Advertisement

Learning from Static and Dynamic Visualizations: What Kind of Questions Should We Ask?

  • Inga Wagner
  • Wolfgang Schnotz
Chapter

Abstract

Many recent research studies have compared dynamic visualizations with static graphics in the expectation that one of these display types is superior to the other. The research reported here challenges this black-and-white view by focusing instead on whether the aim of the intended learning is to produce a perceptual or a cognitive mental representation of the subject matter. For learning at the perceptual level, dynamic visualizations were supposed to be superior whereas at the cognitive level, learning from static graphics was expected to be more effective. In order to test these hypotheses, two learning experiments were conducted. Regarding learning at the perceptual level, dynamic visualizations led to posttest performance similar to that from static graphics, but required less mental effort. Regarding learning at the cognitive level, dynamic visualizations and static graphics also led to similar performance. However, dynamic visualizations and sequentially presented static graphics emphasizing temporal information led to better learning results than simultaneously presented static graphics emphasizing spatial information. It is concluded that instead of relying on the traditional simplistic distinction between static and animated displays, a more fruitful approach to the design of learning environments may be to consider how much emphasis should be put on the temporal as opposed to the spatial aspects of the content to be learned.

Keywords

Mental Model Temporal Information Static Graphic Mental Effort Perceptual Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Radu Georghiu for the technical production of the learning material that was used within the studies. We are also grateful for the help of our student assistants Sabine Boysen, Lena Buescher, and Katharina Allgaier in collecting the data for our studies. Furthermore, we would like to thank Dr. Christoph Mengelkamp for critical discussions and helpful suggestions concerning the studies.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cowan, N. (1997). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fischer, S., Lowe, R. K., & Schwan, S. (2008). Effects of presentation speed of a dynamic visualization on the understanding of a mechanical system. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1126–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 197–241). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lowe, R. K., & Boucheix, J.-M. (2008). Learning from animated diagrams: How are mental models built? In G. Stapleton, J. Howse, & J. Lee (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 266–281). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lowe, R., & Boucheix, J.-M. (2017). A composition approach to design of educational animations. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization — Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).Google Scholar
  13. Lowe, R. K., & Pramono, H. (2006). Using graphics to support comprehension of dynamic information in texts. Information Design Journal, 14, 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lowe, R. K., & Schnotz, W. (Eds.). (2008). Learning with animation: Research implications for design. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lowe, R. K., & Schnotz, W. (2014). Animation principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 513–546). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lowe, R. K., Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2011). Aligning affordances of graphics with learning task requirements. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 452–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marey, E. J. (1874). Animal mechanism: A treatise on terrestrial and aerial locomotion. New York: Appleton and Co.Google Scholar
  18. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer, K., Rasch, T., & Schnotz, W. (2010). Effects of animation’s speed of presentation on perceptual processing and learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 136–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
  21. Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paas, F. G. W. C., van Merriёnboer, J. J. G., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2014). Simultaneously presented animations facilitate the learning of higher-order relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2017). Looking across instead of back and forth – How the simultaneous presentation of multiple animation episodes facilitates learning. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization — Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).Google Scholar
  25. Richter, T. (2007). Wie analysiert man Interaktionen von metrischen und kategorialen Prädiktoren? Nicht mit Median-Splits! [How to analyze interactions of metric and categorical predictors: Not with median splits!] Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 19, 116–125.Google Scholar
  26. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2017). Dynamic visuospatial ability and learning from dynamic visualizations. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization — Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).Google Scholar
  28. Schnotz, W. (1993). On the relation between dual coding and mental models in graphics comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 3, 247–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 72–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychological Review, 19, 469–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R. K. (2008). A unified view of learning from animated and static graphics. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 304–356). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Spangenberg, R. W. (1973). The motion variable in procedural learning. AV Communication Review, 21, 419–436.Google Scholar
  33. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Bétrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tversky, B., Heiser, J., Mackenzie, R., Lozano, S., & Morrison, J. (2008). Enriching animations. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 263–285). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition, 18, 97–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vygotski, L. S. (1963). Learning and mental development at school age. In B. Simon & J. Simon (Eds.), Educational psychology in the U.S.S.R (pp. 21–34). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  37. Wagner, I. (2013). Lernen mit Animationen: Effekte dynamischer und statischer Visualisierungen auf die Bildung perzeptueller und kognitiver Repräsentationen beim Erwerb von Wissen über dynamische Sachverhalte. [Learning from animation: Effects of dynamic and static visualizations on the construction of perceptual and cognitive representations for the acquirement of knowledge about dynamic subject matters.] Ph.D. thesis. University of Koblenz-Landau, Faculty of Psychology. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from http://kola.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2013/858/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Koblenz-LandauMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations