Dynamic visualisations as storytelling Samuel Mann
Lorna Lou
Nell Buisink-Smith
Department of IT and Electrotechnology Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, NZ
[email protected] This paper describes an approach for the specification of animated and interactive diagrams in explanation. We propose 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 courses. We find that the some of the diagrams perform poorly as tools for explanation. The poorly performing finished diagrams became clear when seen as the finish point of an explanation involving discovery, revelation and staging. We then use the model to develop an animated diagram for a fictitious programme. The model also works in application. We have used 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 diagrams (aka dynamic visualizations DV). We do this by considering how educators use diagrams as part of their explanations (or “stories”). The descriptions of the diagrams as elements in storytelling are used to inform the development of animated and interactive diagrams. The internet has caused a boom in the development of various forms of elearning, and literature on how to do it. Ko and Rossen (2001), for example, enthuse about “webpages …enlivened with relevant graphics, tables and charts”, but most of this literature (and practice) does not get past being a content management system, perhaps with a chat system (synchronous or asynchronous). There is remarkably little literature as to the form of learning objects. In practice, animated and interactive diagrams are very common, which is perhaps not surprising given that the web is an inherently visual medium that affords interactivity (Bodemer and Ploetzner 2002). Schnotz (2002) argues that ani348
mated pictures can have different functions in the process of learning. They can have an enabling function 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 processes easier to perform through external support. Several papers over the last few years have examined the premise of “a picture is worth a thousand 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 dynamic portrayals are intrinsically superior to their static counterparts, this view is highly simplisitic and not consistent with findings from recent research” (Lowe 2002; Shu 1989 visual programming; Eysink 2002 symbolic logic etc). For example, in the use of algorithm learning, Byrne et al. (1996) suggests that the notion of the benefits of the use of animation is “largely based on intuition and anecdotal evidence”. Bodemer and Ploetzner (2002) suggest that the “presentation of multiple, dynamic, and interactive representations might even impede learning”. There are many reasons suggested as to why DV is not as successful as hoped (see review in Bodemer and Ploetzner 2002; also Ingram 2001, Sweller 2002). These include the additional cognitive load of multiple representations, 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 directly in earlier static depictions of the same con-
tent”. What is lacking, according to Lowe, is the We can see diagrams as a tool for explanation as key role of instructional design in the use of such part of a student’s constructivist learning. Unforturepresentations. Or rather the lack of instructional nately, unless one reads philosophical arguments there is little guidance on what constitutes a good ‘expladesign: nation’. We can, however, borrow much from de“The extensive body of existing animascriptions of storytelling (Alterio and McDrury 2002, tion knowledge that is used to train today’s 2003). So, instead of examining how students might graphic designers has largely been built up from the work of animators in the entertaininterpret static diagrams (as if from textbooks), we ment industry whose objectives and measexamine how teachers use diagrams as tools in their ures of success are somewhat different from stories with a view to use this to improve the design those of educators. Consequently, the tried of dynamic visualizations. and true approaches developed for enterAlterio and McDrury (2002, 2003) describe the taining us with the animated exploits of learning benefits of storytelling. They describe a level Mickey Mouse or Felix the Cat will not necof engagement model, whereby both storyteller and essarily be those that are particularly effeclistener benefit from participating in critical reflective for facilitating the learning of academic content”. tive dialogue. Together the participants progress So, how do we incorporate instructional design through five stages: 1. connecting with context (rapin the development of dynamic visualizations? What port with listeners), 2. telling the story (motives, is an effective design strategy? As Norman (1993) words or events depict their point of view, substannotes, ideal representations must show the relevant tiated through tone of voice, points of emphasis and while ignoring the irrelevant and be appropriate for gestures),3. clarifying events, 4. engaging in critical the person and task. The task here is learning. What reflective dialog, 5. (hopefully) constructing new then, does education lend us in terms of design strat- knowledge. They describe storytelling as constructivist – a learning a process of sense makegy? ing of adding and synthesizing new information within Clearly a well designed DV has key elements clearly defined, and shape, size and color are used existing knowledge structures. To be considered constructivist, four important tenets should be to clearly differentiate the key elements in the graphs. present: context, collaboration, conversation, conAnimation can also be used to draw attention to particular parts of the graph (Ingram 2001, calls this struct. The notion of constructivist diagrams is not new, “knowing where to look”). While perfectly valid, however, such ideas are akin to instructions to ‘speak Ainsworth (2002), for example described the imclearly’ in a classroom situation, it does not address portance of contextualized activity with multi-reppedagogical issues. Lowe (1997) comes closer with resentational material (ie text and pictures). the idea that students need to be able to construct Alterio and McDrury’s (2002, 2003) focus is on meaning from all the layers of information that are storytelling with an emotional aspect. Most of diaembedded in the graph “from the global level right gram research, however, has concentrated on fixed down to the details” (Lowe, 1997; p. 24). systems: car brake systems, heart blood flow where A constructionist pedagogy is also adopted by the animation is used to show the flow of material. Reiber (2002) who examined the role of discovery, In such examples the benefits of animation is not investigating whether students were able to ‘discover’ clear, the animation is usually a distraction. The use for themselves the rules underlying a simulation and of diagrams in more abstract subjects is less well the instructional inventions required. In addition to understood and emotional stories not at all. the minimalist approach to the use of instructional The research question for this paper is: To what interventions in simulations, Reiber employed model extent can the use of diagrams in explanation be deprogression. Instead of presenting the entire simu- scribed by storytelling model? Then, to what extent lation to students from the onset, students are given can the pedagogical benefits of storytelling be transa simplified version, followed by having variables ferred to digital media? added as their understanding unfolds. 349
Grid (block) diagram
Simple blocks
Grid (arrow) diagram
Timeline
Flowchart
Text
Relationships
Figure 1: Differing structures of diagrams used in explanation
2. DIAGRAMS IN EXPLANATION In order to investigate the extent to which the use of diagrams in explanation can be described by storytelling model, we asked 15 senior 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 350
a range of disciplines, and likely to have variation in emphasis, but as essentially describing the same structure (courses, credits years, options etc) would aid analysis. The researcher (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. These questions, for example “I see, so I have options at higher levels, do these lead onto different career pathways?” were intended to investigate the use of the diagrams in the joint reflective process. Diagrams were described in terms of the
A
B In the first semester of the programme you will study design core subjects, which is a course of basic design completed by all design students.
From the second semester is industrial design. You will identify a specific area you wanted and plus the skill you have learnt from first semester.
C
The context is established with parameters for the contents of the story, the structure is quickly estblished Telling the story. In this case (as in most others) is told using “you” as character.
It has electives in second semester of year two, first semester of year three and electives in semester two of year three.
Clarifying events Q: Different career pathways For example you can select digital animation in year two and jewellery in year three.
D
Process
Structure
Diagram metaphor Levels spanned How time represented How is progression represented Scaffolding material? Diagram sequencing Number of dimensions
title, y axis (years), rectangles, divided into semesters, shaded core, labelled ""ID specific"" in 2/1 and 1/2, then indicated position of electives, States that core is shared with fashion Years on left from top, Semesters on y, making table of separated rectangles. Sem1/yr1 is shaded with core, arrow pointing to ""I.D. Specific"" in 2/1. Electives shown in some semesters as vertical slashes across edge of rectangle Blocks for years as base for some annotation 3 year and semester Semesters and progress from core to specific no years and semesters giving structure, then broke down, concepts such as electives at end year, semester, core/specific
Figure 2: Snapshots in development of diagram (A) and associated story (B) (both simplified here) (C) storytelling model and (D) structural analysis.
Some finished diagrams were very difficult to unsequence, diagram structure, interactions and stoderstand yet if sequence followed the meaning berytelling. comes more apparent. Most of the diagrams are used in curricula and marketing documents. Some 3. RESULTS of these, despite being tidied for publication are comThe structures used in the finished diagrams are plex and difficult to understand. Without the dyvery different (Figures 1 and 2). The most common namic elements inherent in the whiteboard delivery theme is the grid with years/stages on the y axis and their educational quality is limited. courses along the x, the spaces filled with text, blocks or arrows. The size of graphical elements is usually 3.1 Storytelling used to indicate importance of courses with arrows All of the interactions could be seen to be deindicating various relationships between courses, ususcribed in part by the storytelling model. ally – but not always – ‘this leads to this’. Some The context for the story was partially set by the diagrams explicitly designated particular courses, others subjects, others just indicated that the programme situation. About a third of the academics started by was broken up somehow. On two diagrams the setting the context of the diagram, using scaffolding elements such as axis labels . Another third added grid was expanded to form a timeline. these after starting the content, some as afterthoughts, but for others this seemed a concious decision, start351
1
2
3
4
6
5
7
8
9
10
Figure 3: Diagrammatic narrative for hypothetical degree in meteorology
ing with structures and later adding what these represented. A last third did not use such elements at all. These explanations are ones which the academics have used many times before. The explanations were well structured narratives and having an almost comforting nature (phrasing etc) of a well written children’s story. None of them personalised the 352
story to a fictiotous “Jane” although most of them described “you”. In terms of clarifying events the diagrams were used extensively, when the researcher asked a question (eg about career options), all participants used the diagrams in answering the question. Some, who had already covered the material re-emphasised that component, others added to the detail of the dia-
Figure 4: Dynamic and interactive diagram for Bachelor of Information Technology
gram. None (except those whose 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 programmes. Few of the examples could be described as the final parts of the storytelling model, critical reflective dialog and constructing new knowledge. Those that did were when the researcher became especially interested and asked further questions, constructing a special path of study for herself 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 combination that they probably that they had not done before.
5. MODEL APPLIED IN DESIGN OF ANIMATED DIAGRAM The academic participants used diagrams as an important component in their explanations in a way that could be considered storytelling. Alterio and McDrury (2003) describe how storytelling is an interactive process. They describe how it gives opportunities to work cooperatively, to link theory to practice, reveal multiple perspectives,
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 based on in/formal setting, 1+ listeners, spontaneous/predetermined story. Clearly this relies on a synchronous interaction between teller and listener. In an asynchronous setting (such as via email), these 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 storytelling model apply? Figure 3 shows the design for an animated diagram for a fictious programme that attempts to follow a storytelling model. Futher research aims to assess this approach experimentally in terms of storytelling and information retention and understanding (and in comparision to textual and static representations). The diagram is intended to set the context and then explain the programme as if an academic 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 these 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 353
clarification. This is akin to the way in which the Alterio, M. and J. McDrury (2003). Collaborative academics were able to use their whiteboard dialearning using reflective storytelling. Reflection grams to answer questions. to transformation. N. Zepke and L. Leach. Palmerston North, Dunmore: 35-51. Bodemer, D. and R. Ploetzner (2002). 6. MODEL APPLIED IN Encouraging the Active Integration of DESIGN OF INTERACTIVE Information During Learning with Multiple and Interactive Representations. Proceedings of the DIAGRAM International Workshop on Dynamic The ‘generating new knowledge’ aspect of stoVisualizations and Learning., Tübingen: rytelling is not supported by the animated diagram Knowledge Media Research Center.http:// in Figure 3 (at least not explicitly). If such a diagram www.iwm-kmrc.de/workshops/visualization/ then became truly interactive however, the student proceedings.htm may be able to build their own pathways, in a sense, Eysink, T. H. S. (2002). The role of interactive constructing understanding through explanation. visualisations in the development of concepts Figure 4 presents such an interactive diagram. In of logic. Proceedings of the International this case we have skipped the early stages and Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and present a model that can be used to build an indiLearning., Tübingen: Knowledge Media vidual study pathway leading to a career. The user Research Center.http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/ drags courses onto the wall which brings with it workshops/visualization/proceedings.htm prerequiste papers. Again, we intend experimentIngram, D., E. Thompson and M. Tcha (2001). ing with this approach to assess its efficacy. The convergence of text and graphics in an online learning environment: a case study in 7. DISCUSSION economics. ASCILITE 2001.281-288 This paper has described an application of a sto- Kirsh, D. (2002). Why Illustrations aid rytelling approach to the design of interactive and understanding. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and animated diagrams. From examining the way in which academics used diagrams as part of an exLearning., Tübingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/ planation we believe that the storytelling model does offer some insight. We then considered the extent workshops/visualization/proceedings.htm that the pedagogical benefits of storytelling could be Ko, S. and S. Rossen (2001). Teaching Online: a transferred to digital media. Simply by thinking of practical guide. Boston, Houghton Mifflim. dynamic visualisations as telling a story, rather than Lowe, R. (2002). Perceptual and Cognitive static artifacts will improve the quality of dynamic Challenges to Learning with Dynamic visualisations. We hope that this work has gone some Visualisations. Proceedings of the International way to provide method for instructional to meet Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Lowe’s problem with ‘Mickey Mouse’ design. This Learning., Tübingen: Knowledge Media has clearly raised more questions and will lead to Research Center.http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/ more research. workshops/visualization/proceedings.htm McDrury, J. and M. Alterio (2002). Leaning through storytelling: using reflection and References experience in higher education contexts. Ainsworth, S. and N. van Labeke (2002). Using Palmerston North, Dunmore. a Multi-Representational Design Framework Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart: to Develop and Evaluate a Dynamic Simulation Defending human attributes in the age of the Environment. Proceedings of the International machine. Reading MA, Addison-Wesley Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Publishing Co. Learning., Tübingen: Knowledge Media Rieber, L. P. (2002). Supporting Discovery-Based Research Center.http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/ Learning within Simulations. Proceedings of the workshops/visualization/proceedings.htm International Workshop on Dynamic 354
Visualizations and Learning., Tübingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.http:// www.iwm-kmrc.de/workshops/visualization/ proceedings.htm Schnotz, W. (2002). Enabling, Facilitating, and Inhibiting Effects in Learning from Animated Pictures. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Learning., Tübingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.http://www.iwm-kmrc.de/ workshops/visualization/proceedings.htm Seufert, T. (2002). Supporting Coherence Formation in Learning from Multiple Representations. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Learning., Tübingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.http:// www.iwm-kmrc.de/workshops/visualization/ proceedings.htm Sweller, J. (2002). Visualisation and instructional design. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Learning., Tübingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.1501-1509 http://www.iwmkmrc.de/workshops/visualization/ proceedings.htm
355
