Visual-verbal integration - Revision history

Koedinger: /* In vivo experiment support */ Fixed typo

2009-04-23T01:54:40Z

In vivo experiment support: Fixed typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 23 April 2009
Line 28:		Line 28:
	Butcher and Aleven also have been studying scaffolds that directly connect relevant visual and verbal information. Results of these studies are ongoing; for more information, please see [[Mapping Visual and Verbal Information: Integrated Hints in Geometry (Aleven & Butcher)]] and [[Visual Feature Focus in Geometry: Instructional Support for Visual Coordination During Learning (Butcher & Aleven)]].		Butcher and Aleven also have been studying scaffolds that directly connect relevant visual and verbal information. Results of these studies are ongoing; for more information, please see [[Mapping Visual and Verbal Information: Integrated Hints in Geometry (Aleven & Butcher)]] and [[Visual Feature Focus in Geometry: Instructional Support for Visual Coordination During Learning (Butcher & Aleven)]].

	Davenport et al. (2007, 2008) tested the role of visual-verbal ~~integrate~~ in chemistry instruction and found that instruction that includes diagrams and text only leads to learning gains when the representations are clearly aligned with an expert mental model. A knowledge decomposition of chemical equilibrium (informed by Lab Studies #1 and #2) as well as discussions with our Chemistry working group revealed that a key knowledge component of "progress of reaction" is left implicit in many types of traditional chemistry instruction. In one study two sets of online lectures were created by Prof. Yaron to determine if instruction that uses multiple representations to convey the notion of progress of reaction would lead to more robust learning of chemistry concepts. Traditional instruction described equilibrium using chemical notations and text, the New instruction described equilibrium using molecular diagrams depicting the progress of reaction. [[Transfer]] measures of open-ended responses and conceptual multiple choice questions were collected and revealed that diagrams that were aligned with the progress of reaction framework increased learning, particularly for low knowledge students. For more information about additional studies see: [[Visual Representations in Science Learning\|Visual Representations in Science Learning, Davenport, Klahr & Koedinger]].		Davenport et al. (2007, 2008) tested the role of visual-verbal integration in chemistry instruction and found that instruction that includes diagrams and text only leads to learning gains when the representations are clearly aligned with an expert mental model. A knowledge decomposition of chemical equilibrium (informed by Lab Studies #1 and #2) as well as discussions with our Chemistry working group revealed that a key knowledge component of "progress of reaction" is left implicit in many types of traditional chemistry instruction. In one study two sets of online lectures were created by Prof. Yaron to determine if instruction that uses multiple representations to convey the notion of progress of reaction would lead to more robust learning of chemistry concepts. Traditional instruction described equilibrium using chemical notations and text, the New instruction described equilibrium using molecular diagrams depicting the progress of reaction. [[Transfer]] measures of open-ended responses and conceptual multiple choice questions were collected and revealed that diagrams that were aligned with the progress of reaction framework increased learning, particularly for low knowledge students. For more information about additional studies see: [[Visual Representations in Science Learning\|Visual Representations in Science Learning, Davenport, Klahr & Koedinger]].

	[[Image:Text dia low.gif]]		[[Image:Text dia low.gif]]

Koedinger: /* Brief statement of principle */

2008-04-23T22:11:08Z

Brief statement of principle

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 23 April 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Brief statement of principle==		==Brief statement of principle==
	Visual-verbal integration principle: Instruction that includes both visual and verbal information leads to more robust learning than instruction that includes verbal information ~~along~~, but ''only when'' the instruction supports learners as they coordinate information from both sources and the representations guide student attention to deep features.		Visual-verbal integration principle: Instruction that includes both visual and verbal information leads to more robust learning than instruction that includes verbal information alone, but ''only when'' the instruction supports learners as they coordinate information from both sources and the representations guide student attention to deep features.

	==Description of principle==		==Description of principle==

Koedinger at 09:40, 22 April 2008

2008-04-22T09:40:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:40, 22 April 2008
Line 54:		Line 54:
	==Variations (descendants)==		==Variations (descendants)==

	~~The [[multimedia principle]] in Mayer~~ (~~2001~~) ~~is a variation or a kind of visual-verbal integration.~~		==Generalizations (ascendants)==

	~~==Generalizations~~ (~~ascendants~~)==		The [[multimedia principle]] in Mayer (2001) is a very closely related, but may be considered a generalization of visual-verbal integration in that visual-verbal integration has tighter conditions of applicability.

			More generally, this principle is within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster.

	~~This principle is within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster.~~

	==References==		==References==

Koedinger: /* Brief statement of principle */

2008-04-22T09:38:20Z

Brief statement of principle

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:38, 22 April 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Brief statement of principle==		==Brief statement of principle==
	Visual-verbal integration principle: Instruction that includes both visual and verbal information leads to robust learning ~~(the development of coherent~~, ~~flexible knowledge representations)~~ when the instruction supports learners as they coordinate information from both sources and the representations guide student attention to deep features.		Visual-verbal integration principle: Instruction that includes both visual and verbal information leads to more robust learning than instruction that includes verbal information along, but ''only when'' the instruction supports learners as they coordinate information from both sources and the representations guide student attention to deep features.

	==Description of principle==		==Description of principle==

Koedinger: /* Generalizations (ascendants) */

2008-04-17T19:24:56Z

Generalizations (ascendants)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, 17 April 2008
Line 57:		Line 57:

	==Generalizations (ascendants)==		==Generalizations (ascendants)==

			This principle is within the [[Coordinative Learning]] cluster.

	==References==		==References==

Koedinger: /* Examples */

2008-04-17T19:17:16Z

Examples

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:17, 17 April 2008
Line 12:		Line 12:
	===Examples===		===Examples===
	In geometry, students need to connect the conceptual definition of a geometry principle (e.g., a verbal description of "Vertical Angles") with the relevant visual diagram features and configurations (e.g., the visual instantiation of "Vertical Angles" formed by two crossing lines where the angles share a common vertex but no common sides). Visual-verbal integration can be tested by having students analyze the appropriateness of geometry rules to a particular diagram.		In geometry, students need to connect the conceptual definition of a geometry principle (e.g., a verbal description of "Vertical Angles") with the relevant visual diagram features and configurations (e.g., the visual instantiation of "Vertical Angles" formed by two crossing lines where the angles share a common vertex but no common sides). Visual-verbal integration can be tested by having students analyze the appropriateness of geometry rules to a particular diagram.

			Mayer (2001) has other examples of the related "multimedia principle".

	==Experimental support==		==Experimental support==

Koedinger: /* Variations (descendants) */

2008-04-17T19:16:26Z

Variations (descendants)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:16, 17 April 2008
Line 51:		Line 51:

	==Variations (descendants)==		==Variations (descendants)==

			The [[multimedia principle]] in Mayer (2001) is a variation or a kind of visual-verbal integration.

	==Generalizations (ascendants)==		==Generalizations (ascendants)==

Koedinger: /* Conditions of application */

2008-04-17T19:12:53Z

Conditions of application

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 17 April 2008
Line 39:		Line 39:

	*Visual Representations Must Target Deep Features		*Visual Representations Must Target Deep Features
	**In ~~a laboratory study~~, Davenport et al. [[Visual Representations in Science Learning\|wiki page]] found that pictures that were not aligned to an expert model of equilibrium processes did not support learning beyond text alone.		**In both in vivo and labs studies, Davenport et al. [[Visual Representations in Science Learning\|wiki page]] found that pictures that were not aligned to an expert model of equilibrium processes did not support learning beyond text alone.
			**[Others have reported not replicating Mayer's multi-media principles, like Jennifer Wiley -- we should track down the reference]

	*Visual-Verbal Information Should be Actively Integrated		*Visual-Verbal Information Should be Actively Integrated

Kirsten-Butcher: /* Conditions of application */

2008-03-28T20:14:45Z

Conditions of application

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:14, 28 March 2008
Line 43:		Line 43:
	*Visual-Verbal Information Should be Actively Integrated		*Visual-Verbal Information Should be Actively Integrated
	**Butcher & Aleven [[Using Elaborated Explanations to Support Geometry Learning (Aleven & Butcher)\|wiki page]] found that adding explanations that linked geometry principles to diagram features did not improve learning beyond direct interaction with diagrams. Log data analysis suggests that the visually-related explanations may not have been actively processed, especially when students were already working with the diagrams.		**Butcher & Aleven [[Using Elaborated Explanations to Support Geometry Learning (Aleven & Butcher)\|wiki page]] found that adding explanations that linked geometry principles to diagram features did not improve learning beyond direct interaction with diagrams. Log data analysis suggests that the visually-related explanations may not have been actively processed, especially when students were already working with the diagrams.

			*Format is Less Important than Content
			**Visual representations in a variety of formats can support learning, as long as the informational content is relevant and consistent [[Static vs. Animated Visual Representations for Science Learning (Kaye, Small, Butcher, & Chi)]]

	==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==		==Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views==

Kirsten-Butcher: /* Conditions of application */

2008-03-28T20:08:50Z

Conditions of application

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:08, 28 March 2008
Line 40:		Line 40:
	*Visual Representations Must Target Deep Features		*Visual Representations Must Target Deep Features
	**In a laboratory study, Davenport et al. [[Visual Representations in Science Learning\|wiki page]] found that pictures that were not aligned to an expert model of equilibrium processes did not support learning beyond text alone.		**In a laboratory study, Davenport et al. [[Visual Representations in Science Learning\|wiki page]] found that pictures that were not aligned to an expert model of equilibrium processes did not support learning beyond text alone.
	~~:[[Image:CMUabtut.jpg]]~~

	*Visual-Verbal Information Should be Actively Integrated		*Visual-Verbal Information Should be Actively Integrated