Can Differences in Learning Strategies Explain the Benefits of Learning from Static and Dynamic Visualizations?

Autor/inn/en	Kuhl, Tim; Scheiter, Katharina; Gerjets, Peter; Gemballa, Sven
Titel	Can Differences in Learning Strategies Explain the Benefits of Learning from Static and Dynamic Visualizations?
Quelle	In: Computers & Education, 56 (2011) 1, S.176-187 (12 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0360-1315
DOI	10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.008
Schlagwörter	Protocol Analysis; Learning Strategies; Visualization; Instructional Materials; Inferences; Printed Materials; Visual Aids; Computer Assisted Instruction; Educational Technology; Electronic Learning; Computer Software Evaluation; Instructional Design; Instructional Material Evaluation; Teaching Methods; Instructional Effectiveness; Animation; Multimedia Materials; Comparative Analysis; Ichthyology; Science Instruction + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Learning methode; Learning techniques; Lernmethode; Lernstrategie; Visualisation; Visualisierung; Lehrmaterial; Lehrmittel; Unterrichtsmedien; Inference; Inferenz; Anschauungsmaterial; Computer based training; Computerunterstützter Unterricht; Softwareanalyse; Lesson concept; Lessonplan; Unterrichtsentwurf; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Unterrichtserfolg; Teaching of science; Science education; Natural sciences Lessons; Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht
Abstract	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.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Elsevier. 6277 Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, FL 32887-4800. Tel: 877-839-7126; Tel: 407-345-4020; Fax: 407-363-1354; e-mail: usjcs@elsevier.com; Web site: http://www.elsevier.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10