You are here:

Application of Frameworks in the Analysis and (Re)design of Interactive Visual Learning Tools
Article

, , The University of Western Ontario, Canada

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 20, Number 2, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

Interactive visual learning tools (IVLTs) are software environments that encode and display information visually and allow learners to interact with the visual information. This article examines the application and utility of frameworks in the analysis and design of IVLTs at the micro level. Frameworks play an important role in any design. They bring structure to the analysis process and allow designers to conduct a systematic exploration of design possibilities. Without frameworks, designers tend to adopt ad hoc practices. In this article, two frameworks, one for interaction design and the other for interactivity design, are brought together to systematically analyze three online IVLTs used by thousands of teachers and students. As each tool is analyzed, a systematic exploration of the possibilities offered by the frameworks helps to guide the redesign of the tool. By applying the interaction and interactivity frameworks to the analysis and redesign of these three IVLTs, the article demonstrates why it is important to have, and apply, explicit frameworks when designing IVLTs.

Citation

Hai-Ning, L. & Sedig, K. (2009). Application of Frameworks in the Analysis and (Re)design of Interactive Visual Learning Tools. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(2), 215-254. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 12, 2024 from .

© 2009 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Aldrich, F., Rogers, Y., and Scaife, M. (1998). “Getting to grips with interactivity: Helping teachers assess the educational value of CD-Roms.” British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 321–332.
  2. Alessi, S.M., and Trollip, S.R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  3. Boyle, T. (1997). Design for multimedia learning, London, UK: Prentice Hall Europe.
  4. Bowman, D., Johnson, D., and Hodges, L. (1999). “Testbed evaluation of virtual environment interaction technique.” Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 26-33, London, United Kingdom.
  5. Bowman, D., and Hodges, L. (1999). “Formalizing the design evaluation and application of interactions techniques for immersive virtual environments.” Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 10(1), 37-53.
  6. Burgoon, J.K., Bonito, J.A., Bengtsson, B., Cederberg, C., Lundeberg, M., and Allspach, L. (2000). “Interactivity in human-computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence.” Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 553-574.
  7. Cairncross, S., and Mannion, M. (2001). “Interactive multimedia and learning: Realizing the benefits.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 156-164.
  8. Crouch, R.D., Holden, M.S., and Samet, C. (1996). “CAChe Molecular Modelling: A visualization tool early in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum.” Journal of Chemical Education, 73(10), 916-917.
  9. De Léon, D. (2002). “Cognitive task transformations.” Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 349-359. Dix, A., and Ellis, G. (1998). “Starting simple–adding value to static visualization through simple interaction.” Proceedings of the 4th International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, L'Aquilla, Italy, 1998, 124-134.
  10. Golightly, D. (1996). “Harnessing the interface for domain learning.” In M.J. Tauber (Ed.), Proceedings of the CHI ’96 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Common Ground. April 13–18. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 37-38. New York, NY: ACM Press.
  11. Gibbons, A.S., and Fairweather, P.G. (1998). Computer-based instruction: Design and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  12. Hannington, A., and Reed, K. (2001). “Towards a taxonomy for guiding multimedia application development.” Proceedings of the Ninth IEEE Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Dec. 4-6, 97-106.
  13. Heller, R.S., Martin, D., Haneef, N., and Gievska-Krliu, S. (2001). “Using a theoretical multimedia taxonomy framework.” ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 1, 1.
  14. Hult, L., Irestig, M., and Lundberg, J. (2006). “Design Perspectives.” Human-Computer Interaction, 21(1), 5-48.
  15. Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd edition). Columbus, Ohio: Prentice Hall.
  16. Jonassen, D.H., and Carr, C.S. (2000). “Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledge representations for learning.” In S.P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.
  17. Jonassen D.H. (2003). “Using cognitive tools to represent problems.” Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 362-381.
  18. Kirsh, D., and Maglio, P. (1994). “On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action.” Cognitive Science, 18, 513-549.
  19. Kirsh, D. (1997). “Interactivity and multimedia.” Instructional Science, 25, 79-96.
  20. Liang, H.-N., and Sedig, K. (2007). “Presentation of feedback in interactive learning environments: Some dimensions.” Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2007: World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Vancouver, Canada, June 25-29, 972-977.
  21. Morey, J., and Sedig, K. (2004). “Adjusting degree of visual complexity: An interactive approach for exploring four-dimensional polytopes.” The Visual Computer: International Journal of Computer Graphics, 20, 1-21. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2006a). Illuminations activities. Available on-line: http://illuminations.nctm.org/Activities.aspx?grade=1andgrade=2andgrade=3andgrade=4 [Last visited: April 2007].
  24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2006b). Standards electronic examples. Available on-line: http://standards.nctm.org/document/eexamples/index.htm [Last visited: April 2007]. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2006c). Learning about Length, Perimeter, Area, and Volume of Similar Objects by Using Interactive Figures: Side Length, Volume, and Surface Area of Similar Solids. Available on-line: http://standards.nctm.org/document/eexamples/chap6/6.3/part2.htm [Last visited: April 2007].
  25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2006d). Geometric solids. Available on-line: http://illuminations.nctm.org/ActivityDetail.aspx?ID=70 [Last visited: April 2007].
  26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2006e). Shape cutter. Available on-line: http://illuminations.nctm.org/ActivityDetail.aspx?ID=72 [Last visited: April 2007].
  27. Neth, H., and Payne, S.J. (2002). “Thinking by doing? Epistemic actions in the Tower of Hanoi.”In W.D. Gray and C.D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 691-696. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  28. Pfitzner, D., Hobbs, V., and Powers, D. (2003). “A unified taxonomic framework for information visualization.” Proceedings of the 2nd Australian Institute of Computer Ethics Conference (AICE2000), Adelaide, Australia.
  29. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., and Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: Beyond human computer interaction. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
  30. Price, B.A., Baecker, R.M., and Small, I.S. (1993). “A principled taxonomy of software visualization.” Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 4(3), 211-266.
  31. Schwan, S. (2002). “Do it yourself? Interactive visualizations as cognitive tools.” International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Learning, July 18-19, Tübingen, Germany, 1501-1506. Sedig, K., Klawe, M., and Westrom, M. (2001). “Role of interface manipulation style and scaffolding on cognition and concept learning in learnware.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 1(8), 34-59.
  32. Sedig, K., and Rowhani, S. (2005). “Micro-level design of interactive visual learning environments.” Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005: World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Montreal, Canada, June-July, 2005, 1050-1057.
  33. Sedig, K., Rowhani, S., and Liang, H.-N. (2005). “Designing interfaces that support formation of cognitive maps of transitional processes: An empirical study.” Interacting with Computers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 17(4), 419-452. Elsevier.
  34. Sedig, K., and Liang, H.-N. (2006). “Interactivity of visual mathematical representations: Factors affecting learning and cognitive processes.” Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 179-212. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Sedig, K., and Sumner, M.
  35. Shneiderman, B., and Kang, H. (2000). “Direct annotation: A drag-and-drop strategy for labeling photos.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Visualization, July, 8895. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
  36. Svanæs, D. (1999). Understanding interactivity: Steps to a phenomenology of Human-Computer Interaction. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, Department of Computer and Information Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
  37. Tabachneck-Schijf, H., and Simon, H.A. (1996). “Alternative representations of instructional material.” In D. Peterson (Ed.), Forms of representation: An interdisciplinary theme for cognitive science. Oxford, UK: Intellect Books Ltd.
  38. Tufte, E.R. (2000). Visual explanations: Images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
  39. Tweedie, L. (1999). “Characterizing interactive externalizations.” In S.K. Card, J.D. Mackinlay, and B. Shneiderman (Eds.), Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  40. Wagner, E.D. (1997). “Interactivity: From agents to outcomes.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71, 19-26.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections