst cases this can even completely
inhibit learning. Ainsworth, Bibby, and Wood (2002) compared children learning estimation with two representations,
either mathematical, pictorial or a mixed system of one pictorial and mathematical representation. They showed that
whilst pictorial and mathematical representations helped learning, the combination of pictorial with mathematical rep-
resentations inhibited learning of the task. It was possible to isolate the problem as resulting from relating represen-
tations. Each representation in the mixed system was present in either mathematical or pictorial systems where it was
190 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198

used successfully, so it is known that learners could understand the form of representations and their relation to do-
main, just not how they relate to each other.
Teaching learners to coordinate MERs has also been found to be a far from trivial activity. Yerushalmy (1991) pro-
vided students with an intensive three-month course with multi-representational software that taught functions. In to-
tal, only 12% of students gave answers that involved both visual and numerical considerations and those who used two
representations were just as error prone as those who used a single representation. Resnick and Omanson (1987) gave
children instructions about the correspondence between Dienes blocks and written numerals to help them master the
symbolic subtraction procedures. They were disappointed by how little children referred to the blocks and found, for
the most part, they were not helpful.
Consequently, it is important to understand the factors that influence the difficulty of relating representations. Here
the characteristics of the representations and characteristics of the learner are considered.

6.1. Representation characteristics

A reasonable heuristic for considering how the representational system will impact upon how learners integrate
information from multiple sources is to suggest that the more the formats of the representations and the operators
that act upon them differ, the more difficult it will be for learners to translate between them. There are a number
of dimensions that are likely to maximise these differences between representations.
The sensory channel of the representation: A common combination of representations is one that combines an au-
ditory with a visual representation. A number of researchers working in the cognitive tradition (e.g., Kalyuga, 2000;
Mayer, 1997) propose that referential connections between these types of representations are facilitated because com-
bining both auditory and visual stimuli take maximum advantage of short-term memory and so facilitate translation
between representations. However, Gyselinck, Ehrlich, Cornoldi, de Beni, and Dubois (2000) show that visuale
spatial working memory can still be heavily loaded in such situations.
The modality of the representations: A heterogeneous system is one that contains both a text based representation
and a graphical/diagrammatic representation. These representations are known to have very different computational
proprieties (Larkin & Simon, 1987) and some researchers also consider them to be processed separately in the brain
(e.g., Mayer, 1997; Tabachneck-Schijf, Leonardo, & Simon, 1997). Learners may find it difficult to see the relation-
ship between such different forms of representation.
The level of abstraction: Peirce (1906) distinguishes between a symbol, which has an arbitrary structure (a descrip-
tion in Schnotz’s terminology), and an icon (depiction) that does not. Bruner (1966) adds an extra mode, enactive, to
represent events through motor responses. Purchase (1998) further adapts Bruner’s scheme by dividing the iconic cat-
egory in two: concreteeiconic, which has a direct perceptual relationship to the object, and abstracteiconic, which
has a related but non-direct relation. Blackwell and Engelhardt (1998) identify eight schemes that consider level of
abstraction. There seems little agreement about the granularity of the dimension but its importance is widely
recognised.
The specificity of representations: Specificity determines the extent to which a representation permits expression of
abstraction (Stenning & Oberlander, 1995). Learners will interpret and act upon representations of different levels of
specificity in unlike ways, so they may find integrating information across representations that differ in specificity
more difficult.
The type of representation (e.g., histogram, equation, table, line graph, narrative text, picture): There are many
schemes proposed for categorising representations into different types (e.g., Cox & Brna, 1995; Lohse, Biolsi, Walker,
& Rueler, 1994). For example, Lohse et al. identified 11 major clusters: graphs, numerical and graphical tables, time
charts, cartograms, icons, pictures, networks, structure diagrams, process diagrams and map clusters. These taxon-
omies have been created by a variety of methods (e.g., intuition, analysis of domain properties and card sorts) and
although there is some overlap between the taxonomies, no one classification is universally accepted. They differ
in the domains addressed, the granularity with which representations were described and the task for which they
were created.
Integrated presentations of representations: When presenting textual and graphical representations learners find it
easy to understand physically integrated material rather than separately presented material (Chandler & Sweller,
1992).
 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198 191

Whether representations are static or dynamic: Dynamic representations such as animations, dynamic graphs and
spoken text require different operators to interpret them and have different formats than their static equivalents and
consequently learners draw different inferences from pictures and animations (Jones, 1998; Lowe, 2003). Thus,
representational systems that combine static and dynamic representations may be particularly complex. Furthermore,
different types of dynamic representations also have different format and operators (Ainsworth & Van Labeke, 2004).
Dimensionality: With the mounting availability of virtual reality and other visualisation tools, learners are increas-
ingly being placed in situations where they must integrate information from both two-dimensional and three-
dimensional representations. There is evidence that learners can fail to build such links easily (Moher, Johnson,
Ohlsson, & Gillingham, 1999).

6.2. Individual characteristics

How well individuals cope with the relating different representations is likely to depend upon a number of learner
characteristics. Probable candidates include familiarity with the representations and domain, age and cognitive style.
Representational familiarity: If learners are already familiar with the representations, then they should understand
(to some degree) the format and operators of representation and the relation between the representations and the do-
main. The lower the learning demands are on other parts of the task, the more resource for translating between rep-
resentations should be available. Furthermore, if learners are less likely to misinterpret the representations, this should
enhance the possibility of recognising the similarity between them.
Domain familiarity: Generally, novices tend to characterise problem representations by their surface features, not
their deep structure (Chi et al., 1981). Therefore, as learners generally lack expertise either in the domain or in the
representations they are using, they are likely to be hampered in recognising deep structural relations between repre-
sentations due to their surface dissimilarity. This lack of domain knowledge interferes with their ability to transfer
knowledge across representations appropriately (Stern, Aprea, & Ebner, 2003).
Age: A learner’s age may also affect his or her abilities to translate between representations. Often children’s per-
formance can be seen as characteristic of novices in a domain. Nevertheless, there are likely to be developmental fac-
tors that affect integration of MERs. Moore and Scevak (1997) found developmental differences in children’s use of
text and accompanying visual aids with explicit linking of text and visual aid by older students that was not as evident
in the younger students. A number of researchers have proposed that information-processing capacity such as short-
term memory span or processing speed increases with age (e.g., Case, 1985). For example, Halford (1993) defines
dimensionality as the number of independent items of information that must be processed in parallel. He proposed
that it is not until children reach 11 years of age that they can process four-dimensional structures. If MERs exceed
this capacity then children would need to re-represent the problem, for example, by chunking. This suggests that youn-
ger children would require considerable experience with the representations in order to relate them successfully.
Individual differences: There has been much research relating both personality and cognitive factors to learning
with external representations (see Section 5.1.1). There is less research into aptitudeetreatment interactions and
MERs. An exception is that of Oberlander, Cox, Monaghan, Stenning, and Tobin (1996). They suggest that a distin-
guishing characteristic of people who were classified as diagrammatic reasoners was their ability to translate
information across representations more successfully.

6.3. Representation and individual characteristics

These two levels come together in the way that individual factors and representation factors influence the strategies
that learners use. Using MERs can encourage learners to try different strategies (e.g., Tabachneck et al., 1994; Watson,
Campbell, & Collis, 1993). This is often advantageous as by switching between representations learners can compen-
sate for weaknesses in their strategy. However, if learners are attempting to relate different representations, then this
may provide a source of difficulty. Ainsworth et al. (2002) hypothesised that one of the reasons why learners did not
integrate information across pictorial and mathematical representations is that the pictorial representation encouraged
the development of a perceptual strategy and the mathematical one encouraged the generation of a rule based upon
symbol manipulation.
192 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198

7. Applying DeFT to explore different designs

In Section 2, the (implicit or explicit) design parameters of multi-representational software were identified. In this
section, I return to these parameters to explore if considering the functions and cognitive tasks of learning with MERs
can help someone make these design decisions. It is fair to say that at this stage DeFT raises far more questions than it
answers. However, it may still be useful if it helps to identify those aspects of multi-representational design that are
under-explored. DeFT may also encourage researchers to describe in more detail the design parameters of their sys-
tems and the pedagogical functions they intend to their systems to play. Although, research might initially be consid-
ered as addressing one question (e.g., simultaneous versus sequential presentation), other researchers interested in
alternative questions (e.g., redundancy) are often unable to draw conclusions about their interests if this aspect of
the system is not described.

7.1. Number

Given the research reviewed on the cognitive tasks associated with adding representations to a system, it seems
wise to use the minimum number of representations consistent with the pedagogical function of the system. In
many cases it may not be appropriate to use MERs at all, since one representation may be sufficient and will minimise
the split attention affect. However, there are many circumstances where MERs are appropriate. The decision about the
number of representations often depends upon the informational (Section 7.2) and computational (Section 7.3) prop-
erties of the desired representational system.

7.2. Information

Information can be distributed in multiple ways over MERs which may simplify individual representations and
impact upon the redundancy of the representational system. Consequently, there may be a way of distributing infor-
mation that best supports learning (for a particular task and a particular type of learner). One possibility is that it is
easier to learn complex ideas when each part is represented separately in a simpler representation. Alternatively, it
may be easier to learn from complex representation(s) as all the information is presented together.
Kalyuga, Chandler, and Sweller (1998) report a number of studies that showed that less experienced learners ben-
efit from redundant text but for those with more experience adding text interfered with performance with a diagram.
Learners who can benefit from a diagram in isolation do not need text and so eliminating it reduces cognitive load.
This suggests that redundancy should be reduced as expertise grows. However, Ainsworth, Bibby, and Wood
(1997) gave students two representations to describe their performance on computational estimation tasks e these
were either non-redundant where each representation provides one dimension of information each or completely
redundant with both representations displaying two dimensions of information. They found that learners given non-
redundant representations understood aspects of estimation accuracy faster than those given fully redundant represen-
tations. Examining the apparent contradiction between these experiments, it seems likely that the conflicting results
are due to different functions of the MERs. The text in Kalyuga et al.’s studies seems to have been used by novices to
constrain interpretation of an unfamiliar diagram, whereas in Ainsworth et al.’s study, the representations were used to
complement each other.
Furthermore, the impact of the way that information is distributed may be modified by the form of the represen-
tation. Ainsworth and Peevers (2003) examined the interaction between the form (tables, diagrams or text) and num-
ber (four simple or one complex one) of representations. Participants were provided with instructions about how to
operate a complex device using these representations. Problem-solving based on tables or diagrams was equally ef-
fective with one complex or four simple representations. However, those participants given a single text spent much
longer studying representations than those who saw four texts, but were also more likely to find the ideal solution to the
task.
It is apparent that whilst one of the advantages of using MERs is that information can be distributed to
simplify individual representations, little research has directly addressed that question. Most of the experimenta-
tion holds informational equivalence across representations constant in order to explore computational non-
equivalence. Furthermore, describing the information in a representation is problematic as information differs
in how explicitly it is represented (Kirsh, 1991). One possibility is to base it on a theoretical description assuming
 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198 193

a perfect information processor with unlimited resources and knowledge. However, people are not perfect infor-
mation processors, and they differ in their background knowledge, skills, and cognitive capacities. More research
is needed to explore these issues.

7.3. Form

This aspect of designing for effective learning has received the most attention and there is consistent evidence that
differences in the form of representational systems strongly impact upon learning processes and outcomes. However,
the majority of research has concentrated on modality and sensory aspects of representations. This focus has meant
that other forms of representational system remained significantly under-explored (Reimann, 2003) and one role that
DeFT can play is to draw attention to that fact. Furthermore, a number of studies have found contradictions in the
apparent usefulness of specific combinations of representations. For example, whether simultaneous presentation
of written and spoken text is beneficial (e.g., Kalyuga, 2000; Mayer & Sims, 1994). From a DeFT perspective, one
key reason for these differences is that MERs play different pedagogical functions. If MERs are used to support dif-
ferent computational properties and one of the representations is not needed by the learner, then simultaneous presen-
tation of both representations it is not likely to aid learning. However, this is not the case if the first representation is
needed to constrain understanding of the second representation or if both representations are needed to encourage
deeper understanding. One strong prediction of DeFT, which requires empirical validation, is that different design
principles will apply for different pedagogical functions (see Section 8).

7.4. Sequence

The approaches to deciding upon a sequence of representations can be placed on a continuum ranging from do-
main-specific to domain-general. Some researchers start with an analysis of the properties of the domain to be taught
in order to identify any representational consequences. Only in the absence of any particular constraints arising from
this domain analysis are more general representational factors considered. Alternatively, a representational perspec-
tive can be taken that favours a domain-general approach.
An example of a domain-specific approach can be seen in MathsCar, a multi-representational system to teach in-
troductory calculus (Kaput, 1994). Kaput argues that when teaching calculus, introducing integration before differen-
tiation best supports understanding and so velocityetime graphs should be introduced before positionetime graphs.
At a mid-point on the continuum lies the approach of Plötzner (1995), who analyses one-dimensional motion in clas-
sical physics problems to argue that qualitative knowledge should be taught before quantitative knowledge and con-
sequently qualitative representations should be introduced before quantitative ones. Evidence for this proposal
is provided by a cognitive model and by the performance of collaborating pairs taught with different sequences of
qualitative and quantitative representations (Plötzner, Fehse, Kneser, & Spada, 1999).
At the other end of the continuum, a more domain-general approach can be seen in Kulhavy’s model of text learn-
ing with organized spatial displays, which suggests that graphical representations should precede text. Verdi, Johnson,
Stock, Kulhavy, and Whitman (1997) showed that learners presented with a visual display before related text recalled
significantly more information than when presented with text and then the visual display. Another domain-general
approach is to introduce representations in such a way as to increase their abstraction. For example, COPPERS (Ains-
worth et al., 1998) presents coin problems to children first as pictures but then through increasingly abstract represen-
tations such as mixed text and pictures and then text only and finally as algebra. This approach can be seen in many
systems, but its validity has rarely been evaluated. It does seem reasonable to start by offering learners the least com-
plex available representations. This may be the most concrete/least expressive representation that the increasing ab-
straction route suggests. However, in some situations, concrete and realistic representations can actually be more
complex for learners (Lowe, 2003).
The question of whether learners make strategic decisions about when to change a representation or introduce
a new one has been addressed by Cox and Brna (1995) who allow users to move at will between their self-created
representations. They found mixed success with some learners switching effectively but others choosing new repre-
sentations which did not help them move nearer the goal. Another possibility is that learners should switch when they
have exhausted all of the information available in the representation they are currently using. For example, Graphs and
194 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198

Tracks (Trowbridge, 1989) suggest that users should switch from a velocityetime to a distanceetime graph in order to
gain information about the represented object’s starting position.
Alternatively, the system may take responsibility for determining when to change the representation. In this case,
the task for the system is to determine when users have learnt all they can about the domain with the given represen-
tations, but not switch so soon (or so often) that the learning demands of the new representations overburden the user.
Unfortunately, as Resnick and Omanson (1987) observe, it is possible to introduce new representations too late. In
their study of children learning to subtract using the standard written symbols, Dienes blocks were introduced to
help children understand this task in a more conceptual way. The researchers were disappointed by how little children
referred to the blocks and suggest that once children had reached automated performance with symbolic manipulation,
it does not easily allow for application of principled knowledge. This suggests that a new representation should be
introduced before learners have achieved automated performance with an existing representation. This raises the ques-
tion of what aspects of learners’ behaviour would need to be captured by a system and interpreted in a student model to
be able to switch representations appropriately.
It is apparent that there are many questions about sequencing representations, but that few of them have compre-
hensive answers. Deciding on a specific order of representations will almost always require a domain analysis, which
could be supplemented with general representational principles. However, decisions about when to switch represen-
tations have received little attention and await systematic experimentation.

7.5. Translation

Computers can automatically support translation between representations and have variety of ways to indicate the
connection between representations. Learning environments differ in how actively they support learning and whether
this support is provided at the syntactic level or the semantic level.
The least active way that environments (computational or not) provide support for relating representations is in the
use of implicit cues. For example, the relation between representations is easier to identify if they have consistent la-
bels. Dufour-Janvier et al. (1987) suggest that children have a tendency to recognise that two representations concern
the same problem only when they contain the same numbers. Other cues include using the same colours to represent
the same objects over different representations.
More active support is seen when learners can select part of a first representation and see how this corresponds to
a second representation. For example, in Brünken, Plass, and Leutner (2003) learners can click on a hyperlink and
arrows point to equivalent part of an accompanying picture.
Sometimes, learners act on one representation and see the results of those actions in another. This is commonly
referred to as dyna-linking. For example, graphical calculators present dyna-linked algebraic expressions and graphs.
Dynamic linking of representations is assumed to reduce the cognitive load upon the student e as the computer per-
forms translation activities, students are freed to concentrate upon their actions on representations and their conse-
quences in other representations. Kaput (1992) argues that this is particularly beneficial when the representations
involved are expressing actions sequences rather than just final outcomes as previous research has shown just how
difficult this task is for learners. However, direct empirical support for the benefits of dyna-linking is not easy to
find. For example, van der Meij and de Jong (2003) found no difference in learning between separate and dyna-linked
representations.
Finally, some systems require learners to actively integrate representations and monitor students’ success in so do-
ing. Bodemer, Ploetzner, Feuerlein, and Spada (2004) gave learners spatially separated pictorial and symbolic repre-
sentations of statistics concepts and asked them to drag the symbols and dropping them within the pictures. Compared
to split source or integrated representations, learners did better when required to integrate representations.
Only a few systems can vary the amount of help for relating representations that they offer to learners. However,
this is probably the ideal. For example, there are reasons to hesitate about the invariable dynamically linking of rep-
resentations. If we aim to encourage users to understand the mapping between representations, then we may be in
danger of over-automating the process. This over-automation may not encourage users to reflect upon the nature
of the connection and could in turn lead learners to fail to construct the required deep understanding. Alternatively,
dyna-linking may encourage learners to attempt to relate concepts that are beyond their level of understanding. Seufert
(2003) provides support for varying the amount of support according to a learner’s expertise. She found that high prior
knowledge learners did not benefit from help relating representations, as presumably they could make these links for
 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198 195

themselves. Low prior knowledge students also did not benefit because they became overwhelmed. It was only
learners with an intermediate level of prior knowledge who benefited from this help.
The level at which help is provided has received less direct research. Seufert provided help at a deeper level
whereas most other researches (particular with computers) have used more surface strategies. Van Labeke and
Ainsworth (2003) report a case study of three learners working with complex multi-representational software for
up to 8 h and found that they differed in their strategy for relating representations. One learner without relevant back-
ground knowledge used dyna-linking to support his surface level strategy for relating representations, whereas the two
learners with more background knowledge used dyna-linking less and attempted to relate representations using deeper
structural features. Consequently, it may be the case that both the degree of support and the level at which this help is
provided should vary depending on learners’ expertise.

8. Design heuristics

One key purpose of DeFT is to help delimitate the complex demands faced by learners when interacting with
MERs. It adds to the substantial literature on cognitive load accounts of learning with MERs (e.g., Kalyuga, Chandler,
& Sweller, 1999; Kirschner, 2002; Mayer & Moreno, 2002) by identifying factors that add to cognitive load in these
situations. Thus, it can help explain the intermittent success of learning with MERs by examining which cognitive
tasks learners mastered and which they did not. In addition, by emphasising the pedagogical functions of MERs
and their implications for the cognitive tasks associated with MERs, DeFT provides an alternative way to consider
how multi-representational systems might be designed to support learning. These proposals should be read as heuris-
tics for guiding experimentation not as cast-in-stone principles.
When MERs are used to support complementary functions, learners need to understand each representation in iso-
lation, how to select appropriate representations but need not understand the relation between them. The main design
consideration therefore becomes one of selecting appropriate representations for the situation and the learners, rather
than supporting learners in mastering the complex task of relating representations. Consequently, systems could pro-
vide dyna-linked representations and/or minimise co-presence of representations as learners often attempt to translate
between co-present representations even if they do not need to do so to achieve the task.
When MERs are used to constrain interpretation it is imperative that the learner understands the constraining rep-
resentation. Thus, using concrete representations with simple format and operators is ideal. But, in addition and in
contrast to the first use of MERs, designers need also to ensure that learners understand how the constraining repre-
sentation relates to the constrained representation. Consequently, a way must be found to signal the mapping between
representations without over-burdening learners by making translation complex. DeFT predicts that these represen-
tations should be co-present. Factors that increase the perceived similarity between representations should be applied,
as could dyna-linking where appropriate.
The third function is when MERs are designed to allow learners to construct a deeper understanding of a domain.
This goal provides designers with hard choices. If users fail to translate across representations, then abstraction and
extension cannot occur. Learners find it difficult to translate over-representations that are superficially dissimilar, but if
made too easy, for example, by providing representations that do not provide sufficiently different views on a domain,
then abstraction of invariances does not occur. However, if the system performs all the translation activities for stu-
dents, then students are not afforded the opportunity to actively construct this knowledge for themselves. Approaches
such as those of Bodemer et al. (2004) may provide one solution to this issue. Although little research has addressed
the way that that information distribution influences translation, Ainsworth et al. (1997) found tentative evidence that
increasing the redundancy of information between (simple) representations increased learners’ abilities to reconcile
representations that differ in format. In addition, to maximise opportunities for learners to build cognitive links over
representations, then representations should be co-present. Although, much is still left to uncover, researchers are be-
ginning to specify the factors that encourage or discourage deeper understanding with multiple representations.

9. Conclusion

This paper has illustrated the DeFT framework that describes some of the important aspects of learning with MERs.
It clarifies the pedagogical functions that MERs serve, the often-complex learning demands that are associated with
their use and in so doing aims to consider the ways that different designs of multi-representational systems impact
196 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198

upon the process of learning. It is hoped that DeFT will prove to be helpful to other researchers analysing learning with
MERs by highlighting areas of study that are relatively under-investigated, providing an explanation for apparently
opposing findings, offering a common language for describing aspects of system design allowing generalisations
across studies to be more easily achieved and ultimately aiding in the development of design heuristics and principles
for learning with more than one representation.

Acknowledgments

A number of people have helped shape the ideas presented in this paper. My thanks to the members of the ESF-
LHM taskforce on multiple representations, members of the ‘‘Learning from Multiple Representations’’ symposium
at the 9th EARLI conference, Pete Bibby, Martin Oliver, Mike Scaife, Tina Seufert, as well as three anonymous
reviewers.

References

Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2e3), 131e152.
Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathemat-
ics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 25e61.
Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P.A., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Evaluating principles for multi-representational learning environments. Paper presented at the
7th European conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, 1997, August, Athens.
Ainsworth, S. E., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 669e681.
Ainsworth, S. E., & Peevers, G. J. (2003). The interaction between informational and computational properties of external representations on
problem-solving and learning. In R. Altmann, & D. Kirsch (Eds.), Proceedings of 25th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society,
2003, August, Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA.
Ainsworth, S. E., & Van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 241e255.
Ainsworth, S. E., Wood, D., & O’Malley, C. (1998). There is more than one way to solve a problem: Evaluating a learning environment that
supports the development of children’s multiplication skills. Learning and Instruction, 8(2), 141e157.
Anzai, Y. (1991). Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In K. Anders-Ericsson, & J. Smith (Eds.), Towards a general theory of
expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blackwell, A.F., & Engelhardt, Y. (1998). A taxonomy of diagram taxonomies. Paper presented at the Thinking with diagrams, 1998, August,
Aberystwyth.
Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive
visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 325e341.
Boulton-Lewis, G.M., & Halford, G.S. (1990). An analysis of the value and limitation of mathematical representations used by teachers and young
children. Paper presented at the 14th international conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 1990, July.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education,
24, 61e100.
Bruner, J. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. New York: W.W. Norwood & Company.
Brünken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2003). How instruction guides attention in multimedia learning. In H. Niegemann, R. Brünken, & D. Leutner
(Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning. Proceedings of the EARLI SIG 6 Biannual Workshop 2002, Erfurt.
Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
62(2), 233e246.
ChanLin, L. (2001). Effects of formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
17(4), 409e419.
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation in physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive
Science, 5(2), 121e152.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review.
Learning and Skills Research Centre. Retrieved May 8, 2004. <http://www.lsda.org.uk/pubs/dbaseout/download.asp?code¼1543>.
Cox, R., & Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external representations in problem solving: The need for flexible learning environments.
Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(2/3), 239e302.
Dienes, Z. (1973). The six stages in the process of learning mathematics. Slough, UK: NFEReNelson.
Dufour-Janvier, B., Bednarz, N., & Belanger, M. (1987). Pedagogical considerations concerning the problem of representation. In C. Janvier (Ed.),
Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 7e12.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Elby, A. (2000). What students’ learning of representations tells us about constructivism. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 481e502.
Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional impli-
cations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 124e158.
 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198 197

Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45e56.
Gilmore, D. J., & Green, T. R. G. (1984). Comprehension and recall of miniature programs. International Journal of ManeMachine Studies, 21(1),
31e48.
Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, 13(2),
239e244.
Grossen, B., & Carnine, D. (1990). Diagramming a logic strategy e Effects on difficult problem types and transfer. Learning Disability Quarterly,
13(3), 168e182.
Gyselinck, V., Ehrlich, M. F., Cornoldi, C., de Beni, R., & Dubois, V. (2000). Visuospatial working memory in learning from multimedia systems.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(2), 166e176.
Halford, G. S. (1993). Children’s understanding: The development of mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Jones, S. (1998). Diagram representation: a comparison of animated and static formats. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Computing and
Cognitive Sciences, University of Sussex, UK.
Kalyuga, S. (2000). When using sound with a text or picture is not beneficial for learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2),
161e172.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40(1), 1e17.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
13(4), 351e371.
Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes using old roots. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solv-
ing (pp. 77e156). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of teaching and learning mathematics. New York:
Macmillan.
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1e10.
Kirsh, D. (1991). When is information explicitly represented. In P. P. Hanson (Ed.), Information, language and cognition (pp. 340e365).
New York: OUP.
Klein, P. D. (2003). Rethinking the multiplicity of cognitive resources and curricular representations: Alternatives to ‘learning styles’ and ‘mul-
tiple intelligences’. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(1), 45e81.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenom-
ena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949e968.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65e99.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational
Research, 60, 1e64.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows, & H. A. Houghton
(Eds.), The psychology of illustration: I. Basic research (pp. 51e85). New York: Springer.
Lohse, G. L., Biolsi, K., Walker, N., & Rueler, H. (1994). A classification of visual representations. Communications of the A.C.M., 37(12),
36e49.
Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 157e176.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1e19.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 107e119.
Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth 1000 words e Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389e401.
McKendree, J., Small, C., Stenning, K., & Conlon, T. (2002). The role of representation in teaching and learning critical thinking. Educational
Review, 54(1), 57e67.
van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T., (2003). Supporting students’ translation between representations in a simulation-based learning environment. Pa-
per presented at the 10th EARLI conference, 2003, August, Padova, Italy.
Moher, T., Johnson, A., Ohlsson, S., & Gillingham, M. (1999). Bridging strategies for VR-based learning. Paper presented at CHI ‘99, 1999, May,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Moore, P. J., & Scevak, J. J. (1997). Learning from texts and visual aids: A developmental perspective. Journal of Research in Reading, 20(3),
205e223.
Novick, L. R., Hurley, S. M., & Francis, M. (1999). Evidence for abstract, schematic knowledge of three spatial diagram representations. Memory
& Cognition, 27(2), 288e308.
Oberlander, J., Cox, R., Monaghan, P., Stenning, K., & Tobin, R. (1996). Individual differences in proof structures following multimodal logic
teaching. Proceedings of the eighteenth annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 201e206).
Palmer, S. E. (1977). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale,
NJ: LEA.
Peirce, C. S. (1906). Prolegomena to an apology for pragmaticism. The Monist, 16, 492e546.
Petre, M., & Green, T. R. G. (1993). Learning to read graphics: Some evidence that ‘seeing’ an information display is an acquired skill. Journal of
Visual Languages and Computing, 4(1), 55e70.
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia
learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25e36.
Plötzner, R. (1995). The construction and coordination of complementary problem representations in physics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in
Education, 6(2/3), 203e238.
198 S. Ainsworth / Learning and Instruction 16 (2006) 183e198

Plötzner, R., Fehse, E., Kneser, C., & Spada, H. (1999). Learning to relate qualitative and quantitative problem representations in a model-based
setting for collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(2), 177e214.
Purchase, H. C. (1998). Defining multimedia. IEEE Multimedia, 5(1), 8e15.
Reimann, P. (2003). Multimedia learning: beyond modality. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 245e252.
Resnick, L. B., & Omanson, S. (1987). Learning to understand arithmetic. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 41e95).
Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Roberts, M. J., Gilmore, D. J., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Individual differences and strategy selection in reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 88,
473e492.
Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32,
159e194.
Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of HumaneComputer Studies,
45(2), 185e213.
Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary e Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1),
101e120.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2),
141e156.
Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex
subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology, Vol. 4. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321e354.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293e331.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227e237.
Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2004). Coherence formation e A basic strategy in multimedia learning. Proceedings of the EARLI SIG 6 and SIG 7
Meeting, Tübingen, Germany.
Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J.-C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for nonlinear and multi-dimensional traversal of
complex subject matter. In D. Nix, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education and multi-media: Exploring ideas in high technology. Hillsdale,
NJ: LEA.
Stenning, K., Cox, R., & Oberlander, J. (1995). Contrasting the cognitive effects of graphical and sentential logic teaching: Reasoning, represen-
tation and individual differences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 254e333.
Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science,
97e140.
Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, H. G. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation.
Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 191e203.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3),
251e296.
Tabachneck, H. J. M., Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (1994). Towards a theoretical account of strategy use and sense making in mathematical
problem solving. Paper presented at the 16 annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1994, July, Atlanta, GA.
Tabachneck-Schijf, H. J. M., Leonardo, A. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). CaMeRa: A computational model of multiple representations. Cognitive
Science, 21(3), 305e350.
Tapiero, I. (2001). The construction and updating of a spatial mental model from text and map: Effect of imagery and anchor. In J.-F. Rouet,
J. J. Levonen, & A. Biardeau (Eds.), Multimedia learning: Cognitive and instructional issues (pp. 45e57). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Trowbridge, D. (1989). Graphs and TracksÓ [computer software]. Department of Physics, University of Washington.
Van Labeke, N., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2003). A microgenetic approach to understanding the processes of translating between representations. Paper
presented at the 10th EARLI conference, 2003, August, Padova, Italy.
Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 129e140.
Van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & de Jong, T. (Eds.). (1998). Learning with multiple representations. Amsterdam:
Pergamon.
Verdi, M. P., Johnson, J. T., Stock, W. A., Kulhavy, R. W., & Whitman, P. (1997). Organized spatial displays and texts: Effects of presentation
order and display type on learning outcomes. Journal of Experimental Education, 65(4), 303e317.
Watson, J. M., Campbell, K. J., & Collis, K. F. (1993). Multimodal functioning in understanding fractions. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 12,
45e62.
Yerushalmy, M. (1991). Student perceptions of aspects of algebraic function using multiple representation software. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 7, 42e57.
Zacks, J., & Tversky, B. (1999). Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Memory & Cognition, 27(6), 1073e1079.
Zhang, J. J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 87e122.