ArticlePDF Available

Instructional Designer's Intentions and Learners' Perceptions of the Instructional Functions of Visuals in an e-Learning Context

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The purpose of this study is to compare an instructional designer's intentions with the learners' perceptions of the instructional functions of visuals in one specific e-learning lesson. An instructional designer created each visual with more than two purposes related to the psychological, cognitive, and affective aspects of learning. Contrary to a deterministic view of visual design, learners perceived the instructional functions of visuals in various ways. Designer's intentions and learners' perceptions were analyzed to be congruent for four visuals out of eight. Specific instructional designer's intentions and learners' perceptions of instructional functions of visuals are described.
Content may be subject to copyright.
143
Journal of Visual Literacy, 2010
Volume 29, Number 2, 143-166
Instructional Designer’s Intentions
and Learners’ Perceptions of the
Instructional
Functions of Visuals in an e-Learning
Context
Sung-Hee Jin, Ph. D.
Inha University, Incheon,
South Korea
Elizabeth Boling, M.F.A.
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN, USA
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare an instructional designer’s
intentions with the learners’ perceptions of the instructional
functions of visuals in one specic e-learning lesson. An instructional
designer created each visual with more than two purposes related
to the psychological, cognitive, and affective aspects of learning.
Contrary to a deterministic view of visual design, learners perceived
the instructional functions of visuals in various ways. Designer’s
intentions and learners’ perceptions were analyzed to be congruent for
four visuals out of eight. Specic instructional designer’s intentions
and learners’ perceptions of instructional functions of visuals are
described.
Keywords: visuals for learning, learner perception, visual design,
media design, e-learning materials
Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 29, Number 2
144
Introduction
As teaching and learning extend beyond physical classrooms to include
online environments, e-learning is on the rise in both the public and
private sectors. In many e-learning contexts, study is accomplished
primarily through the process of comprehending learning materials in a self-
directed way (Jung & Rha, 2004). In this context, presentations of content
often include animations, charts, pictures, photos and comprehension depends
as much on how content is presented as it is on what kind of information is
presented (Schnotz, 2005). While research on the effectiveness of visuals in
learning materials shows that they can improve learning (Anglin, Vaez, &
Cunningham, 2004; Mayer, 2005; Rieber, 1994), many researchers argue that
visuals presented in learning materials do not always support learning and such
explanations rely on discussions of the strategies and techniques applied to
those images by their designers (Harp & Mayer, 1998; Levie & Lentz, 1982;
Mayer, 1997; 2005). However, learners are human beings with agency, and the
view that a certain kind of visual will always produce the desired effect in a
learner is a deterministic one, discounting or ignoring that agency (Krippendorf,
2005). Therefore, we consider it worthwhile to investigate what is happening
when learners encounter visuals during a learning event.
Early research on words and visuals focused on learning outcomes from
materials combining words and visuals compared with materials using words
only, or visuals only. Studies consistently demonstrated that students learned
more with words and visuals together than with words only or visuals only
(Bender & Levin, 1978; Bransford & Johnson, 1972; Levie & Lentz, 1982;
Paivio & Csapo, 1973; Schallert, 1980). Recent multimedia research has made
progress in identifying effective forms of visual and verbal information for
learning. Mayer and his colleagues (1997; 2005) have shown the conditions
under which combinations of words and visuals are effective for learning.
Although abundant research regarding visuals in learning has been
performed, this research does not always guide designers well with regard to
whether they and the learners for whom they design will interpret the visuals
included in e-learning lessons in the same way. Instructional designers spend
time and effort on visuals and may expect learners to perceive the functions of
those visuals as they are intended. However, some research shows that this may
not be the case and that the intended meanings of visuals are not necessarily
obvious to viewers (Boling, Eccarius, Smith, & Frick, 2004; Kosslyn, 1994;
Schriver, 1997; Stern & Robinson, 1994; Watkins, Miller, & Brubaker, 2004;
Winn, 1991). Why might this be so?
The current study focuses on instructional functions of visuals from the
semiotic perspective, specically that of Sless (1986), an active information
Jin & BolingInstructional Designer’s Intentions...
145
designer and design theorist. Sless argued that the author’s view (by which
he means the designer of any materials, called “texts” even though they may
be combinations of text, images, animations and other media) can never be
the same as the readers view because the author always creates an image of
a reader and the reader creates an image of an author, but neither can perceive
from the others’ actual position in relation to the text. From his argument
follows the assertion that shared understanding of visuals between instructional
designers and learners can never be taken for granted. It is nevertheless
possible that instructional designers and learners can share recognition of the
purpose of visuals in e-learning lessons. In the view that learning materials
operate on the learner, it would not seem to be important that learners perceive
the function of those visuals. We take the semiotic view that learners bring
their own knowledge to bear in learning situations (Carroll, 1998) and that
understanding how they perceive the materials supporting their learning may
add useful information to the designers’ toolkit. Scholars like Dwyer (2007)
have studied the effectiveness of visuals in specic learning situations focusing
on the properties of the visuals themselves. We propose to extend general
understanding of how visuals work in the context of learning by focusing on
the learners who use them.
The purpose of this study is to compare an instructional designer’s
intentions with the learners’ perceptions of the instructional functions of visuals
in one specic e-learning lesson to discover the extent to which learners share
the perception of the designer regarding those functions.
Learning from text with visuals
Effects of visuals
Visuals used with instructional text offer several potential benets for
learning. Research on visuals and words has shown that memory and recall
for visuals tend to be better than memory and recall for words (Clark & Lyons,
2004; Standing, Conezio, & Haber, 1970; Levin, 1981; Lohr, 2003; Rieber,
1994). Visuals can arouse readers’ interest, curiosity, and motivation (Mayer,
2001; Mayer & Moreno, 1998; Unnava & Burnkrant, 1991). Visuals can also
enhance comprehension of text (Levie & Lentz, 1982; Mayer, 2001; Paivio
& Csapo, 1973).
However, every combination of words and visuals is not necessarily
benecial for learning. In some situations, especially if they merely decorate
the text, visuals can distract learners from engaging fully with the content they
need (Peeck, 1987; Schnotz & Bannert, 2003). For visuals to support learning
some specic conditions are required, and numerous studies have shown
Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 29, Number 2
146
the conditions under which a combination of words and visuals are helpful
for learning. Mayer (2005) suggests specic design principles for visuals in
multimedia contexts: visuals are helpful for learning when words and visuals
are semantically related to each other (coherence); when words and visuals
are presented closely together in space or in time (spatial contiguity, temporal
contiguity); when visuals are presented with spoken text instead of written
text (modality); and when written text does not duplicate spoken text and
visuals (redundant). We may assume, but cannot guarantee, that instructional
designers try to design text with visuals on the basis of sound principles for
enhancing learning.
Instructional functions of visuals
Several researchers have classied the instructional functions of visuals
into taxonomies or categories (Alesandrini, 1984; Clark & Lyons, 2004;
Levin, 1981; Levie and Lentz, 1982; Rieber, 1994). Levin (1981) classies
ve instructional functions of visuals: decoration, representation, organization,
interpretation, and transformation. Levie and Lentz (1982) suggest four
instructional functions of visuals: the attentive, affective, cognitive, and
compensatory functions. Rieber (1994) classies instructional functions of
visuals into the affective and cognitive functions. Clark and Lyons (2004)
argue that visuals can support critical psychological learning processes: support
attention, activate or build prior knowledge, minimize cognitive load, build
mental models, support transfer of learning, and support motivation.
Although the taxonomies and classications are different, they describe
similar learning events. In general, the instructional functions of visuals tend
to be classied into cognitive functions and affective functions. Among the
classications of the instructional functions of visuals, the Clark and Lyons’
(2004) classication explains in the most detail how visuals support learning.
They dene the concrete functions of visuals as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Lyons and Clark’s classication of the categories of visuals to support learning
Category Denitions Aspect of
learning
Support attention Visuals attract attention to
important parts of e-learning
lessons; help learners maintain
sustained attention to those
materials
Psychological
Jin & BolingInstructional Designer’s Intentions...
147
Activate or build
prior knowledge
Visuals remind learners of
previous experiences or knowledge
related to new information, engage
learners’ existing mental models,
or provide advanced organizers to
bridge from the learner's previous
knowledge to what they will learn
(Stone 1983)
Minimize
cognitive load
Visuals minimize extraneous
efforts imposed on working
memory during learning
Cognitive
Build mental
models
Visuals help learners construct
a kind of internal symbol or
representation of new information
or new concepts in long-term
memory
Support transfer of
learning
Visuals help learners transfer some
of their skills and knowledge from
learning to performance in a new
situation
Support
motivation
Visuals make e-learning materials
interesting and arouse learners’
desire to participate in the learning
process
Affective
Learner and instructional designer relationships with texts
and each other
Comprehending instructional text can be a major factor in accomplishing
learning, so the reading activity of learners is important to the achievement of
learning objectives. Reading is a commonplace activity that we often take for
granted; however it is the end product of an extremely long process of cultural
inculcation and individual learning (Sless, 1986). Reading is a social act and
also an individual act: it depends on a community that shares meanings and,
critically, on the reader’s unique knowledge, attitude, and values. The general
body of cultural knowledge required for understanding what is read may be
shared among learners because they use the same language, live in the same
community, or experience similar life events. On the other hand, there are
also some understandings that may not be shared because of individual prior
knowledge and experience. Although Sless addresses primarily verbal text,
interpreting visuals included in texts does share some properties with reading
Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 29, Number 2
148
verbal text (van Leuwen, 2001).
The complex relationship between the designers of visuals, the texts they
have created, and the learners’ relationships to those texts may be explained
using Sless’s concepts on reading relations. He uses a landscape metaphor,
arguing that the positions of the readers and the authors of texts determine
what they can see and cannot see—as physical positions in a landscape,
author on one bank of a river (the text) and reader on the other, affect what
one can see. He argues that readers and authors can never see the same view
of a text. Therefore author and reader may read and understand the same text
differently. The concept of “position” outlined by Sless is adopted in this study
for understanding the relationship between instructional designers and learners,
and for investigating what is shared between them.
Described in Sless’s terms, designers rely on an image of target learners
while creating visuals for enhancing learning. They have intentions regarding
the instructional functions of those visuals. Learners may have perceptions of
those intentions, but cannot perceive the intentions directly. From the position
of the instructional designer, the designer-and-visual relation forms a particular
unit (ID0 in Figure 1; there is effectively no distance between the designer
and the visual he has created. The learner-and-visual relation forms a different
unit (L1 in Figure 1).
Figure 1. Relationship of the designer (ID) toa visual showing imagined
learner (L1)
The number 1 indicates a distance between the learner and the instructional
designer’s relation to that visual because L1 is an imaginative entity of the
designer. From the position of learner, there are the learner-and-visual relation
(L0), and the instructional designer-and-visual relation (ID1), in Figure 2.
The solid line indicates the concrete, immediate link between them and the
dotted line indicates the imaginative link between them. The labels “ID0” and
“ID1” or “L0” and “L1” indicate the possibility of the gap between designers’
intentions and learners’ perceptions because L1 and ID1 are both imagined,
rather than known, entities. However this gap may not always be the same
Jin & BolingInstructional Designer’s Intentions...
149
width, depending on various factors.
Figure 2.Relationship of the learner (L) to a visual showing imagined designer
(ID1)
We can expand Sless’s landscape metaphor and apply it to explain the
relationship between instructional designers and learners. If we imagine a
reader and an author to be standing on two hills with a valley between them,
we can consider their relative abilities to imagine the reader/text and author/text
relationships depending on whether they stand at the tops of their respective
hills or near the bottom and therefore closer together as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Relationship between the instructional designers and learners (blue
dots labeled with ID and L) whose cultural understandings (light gray circles)
and individual understandings
The basic reason for differences in perception is that our perceptions
are often limited by our experiences, as well as by the agenda we bring to
a situation. Stern and Robinson (1994) suggest that the factors affecting
perceptions are needs and expectations, including past experience. Related
to needs is the tendency to notice what we want to see; occasionally we may
even distort perception to the point that obvious details are deleted or details
are added. Expectation also has signicant impact not only on what we
Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 29, Number 2
150
perceive but also on how we perceive it. Designers and learners may share
solid or diffuse cultural and individual understandings in multiple ways: they
may share membership in a homogenous or heterogeneous society, be close
together or far apart in age, class or education, or come from completely
different backgrounds.
Some researchers explain the reason for differences in perception by using
the concept of “conceptual model” or “mental model.” A conceptual model
in this case may be dened as an internal description regarding how visuals
will be comprehended by the learners; a mental model may be dened as a
framework for understanding how visuals work (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Preece,
Rogers, & Sharp, 2007). Designers create visuals based on their perception of
or anticipation of learner’s conceptual model or mental model (Schnotz 2005;
Preece et al. 2007). Therefore, the designer’s expectations about learners’
mental model can lead to situations in which visuals are not effective if the
learners actually have a different mental model than the designer expects
(Schriver, 1997).
In this study, analysis of the congruence regarding perception of
instructional functions of visuals between instructional designer and learners,
may be thought of as exploring congruence between ID0 and L0 as shown in
Figure 1 and 2, and consequently investigating where the relation might be
located in Figure 3.
Research questions
What are an instructional designer’s intentions regarding the instructional
functions of visuals in a selected e-learning lesson and learners’ perceptions
of the instructional functions of those visuals?
Is there congruence between that instructional designer’s intentions and
subsequent learners’ perceptions of the instructional functions of the visuals?
Method
Participants
The participants in this study were an instructional designer and 29
undergraduate students (nmale= 14, nfemale = 15) in South Korea. The
students had taken an online course titled “Development of Multimedia
Content” and were familiar with computers and e-learning lessons. The study
activity was included in their regular coursework. The instructional designer
held an MS in educational technology and had 5 years eld experience. None
of the participants received compensation for their participation. This was a
convenience sample identied through professional contacts.
Jin & BolingInstructional Designer’s Intentions...
151
Research materials
The research material was a portion of one e-learning lesson titled
“Education and Development of Potential Capability.” The lesson was on
a basic level (targeting freshmen majoring in education), and was open via
e-learning to students through the webpage of Center for Learning and Teaching
of a university in South Korea. The lesson was developed using Flash MX; it
consisted of 24 pages that included various kinds of visuals. The instructional
designer participating in the study created a storyboard of the lesson; then she
worked with a computer web designer to create the visuals and incorporate
them into the lesson.
Procedures
Select eight specic visuals
The eight visuals used for the study were selected based on their varied
visual characteristics (Mayer, 2005). Of the eight visuals chosen, two were
representational visuals, three were analogical visuals, and three were arbitrary
visuals according to the categories of visual reality posed by Alesandrini (1984).
These classications were agreed upon by the two researchers and a doctoral
candidate who volunteered to participate in categorizing them. The selected
visuals are shown Table 2.
Table 2: Selected 8 visuals
visual #1: representational visual #2: analogical
visual #3: representational visual #4: arbitrary
visual #5: analogical visual #6: arbitrary
Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 29, Number 2
152
visual #7: arbitrary visual #8: analogical
Data relevant to instructional designer’s intentions
Although forced-choice survey items offer an efcient way to collect
perception data, they present predetermined questions and preconceived
categories that might prevent participants from expressing their own ideas,
or perceptions outside the framework we are using for the study. Therefore,
open-ended questions were presented to the instructional designer in order to
obtain the most informative data for the study (Brace, 2004). The instructional
designer’s intentions were collected with a survey form on which the designer
was asked to write in her own words what her intentions were for including
each visual in the e-learning lesson. She was free to provide more than one
intention for each visual.
Data relevant to learners’ perceptions
The undergraduate students’ perceptions were collected via a web survey
form which consisted of 16 open-ended questions. For each of the eight visuals
studied they were asked to answer how they used, or did not use, the visual
during the lesson, and what they saw as the designer’s intention for including
each visual in the lesson. Students responded to the survey in Korean, their
native language. To make the data accessible to both researchers, it was
translated from Korean to English by the researcher from Korea. A second
native speaker of Korean, majoring in English at the time, proofread the
translations to conrm their accuracy.
Data analysis
Content analysis was chosen for this study because it is well suited for the
analysis of written forms of communication (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006; Gall,
Borg, & Gall, 1996; Krippendorff, 2004). Content analysis consists of two
phases: the rst phase includes dening, recording and contextualizing units,
and sorting the units; the second phase includes making inferences about the
data relative to the context.
Each response to the survey questions was reviewed on a line-by-line basis,
and units of meaning were identied. Units consisted of words, phrases, and/or
sentences that contained meaningful information about separate instructional
Jin & BolingInstructional Designer’s Intentions...
153
functions of visuals. The units were coded and grouped into subcategories;
the subcategories were then grouped into broader categories. The labels
for the categories and subcategories were chosen based on the participants’
own words. The results of the content analysis were cross-checked for
validity by a doctoral candidate majoring in educational technology. A cross-
validation check revealed a proportion agreement of 0.85 between analysts.
Disagreements were resolved through discussion. The congruence between
instructional designer’s intentions and students’ perceptions of instructional
functions of visuals was compared.
Results
Instructional designer’s intentions
The instructional designer’s intentions regarding the instructional functions
of visuals included in the e-learning lesson are shown in Table 3. It is clear
that the designer created each visual with more than one purpose in mind; each
visual was expected to fulll two or more instructional functions. In addition,
the designer created visuals for purposes relating to multiple aspects of learning:
psychological, cognitive, and affective. The psychological purpose was to
attract attention (intended 5 times). Cognitive purposes included minimizing
cognitive load, facilitating understanding, facilitating learning transfer, building
mental models, and facilitating memory (intended 9 times). Affective purposes
included arousing a sense of familiarity and credibility, and arousing interest
(intended 5 times). These intentions matched very well the Clark and Lyons
classication (2004) as shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Instructional designer’s intentions matched to the Clark and Lyons (2004)
classication category for each visual
Visual Designer’s intention for instructional function Classication category
Visual 1 Draw students’ attention
Facilitate transfer of what students will learn
Support attention
Support transfer of learning
Visual 2 Minimize cognitive load by guiding learning
process
Arouse a sense of familiarity with learning
content as well as book character
Support motivation
Minimize cognitive load
Visual Facilitate the memory of the content
Provide a sense of credibility on “Gardner”
and his theory
Support motivation
build mental models
Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 29, Number 2
154
Visual 4 Draw students’ attention
Facilitate understanding of content by
presenting diagram in the easy way to
understand
Build mental models
Support attention
Minimize cognitive load
Build mental models
Visual 5 Draw students’ attention
Facilitate understanding of the content
Arouse learning motivation such as learning
interest, a sense of familiarity
Support attention
Minimize cognitive load
Support motivation
Visual 6 Facilitate understanding of the content
Build mental models
Minimize cognitive load
Build mental models
Visual 7 Draw students’ attention
Facilitate understanding of the content
Arouse a sense of familiarity with content
Support attention
Minimize cognitive load
Support motivation
Visual 8 Draw students’ attention
Arouse interest
Support attention
Support motivation
Learners’ perceptions
Subcategories regarding instructional functions of visuals were constructed
based on the learners’ own words, and initially using categories constructed
based on the Clark and Lyons classication (2004). The results of analysis
corresponded in some degree to pre-dened categories which were presented
by Clark and Lyons (2004), but some additional relevant categories and
subcategories were added. A total of eight main categories were detected,
with some categories having subcategories. All are shown, together with their
relationships, in Table 5 and 6.
“Support attention” contained three subcategories: attract attention,
maintain attention, and “emphasize the important part.” The rst and second
subcategories are related to learners’ experiences during learning; the third is
related to the design style of the visuals. We speculate that learners mention
this aspect of the visuals to imply that visual emphasis on “the important part”
attracts attention to that part of the material and supports learning in this way.
Learners mentioned “minimizing cognitive load” in three different ways:
by showing the visual itself, by cueing what they have learned or will learn, and
by making the material easy to understand. “Showing visual itself” seems to
mean that the visual is more easily understood than equivalent text would be.
“Cueing” seems to mean that the learners’ effort is reduced because the visual
prompts the learner to recall or anticipate information. “Making the material
easy to understand” seems to mean that the style of the visual is straightforward
Jin & BolingInstructional Designer’s Intentions...
155
and therefore the visual itself is easily grasped.
With regard to “support motivation” learners offered various terms: arouse
interest, arouse curiosity, “refresh atmosphere,” arouse desire to participate,
arouse a sense of familiarity, satisfy the aesthetic sense, arouse a sense of reality,
arouse a sense of credibility, arouse expectations, arouse a sense of willingness
(to learn), arouse critical thinking, make less boredom, and remove a sense
of rejection. In the case of the last two, learners indicated that visuals did not
stimulate motivation so much as reduce de-motivation.
Learners also offered some critique of the visuals, explaining why the
visuals didn’t help them learn and giving suggestions as to how visuals should
be represented: distracting, extraneous information, misleading, “difcult
understanding,” poor design, unrealistic, boring, and not credible. As you can
see, these subcategories are not exclusive; poor design can cause the others.
For example, poor design can arouse boredom, give a sense of unreality, create
misunderstanding, and so on. Some learners reported the specic results, of
poor design related to learning behaviors or emotions, and others explained
in what ways the visuals were poorly designed.
Last, some learners addressed instructional strategies or the content of
visuals instead of their instructional functions. They repeated the meaning of
a visual, or stated an instructional strategy (i.e., “quiz”) rather than describing
the function of the visual.
As can be seen in the frequencies of responses in Table 5, most of
the learners perceived the instructional functions of visuals as supporting
motivation, minimizing cognitive load, and supporting attention. They also
reported their experience of visuals during learning as similar to what they
think regarding the designer’s intention for the visuals as shown in Table 6.
Learners’ perceptions of how they used the visuals in learning
Table 5
Learners’ perceptions of how they used the visuals in learning
How did you use this visual in learning?
Categories Sample statements # Total
Support attention
(1) attract attention It made me concentrate on the lesson 30
37
(2) maintain attention It made me pay attention to studying 6
(3) emphasize the
important part The importance of the content was
emphasized by the diagram 1
Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 29, Number 2
156
Activate or build prior
knowledge It activated prior knowledge 2 2
Minimize cognitive load
(1) by showing
visual itself It helped a lot me understand the material at
a glance 72
95
(2) by cueing It helped me proceed with learning naturally 5
(3) by making the
material easy to
understand
It helped me understand it by presenting the
analogy of the number and diagram 18
Build mental models It helped me associate the person with the
theory 16 16
Support transfer of
learning It encouraged me to apply what I learned to
real world situations 1 1
Support motivation
(1) arouse interest It helped me become interested in learning 45
84
(2) arouse curiosity A photo of a scholar stimulated curiosity of
the lesson 4
(3) refresh
atmosphere It helped me refreshed attention 3
(4) arouse desire to
participate It made me participate in learning through
presenting visual aid. 1
(5) arouse a sense
of familiarity It gave me the sense of familiarity by the cute
appearance and voice 9
(6) satisfy the
aesthetic sense This photo made the screen look good and
gave a pleasant impression. 6
(7) arouse a sense
of reality It made the content real 5
(8) arouse a sense
of credibility It made the content more credible through
presenting the real person 3
(9) arouse
expectations It made me have expectation to learn 1
(10) arouse a sense
of willingness [appeared only in student’s perceptions of
designer’s intentions] 0
(11) arouse critical
thinking This photo helped students accept this theory
critically. 1
(12) make less
boredom It helped to prevent from being bored 4
(13) remove a sense
of rejection It’s cute look helped to relieve tension of
learning 2
Critiques or suggestions
(1) distracting Since I focused on the photo so it made me
distract from learning content. 11
56
(2) extraneous
information Marking in a different color in graph didn’t
seem to affect on learning. 5
(3) misleading Those burst (torn-out) circles could be
translated that education could blow out all
the chances. 8
(4) difcult to
understand It was still difcult to understand. 3
(5) poor design The number of computers was small
comparing to the real number of computers 23
(6) unrealistic I couldn’t agree with the theme of the
dialogue because it was too articial 2
Jin & BolingInstructional Designer’s Intentions...
157
(7) boring The use of the same photo was a little boring 2
(8) not credible I wonder how to measure the intelligences
and I don’t understand what the each number
indicates. 2
Off topic response
(1) instructional
strategies It helped me grasp the topic and what the
contents to come 22 27
(2) content It presented that thinking low achievement as
low intelligence was a kind of prejudice 5
Table 6
Learner’s perceptions of the designer’s intentions for visuals
What do you think was the designer’s intention for showing this visual?
Categories Sample statements # Total
Support attention
1) attract attention To call students’ attention 22
35
(2) maintain attention To make student absorbed in learning ow. 8
(3) emphasize the
important part To emphasize the main topic 5
Activate or build prior
knowledge To activate prior knowledge or experience 1 1
Minimize cognitive load
(1) by showing visual
itself To make students understand content easily 79
101
(2) by cueing To help students learn easily by guiding the learning
materials systematically as a learning guide 9
(3) by making the
material easy to
understand
To help students guess the approximate value of the
number 13
Build mental models To facilitate the memory of the content 17 17
Support transfer of learning [appeared only in student’s description of use] 0 0
Support motivation
(1) arouse interest To make students get interested in learning 49
88
(2) arouse curiosity To arouse the curiosity of the material 4
(3) refresh atmosphere To refresh atmosphere 4
(4) arouse desire to
participate It would encourage students to involve in learning 1
(5) arouse a sense of
familiarity To provide more feeling of familiarity 12
(6) satisfy the aesthetic
sense
To enhance the aesthetic appreciation of learning
materials 5
(7) arouse a sense of
reality To provide the sense of reality 4
(8) arouse a sense of
credibility
To help students to take the content with more sincere
and signicance. 4
(9) arouse expectations To arouse expectation of learning that will proceed 1
Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 29, Number 2
158
(10) arouse a sense of
willingness
To refresh students’ willingness to learning by
appearing during the wait-time, or intervals among
lessons.
1
(11) arouse critical
thinking [appeared only in student’s description of use] 0
(12) make less boredom It helped to prevent from being bored 3
(13) remove a sense of
rejection
To reduce the sense of fear and rejection about the
contents 2
critiques or suggestions [applied to student use of visuals only]
off topic response
(1) instructional
strategies To provide the clue what students will learn 29 38
(2) content To show the variety of potential abilities 9
The congruency between IDs intentions and learners’ perceptions
The learners’ use in learning, learner’ perceptions of the designer’s
intentions, and the designer’s intentions toward each visual are presented in
Table 7 in order to draw the congruency between designer’s intentions and
learners’ perceptions of the functions of instructional visuals.
Table 7
The congruency between designer’s intentions and learners’ perceptions of
the functions of instructional visuals
Visual # Visual 1 Visual 2 Visual 3 Visual 4
Instructional Functions Perception IPerception IPerception IPerception I
P(1) P(2) P(1) P(2) P(1) P(2) P(1) P(2)
1. Support attention 10 8 4 8 5 4 3 0
(1) attract attention 10 5 4 7 4 2 2
(2) maintain attention 3 1 2
(3) emphasize the important
part 1 1
2. Activate or build prior
knowledge 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. Minimize cognitive load 2 5 5 9 3 4 23 23
(1) by showing visual itself 2 5 3 4 11 13
(2) by cueing 5 9
(3) by making the material
easy to understand 12 10 √
4. Build mental models 0 0 1 0 5 6 2 4
5. Support transfer of
learning 0 0 √ 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Support motivation 21 25 16 19 16 16 2 0
(1) arouse interest 15 20 7 8 3 4 2
(2) arouse curiosity 1 2 1 1
Jin & BolingInstructional Designer’s Intentions...
159
The congruency between ID’s intentions and learners’ perceptions
T
Table 7: The congruency between designer’s intentions and learners’
perceptions of the functions of instructional visuals
P (1): Learners’ perceptions of instructional functions (Related to Table 5)
P (2): Learners’ perceptions of the designer’s intentions (Related to
Table 6)
I: The designer’s intentions
Table 7 (continued)
P (1): Learners’ perceptions of instructional functions (Related to Table 5)
P (2): Learners’ perceptions of the designer’s intentions (Related to Table
As shown in Table 7, learners reported the instructional functions of
visuals with a variety of terms, while the designer stated fewer themes. We
presumed the learners would not know the comparatively dense terms used by
the designer, and therefore accepted all terms they used and classied them as
well as possible within the more formalized themes of the instructional designer.
The congruency between the instructional designer’s intentions and
learners’ perceptions may be interpreted two ways based on the survey results
for different subsets of visuals included in the study. For some of the visuals
the designer’s intentions and the learners’ perceptions can be considered to be
congruent; and for others they are incongruent. A summary of the congruency
Visual # Visual 1 Visual 2 Visual 3 Visual 4
Instructional Functions Perception IPerception IPerception IPerception I
P(1) P(2) P(1) P(2) P(1) P(2) P(1) P(2)
(3) refresh atmosphere 1 1 2
(4) arouse desire to
participate 1 1
(5) arouse a sense of
familiarity 2 1 3 6 √ 2 2
(6) satisfy the aesthetic sense 1 2 1 1
(7) arouse a sense of reality 1 3 2
(8) arouse a sense of
credibility 3 3 √
(9) arouse expectations 1 1
(10) arouse a sense of
willingness 1
(11) arouse critical thinking 1
(12) make less boredom 2 3 1
(13) remove a sense of
rejection 1 1 1 1
7. critiques or suggestions 10 0 9 0 5 0 7 0
(1) distracting 1 2 1 1
(2) extraneous information 1 3
(3) misleading 1 1 1
(4) difcult understanding 2
(5) poor design 7 4 3
(6) unrealistic 2
(7) boring 1
(8) incredible
8. off topic 10 8 4 5 0 2 0 2
(1) instructional strategies 8 8 4 5 2 1
(2) content 2 1
Total 54 47 39 41 34 32 37 29
P (1): Learners’ perceptions of instructional functions (Related to Table 5)
P (2): Learners’ perceptions of the designer’s intentions (Related to Table 6)
I: The designer’s intentions
Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 29, Number 2
160
between learners and the designer is shown in Table 8.
For example, in the case of visual #1, the intentions of designer were to
attract attention and to support transfer of learning. The percentage of congruent
responses to total responses is calculated by dividing 10 (the frequencies of
learners’ responses in “Attract attention” and “Support transfer of learning”) by
54 (total responses), to yield 18.5%. The others were calculated in the same way.
Table 8
Congruency between perceptions of function and of designer’s intentions as
perceived by students, by frequency of congruent responses and percent of
congruent responses to total responses
Visual 1 Visual 2 Visual 3 Visual 4 Visual 5 Visual 6 Visual 7 Visual 8
P(1)-I
Frequency (%) 10/54
(18.5%) 8/39
(20.5%) 8/34
(23.5%) 16/37
(37.8%) 15/39
(38.5%) 22/34
(64.7%) 20/43
(46.5%) 6/38
(15.8%)
P(2)-I
Frequency (%) 5/47
(10.6%) 15/41
(36.6%) 9/32
(28.1%) 14/29
(48.3%) 18/33
(54.5%) 22/29
(75.9%) 18/39
(46.2%) 7/30
(23.3%)
P (1): Learners’ perceptions of instructional functions (Related to Table 5)
P (2): Learners’ perceptions of the designer’s intentions (Related to Table 6)
I: The designer’s intentions
Congruent responses
The designer’s intentions and learners’ perceptions regarding visuals four,
ve, six and seven (4, 5, 6 and 7) can be considered to be congruent. Some
of learners report functions differing from the designer’s intentions, but in
approximately 50% of cases their responses were congruent with the designer’s
intentions. In the case of visual #6, the intentions of designer were to facilitate
understanding of the content and to build mental models; approximately 65%
of the learners perceived the purpose of this visual to help them understand
the content. In the case of visual #7, the intentions of the designer were to
facilitate understanding of the content, to attract attention, and to arouse a
sense of familiarity; approximately 47% of the learners perceived the purpose
of this visual to help them understand the content, to arouse interest, and to
arouse a sense of familiarity.
In the case of visual #5, the designer intended to facilitate understanding
of the content by showing the visual, to arouse learning interest and a sense of
familiarity, and to attract attention; learners perceived these same functions,
along with building mental models, and they also offered some critiques of
visual #5. And in the case of visual #4, the designer intended to attract attention,
to facilitate understanding of the content by presenting the visual in an easy way
to understand, and to build mental models; most learners reported that it helped
Jin & BolingInstructional Designer’s Intentions...
161
them to understand the content directly —that is by illustrating it—and by being
easy to understand. Although the degree of congruency between the designer
and learners for this visual was below 50% for subcategories, the intentions
and the perceptions of this visual may be regarded as mostly congruent because
most learners perceived the visual as helping them understand the content.
Incongruent responses
The designer’s intentions and learners’ perceptions regarding visuals #1,
#2, #3, and #8 are incongruent. In the case of visual #1, the designer and the
learners agree on the function “attract attention.” However, learners reported
that the visual helped to support motivation, while the designer intended it to
support transfer of learning. None of the learners reported “support transfer of
learning,” or anything we interpreted as equivalent, for this visual. In the case
of visual #2, the intentions of designer were to facilitate understanding of the
content by guiding the learning process and to arouse a sense of familiarity, but
learners’ responses fell evenly among the several functions related to “Support
attention,” “Minimize cognitive load,” and “Support motivation.” In the case
of visual #3, few learners reported the same functions as the designer, namely
to build mental models and to arouse a sense of credibility. Many learners
perceived the functions of this visual as supporting motivation and supporting
attraction. In case of visual #8, most learners reported that it helped to minimize
cognitive load and to attract attention. Although the designer included “attract
attention,” for this visual she also intended it to arouse interest, not to minimize
cognitive load as learners reported.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to compare an instructional designer’s
intentions with learners’ subsequent perceptions of the instructional functions
of visuals in an e-learning lesson.
Regarding the instructional designers’ intentions, the designer created
each visual with more than two purposes. Those purposes were related to
psychological, cognitive, and affective aspects of learning. The designer created
the visuals with the intention of supporting motivation (intended 5 times),
supporting attention (intended 5 times), minimizing cognitive load (intended
5 times), building mental models (intended 3 times), and supporting transfer
of learning (intended once).
Learners’ perceptions of instructional functions were reported in a
wide variety of terms, while the designer stated fewer, more formal themes.
In addition, learners reported their critiques or suggestions regarding the
visuals, indicating the how visuals helped learning or how they distracted
Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 29, Number 2
162
from learning as reported by real learners while in the midst of the learning
experience. Learners’ perceptions of how visuals worked in learning and what
imagined the designer’s intentions for those visuals to be very similar, even
when the designers’ intentions had, in fact, been different than those perceived
by the learners. This may well mean that learners can imagine the designer’s
intentions, but primarily within their own scope of knowledge or experience.
Four visuals out of eight were analyzed to be congruent between the
designer’s intentions and the learners’ perceptions, and four visuals were
analyzed not to be congruent as judged by reasoned interpretation of the
students’ statements. Many learners reported their supposition that the
designer intended various instructional functions which the designer had not
intended. For example, learners reported that visual #1 was intended to support
motivation, and visual #8 to minimize cognitive load, but designer had not
intended for these visuals to perform those functions. In fact, the designer
intended some functions for these visuals, but none of the learners reported
that the designer may have intended these or that they perceived the visuals to
fulll them. For example, the designer intended to support transfer of learning
by visual #1 and to build mental models by visual #6, but no learners reported
experiencing or perceiving these functions for either visual.
These results help us understand what this designer intended to do by
presenting visuals, and how those visuals worked from the learners’ perspective.
Research has conrmed that visuals can be benecial in learning materials,
and this study showed that these learners can infer intentions they attribute to
designers when asked to do so. Schriver (1997) has demonstrated that learners
do this without being asked, and the specicity of the responses in this study
suggest that such inferences are readily available to learners. The students’
perceptions supported these principles: visuals can enhance comprehension
(Bender & Levin, 1978; Bransford & Johnson, 1972; Paivio & Csapo, 1973;
Schallert, 1980); visuals can facilitate to memorize and recall (Clark & Lyons,
2004; Levin, 1981; Lohr, 2003; Rieber, 1994); visuals can enhance motivation
and arouse students’ attention (Mayer, 2001; Mayer & Moreno, 1998; Unnava
& Burnkrant, 1991). Visuals can also distract learners from engaging fully with
the content of a lesson (Peeck, 1987; Schnotz & Bannert, 2003), and this study
showed that learners perceive this distraction and can describe it in some detail.
What are reasons why the designer’s intentions and learners’ perceptions
are sometimes not congruent? The results of this study might indicate that
the designer and these learners share only a diffuse understanding relevant
to these visuals perhaps due to the different quality of experience and the
different mental models, or conceptual models, that designer and learners held
(Liddle, 1996; Norman, 1988). In particular, while learners may have had a
Jin & BolingInstructional Designer’s Intentions...
163
practical notion of “interest” and “motivation” with regard to learning, and a
consequent ability to apply those to their consideration of their own learning
and the intentions of someone who designs learning materials, they may have
considerably less experience with a concept like “transfer of learning.” This is
not to say that transfer of learning cannot be supported unless students know
what it is and perceive that visuals are trying to support it, but it is conceivable
that such a function for visuals might be enhanced if learners did have this
conscious perception.
Why did the learners perceive the instructional functions of a specic
visual differently from each other? If nothing in the visual or its presentation
determines a learners’ interpretation of its function, then that interpretation will
rest entirely with the learner and be subject to variations in the factors affecting
the learners’ interpretation. Learners cannot pay attention to every sensory
input provided by these e-learning materials, so they select visuals or specic
parts of visuals based on what they are used to seeing, what they expect to see,
and what they want to see. This can cause a certain bias or subjectivity in the
perception process that makes for a great deal of variation (Stern and Robinson,
1994). Barry (1994) says that perception uses all of our past experience, values,
attitudes, and needs to select relevant information and interpret the world and
Schriver (1997) supports this views with empirical observation.
The ndings of the study suggest how different instructional designer’s
intentions and learners’ perceptions of the instructional functions of visuals
can be; how learners perceive the instructional functions of visuals; and the
extent to which visuals are designed in a contextual or situational way. While
visuals may support or fail to support learning without our knowing what is
happening in the minds of the learners regarding the purpose of those visuals,
we anticipate some utility to designers in continued research focused on learners
as active agents during the process of learning.
Further studies are needed with participants representing a wider variety
of demographics. In addition, more specic research is needed on exactly
why designers’ intentions and learners’ perception are not congruent; what
may be needed for designers to anticipate more successfully the learners’
mental models; and what support learners may need to perceive the functions
of instructional visuals as designers intend. Building on such studies, there
may be fruitful questions to be explored regarding the effect upon learning
of bringing learner perceptions and designer intentions into closer, and more
explicit, congruence. Answers to those questions may help designers in
situations where deterministic manipulation of the characteristics of images
fails to support learning fully.
Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 29, Number 2
164
References
Alesandrini, K. L. (1984). Pictures and adult learning. Instructional Science,
13, 63-77.
Anglin, G. J., Vaez, H., & Cunningham, K. L. (2004). Visual Representations
and Learning: The Role of Static and Animated Graphics. In D. H. Jonassen
(Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and
Technology (pp. 865-913). NY: Simon & Schuster.
Barry, A. M. S. (1994). Perceptional aesthetics and visual language. In D.
M. Moore, & R. M. Dwyer (Eds.), Visual Literacy: A Spectrum of Visual
Learning (pp. 113-132). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publishing.
Bender, B. G., & Levin, J. R. (1978). Pictures, imagery, and related children’s
prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(4), 583-588.
Boling, E., Eccarius, M., Smith, K., & Frick, T. (2004). Instructional
illustrations: Intended meanings and learner interpretations. Journal of
Visual Literacy, 24(2), 185-204.
Brace, I. (2004). Questionnaire design. Market research in practice. London,
UK: Kogan Page.
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual Prerequisites for
understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.
Carroll, J. M. (1998). Minimalism beyond the nurnberg funnel. Boston, MA:
The MIT Press.
Clark, R. C., Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for Learning: Proven Guidelines
for Planning, Designing, and Evaluating Visuals in Training Materials.
CA: Pfeiffer.
Dwyer, F. M. (2007) .The program of systematic evaluation (pse): evaluating
the effects of multimedia instruction 1965-2007. Educational Technology,
67 (5), 41-45.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research
in education. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Gall, M. D., Borg,W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An
introduction, 6th ed. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Harp, S. F. & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage:
A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90(3), 44-434.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: towards a cognitive science of
language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jin & BolingInstructional Designer’s Intentions...
165
Jung, I. & Rha, I. (2004). Understanding of distance learning. Seoul:
kyoyookKahacksa Publishing.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Elements of graph design. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology,
2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krippendorf, K. (2005). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca
Raton, LA; Taylor & Francis.
Levie, W. H., Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of the
research. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 30(4),
195-232.
Levin, J. R. (1981). On the functions of pictures in prose. In F.J. Pirozzolo
& M.C. Wittrock(Eds.), Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in
reading (pp. 203-228). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Liddle, D. (1996). Design of the conceptual model. In T. Winograd, (Ed.)
Bringing Design to Software (pp. 17-31). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lohr, L. L. (2003). Creating graphics for learning and performance: lessons
in visual literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia instruction: Are we asking the right questions?
Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia
learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.
Norman, D. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1973). Imaginal and verbal mediators and noun
concreteness in paired-associate learning: The elusive interaction. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 384-390.
Peeck, J. (1987). The role of illustrations in processing and remembering
illustrated text. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology
of illustration: Basic research (v. 1). NY: Springer-Verlag.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2007). Interaction Design. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rieber, L. P. (1994). Computers, Graphics & Learning. Dubuque, LA: Brown
& Benchmark.
Schallert, D. L. (1980). The role of illustration in reading comprehension.
In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading
Journal of Visual Literacy, Volume 29, Number 2
166
comprehension. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension.
In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
(pp. 49-70). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning
from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141-156.
Schriver, K. (1997). Dynamics in Document Design. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Sless, D. (1986). In Search of Semiotics. London: Groom Helm.
Standing, L., Conezio, J., & Haber, R. N. (1970). Perception and memory
for pictures: Single-trial learning of 2560 visual stimuli. Psychonomic
Science, 19(2), 73-74.
Stern, R. C., & Robinson, R. S. (1994). Perception and its role in communication
and learning. In D. M. Moore, & R. M. Dwyer (Eds.), Visual Literacy: A
Spectrum of Visual Learning (pp. 31-52). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publishers.
Stone, C. L. (1983). A Meta-Analysis of Advance Organizer Studies. Journal
of Experimental Education, 51(7), 194-199.
Unnava, H. R. & Burnkrant, R. E. (1991). An imagery-processing view of the
role of pictures in print advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research,
28(2), 226-231.
van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Semiotics and iconography. In T. van Leeuwen, & C.
Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp. 92-118). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Watkins, J. K., Miller, E., & Brubaker, D. (2004). The role of the visual image:
What are students really learning from pictorial representations. Journal of
Visual Literacy, 24(1), 23-40.
Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology
Review, 3(3), 211-247.
... Por otro lado, Mayers (2005) y Alesandrini (1984) en (Jin & Boling, 2010), se refieren a tres diferentes tipos de representación de la imagen, denominados: imagen representacional, imagen analógica e imagen arbitraria, tomando en cuenta su correlación con el objeto representado, determinando su intención instruccional así como su proceso cognitivo determinado por categorías. ...
... Fuente: classification of the categories of visuals to support learning. (Jin & Boling, 2010, p. 146-147) Según, con Jin & Boling (2010), la investigación sobre las imágenes y las palabras ha demostrado que la memoria y el recuerdo de las imágenes tienden a ser mejores que la memoria y el recuerdo de las palabras (Clark y Lyons, 2004, Lenn, 1994. Las imágenes pueden despertar el interés, la curiosidad y la motivación de los lectores (Mayer & Moreno, 1998;Unnava & Burnkrant, 1991) y también pueden mejorar la comprensión del texto (Levie & Lentz, 1982;Mayer, 2001;Paivio & Csapo, 1973). ...
... Para este tipo de materiales se hace la recomendación de usar el diálogo en primera persona, buscando crear mayor familiaridad con el usuario, lo cual le otorga mayor credibilidad a lo que dice y esto favorece el aprendizaje. Con base en los estudios de diversos autores sobre la percepción que tienen los alumnos, de los materiales creados con imágenes, Jin & Boling (2010) dicen que: ...
Thesis
Full-text available
Existe una gran variedad de propuestas sobre los criterios a seguir en la elaboración de dichos materiales, para definir las pautas de selección y estructuración de los contenidos, en la utilización de estrategias didácticas apoyadas en las facilidades que ofrecen las TIC y en el diseño de la interfase grafica. Al respecto, esta investigación considera importante continuar con la definición de criterios en la presentación visual de la información en dichos materiales, optimizando el uso de los conceptos del lenguaje visual en la elaboración de buenas composiciones visuales que apoyan el aprendizaje.
... Stern and Robinson (1994), dicen que el proceso de percepción es selectivo, porque se hace basándose en lo que estamos acostumbrados a ver, como un proceso subjetivo. Así mismo Barry (1994), dice que la percepción usa todas las experiencias pasadas, valores, actitudes y necesita seleccionar información relevante para interpretar el mundo, ambos citados en (Jin & Boling, 2010). De acuerdo a la propuesta de Bertoline, Burton y Wiley (1992) 7 , citado en Moore, & Dwyer (1994), se puede suponer los mensajes visuales son muy útiles en las tareas de aprendizaje que involucran memoria, porque la información recibida de las imágenes parece permanecer más tiempo en la memoria, que la información recibida de manera verbal. ...
Article
Full-text available
Artículo para la publicación en las Actas del XI Congreso Virtual Latinoamericano de Enseñanza del Diseño en la Semana Virtual Internacional de Diseño en Palermo, aceptado en mayo 2020 La composición visual en el aprendizaje virtual Dra. María Teresa Olalde Ramos mtor@azc.uam.mx Ciudad de México, mayo 2020 Resumen El aprendizaje virtual, no depende únicamente de la facilidad de acceso a la información y las buenas intenciones de los estudiantes, existen muchos otros aspectos que deben ser considerados en la elaboración de los materiales didácticos presentados en ambientes de enseñanza virtual. Uno aspecto importante es la visualización de la información, en los materiales didácticos utilizados como apoyo dentro de estos ambiente virtuales de aprendizaje, en donde debido a la autonomía e independencia de los mismos, requieren que la información esté presentada de la mejor manera posible, lo que facilitará su comprensión y así mismo favorecerá el logro educativo. Desarrollar cursos y materiales didácticos para el aprendizaje en línea, resulta ser un proceso complejo que va mas allá de trasladar un curso tradicional a un ambiente virtual. Si tomamos en cuenta que el 80% de la percepción humana es a través de los ojos y que las habilidades perceptuales visuales son las encargadas de la organización y el procesamiento de la información, podemos entender la importancia que puede llegar a tener la composición visual en la presentación de información, como factor determinante en la comprensión y retención (memorización) de la misma, como parte del proceso cognitivo de aprendizaje. Palabras clave: visualización de la información, aprendizaje virtual, composición visual. Abstract Virtual learning does not depend solely on the ease of access to information and the good intentions of students, there are many other aspects that must be considered in the preparation of teaching materials presented in virtual teaching environments. An important aspect is the visualization of the information, in the didactic materials used as support within these virtual learning environments, where due to their autonomy and independence, they require that the information be presented in the best possible way, which that will facilitate their understanding and will also promote educational achievement. Developing courses and teaching materials for online learning turns out to be a complex process that goes beyond moving a traditional course to a virtual environment. If we consider that 80% of human perception is through the eyes and that visual perceptual skills are responsible for the organization and processing of information, we can understand the importance that visual composition can have in the presentation of information, as a determining factor in its understanding and retention (memorization), as part of the cognitive learning process.
... It can be concluded that pictures can have a positive, a neutral, but also a negative effect on learning (Eilam 2013;Evans, Watson and Willows 1987;Furnham and Williams, 1987;Gunter, 1980;Levie and Lentz, 1982;Levin, Anglin, and Carney 1987;Massoumian, 1989;Pettersson, 1989Pettersson, , 1993Rieber, 1994;Sims-Knight, 1992;Stiller et al., 2020;Sung-Hee, and Boling, 2010;Winn, 1993a). Critical awareness of visual representations, which if not appropriately designed and implemented will create student difficulties and misconceptions ...
Book
Full-text available
In this book, the focus is on the receiver and on learning. In instruction design the main objective is to provide courses and learning materials needed by the interpreter in order to modify behaviour with respect to learning. The information interpret-ers might be seen as “learners.” They may develop new under-standing, experience, comprehension, knowledge, insight, and finally wisdom.
... We know that pictures can have a positive, a neutral, but also a negative effect on learning (Eilam 2013;Evans, Watson and Willows 1987;Furnham and Williams, 1987;Gunter, 1980;Levie and Lentz, 1982;Levin, Anglin and Carney 1987;Massoumian, 1989;Pettersson, 1989Pettersson, , 1993Rieber, 1994;Scheiter et al., 2018;Seufert, 2019;Sims-Knight, 1992;Stiller et al., 2020;Sung-Hee and Boling, 2010;Winn, 1993). ...
Book
Full-text available
Traditionally the concept of “literacy” was restricted to the ability to read, write and use arithmetic. In a multicultural world with fast technological advances people in all societies need abilities and skills to manage many kinds of systems for communication and information provide in imag-es, symbols, and texts. We all have to learn to interpret visual messages accurately and to create such messages. Interpretation and creation in visual literacy can be said to parallel read-ing and writing in print literacy.
... It can be concluded that pictures can have a positive, a neutral, and also a negative effect on learning (Evans, Watson and Willows 1987;Furnham and Williams, 1987;Gunter, 1980;Levie and Lentz, 1982;Levin, Anglin, and Carney 1987;Massoumian, 1989;Pettersson, 1989Pettersson, , 1993Rieber, 1994;Sims-Knight, 1992;Sung-Hee and Boling, 2010;Winn, 1993). ...
Book
Full-text available
Reuse in Art and Design is about repurposing and reusing images. Throughout history people have reused images and sculptures, as well as parts of images and sculptures, in order to create new artistic expressions, and also new information. This book includes short presentations of some two- and three-dimensional images and found objects that have been reused and repurposed in architecture, art, books, design, learning, and sculpture.
Article
Designers exert substantial effort to define an intended user experience (UX) for a product, service or system. However, discontinuities can arise when the actual UX of users differs from the design intent. This paper presents a ‘Semantic Discontinuity Detection’ (SDD) method capable of locating discontinuities between (i) realized product semantics, based on users' initial visual impression of a product, and (ii) intended product semantics, based on the originating designer's visual product expression. The experimental design includes a new technique termed ‘Semantic Network Clustering’ (SNC) to organize diverse product appraisal lexicon. Data generated by the method provides evidence to assist re-designing for reduced semantic discontinuity. The method is suggested to be suitably agile for a wide range of UX intent-realization research.
Article
Full-text available
Instructional illustrations are widely used in textbooks and have been shown to have the potential to aid learning. However, illustrations that are not understood as their designers intend them to he may waste resources at best and interfere with learning at worst. Learners may recognize images but not understand illustrations when their meanings arc extended by the use of graphical devices. This study examines the interpretations made by 471 participants from 2 countries, 3“’ grade through adult, of simple instructional illustrations. The extent to which their interpretations match the intended meanings of the illustration designers and the characteristics oj their responses are reported.
Article
Pictures that exemplify verbal product attribute information in an ad are argued to enhance ad recall only when the verbal information is of low imagery. When the verbal information is of high imagery, self-generated images are expected to minimize the effect of externally provided pictures on the recall of verbal information.
Article
Young learners must be better prepared to interpret and utilize the visual information presented to them in elementary science books. The findings of this study suggest that illustrations may not promote student understanding, but may. in fact, encourage misconceptions about science. Further, the elementary students in this study demonstrated a propensity for constructing their own interpretations to describe the visual representation, rather than posing questions about their observations, or reading the caption or explanatory text. Only two students, out of sixty, chose to read any part of the accompanying text. Other research on visual representations should concentrate on investigating learner understanding and interpretation to determine what changes, if any, are necessary to make illustrations more meaningful.
Book
This book is for writers and graphic designers who create the many types of documents people use every day at home or school, in business or government. From high-tech instruction manuals and textbooks to health communications and information graphics, to online information and World Wide Web pages, this book offers one of the first research-based portraits of what readers need from documents and of how document designers can take those needs into account. Drawing on research about how people interpret words and pictures, this book presents a new and more complete image of the reader—a person who is not only trying to understand prose and graphics but who is responding to them aesthetically and emotionally. Dynamics in Document Design features: • Case studies of documents before and after revision, showing how people think and feel about them • Analyses of the interplay of text and pictures, revealing how words, space, visuals, and typography can work together • An informative timeline of the international evolution of document design from 1900 to the 1997
Article
In 4 experiments, students who read expository passages with seductive details (i.e., interesting but irrelevant adjuncts) recalled significantly fewer main ideas and generated significantly fewer problem-solving transfer solutions than those who read passages without seductive details. In Experiments 1, 2, and 3, revising the passage to include either highlighting of the main ideas, a statement of learning objectives, or signaling, respectively, did not reduce the seductive details effect. In Experiment 4, presenting the seductive details at the beginning of the passage exacerbated the seductive details effect, whereas presenting the seductive details at the end of the passage reduced the seductive details effect. The results suggest that seductive details interfere with learning by priming inappropriate schemas around which readers organize the material, rather than by distracting the reader or by disrupting the coherence of the passage.
Article
Twenty-nine reports yielding 112 studies were analyzed with Glass’s meta-analysis technique, and results were compared with predictions from Ausubel’s model of assimilative learning. Overall, advance organizers were shown to be associated with increased learning and retention of the material to be learned. Levels of some variables in the high-effect-size studies were not as predicted by Ausubel’s model, however.
Article
Graphs and other visual displays of information have become a pervasive part of our environment. In Elements of Graph Design , noted psychologist Stephen Kosslyn explains step-by-step how to create effective displays of quantitative data, with guidelines based on our current understanding of how the brain processes information. Unlike any other guide to designing graphs, it demonstrates clearly why certain graph formats and elements work better than others in specific situations. For those who prepare, use and interpret graphic data, Elements of Graph Design explores the crucial connections between the design, the data, and the reader. When read cover to cover or used as a hands-on working reference, it offers a wealth of advice on effectively conveying information visually.
Article
Pictures that exemplify verbal product attribute information in an ad are argued to enhance ad recall only when the verbal information is of low imagery. When the verbal information is of high imagery, self-generated images are expected to minimize the effect of externally provided pictures on the recall of verbal information.