<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title>Articles&gt;Education&gt;Technical Illustration</title>	<link>http://tc.eserver.org/dir/Articles/Education/Technical-Illustration</link>
	<description>A listing of the most recently indexed works about Articles and Education and Technical Illustration in the field of technical communication.</description>
	<language>en-us</language>
	<copyright>Copyright (c) 2005-08 by the EServer. All rights reserved.</copyright>
	<managingEditor>tclib-editorial@eserver.org (TC Library Editorial Board)</managingEditor>
	<webMaster>webmaster@eserver.org (Geoffrey Sauer)</webMaster>
	
	<item>
		<title>Contemporary Educational Psychology: Cognitive Processes in Complex Science Text and Diagrams</title>
		<link>http://tc.eserver.org/35502.html</link>
		<guid>http://tc.eserver.org/35502.html</guid>
		<description>Ainsworth’s (2006) DeFT framework posits that different representations may lead learners to use different strategies. We wanted to investigate whether students use different strategies, and more broadly, different cognitive activities in diagrams versus in running text. In order to do so, we collected think-aloud protocol and other measures from 91 beginning biology majors reading an 8-page passage from their own textbook which included 7 complex diagrams. We coded the protocols for a wide range of cognitive activities, including strategy use, inference, background knowledge, vocabulary, and word reading. Comparisons of verbalizations while reading running text vs. reading diagrams showed that high-level cognitive activities—inferences and high-level strategy use—were used a higher proportion of the time when comprehending diagrams compared to when reading text. However, in running text vs. diagrams participants used a wider range of different individual cognitive activities (e.g., more different types of inferences). Our results suggest that instructors might consider teaching students how to draw inferences in both text and diagrams. They also show an interesting paradox that warrants further research—students often skipped over or superficially skimmed diagrams, but when they did read the diagrams they engaged in more high-level cognitive activity.</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Teaching Eye-Catching Informational Graphics to Technical Graphic Students at Purdue University</title>
		<link>http://tc.eserver.org/24252.html</link>
		<guid>http://tc.eserver.org/24252.html</guid>
		<description>Exploring creative solutions is the key for producing eye-catching informational graphics that grab attention and work in print and on-line. The Department of Technical Graphics at Purdue University offers a basic design course that focuses on informational graphics along with visual hierarchy and the integration of type and images. Students are acquainted to informational graphics as a method to illustrate data aesthetically so it explains, convinces, supports, and makes comparisons. This paper outlines how basic informational graphics is introduced to students who have little or no prior knowledge to creating eye-catching charts.</description>
	</item>
	<atom:link href="http://tc.eserver.org/dir/Articles/Education/Technical-Illustration.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
</channel>
</rss>