Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Otero, Nuno; Rogers, Yvonne; du Boulay, Benedict (2005)
Publisher: American Association for Artificial Intelligence
Languages: English
Types: Part of book or chapter of book
Subjects: LB
An experiment was conducted to investigate the differences between learners when using computer based learning environments (CBLEs) that incorporated different levels of interactivity in diagrams. Four CBLEs were created with combinations of the following two interactivity properties: (a) the possibility to rotate the whole diagram (b) the possibility to move individual elements of the diagram in order to apprehend the relationships between them. We present and discuss the qualitative findings from the study in terms of the learners’ interaction patterns and their relevance for the understanding of performance scores. This supports our previous quantitative analysis showing an interaction between cognitive abilities and interactivity. Based on our findings we reflect on the possibilities to inform CBLEs with relevant information regarding learners’ cognitive abilities and representational preferences.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 131-152.
    • Ainsworth, S., Wood, D., & Bibby, P. A. (1996). Co-ordinating multiple representations in computer based learning environments. In P. Brna, A. Paiva & J. Self (Eds.), Euro ai-ed: European conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 336-342). Lisbon: Edicoes Colibri.
    • Ainsworth, S., Wood, D., & O'Malley, C. (1998). There is more than one way to solve a problem: Evaluating a learning environment that supports the development of children's multiplication skills. Learning and Instruction, 8(2), 141-157.
    • Cheng, P. C. H. (1999). Interactive law encoding diagrams for learning and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 9(4), 309-325.
    • Cox, R. (1996). Analytical reasoning with multiple external representations. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
    • Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9(4), 343-363.
    • Cox, R., Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1995). The effect of graphical and sentential logic teaching on spontaneous external representation. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 2(4), 1-20.
    • Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., & Harman, H. H. (1979). Cognitive factors: Their identification and replication.Forth Worth, Texas: Texas Christian University Press (for) The Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology.
    • Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Spatial abilities, working memory and mechanical reasoning. In J. Gero & B. Tversky (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design. Pre-prints of the international conference in design. (pp. 221-241). Cambridge: MIT.
    • Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 684-689.
    • Hegarty, M., & Steinhoff, K. (1997). Individual differences in use of diagrams as external memory in mechanical reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 9(1), 19-42.
    • Kirby, J. R., & Boulter, D. R. (1999). Spatial ability and transformational geometry. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XIV(2), 283-294.
    • Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. (2002). Revising the visualizer-verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20(1), 47-77.
    • Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. (2002). Spatial abilities in problem solving in kinematics. In M. Anderson, B. Meyer & P. Olivier (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and reasoning.London: Springer-Verlag.
    • Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science(11), 65- 99.
    • Oberlander, J., Cox, R., Monaghan, P., Stenning, K., & Tobin, R. (1996). Individual differences in proof structures follwing multimodal logic teaching. In Proceedings of the 18th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 201-206). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    • Otero, N., Rogers, Y., & Du Boulay, B. (2001). Is interactivity a good thing? Assessing its benefits for learning. In M. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Systems, social and internationalization design aspects of human-computer interaction (pp. 790-794). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    • Rogers, Y. (1999). What is different about interactive graphical representations? Commentary. Learning and Instruction, 9(4), 419-425.
    • Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(2), 185-213.
    • Stewart, M., & O'Toole, F. (1999). Arco teach yourself the gre in 24 hours.New York: IDG Worldwide.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article