Nodes Afford Connection: A Pilot Study Examining the Design and Use of a Graphical Modeling Language

Abstract

External representations such as diagrams facilitate reasoning. Many diagramming systems and notations are amenable to manipulation by actual or imagined intervention (e.g., transposing terms in an equation). Such manipulation is constrained by user-enforced constraints, including rules of syntax and semantics which help preserve the representation’s validity. We argue that the concepts of affordances and signifiers can be applied to understand such representations, and we suggest the term graphical affordance to refer to rule-constrained syntactic manipulation of an external representation. Following this argument, we examine a graphical modeling language in terms of these graphical affordances, and we present a pilot study examining how participants interact with the modeling language. Preliminary results suggest that using the modeling language, as opposed to prose representation, influences user behavior in a manner aligned with the graphical affordances and signifiers of the modeling language.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cheng

P. C. H.

(2011). Probably good diagrams for learning: Representational epistemic recodification of probability theory. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 475–498.

Clay-Williams

Colligan

(2015). Back to basics: checklists in aviation and healthcare. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24(7), 428–431.

Coppin

Burton

Hockema

(2010, August). An attention based theory to explore affordances of textual and diagrammatic proofs. In International Conference on Theory and Application of Diagrams (pp. 271–278). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Cummins

D. D.

Lubart

Alksnis

Rist

(1991). Conditional reasoning and causation. Memory & cognition, 19(3), 274–282.

Gibson

J. J.

(1979). The theory of affordances. The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Goldstone

R. L.

Landy

D. H.

Son

J. Y.

(2010). The education of perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2 (2), 265–284.

Gordon

T. F.

Prakken

Walton

(2007). The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10-15), 875–896.

Hegarty

(2004). Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(6), 280–285.

Hegarty

(1999). The psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

10.

Khemlani

S. S.

(2018). Reasoning. Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience, 3, 1–45.

11.

Larkin

J. H.

Simon

H. A.

(1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive science, 11(1), 65–100.

12.

Marghetis

Landy

Goldstone

R. L.

(2016). Mastering algebra retrains the visual system to perceive hierarchical structure in equations. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 1(1), 1–10.

13.

Mair

Wilcox

(2019). Robust statistical methods in R using the WRS2 package. Behavior research methods, 1–25.

14.

McLaughlin

A. C.

Byrne

V. E.

(2020). A Fundamental Cognitive Taxonomy for Cognition Aids. Human Factors, 62(6), 865–873.

15.

Norman

D. A.

(1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.

16.

Norman

(2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books.

17.

Pollock

J. L.

(1987). Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive science, 11(4), 481–518.

18.

Pugh

Z. H.

Gillan

D. J.

(2020, December). Propositional Constraint Graphs: An Intuitive, Domain-General Tool for Diagramming Knowledge, Assumptions, and Uncertainties. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 254–258). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

19.

Rapanta

Walton

(2016). The use of argument maps as an assessment tool in higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 211–221.

20.

Thagard

(1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and brain sciences, 12(3), 435–502.

21.

Trudeau

R. J.

(2013). Introduction to graph theory. Courier Corporation.

22.

Zhang

Norman

D. A.

(1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive science, 18(1), 87–122.

23.

Zhang

Norman

D. A

. (1995). A representational analysis of numeration systems. Cognition, 57(3), 271–295.

24.

Zhang

Patel

V. L.

(2006). Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 333–341.