Dynamic visualisations as
storytelling
This paper describes an approach for the specification of animated and interactive diagrams in explanation. We propo a model that treats diagrams as narrative explanations rather than static artifacts. Using measures of explanation we describe 15 diagrams produced to describe the abstract concepts in structures of academic cours. We find that the some of the diagrams perform poorly as tools for explanation. The poorly performing finished diagrams became clear when en as the finish point of an explanation involving discovery, revelation and staging.
pedestrianWe then u the model to develop an animated diagram for a fictitious programme. The model also works in application. We have ud the model to generate an interactive diagram of such an abstract entity: our own programme. Further work will test the efficacy of this approach.
1. INTRODUCTION
The aim of this paper is to develop a practice for the development of animated and/or interactive dia-grams (aka dynamic visualizations DV). We do this by considering how educators u diagrams as pa
rt of their explanations (or “stories”). The descrip-tions of the diagrams as elements in storytelling are ud to inform the development of animated and interactive diagrams.
The internet has caud a boom in the develop-ment of various forms of elearning, and literature on how to do it. Ko and Rosn (2001), for example, enthu about “webpages …enlivened with relevant graphics, tables and charts”, but most of this litera-ture (and practice) does not get past being a con-tent management system, perhaps with a chat sys-tem (synchronous or asynchronous). There is re-markably little literature as to the form of learning objects. In practice, animated and interactive dia-grams are very common, which is perhaps not sur-prising given that the web is an inherently visual medium that affords interactivity (Bodemer and Ploetzner 2002). Schnotz (2002) argues that ani-mated pictures can have different functions in the process of learning. They can have an enabling func-tion if they allow the learner to perform a higher amount of cognitive processing than static pictures. They can also have a facilitating function if they make specific cognitive process easier to perform through external support.
Several papers over the last few years have ex-amined the premi of “a picture is worth a thou-sand words” and concluded “yes, sometimes” (Kirsh 2002). The evidence is less clear for the benefits of diagrams with animation and/or interactivity, and despite “a widespread assumption that d
ynamic portrayals are intrinsically superior to their static counterparts, this view is highly simplisitic and not consistent with findings from recent rearch” (Lowe 2002; Shu 1989 visual programming; Eysink 2002 symbolic logic etc). For example, in the u of al-gorithm learning, Byrne et al. (1996) suggests that the notion of the benefits of the u of animation is “largely bad on intuition and anecdotal evidence”. Bodemer and Ploetzner (2002) suggest that the “prentation of multiple, dynamic, and interactive reprentations might even impede learning”.
There are many reasons suggested as to why DV is not as successful as hoped (e review in Bodemer and Ploetzner 2002; also Ingram 2001, Sweller 2002). The include the additional cognitive load of multiple reprentations, reliance on notations not familiar to students, and lack of visual literacy meaning students do not interpret the perceived visual and spatial structures conceptually.
Lowe (2002) points out that “many of today’s explanatory animations clearly have their origins di-rectly in earlier static depictions of the same con-
Samuel Mann Lorna Lou
Department of IT and Electrotechnology
Otago Polytechnic,
Dunedin, NZ
smann@
Nell Buisink-Smith
348
tent”. What is lacking, according to Lowe, is the key role of instructional design in the u of such reprentations. Or rather the lack of instructional design:
“The extensive body of existing anima-tion knowledge that is ud to train today’s
graphic designers has largely been built up
from the work of animators in the entertain-
ment industry who objectives and meas-
ures of success are somewhat different from
tho of educators. Conquently, the tried八年级英语课件
英孚英语and true approaches developed for enter-
taining us with the animated exploits of
Mickey Mou or Felix the Cat will not nec-
essarily be tho that are particularly effec-
tive for facilitating the learning of academic
content”.
So, how do we incorporate instructional design in the development of dynamic visualizations? What is an effective design strategy? As Norman (1993) notes, ideal reprentations must show the relevant while ignoring the irrelevant and be appropriate for the person and task. The task here is learning. What then, does education lend us in terms of design strat-egy?
Clearly a well designed DV has key elements clearly defined, and shape, size and color are ud to
clearly differentiate the key elements in the graphs. Animation can also be ud to draw attention to particular parts of the graph (Ingram 2001, calls this “knowing where to look”). While perfectly valid, however, such ideas are akin to instructions to ‘speak clearly’ in a classroom situation, it does not address pedagogical issues. Lowe (1997) comes clor with the idea that students need to be able to construct meaning from all the layers of information that are embedded in the graph “from the global level right down to the details” (Lowe, 1997; p. 24).
A constructionist pedagogy is also adopted by Reiber (2002) who examined the role of discovery, investigating whether students were able to ‘discover’for themlves the rules underlying a simulation and the instructional inventions required. In addition to the minimalist approach to the u of instructional interventions in simulations, Reiber employed model progression. Instead of prenting the entire simu-lation to students from the ont, students are given a simplified version, followed by having variables added as their understanding unfolds.
We can e diagrams as a tool for explanation as part of a student’s constructivist learning. Unfortu-nately, unless one reads philosophical arguments there
is little guidance on what constitutes a good ‘expla-nation’. We can, however, borrow much from de-
scriptions of storytelling (Alterio and McDrury 2002, 2003). So, instead of examining how students might interpret static diagrams (as if from textbooks), we examine how teachers u diagrams as tools in their stories with a view to u this to improve the design
of dynamic visualizations.
Alterio and McDrury (2002, 2003) describe the learning benefits of storytelling. They describe a level
artificialintelligence
at my most beautifulof engagement model, whereby both storyteller and listener benefit from participating in critical reflec-tive dialogue. Together the participants progress through five stages: 1. connecting with context (rap-port with listeners), 2. telling the story (motives, words or events depict their point of view, substan-tiated through tone of voice, points of emphasis and gestures),3. clarifying events, 4. engaging in critical reflective dialog, 5. (hopefully) constructing new knowledge. They describe storytelling as constructivist – a learning a process of n mak-ing of adding and synthesizing new information within existing knowledge structures. To be considered constructivist, four important tenets should be prent: context, collaboration, conversation, con-struct.
The notion of constructivist diagrams is not new, Ainsworth (2002), for example described the im-port
ance of contextualized activity with multi-rep-rentational material (ie text and pictures).
Alterio and McDrury’s (2002, 2003) focus is on storytelling with an emotional aspect. Most of dia-gram rearch, however, has concentrated on fixed systems: car brake systems, heart blood flow where the animation is ud to show the flow of material.renli
In such examples the benefits of animation is not clear, the animation is usually a distraction. The u
of diagrams in more abstract subjects is less well understood and emotional stories not at all.
The rearch question for this paper is: To what extent can the u of diagrams in explanation be de-scribed by storytelling model? Then, to what extent can the pedagogical benefits of storytelling be trans-ferred to digital media?
349
350
2. DIAGRAMS IN EXPLANATION
In order to investigate the extent to which the u of diagrams in explanation can be described by storytelling model, we asked 15 nior academics to describe an abstract concept with the aid of a whiteboard. The academics were asked to describe their academic programme (ie degree, diploma etc)as if they were explaining it to a new student. This subject matter is very familiar to participants across a range of disciplines, and likely to have variation in emphasis, but as esntially describing the same struc-ture (cours, credits years, options etc) would aid analysis. The rearcher (LL) took photographs of the diagrams as they developed and a transcript was taken. She also asked the same initial questions and at points in the process asked similar questions of all participants. The questions, for example “I e,so I have options at higher levels, do the lead onto different career pathways?” were intended to inves-tigate the u of the diagrams in the joint reflective
process. Diagrams were described in terms of the
Grid (block) diagram
Simple blocks
Grid (arrow) diagram
Timeline
Flowchart
Text
Relationships
Figure 1: Differing structures of diagrams ud in explanation
351
In the first mester of the programme you will study design core subjects, which is a cour of basic design completed by all design students.
awful的意思aggressive翻译From the cond mester is industrial design. You will identify a specific area you wanted and plus the skill you have learnt from first mester.
It has electives in cond mester of year two, first mester of year three and electives in mester two of year three.
Q: Different career pathways
For example you can lect digital animation in year two and jewellery in year three.
Process title, y axis (years), rectangles, divided into mesters, shaded core, labelled ""ID specific"" in 2/1 and 1/2, then indicated position of electives, States that core is shared with fashion
Structure
Years on left from top, Semesters on y, making table of parated rectangles. Sem1/yr1 is shaded with core, arrow pointing to ""I.D. Specific"" in 2/1.
Electives shown in some mesters as vertical slashes across edge of rectangle Diagram metaphor Blocks for years as ba for some annotation Levels spanned 3
How time reprented
year and mester
How is progression reprented
Semesters and progress from core to specific
Scaffolding material? no
Diagram quencing years and mesters giving structure, then broke down, concepts such as
electives at end
Number of dimensions
year, mester, core/specific
quence, diagram structure, interactions and sto-rytelling.
3. RESULTS
The structures ud in the finished diagrams are
very different (Figures 1 and 2). The most common
theme is the grid with years/stages on the y axis and
cours along the x, the spaces filled with text, blocks
or arrows. The size of graphical elements is usually ud to indicate importance of cours with arrows
indicating various relationships between cours, usu-ally – but not always – ‘this leads to this’. Some
diagrams explicitly designated particular cours, oth-ers subjects, others just indicated that the programme was broken up somehow. On two diagrams the grid was expanded to form a timeline.
2013美国留学费用Some finished diagrams were very difficult to un-derstand yet if quence followed the meaning be-comes more apparent. Most of the diagrams are ud in curricula and marketing documents. Some of the, despite being tidied for publication are com-plex and difficult to understand. Without the dy-namic elements inherent in the whiteboard delivery
their educational quality is limited.
3.1 Storytelling All of the interactions could be en to be de-scribed in part by the storytelling model.
The context for the story was partially t by the situation. About a third of the academics started by
tting the context of the diagram, using scaffolding
elements such as axis labels . Another third added the after starting the content, some as aftertho
ughts,but for others this emed a concious decision, start-Figure 2: Snapshots in development of diagram (A) and associated story (B) (both simplified here)(C) storytelling model and (D) structural analysis.A B C
D
The context is estab-lished with parameters for the contents of the story, the structure is quickly estblished
Telling the story. In this ca (as in most others) is told using “you” as charac-ter.
Clarifying events
352
valentines daying with structures and later adding what the rep-rented. A last third did not u such elements at all.
The explanations are ones which the academ-ics have ud many times before. The explanations were well structured narratives and having an al-most comforting nature (phrasing etc)
of a well writ-ten children’s story. None of them personalid the story to a fictiotous “Jane” although most of them described “you”.
In terms of clarifying events the diagrams were ud extensively, when the rearcher asked a ques-tion (eg about career options), all participants ud the diagrams in answering the question. Some, who had already covered the material re-emphasid that component, others added to the detail of the dia-
Figure 3: Diagrammatic narrative for hypothetical degree in meteorology
123
4
5
6
9
10
353
construct new knowledge etc. “each storytelling group can negotiate guidelines that enable them to work with their stories in ways which meet specific learning outcomes” . They go on to describe eight pathways of story bad on in/formal tting, 1+ lis-teners, spontaneous/predetermined story. Clearly this relies on a synchronous interaction between teller and listener. In an asynchronous tting (such as via email), the storytelling characteristics would be harder to maintain.
The next question for us is, when the interaction between teller and listener is only via the medium of the animated diagram, to what extent does the sto-rytelling model apply?
Figure 3 shows the design for an animated dia-gram for a fictious programme that attempts to fol-low a storytelling model. Futher rearch aims to asss this approach experimentally in terms of sto-rytelling and information retention and understand-ing (and in comparision to textual and static repre-ntations). The diagram is intended to t the con-text and then explain the programme as if an ac
a-demic was explaining it to a student (as above).Clearly though, without interactivity, the clarifying events stage is difficult, although the designer may attempt to predict what the might be and add them.In Figure 3 the detail of credit counts was not added
until the end,as if a student had asked for such a
Figure 4: Dynamic and interactive diagram for Bachelor of Information Technology
gram. None (except tho who diagrams were really text) had to add substantial new structures or dimensions. This suggests that the diagrams as part of the story are well structured in relation to the pro-grammes.
Few of the examples could be described as the final parts of the storytelling model, critical reflective dialog and constructing new knowledge. Tho that did were when the rearcher became especially in-terested and asked further questions, constructing a special path of study for herlf in that programme (on top of a IT degree!). Participants found that they marked cross credits, special entry points and particular career paths onto the diagrams, in a com-bination that they probably that they had not done before.
5. MODEL APPLIED IN DESIGN OF ANIMATED
DIAGRAM
The academic participants ud diagrams as an important component in their explanations in a way that could be considered storytelling.
Alterio and McDrury (2003) describe how sto-rytelling is an interactive process. They describe how it gives opportunities to work cooperatively, to link theory to practice, reveal multiple perspectives,
