You are here:

Learner-Information Interaction: A Macro-Level Framework Characterizing Visual Cognitive Tools
Article

, , The University of Western Ontario, Canada

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 19, Number 1, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

"** Invited as a paper from ED-MEDIA 2006 **"

Visual cognitive tools (VCTs) are external mental aids that maintain and display visual representations (VRs) of information (i.e., structures, objects, concepts, ideas, and problems). VCTs allow learners to operate upon the VRs to perform epistemic (i.e., reasoning and knowledge-based) activities. In VCTs, the mechanism by which learners operate upon the VRs to reason and learn is interaction. Frameworks play an important role in how interactive tools are analyzed and designed. As such, this article presents a framework (A2C2) that characterizes the macro-level categories of VCTs according to the manner in which learner-information interaction takes place in these tools. The A2C2 framework divides the analysis and design space of VCTs into four categories: access-based, annotation-based, construction-based, and combination-based. Each category represents an overall structure within which learners operate upon information. Different existing VCTs are used as examples to demonstrate the application and utility of the framework.

Citation

Sedig, K. & Liang, H.N. (2008). Learner-Information Interaction: A Macro-Level Framework Characterizing Visual Cognitive Tools. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 147-173. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2023 from .

© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Aldrich, F., Rogers, Y., & 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. & Trollip, S.R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development– 3rd Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  3. Barwise, J. & Etchemendy, J. (1998). Computers, visualization, and the nature of reasoning. In T.W. Bynum & J.H. Moor (Eds.), The Digital Phoenix: How Computers are Changing Philosophy, pp. 93-116. London: Blackwell.
  4. Blackwell, A.F. & Engelhardt, Y. (1998). A taxonomy of diagram taxonomies. In, Proceedings of Thinking with Diagrams 98: Is there a Science of Diagrams? (pp. 60-70).
  5. Bowman, D. & 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. Bowman, D., Johnson, D., & Hodges, L. (1999). Testbed evaluation of virtual environment interaction technique. In, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 26-33, London, United Kingdom.
  7. Boyle, T. (1997). Design for multimedia learning. London, UK: Prentice Hall Europe.
  8. Cairncross, S. & Mannion, M. (2001) Interactive multimedia and learning: Realizing the benefits. Learner-Information Interaction 171 investigation.
  9. Cadiz, J., Gupta, A., & Grudin, J. (2000).Using web annotations for asynchronous collaboration around documents. In, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, December 2-6, Philadelphia, PA.
  10. Cary, M. & Carlson, R.A. (1999). External support and the development of problem-solving routines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 1053-1070.
  11. Crook, C. (2002). Deferring to resources: Collaborations around traditional vs computer-based notes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 64-76.
  12. De Léon, D. (2002). Cognitive task transformations. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 349-359.
  13. Dix, A. & Ellis, G. (1998). Starting simple–adding value to static visualization through simple interaction. In, Proceedings of the 4th International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, L'Aquilla, Italy. (pp. 124-134).
  14. Gadanidis, G., Sedig, K., & Liang, H. (2004). Designing online mathematical Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(3), 275-298.
  15. Grabowski, B.L. (1996). Generative learning: Past, present, and future. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York, NY: Simon& Schuster Macmillan.
  16. Hannington, A. & Reed, K. (2001). Towards a taxonomy for guiding multimedia application development. Proceedings of the Ninth IEEE Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Dec. 4-6. (pp. 97-106).
  17. Harel, I. & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1-32.
  18. Harris, R.L. (1999). Information graphics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  19. Heller, R.S., Martin, D., Haneef, N., & Gievska-Krliu, S. (2001). Using a theoretical multimedia taxonomy framework. ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 1, 1.
  20. Hertzer, K. (2006). Graphmatica (Version 2.0e) [Computer software]. USA: ksoft, Inc. Available: http://www.graphmatica.com/ (accessed on November, 2006).
  21. Hult, L., Irestig, M., & Lundberg, J. (2006). Design Perspectives. Human-Computer Interaction, 21(1), 5-48.
  22. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  23. Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B.G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
  24. Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking– 2nd Edition. New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall Inc.
  25. Kirsh, D. & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive 172 Sedig and Liang Lajoie, S. (Ed., 2000). Computers as cognitive tools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Living Graphs. (2006a). Looking Glass (Version 1.0b) [Computer software]. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Living Graphs, Inc. Available: http://www.livinggraphs.com/enu/products/lg/ (accessed on November, 2006).
  26. Morey, J. & 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.
  27. Neth, H. & Payne, S.J. (2002). Thinking by doing? Epistemic actions in the Tower of Hanoi. In W.D. Gray, & C.D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. (pp. 691-696). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  28. Norman, D.A. (1993). Things that make us smart: Defining human attributes in the age of the machine. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
  29. Pedagoguery Software (2006). Tess (Version 1.70) [Computer software]. Terrace, B.C., Canada: Pedagoguery Software Inc. Available: http://www.peda.com/ (accessed on November, 2006).
  30. Pfitzner, D., Hobbs, V., & Powers, D. (2003). A unified taxonomic framework for information visualization. Proceedings of the 2nd Australian Institute of Computer Ethics Conference (AICE2000), Adelaide, Australia.
  31. Price, B.A., Baecker, R.M., & Small, I.S. (1993). A principled taxonomy of software visualization. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 4(3), 211-266.
  32. Scharein, R.G. (1998). Interactive topological drawing. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The University of British Columbia, Canada.
  33. Scharein, R.G. (2002). KnotPlot: A program for viewing mathematical knots [On-line]. Available: http://knotplot.com/KPman/KPman.pdf (accessed on December, 2006).
  34. Scharein, R.G. (2006). KnotPlot [Computer software]. Vancouver, Canada: Hypnagogic Software. Available: http://knotplot.com/download/ (accessed on November, 2006).
  35. Schwan, S. (2002). Do it yourself? Interactive visualizations as cognitive tools. International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Learning. July, 18-19. (pp. 1501-1506). Tübingen,
  36. Sedig, K. & Liang, H. (2006). Interactivity of visual mathematical representations: Factors affecting learning and cognitive processes. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 179-212.
  37. Sedig, K. & Sumner, M. (2006). Characterizing interaction with visual mathematical representations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(1), 1-55. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  38. Slotte, V. & Lonka, K. (1999). Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(1), 1-20.
  39. Stochastic-Lab (2006). Archim (Version 1.1). Available: http://www.stochastic-lab.com/archim.html
  40. Tweedie, L. (1999). Characterizing interactive externalizations. In S.K. Card, J.D. Mackinlay, & B. Shneiderman (Eds.), Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Wavefuntion, Inc. (2006). Spartan Student Edition [Computer software]. Irvine, CA: Wavefunction, Inc. Available: http://www.wavefun.com/products/spartan.html (accessed on November, 2006).
  41. Webb, R. (2000). Stella: Polyhedron navigator. Symmetry: Culture and Science, 11(1-4): 231-268.
  42. Webb, R. (2006). Great Stella (Version 3.5.1) [Computer Software]. Available: http://web.aanet.com.au/robertw/Downloads.html #great (accessed on November, 2006).
  43. Weeks, J. (2005). KaleidoTile (Version 3.0) [Computer Software]. Available: http://geometrygames.org/ (accessed on November, 2006).
  44. Zhang, J. & Norman, D.A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 87-122.
  45. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179-217.

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

Suggest Corrections to References