Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 221–245 | Cite as

Design of Interactive Diagrams Structured Upon Generic Animations

  • Michal Yerushalmy
  • Elena Naftaliev
Article
First Online:
  • 182 Downloads

Abstract

In an attempt to study the emerging questions about design of mathematical tasks that could support the solving of challenging problems, we designed two settings of interactive diagrams that share an example represented as an animation of multi-process motion but differ in their organizational functions. The interactive settings, each comprising of one task, were designed to support investigation in which the embedded animated example was expected to offer representative and general views. We analyzed the inquiry processes of 13- and 14-year-old interviewees and hypothesized whether these cases could represent more general considerations for the design of animated examples within a setting of interactive diagrams. We argue that (a) self-controlling the number of representations, (b) self-controlling the appearance of simultaneous information, (c) flexibly using links between dynamic and static representations, and (d) establishing links or completing partial links between representations are valuable inquiry processes in solving a problem that includes animated examples to enable viewing the representativeness of a given example.

Keywords

Interactive diagrams Inquiry learning Motion representations Organizational functions Representativeness of example Animation Algebra 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No. 236/05).

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S. (2008). How do animations influence learning? In D. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction: recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 37–67). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Boyd, A., & Rubin, A. (1996). Interactive video: A bridge between motion and math. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 57–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davydov, V. (1972/1990). Types of generalization in instruction, vol. 2. Soviet Studies in Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  5. Goldenberg, P. (1999). Principles, arts, and craft in curriculum design: The case of connected geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 4, 191–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldenberg, P., & Mason, J. (2008). Shedding light on and with example spaces. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 325–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hershkowitz, R. (1987). The acquisition of concepts and misconceptions in basic geometry—or when “A little learning is dangerous thing”. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics (Vol. 8, pp. 238–251). Cornell: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  9. Isaak, M. I., & Just, M. A. (1995). Constraints on the processing of rolling motion: The curtate cycloid illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1391–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones, K., & Scaife, M. (2000). Animated diagrams: An investigation into the cognitive effects of using animation to illustrate dynamic processes. In M. Anderson & P. Cheng (Eds.), Theory and applications of diagrams. lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 1889, pp. 231–244). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Kaiser, M. K., Proffitt, D. R., Whelan, S. M., & Hecht, H. (1992). Influence of animation on dynamical judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images the grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Mason, J., & Pimm, D. (1984). Generic examples: Seeing the general in the Particular. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 227–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Naftaliev, E., & Yerushalmy, M. (2009). Interactive diagrams: alternative practices for the design of algebra inquiry. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 185–192). Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  16. Naftaliev, E., & Yerushalmy, M. (2011). Solving algebra problems with interactive diagrams: Demonstration and construction of examples. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 30(1), 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Piaget, J. (1962/1995). Commentary on Vygotsky’s criticisms of language and thought of the child and judgment and reasoning in the child. New Ideas in Psychology, 13(3), 325-340.Google Scholar
  18. Presmeg, N. (2006). Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 205–235). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Schwartz, J. L. (1996). Motion toys for the eyes and mind. Communications of the ACM, 39(8), 94–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sinclair, N., Watson, A., Zazkis, R., & Mason, J. (in press). The structuring of personal example spaces. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior.Google Scholar
  21. Swan, M. (1985). The language of functions and graphs. Nottingham, Great Britain: Shell Centre for Mathematical Education.Google Scholar
  22. Yerushalmy, M. (1993). Generalizations in geometry. In J. L. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, & B. Wilson (Eds.), The geometric supposer: What it is a case of? (pp. 57–84). NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Yerushalmy, M. (1999). Making exploration visible: On software design and school algebra curriculum. International Journal for Computers in Mathematical Learning, 4, 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yerushalmy, M. (2005). Functions of interactive visual representations in interactive mathematical textbooks. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical learning, 10(3), 217–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (1990). Overcoming visual obstacles with the aid of the supposer. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21, 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yerushalmy, M., Katriel, H., & Shternberg, B. (2002/2004). The functions’ web book. Interactive mathematics text. Israel: CET, The Centre of Educational Technology. www.cet.ac.il/math/function/english.
  27. Yerushalmy, M. & Naftaliev, E. (2007). Learning mathematics with interactive diagrams. In Proceedings for “cognition and exploratory learning in digital age” (CELDA) (pp. 123–130). December 2007, Algrave, Portugal.Google Scholar
  28. Yerushalmy, M., & Shternberg, B. (2005). Epistemological and cognitive aspects of time: A tool perspective. In R. Nemirovsky & D. Carraher (Eds.), Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph. CD-Rom Special Issue: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options