Students' difficulties in learning from dynamic visualisations and how they may be overcome

Computers in Human Behavior

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 56-65

  Ploetzner, Rolf ^a   Lippitsch, Stefan ^a   Galmbacher, Matthias ^b   Heuer, Dieter ^b   Scherrer, Sarah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Computer assisted learning; Computer simulation; Graphical displays; Learning strategies

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EDUCATION; GRAPH THEORY; STUDENTS;

COMPUTER ASSISTED LEARNING; GRAPHICAL DISPLAYS; ICONIC REPRESENTATIONS; LEARNING STRATEGIES; LINE GRAPHS; SECOND GROUPS; SIMULATED MOTIONS;

VISUALIZATION;

EID: 54449089715     PISSN: 07475632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.06.006     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ainsworth S. The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education 33 (1999) 131-152
2. Ainsworth S. DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 16 3 (2006) 183-198
3. Ainsworth S., Bibby P.A., and Wood D.J. Analysing the costs and benefits of multi-representational learning environments. In: van Someren M.W., Reimann P., Boshuizen H.P.A., and de Jong T. (Eds). Learning with multiple representations (1998), Pergamon Press, Amsterdam 120-134
4. Ainsworth S., and VanLabeke N. Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction 14 3 (2004) 241-255
5. Anzai Y. Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In: Ericsson K.A., and Smith J. (Eds). Toward a general theory of expertise - Prospects and limits (1991), Cambridge University Press, New York, NY 64-92
6. Anzai Y., and Yokoyama T. Internal models in physics problem solving. Cognition and Instruction 1 4 (1984) 397-450
7. In: Barker-Plummer D., Cox R., and Swoboda N. (Eds). Diagrammatic representation and inference - Proceedings of the fourth international conference on diagrams (2006), Springer, New York
8. Beichner R.J. Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics 62 (1994) 750-762
9. Bell A., and Janvier C. The interpretation of graphs representing situations. For the Learning of Mathematics 2 1 (1981) 34-42
10. Berg C.A., and Smith P. Assessing students' abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments. Science Education 78 (1994) 527-554
11. Bétrancourt M., and Tversky B. Effect of computer animation on users' performance: A review. Le Travail Humain 63 4 (2000) 311-329
12. Blaschke K., and Heuer D. Dynamik-Lernen mit multimedial-experimentell unterstütztem Werkstatt-Unterricht [Learning dynamics in small groups by making use of multimedia experiments]. Physik in der Schule 38 2 (2000) 1-6
13. Clement J. Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics 50 1 (1982) 66-71
14. de Jong T., and van Joolingen W.R. Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research 68 2 (1998) 179-201
15. Duit R. Bibliography - Students' and teachers' conceptions and science education (2004), Leibniz Institute for Science Education, Kiel
16. Ebner M., and Holzinger A. Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers and Education 49 3 (2007) 873-890
17. Elby A. Helping physics students learn how to learn. American Journal of Physics Supplement 69 7 (2001) 54-64
18. Gropper G.L. Text displays - Analysis and systematic design (1991), Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
19. Hake R.R. Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-students-survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66 (1998) 67-74
20. Halloun I.A., and Hestenes D. Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics 53 11 (1985) 1056-1065
21. Halloun I.A., and Hestenes D. The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics 53 11 (1985) 1043-1055
22. Heuer D. PAKMA 2002 - Physik interaktiv simulieren, messen, reproduzieren, modellieren und analysieren [PAKMA 2002 - Interactive simulation, measurement, reproduction, modelling and analysis in physics; CD-ROM] (2002), Schroedel Verlag, Hannover
23. Holzinger A., Kickmeier-Rust M., and Albert D. Dynamic media in computer science education; content complexity and learning performance: Is less more?. Educational Technology and Society 11 1 (2008) 279-290
24. Johnson T.E., and Lesh R. A models and modeling perspective on technology-based representational media. In: Lesh R., and Dorr H.M. (Eds). Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (2003), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ 265-277
25. In: Jonassen D.H. (Ed). The technology of text - Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text (1985), Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
26. Leinhardt G., Zaslavsky O., and Stein M.K. Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research 60 (1990) 1-64
27. Leutner D., and Leupold C. Selbstreguliertes Lernen als Selbstregulation von Lernstrategien - Ein Trainingsexperiment mit Berufstätigen zum Lernen aus Sachtexten [Self-regulated learning as self-regulation of learning strategies - A training experiment on learning from texts]. Unterrichtswissenschaft 31 1 (2003) 38-56
28. In: Linn M., Davis E.A., and Bell P. (Eds). Internet environments for science education (2004), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
29. Lowe R.K. Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education 14 2 (1999) 225-244
30. Lowe R.K. Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction 13 2 (2003) 157-176
31. Lowe R.K. Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction 14 3 (2004) 257-274
32. In: Mayer R.E. (Ed). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), Cambridge University Press, New York, NY
33. McDermott L.C., Rosenquist M.L., and van Zee E.H. Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics 55 (1987) 503-513
34. Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. K. (2004). Special issue dynamic visualisations and learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 235-240.
35. Ploetzner R., and VanLehn K. The acquisition of qualitative physics knowledge during textbook-based physics training. Cognition and Instruction 15 2 (1997) 169-205
36. Raven J.C. RAVEN-Matrizen-test - Advanced progressive matrices (1980), Beltz Verlag, Weinheim
37. Reif F., and Allen S. Cognition for interpreting scientific concepts: A study of acceleration. Cognition and Instruction 9 1 (1992) 1-44
38. Reif F., and Heller J.I. Knowledge structure and problem solving in physics. Educational Psychologist 17 2 (1982) 102-127
39. Rieber L. Computers, graphics and learning (1994), Brown and Benchmark Publishers, Madison, WI
40. In: Sawyer R.K. (Ed). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2006), Cambridge University Press, New York, NY
41. Scanlon E. How beginning students use graphs of motion. In: van Someren M.W., Reimann P., Boshuizen H.P.A., and de Jong T. (Eds). Learning with multiple representations (1998), Pergamon Press, Amsterdam 67-86
42. Schnotz W., Böckheler J., Grzondziel H., Gärtner I., and Wächter M. Individuelles und kooperatives Lernen mit interaktiven animierten Bildern [Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 12 2/3 (1998) 135-145
43. Schnotz W., and Rasch T. Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 53 3 (2005) 47-58
44. Sweller J. Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In: Mayer R.E. (Ed). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA 19-30
45. Sweller J., and Chandler P. Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction 12 3 (1994) 185-233
46. Sweller J., van Merriënboer J.J.G., and Paas F.G.W.C. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10 3 (1998) 251-296
47. Thomas E.L., and Robinson H.A. Improving reading in every class: A source-book for teachers (1972), Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA
48. Trickett S.B., and Trafton J.G. Toward a comprehensive model of graph comprehension: Making the case for spatial cognition. In: Barker-Plummer D., Cox R., and Swoboda N. (Eds). Diagrammatic representation and inference - Proceedings of the fourth international conference on diagrams (2006), Springer, New York 286-300
49. Trickett S.B., and Trafton J.G. The use of spatial cognition in graph interpretation. In: McNamara D.S., and Trafton J.G. (Eds). Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (2007), Cognitive Science Society, Nashville, TN 1563-1568
50. White B.Y. Sources of difficulty in understanding Newtonian dynamics. Cognitive Science 7 (1983) 41-65
51. White B.Y. ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction 10 1 (1993) 1-100
52. Yeo S., Loss R., Zadnik M., Harrsion A., and Treagust D. What do students really learn from interactive multimedia? A physics case study. American Journal of Physics 72 10 (2004) 1351-1358