Search

The current study investigated whether learning from dynamic and two presentation formats for static visualizations can be enhanced by means of cueing. One hundred and fifty university students were randomly assigned to six conditions, resulting from a 2x3-design, with cueing (with/without) and type of visualization (dynamic, static-sequential, static-simultaneous) as independent variables. For transfer tasks, learners receiving dynamic visualizations outperformed learners receiving static visualizations. A main effect in favour of cued visualizations could be observed only for pictorial tasks, but not for transfer tasks. There was no interaction between type of visualization and cueing for any learning outcome measure. Taken together, the study suggests that dynamic visualizations may be beneficial whenever understanding concerning the dynamic features of a domain is crucial to learning. Cueing on the other hand may not necessarily lead to a deeper understanding, but supports to achieve a better comprehension of the depicted visualizations. (Contains 1 table and 1 figure.)

The effects of dynamic and static visualizations in understanding physical principles of fish locomotion were investigated. Seventy-five students were assigned to one of three conditions: a text-only, a text with dynamic visualizations, or a text with static visualizations condition. During learning, subjects were asked to think aloud. Learning outcomes were measured by tests assessing verbal factual knowledge, pictorial recall as well as transfer. Learners in the two visualization conditions outperformed those in the text-only condition for transfer and pictorial recall tasks, but not for verbal factual knowledge tasks. Analyses of the think-aloud protocols revealed that learners had generated more inferences in the visualization conditions as opposed to the text-only condition. These results were mirrored by students' self-reported processing demands. No differences were observable between the dynamic and the static condition concerning any of the learning outcome measures. However, think-aloud protocols revealed an illusion of understanding when learning with dynamic as opposed to static visualizations. Furthermore, learners with static visualizations tended to play the visualizations more often. The results stress the importance of not only using outcome-oriented, but also process-oriented approaches to gain deeper insight into learning strategies when dealing with various instructional materials. (Contains 3 tables and 2 figures.)