Static, animated, and interactive visualizations are frequently used in electronic learning environments. In this article, we provide a brief review of research on visuospatial cognition relevant to designing e-learning tools that use these displays. In the first section, we discuss the possible cognitive benefits of visualizations consider used in e-learning environments. In the second section consider cognitive constraints on the use of visualizations and design guidelines intended to reduce impact of these cognitive constraints. Finally, we consider how individual differences interact with learning from visualizations and how the use of visualizations might be altered for students of different abilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BladesM.SpencerC. (1989). Young children's ability to use coordinate references. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 150, 5–18.
2.
ClarkJ. M.PaivioA. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149–210.
3.
FreedmanE. G.ShahP. S. (2002). Toward a model of knowledge-based graph comprehension. In HegartyM.MeyerB.NarayananN. Hari (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 8–31). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
4.
GyselinckV.CornoldiC.DuboisV.De BeniR.EhrlichM.-F. (2002). Visuospatial memory and phonological loop in learning from multimedia. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 665–685.
5.
HalpernD. F.CollaerM. L. (in press). Sex differences in visuospatial abilities: More than meets the eye. In ShahP.MiyakeA. (Eds.), Handbook of visuospatial thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
HegartyM.JustM. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717–742.
7.
HegartyM.KozhevnikovM. (1999). Spatial abilities, working memory and mechanical reasoning. In GeroJ.TverskyB. (Eds.) Visual and spatial reasoning in design. Sydney, Australia: Key Centre of Design and Cognition.
8.
HegartyM.QuiliciJ.NarayananN. H.HolmquistS.MorenoR. (1999). Designing multimedia manuals that explain howmachines work: Lessons from evaluation of a theory-based design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 119–150.
9.
HegartyM.SimsV. K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22, 411–430.
10.
HegartyM.SteinhoffK. (1997). Individual differences in use of diagrams as external memory in mechanical reasoning, Learning and Individual Differences, 9, 19–42.
11.
KozhevnikovM.HegartyM.Mayer (2002). Revising the visualizer/verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 47–78.
12.
LarkinJ. H.SimonH. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
13.
MayerR. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In GlaserR. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 253–284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
MayerR. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
MayerR. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89, 55–71.
16.
MayerR. E. (in press). Multimedia learning: Guiding visuospatial thinking with instructional animation. In ShahP.MiyakeA. (Eds.), Handbook of visuospatial thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
MayerR. E.HeiserJ.LonnS. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198.
18.
MichasI. C.BerryD. C. (2001). Learning a procedural task: Effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 555–575.
19.
MiyakeA.ShahP., (Eds.) (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
NarayananN. H.HegartyM. (1998). On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48, 267–301.
21.
OestermeierU.HesseF. W. (2000). Verbal and visual causal arguments. Cognition, 75, 65–104.
22.
PaneJ. F.CorbettA. T.JohnB. E. (1996). Assessing dynamics in computer-based instruction. In TauberM. J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 797–804), Vancouver: ACM.
23.
ParkO.GittelmanS. S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 40, 27–38.
24.
RieberL. P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics with science instruction with children. Journal of Educational Psychology;82, 135–140.
25.
RobinsonD. H.SkinnerC. H. (1996). Why graphic organizers facilitate search processes: Fewer words or computionally efficient indexing?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 166–180.
26.
SchwartzD. L.BlackJ. B. (1996). Analog imagery in mental model reasoning: Depictive models. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 154–219.
27.
ShahP. (2001). Graph comprehension: The role of format, content, and individual differences. In AndersonM.MayerB.OlivierP. (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and reasoning (pp. 173–185). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
28.
ShahP. (in press). Memory for graphics, diagrams, and videos. In Encyclopedia of education. New York: Macmillan.
29.
ShahP.FreedmanE. G.VekiriI. (in press). The presentation and comprehension of graphically-presented data. In ShahP.MiyakeA. (Eds.), Handbook of visuospatial thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
ShahP.HoeffnerJ. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 47–69.
31.
ShahP.MayerR. E.HegartyM. (1999). Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 690–702.
32.
SomervilleS. C.BryantP. E. (1985). Young children's use of spatial coordinates. Child Development, 56, 604–613.
33.
SubrahmanyamK.GreenfieldP. M. (1994). Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 13–32.
34.
SwellerJ.van MerrienboerJ. J. G.PaasF. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.
35.
TverskyB.MorrisonJ. B.BetrancourtM. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.
36.
van BruggenJ. M.KirschnerP. A.JochemsW. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12, 121–138.
37.
VanderStoepS. W.FagerlinA.FeenstraJ. S. (2000). What do students remember from introductory psychology?Teaching of Psychology, 27, 89–92.
38.
VekiriI. (2001). An investigation of the role of graphical design and student characteristics in scientific reasoning with weather maps. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
39.
WickensC. D.VincowM.YehM. (in press). Design applications of visual spatial thinking: The importance of frame of reference. In ShahP.MiyakeA. (Eds.), Handbook of visuospatial thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
WileyJ.VossJ. F. (1999). Constructing originals from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301–311.
41.
WinnB. (1987). Charts, graphs, and diagrams in educational materials. In WillowsD.HoughtonH. A. (Eds.), The psychology of illustration. New York: Springer-Verlag.
42.
ZhangJ. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21, 179–217.
43.
ZhangJ.NormanD. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87–122.
