Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words

We distinguish diagrammatic from sentential paper-and-pencil representations of information by developing alternative models of information-processing systems that are informationally equivalent and that can be characterized as sentential or diagrammatic. Sentential representations are sequential, like the propositions in a text. Diagrammatic representations are indexed by location in a plane. Diagrammatic representations also typically display information that is only implicit in sentential representations and that therefore has to be computed, sometimes at great cost, to make it explicit for use. We then contrast the computational efficiency of these representations for solving several illustrative problems in mathematics and physics. When two representations are informationally equivalent, their computational efficiency depends on the information-processing operators that act on them. Two sets of operators may differ in their capabilities for recognizing patterns, in the inferences they can carry out directly, and in their control strategies (in particular, the control of search). Diagrammatic and sentential representations support operators that differ in all of these respects. Operators working on one representation may recognize features readily or make inferences directly that are difficult to realize in the other representation. Most important, however, are differences in the efficiency of search for information and in the explicitness of information. In the representations we call diagrammatic, information is organized by location, and often much of the information needed to make an inference is present and explicit at a single location. In addition, cues to the next logical step in the problem may be present at an adjacent location. Therefore problem solving can proceed through a smooth traversal of the diagram, and may require very little search or computation of elements that had been implicit.     

Improving partnerships with families and carers in in‐patient mental health services for older people: a staff training programme and family liaison service

In spite of policies advocating the involvement of families in the care of mental health service users in the UK, there are few examples of initiatives to develop staff confidence and skills in partnership working. This article describes a whole team training initiative and family liaison service to promote family inclusive working on in‐patient wards for older people in Somerset, UK. A three‐day staff‐training programme is described and training outcomes are reported. Staff report a substantial increase in confidence and family meetings held. A pre‐and post‐ training case note audit shows increased consideration of the needs of families. To further increase face to face meetings with families a family liaison service has been established, whereby a staff member with systemic family therapy training joins ward staff to hold family meetings as part of the assessment/admission process. Evaluation of this service has shown it to be effective with positive feedback from families and staff.     

Move evaluationasa predictor and moderator of success in solutions to well-structured problems

This paper presents three studies concerned with the evaluation of moves in solutions to Tower of Hanoi problems and the effect that such evaluation processes have on solution success. The existing literature on problem solving suggests that verbalizing whilst solving a problemcan havea positive effect upon performance. However,such verbalization has to be directed toward an explicit evaluation of particular moves. What remains unclear is whether evaluation without verbalization has the same effects or whether some characteristic of the process of verbalization gives rise to improved performance on such tasks. For example, the act of verbalizing per se may simply mean that more processing time is directed toward the problem-solving process. The studies reported in this paper suggest that the process of evaluation may be independent of verbalization processes and that non-verbal evaluation of moves (indicated by a key press) produces the same effects as a verbal evaluation of such moves. Moreover, the process of evaluating moves appears to producea form of behaviour that is prone to disruption via the administration of secondary tasks, whereas non-evaluated solutions are not. This may suggest that problem solvers who engage in evaluation processes develop an explicit representation of the strategies used to solve the problem.