When does higher degree of interaction lead to higher learning in visualizations? Exploring the role of 'Interactivity Enriching Features'

Interactive visualizations are being used extensively for effective teaching and learning. Higher degree of interaction in visualizations improves comprehension and leads to deeper learning. However, some research studies have reported ambiguous, inconclusive results in terms of learning benefits of interactive visualizations. The conditional results in such studies suggest some additional features to be instrumental in assisting learners in deriving benefits of interactivity in visualizations. We refer to these features as 'Interactivity Enriching Features'. This study examines how degree of interaction of the user with the visualization affects learning outcome. The study proposes how interactivity in visualizations can be enriched by offering apt affordances and evaluates what additional features could make learning from interactive visualizations more effective at the same degree of interaction. The study has been carried out in the context of a course on Signals and Systems in Electrical Engineering on second year engineering students (N?=?134). The subjects were assigned to one of the four conditions: a Non-Interactive Visualization, an Animation, a Simulation, and an Interactivity Enriched Visualization. The dependent variable was test-score for 'Understand conceptual knowledge', 'Understand procedural knowledge' and 'Apply procedural knowledge' categories. The research findings indicate that, i) different degrees of interaction are required for learning different types of knowledge and ii) interactive visualization could not deliver its learning benefits unless it was augmented by 'Interactivity Enriching Features' in the form of appropriate affordance for variable manipulation, especially for higher learning outcomes. This research study contributes towards the design of educationally effective interactive visualizations. We examine if higher degree of interaction in visualization leads to higher learning.We find that different types of knowledge demand different degrees of interaction.Higher degree of interaction augmented with appropriate affordance improves learning.Affordance of 'Permutative Variables' in visualization boosts procedural knowledge.Constrained exploration of variables shows higher learning than open exploration.

[1]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Animation: can it facilitate? , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[2]  Emily B. Moore,et al.  Implicit scaffolding in interactive simulations: Design strategies to support multiple educational goals , 2013, 1306.6544.

[3]  Abdulmotaleb El Saddik.  Interactive multimedia learning : shared reusable visualizaion-based modules , 2001 .

[4]  Osman Akan,et al.  Simulation and Visualization Enhanced Engineering Education , 2006 .

[5]  Jorma Tarhio,et al.  A visualisation tool as a demonstration aid , 2003, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Tamara van Gog,et al.  Explaining the segmentation effect in learning from animations: The role of pausing and temporal cueing , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[7]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Modeling with Technology: Mindtools for Conceptual Change , 2005 .

[8]  Hai-Ning Liang,et al.  Can interactive visualization tools engage and support pre-university students in exploring non-trivial mathematical concepts? , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[9]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[10]  Werner Hartmann,et al.  On the Learning in E-Learning , 2004 .

[11]  J. J. Gibson.  The theory of affordances , 1977 .

[12]  Katherine A. Austin.  Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[13]  R. Moreno,et al.  Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback , 2005 .

[14]  Daniel J. Marcucci.  Louis Cohen, Lawrence Manion, & Keith Morrison (2011). Research methods in education (7a ed.). New York: Routledge. , 2011 .

[15]  Rudolf Rabenstein.  SYSTOOL — An online learning tool for signals and systems , 2002, 2002 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[16]  J. A. Palyvos,et al.  3D visualization types in multimedia applications for science learning: A case study for 8th grade students in Greece , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[17]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , 2000 .

[18]  Andrea Nardi.  Ruth Colvin Clark & Chopeta Lyons, Graphics for Learning: Proven Guidelines for Planning, Designing, and Evaluating Visuals in Training Materials . San Francisco: Pfeiffer (2011). , 2015 .

[19]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[20]  S. G. Crutchfield,et al.  Interactive exercises and demonstrations on the Web for basic signals, systems and control , 1997, Proceedings of the 36th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[21]  Frank Hanisch,et al.  How to include visuals and interactivities in an educational computer graphics repository , 2005, Comput. Graph..

[22]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Can differences in learning strategies explain the benefits of learning from static and dynamic visualizations? , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[23]  Meng-meng Zhang,et al.  Matlab Simulation in Signals & Systems Using Matlab at Different Levels , 2009, 2009 First International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science.

[24]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity , 1999 .

[25]  Robert Spence,et al.  Information Visualization: Design for Interaction (2nd Edition) , 2006 .

[26]  Slava Kalyuga.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Prior Knowledge Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[27]  Steven Hansen,et al.  Designing Educationally Effective Algorithm Visualizations , 2002, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[28]  Edward E. Anderson,et al.  A Paradigm for Assessing Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Engineering Students , 2007 .

[29]  J.D. Gibson,et al.  Signals and Systems using MATLAB: an integrated suite of applications for exploring and teaching media signal processing , 2005, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference.

[30]  Claudia Nerdel,et al.  The effects of instructional support and learner interests when learning using computer simulations , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[31]  Mark Sumner,et al.  Characterizing Interaction with Visual Mathematical Representations , 2006, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..

[32]  H. McManus,et al.  Experiences in simulation-based education in engineering processes , 2008, 2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference.

[33]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics , 2003 .

[34]  D. Krathwohl.  A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview , 2002 .

[35]  L. Cohen,et al.  Research Methods in Education , 1980 .

[36]  Meekyoung Kim,et al.  Do students benefit equally from interactive computer simulations regardless of prior knowledge levels? , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[37]  Mike Stieff,et al.  Connected Chemistry—Incorporating Interactive Simulations into the Chemistry Classroom , 2003 .

[38]  Richard A. Armstrong,et al.  Two Factor Analysis of Variance , 2014 .

[39]  J. Hiebert,et al.  Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge in Mathematics: An Introductory Analysis , 1986 .

[40]  B. Tversky,et al.  Effect of computer animation on users' performance : A review , 2000 .

[41]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Enhancing Instructional Efficiency of Interactive E-learning Environments: A Cognitive Load Perspective , 2007 .

[42]  Ruth Colvin Clark,et al.  Graphics for Learning: Proven Guidelines for Planning, Designing, and Evaluating Visuals in Training Materials , 2010 .

[43]  Tiffany Grunwald,et al.  Guidelines for cognitively efficient multimedia learning tools: educational strategies, cognitive load, and interface design. , 2006, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[44]  J. Sweller,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Modality Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[45]  Martin J. Eppler,et al.  Towards a periodic table of visualization methods of management , 2007 .

[46]  O. de los Santos Vidal,et al.  Interaction and simulation-based multimedia modules for electromagnetics education , 1996, Technology-Based Re-Engineering Engineering Education Proceedings of Frontiers in Education FIE'96 26th Annual Conference.

[47]  Aleksandrija Aleksandrova,et al.  ELECTROMAGNETISM: INTERACTION OF SIMULATION AND REAL LAB EXPERIMENT , 2007 .

[48]  T. Gao.  The Effects of Different Levels of Interaction on the Achievement and Motivational Perceptions of College Students in a Web-based Learning Environment , 2003 .

[49]  Nasser Kehtarnavaz,et al.  An interactive hybrid programming approach to signals and systems laboratory , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[50]  Jan L. Plass,et al.  Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations , 2009, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[51]  Kristin A. Cook,et al.  Illuminating the Path: The Research and Development Agenda for Visual Analytics , 2005 .

[52]  Cameron H. G. Wright,et al.  The signals and systems concept inventory , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[53]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Readings in information visualization - using vision to think , 1999 .

[54]  Jill K. Nelson,et al.  Students' interpretation of the importance and difficulty of concepts in signals and systems , 2010, 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[55]  Günter Daniel Rey.  Time advice and learning questions in computer simulations , 2011 .

[56]  Kamran Sedig,et al.  Application of Frameworks in the Analysis and (Re)design of Interactive Visual Learning Tools , 2009 .

[57]  S. Schwan,et al.  The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: learning to tie nautical knots , 2004 .

[58]  Min Liu,et al.  The impact of animation interactivity on novices' learning of introductory statistics , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[59]  Robert K. Atkinson,et al.  Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[60]  Jan L. Plass,et al.  Interactivity in multimedia learning: An integrated model , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[61]  José Luis Guzmán,et al.  Interactivity in education: An experience in the automatic control field , 2013, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ..

[62]  Levent Sevgi.  Modeling and Simulation Concepts in Engineering Education: Virtual Tools , 2006 .

[63]  Yehudit Judy Dori,et al.  Learning science via animated movies: Its effect on students' thinking and motivation , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[64]  Melanie Tory,et al.  A Model-Based Visualization Taxonomy , 2002 .

[65]  Emmanuel Schneider,et al.  Static and Animated Presentations in Learning Dynamic Mechanical Systems. , 2009 .

[66]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom , 2001 .

[67]  A. Spanias,et al.  Work In Progress: Collaborative Signals and Systems Laboratories at ASU, UWB, UCF, UTD, and URI , 2006, Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th Annual Conference.

[68]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Information Visualization: Beyond the Horizon , 2006 .

[69]  Jan T. van der Veen,et al.  The learning effects of computer simulations in science education , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[70]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  The Expertise Reversal Effect , 2003 .

[71]  D. L. Millard.  Interactive learning modules for electrical engineering education , 2000, 2000 Proceedings. 50th Electronic Components and Technology Conference (Cat. No.00CH37070).

[72]  Abdulmotaleb El-Saddik.  Interactive multimedia learning: shared reusable visualization based modules , 2001 .

[73]  Joseph Picone,et al.  Visualization of signal processing concepts , 1998, Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP '98 (Cat. No.98CH36181).

[74]  Hai-Ning Liang,et al.  Interactivity of Visual Mathematical Representations: Factors Affecting Learning and Cognitive Processes , 2006 .

[75]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Learning about locomotion patterns from visualizations: Effects of presentation format and realism , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[76]  Dragica Radosav,et al.  Interactive animation in developing e-learning contents , 2010, The 33rd International Convention MIPRO.

[77]  Colin Ware,et al.  Information Visualization: Perception for Design , 2000 .