Students' difficulties in learning physics from dynamic and interactive visualizations

ICLS 2006 - International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Proceedings

Volumn 2, Issue , 2006, Pages 550-556

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DYNAMIC REPRESENTATION; EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS; INTERACTIVE VISUALIZATIONS; LEARNING PHYSICS; LEARNING STRATEGY; LINE GRAPH;

GRAPH THEORY;

STUDENTS;

EID: 67349147814     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33, 131-152.
2. Berg, C. A., & Smith, P. (1994). Assessing students' abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments. Science Education, 78, 527-554.
3. Bétrancourt, M., & Tversky, B. (2000). Effect of computer animation on users' performance: A review. Le Travail Humain, 63(4), 311-329.
4. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271-315.
5. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
6. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
7. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-students-survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 67-74.
8. Heuer, D. (2002). PAKMA 2002 - Physik interaktiv simulieren, messen, reproduzieren, modellieren und analysieren [PAKMA 2002 - Interactive simulation, measurement, reproduction, modelling and analysis in physics; CD-ROM]. Hannover: Schroedel Verlag.
9. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1-64.
10. Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 157-176.
11. McDermott, L. C., and Rosenquist., M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 503-513.
12. Ploetzner, R., Bodemer, D., & Neudert, S. (in press). Successful and less successful use of dynamic visualisations in instructional texts. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation - Research and implications for design. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13. Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. K. (Eds.). (2004). Special issue on dynamic visualisations and learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 235-240.
14. Raven, J. C. (1980). RAVEN-Matrizen-Test - Advanced progressive matrices. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.
15. Reif, F., & Allen, S. (1992). Cognition for interpreting scientific concepts: A study of acceleration. Cognition and Instruction, 9(1), 1-44.
16. Scanlon, E. (1998). How beginning students use graphs of motion. In M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 67-86). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.
17. Yeo, S., Loss, R., Zadnik, M., Harrsion, A., & Treagust, D. (2004). What do students really learn from interactive multimedia? A physics case study. American Journal of Physics, 72(10), 1351-1358.