Abstract
Research-based design methods for dynamic visualizations can be successfully implemented in practice only if they take into consideration the pressures of ‘real world’ projects and integrate the vagaries of client-designer communications. One must take into account both the complicated power dynamics and numerous variables inherent to the relationship and dialogue between those who commission or control the creation of instructional media and those who produce it. From a researcher’s standpoint, there are myriad opportunities with which studies in human perception, cognitive psychology and educational research can inform and improve the design of dynamic visualizations. Despite these opportunities, however, designers do not always know or are not always able to leverage relevant aspects of perceptual and cognitive psychology (i.e., how the human visual system works and its relationship to thinking/learning processes) as part of their efforts to satisfy a client’s design preferences and meet stated learning objectives. In this chapter, I introduce both idealized and more realistic models for the designer-client relationship to consider the major variables that interfere with learning objective-driven design. I discuss these variables in the context of both the client- and designer-related disruptions through the use of examples drawn from recent production projects in the life sciences. Variables that transcend the designer-client divide are also addressed. In conclusion, specific strategies for integrating this knowledge within the context of effective instructional visualization design are presented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ainsworth, S. (2008). How do animations influence learning? In D. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction: Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 37–67). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Andrew, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (2011). When users want what’s NOT best for them. Ergonomics in Design, 3, 10–14.
Boucheix, J.-M. (2008). Young learners’ control of technical animations. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 208–234). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burgstahler, S. E., & Cory, R. C. (2010). Universal design in higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 113–140.
De La Flor, M. (2004). The digital biomedical illustration handbook. Hingham: Charles River Media.
Evanko, D. (2013, July 30). Data visualization: A view of every points of view column. Nature Methods [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.nature.com/methagora/2013/07/data-visualization-points-of-view.html
Frankel, F. C., & De Pace, A. H. (2012). Visual strategies—A practical guide to graphics for scientists and engineers. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fry, R., & Kolb, D. (1979). Experiential learning theory and learning experiences in liberal arts education. New Directions for Experiential Learning, 6, 79–92.
Gremmler, T. (2014). Creative education and dynamic media. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.
Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 713–729.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning—A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. New York: Routledge.
Hodges, E. R. S. (2003). The Guild handbook of scientific illustration. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hoffman, D. D. (1998). Visual intelligence—How we create what we see. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc..
Hübscher-Younger, T., & Narayanan, N. H. (2008). Turning the tables: Investigating characteristics and efficacy of student-authored animations and multimedia representations. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 235–259). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jantzen, S., Jenkinson, J., & McGill, G. (2015, August 5). Molecular visualization principles. Retrieved from https://bmcresearch.utm.utoronto.ca/sciencevislab/index.php/portfolio/molecular-visualization-principles/
Jenkinson, J. (2017). The role of craft-based knowledge in the design of dynamic visualizations. In R. Lowe, & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization—Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).
Jenkinson, J., & McGill, G. (2012). Visualizing protein interactions and dynamics: Evolving a visual language for molecular animation. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11, 103–110.
Jenkinson, J., & McGill, G. (2013). Using 3D animation in biology education: Examining the effects of visual complexity in the representation of dynamic molecular events. Journal of Biocommunication, 39, 42–49.
Johnson, B., & Pierce, J. T. (2014). Design school wisdom. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.
Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Kirby, J. R. (2008). Mental representations, cognitive strategies, and individual differences. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 165–180). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kolb, D. (1976). Learning style inventory: Technical manual. Boston: McBer and Company.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain—The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kriz, S., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 911–930.
Lowe, R. (2000). Visual literacy in science and technology education. Connect—UNESCO International Science, Technology & Environmental Educational Newsletter, XXV(2), 1–3.
Lowe, R. (2006). Animations: A key advance for open and distance learning? In M. Tulloch, S. Relf, & P. Uys (Eds.), Breaking down boundaries: International experience in open, distance and flexible learning: Selected papers from the 2005 ODLAA Conference (pp. 189–195). Bathurst: Charles Sturt University.
Lowe, R. K. (2008). Learning from animation: Where to look, when to look. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 49–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lowe, R. K., & Boucheix, J.-M. (2012). Dynamic diagrams: A composition alternative. In P. Cox, B. Plimmer, & P. Rogers (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 233–240). Berlin: Springer.
Lowe, R., Boucheix, J.-M., & Fillisch, B. (2017). Demonstration tasks for assessment. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization—Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).
Lowe, R. K., Jenkinson, J., & McGill, G. (2014, August). Learning functional relations in complex animations. Paper presented at the EARLI SIG 2 (Comprehension of Text and Graphics) Meeting, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Lowe, R., Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2011). Aligning affordances of graphics with learning task requirements. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 452–459.
Marx, V. (2013). Data visualization: Ambiguity as a fellow traveler. Nature Methods., 10, 613–615.
Mayer, R. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 87–99.
McGill, G. (2014). Crafting scientific visualization—Creative process and best practices. Biozoom, 3, 17–19.
McGill, G., Nowakowski, D., & Blacklow, S. C. (2017). Creating molecular visualizations: It’s the journey and the destination that counts. Cell (submitted).
Metros, S. E. (2008). The educator’s role in preparing visually literate learners. Theory Into Practice, 47, 102–109.
Munzner, T. (2014). Visualization analysis and design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Pinker, S. (2014). The sense of style: The thinking person’s guide to writing in the 21st century. New York: Penguin.
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Hayward, E. O. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing Higher Education, 21, 31–61.
Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2012). A systematic characterization of expository animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 781–794.
Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2014). Simultaneously presented animations facilitate the learning of higher-order relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 12–22.
Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2017). Looking across instead of back and forth—How the simultaneous presentation of multiple animation episodes facilitates learning. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization—Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S. G., & Rose, L. T. (2012). A research reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Roediger, H. L., Agarwal, P. K., Kang, S. H. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2010). Benefits of testing memory—Best practices and boundary conditions. In G. M. Davies & D. B. Wright (Eds.), New frontiers in applied memory (pp. 13–49). Brighton, UK: Psychology Press.
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.
Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2008). Functions of animation in comprehension and learning. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 92–113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schwan, S., & Papenmeier, F. (2017). Learning from animations: From 2d to 3d? In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization—Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).
Smallman, H. S., & Cook, M. B. (2011). Naîve realism: Folk fallacies in the design and use of visual displays. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 579–608.
Strobelt, H., Oelke, D., Kwon, B. C., Schrek, T., & Pfister, H. (2015). Guidelines for effective use of text highlighting techniques. IEEE Transactions on Visualizations and Computer Graphics, 22, 489–498.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.
Tufte, E. R. (1997). Visual explanations. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Bétrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.
Ware, C. (2008). Visual thinking for design. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufman.
Ware, C. (2013). Information visualization—Perception for design. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufman.
Weinschenk, S. M. (2011). 100 things every designer should know about people. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Yenawine, P. (2013). Visual thinking strategies—Using art to deepen learning across school disciplines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank members of both my collaborative academic team at Harvard Medical School and the University of Toronto, as well as members of my Digizyme team who were involved in creating many of the examples shown in this chapter. Funding in support of some of the research activities was provided by the NSF and NASA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McGill, G.G. (2017). Designing Instructional Science Visualizations in the Trenches: Where Research Meets Production Reality. In: Lowe, R., Ploetzner, R. (eds) Learning from Dynamic Visualization. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56204-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56204-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56202-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56204-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)