Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 173–184

Considering perception and cognition in the design of an instructional software package

  • Robert J. Beichner
Article

Abstract

An instructional multimedia software package was developed for use by students taking introductory physics courses. Studies have indicated that many of these students possess a set of common misunderstandings of graphs describing the motion of objects. The software described here was constructed as a student tool which would specifically address these difficulties. The impact of educational psychology, cognitive science, and human factors research on software design and user interface development are described. This work was supported by NSF grant MDR-9154127 with additional support from the RasterOps Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, and Apple Computer, Inc.

Keywords

physics multimedia video user interface design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Beichner, M. DeMarco, D. Ettestad, and E. Gleason, “VideoGraph: A new way to study kinematics,” in Computers in Physics Instruction, E. Redish and J. Risley (Ed.), Raleigh, NC: Addison-Wesley, pp. 244–245, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Personal communication with Mark Luetzelschwab, Dickinson College, June 14, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Personal communication with Jack Wilson, Rennsalaer Polytechnical Institute, September 12, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Beichner, “The Effect of Simultaneous Motion Presentation and Graph Generation in a Kinematics Lab,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 27, pp. 803–815, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Beichner, “Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs,” American Journal of Physics, Vol 62, pp. 750–762, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Bell, G. Brekke, and M. Swan, “Misconceptions, Conflict, and Discussion in the Teaching of Graphical Interpretation,” Paper presented at the Second International Seminar in Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Brasell, “The effect of real-time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 24, pp. 385–395, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Clement, J. Mokros, and K. Schultz, “Adolescents' graphing skills: A descriptive analysis,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Fleming, Dispalys and communication, in Instructional Technology: Foundations, R. Gagné (Ed.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987, pp. 233–260.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Hendee and P. Wells (Eds.), The Perception of Visual Information, Springer-Verlag: New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Howe and E. Vasu, “The Effect of Two Modes of Sensory Input on Children's Retention and Recall,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, Georgia, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Hulse, H. Egeth, and J. Deese, The Psychology of Learning (5th ed.), McGraw-Hill: New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Kolers and S. Brison, “Commentary: On Pictures, Words, and Their Mental Representation,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 105–113, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. McDermott, M. Rosenquist, and E. van Zee, “Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55, pp. 503–513, 1987.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Mokros and R. Tinker, “The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children's ability to interpret graphs,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 24, pp. 369–383, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Perry and P. Obenauf, “The acquisition of notions of qualitative speed: The importance of spatial and temporal alignment,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 24, pp. 553–565, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Rutkowski, “An introdution to the human applications standard computer interface, part 1: Theory and principles,” Byte, Vol. 7, No. 11, pp. 291–310, 1982.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. Shneiderman, Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. Shuell, “Cognitive Conceptions of Learning,” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 56, pp. 411–436, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Sternberg, Mechanisms of cognitive development, Freeman: New York, 1984.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Thornton and D. Sokoloff, “Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 58, pp. 858–867, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    E. van Zee and L. McDermott, “Investigation of student difficulties with graphical representations in physics,” Paper presented at the Second International Seminar in Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Beichner
    • 1
  1. 1.Physics DepartmentNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh

Personalised recommendations