Association for Information Systems

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

2012 Proceedings SIGED: IAIM Conference

2012

Effective Use of Visualization in Education

B. J. Smit
University of Amsterdam, [email protected]

A.W. Abcouwer
University of Amsterdam, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/siged2012

Recommended Citation
Smit, B. J. and Abcouwer, A.W., "Effective Use of Visualization in Education" (2012). 2012 Proceedings. 1.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/siged2012/1

This material is brought to you by the SIGED: IAIM Conference at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012
Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact [email protected].
Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

EFFECTIVE USE OF VISUALIZATION IN EDUCATION

Faculty of Economics & Business

University of Amsterdam
B. J. Smit
[email protected]

Faculty of Science
University of Amsterdam
A.W. Abcouwer
[email protected]

Abstract:
With the ever increasing use of computers, visualization is used more and more. Powerpoint-fatigue is a
well-known fact. There’s a general feeling that supportive technologies can be useful and effective in
education, however those outcomes are often not achieved. Consequently people start to look for
alternatives: movies, animations and infographics, have become common-practice. These are all powerful
and valuable tools, also in education. It is very important though to ask what type of tool to use, for which
kind of learning and to which purpose. In this article we attempt to derive a taxonomy which will help to make
sound choices, so that visualization can be used effectively.

Keywords: Visualization, Learning,

I. INTRODUCTION

This paper reports on the findings from our research project, as we described last year in
“Enhancing student-centric learning by building on visualization” (Abcouwer & Smit, 2011). This
project was granted by ICTO, the University taskforce for ICT in education. The aim of the
research project was to investigate changes in learning, dynamics and roles in education. More
specifically we wanted to use the methods students are using to use supportive visualization
technologies in classroom settings, and see if we could establish a model to help understand the
choices, which could facilitate choosing supportive visualization technologies. The result of the
research project1 was to develop a method to facilitate choosing a supportive visualization
technology, as well as a ‘toolbox’ of documented examples of procedures and tools, which can
then be re-used. The cases were gathered during a project under the name “crowd-visualization”
where students were actively involved in creating visualizations for use in the classroom.

1
Our research project will aim to investigate the ways in which the differences in visualizations
can be utilized in education, supporting the learning process. It is based on the research of
Ivanova who found that by: “Digital Tools: today's students have mastered a large variety of
digital tools that are like extensions of their brains” (Ivanova, 2009) {from submission 2011}

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

‘A picture is worth a thousand words’. The question is however, how do we ensure those 1000
words are in a picture? Many times you can see pictures/illustration which add little, or worse,
only increased confusion. So while we all judge instantly whether visualization is helpful, this is
not so obvious to the person trying to utilize this. Determining whether and how visualization can
be helpful is even more difficult. So far this has been the area of communication specialists, who
are specialized in this. With the recent technological advances these capabilities are more and
more within reach of everybody. This brings a need to be able to understand for what type of
knowledge transfer a particular visualization technique is useful. We will focus on helping to make
a choice in the face of seemingly unlimited possibilities. The consequence of these ‘unlimited
possibilities’ is that it is de-facto impossible to discover the best supportive technology. So how
can a sound choice be made?

Utilizing the visual part of our brain in addition to the rational/reading part is “is to amplify
cognitive performance, not just to create interesting pictures. Information visualizations should do
for the mind what automobiles do for the feet”. As ”Information visualization promises to help us
speed our understanding and action in a world of increasing information volumes”. (Card, 2008)
Clearly using visualizations can be very powerful addition. People have been applying this to
learning for centuries, and still are.

However there are more reasons embrace the use of new visualization technologies. “Half of
what is known today was not known 10 years ago” (Siemens, 2005). ”These “tools are enablers
of collaboration, and therefore enablers of 21st century teaching” (Churches, 2012). In order to
prepare students, teaching should be based on a similar collaborative focus. Also thinking skills
are and remain vitally important, “While much of the knowledge we teach may be obsolete within
a few years, thinking skills once acquired will remain with our students for their entire lives”
(Churches, 2012).

In the end it is about creating meaningful learning (Mayer, 2002). “Meaningful learning occurs
when students build the knowledge and cognitive processes needed for successful problem
solving.”

The aim is bring more understanding to the use of visualizations in education, for the purpose of
learning and knowledge transfer. We will work towards a model which aims to simplify the
process of choosing visualization technologies for the aim of education in a classroom setting,
linking the choice to the learning objectives. Through this we hope to make it easier for educators
and students to choose wisely among the various possibilities. To do this we will first review the
state of literature on learning and on visualization. Next we will attempt to construct a model
which can aid in the process of choosing. After which we will use cases created by students in a
classroom setting to score them according to the model, and assess whether utilizing the

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

taxonomy could have helped their choices. The assessment is done with the help of experts,
teachers.

We will not be researching whether using visualizations or animations in education is worthwhile

or not. This is the topic of various research, however like Thomas Naps, et all, we perceive that
visualizations are ‘potentially beneficial to learning outcomes and motivation (Naps, 2003)

“WHAT IS LEARNING”?

In recent papers we’ve attempted to choose a supportive technology based on a model using the
following learning theories and Gardner’s multiple intelligence.

Behaviorism as learning approach

In behaviorism, learning takes place in a repeated process of action and feedback. According to
behaviorists, learning takes place in pairs, like for instance fire -> warm. Learning settles by
repeating these pairs. Complex learning can occur by gradually adjusting the pairs, thus creating
complex behavior. The best results are achieved by positive affirmation of behavior. Skinner’s
(1958, 1972) view on learning has been highly influential in the field of education. In his view,
learning is the observable change in behavior. This approach has resulted in teaching machines
that were created by Pressey (1926, p.374) but made popular by Skinner (1958). These
machines evolved into computer-aided instruction and computer-based training and next to web-
based training and learning.

In education, the main characteristics of behaviorism are the focus on positive and negative
affirmation of behavior, as well as a constant need for tests and feedback.

Cognitive learning
The cognitive approach to learning has been established as a response to behaviorism. Apart
from the observable behavior that behaviorists believe in, internal processes are also important
(Valcke, M.M.A., 2000). Therefore, this approach is focused on: knowing, obtaining knowledge,
internal mental structures. The brain is not seen as a black box. There is explicit attention to
invisible things like memory, reasoning, thinking and reflection. The main focus is on guiding the
student in using the right learning strategy and helping to relate new knowledge to existing
knowledge. Consequently, knowledge can be represented schematically, linking one item of
knowledge to another.

Guidelines for cognitive learning are: an active involvement of the student, hierarchical analyses,
knowledge building on the basis of other knowledge, structuring, organizing and sharing
knowledge, creating a learning environment that enables and encourages students to make

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

connections to existing knowledge and finally, using progress tests and final tests to monitor
progress.

Social Constructivism
Constructivism states that people put a meaning on experiences in their own way (Bartlett et al,
2001). According to Bartlett (2001), one of the major founders of constructivism is Jean Piaget,
who starts from the idea that a person absorbs certain experiences into his already existing
knowledge. He calls this process assimilation (Cole et al, 2001). In addition, a person can
rearrange his own concepts in such a manner that the new concept can be included. This is
called accommodation. This knowledge construction process, consisting of assimilation and
accommodation, can only take place when the experiences in some way connect to the existing
concepts. If this is not the case, then the person will not absorb the knowledge and therefore not
learn anything.

Lev Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner added the social component to constructivism. They assumed
that communication represents a strong added value in the learning process. Vygotsky even
states that the use of language itself influences a concept, whilst for Piaget language was only a
means for communicating concepts (Bartlett et al, 2001).

Learning within social constructivism consists of creating and arranging concepts in the brain.
Therefore, this is not learning fragmented knowledge by heart but the development of meaningful
concepts on the basis of experiences and a realistic context (Kral, 2005; Kolb, 1984). The teacher
has the task to create a meaningful situation in which the individual student constructs his or her
own knowledge (Bartlett et al, 2001). A student should be given the responsibility to design his or
her own learning experience. Monitoring one’s own learning process plays an important part.
Monitoring and checking one’s own learning process is known as metacognition. Cognitive
processes are split into two levels: the object level and the meta level. The meta level plays a
monitoring and checking part with regard to the object level (Cox, 2005). Reflection and feedback
are part of the meta level and for that reason are of crucial importance to the learning process
(Kral, 2005).

All this makes learning into a social activity, which is carried out together with others. By means of
collaborating and communicating, the student is obliged to clarify his thoughts and he is
confronted with the weaknesses of his ideas. This principle also applies when a student explains
a subject to himself (Van Lehn et al, 1993).

A more recent implementation of the ideas of social constructivism can be found in the Natural
Learning approach as founded by Van Emst (2002).

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

Connectivism
As a reaction to the limitations of the other three models, connectivism is proposed to explain the
impact of new technology on learning. Learning has always been considered a process inside an
individual, yet according to connectivism, learning is a process that may occur outside the
individual, within an organization or database.

The basis of connectivism is formed by principles that are explored by chaos, network and
complexity and self-organization theory. Seemingly hidden patterns should be recognized,
instead of understanding by sensemaking tasks as for instance in constructivism. Furthermore, a
student should be able to adopt to a pattern shift. So the e-environment will also need to be
informationally open and its structure changeable.

The connections by which we can learn are more important than what we currently know, i.e. “the
pipe is more important than the content of the pipe” (Siemens, G., 2004). Finding and maintaining
connections enables a student to learn more successfully. The combination of ideas created by
weak links can create new innovations and insights.

Connectivism starts from the individual, whose knowledge is comprised of a network. The
individual feeds this into organizations and institutions, which in turn feed back into the network,
giving the individual the possibility to continue learning. This cycle of learning is instrumental in
successful learning.

Where Abcouwer & Smit (2009) found that approaching the question of choosing supportive
technologies solely on the basis of learning theories didn’t encompass the whole story. When
looking at the link between learning theories and supportive technologies a very important
element was missing. The learning theories describe how information is absorbed, processed and
retained. However it doesn’t look at the process of learning. Ireland (2007) created an overview of
the learning theories. From his overview we can learn that the process is vitally important, as the
methods used for knowledge transfer are quite different, as well as the way learning occurs. The
types of learning which can be explained by the learning theory also differ. Hence, visualization
techniques must adapt to the appropriate learning theory. So while “a learning theory comprises
of the underlying psychological dynamics of events that influence learning” (Ormrod, et al, 2008),
the process is important as well. The learning theories focus on explaining how people learn, but
do not take the process of learning into consideration. To take the process of learning into
account educators traditionally have turned to Bloom’s taxonomy. Helping them plan curricula to
achieve learning objectives.

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

THE BLOOM TAXONOMY

Bloom’s model (1956) was originally built in the 1950’s upon 3 domains of educational activities:
Cognitive, Affective & Psychomotor, commonly referred to as KAS (Knowledge, Attitude & Skills).
The Bloom Taxonomy is based upon the cognitive domain, which will be where we will focus as
well. The use of visualization most likely also has an effect on the attitude and skills domains, but
for now those are not part of the scope here.

The Bloom model has been built up on 6 levels of cognitive complexity, going from concrete to
abstract. The original taxonomy was explicitly “represented as a cumulative hierarchy”
(Krathwohl, 2002). It was intended to give “an organizational structure that gives a commonly
understood meaning to objectives classified in one of its categories, thereby enhancing
communication”.

In the early 1990’s the Bloom Taxonomy, then already over 40 years old, has been revised to fit
the 21st century situation. While the taxonomy had been mainly aimed at teachers to help design
a curriculum and assessments, more and more examples came up of people applying it in
different settings and circumstances. Also Bloom himself believed the taxonomy could serve a
wider purpose. Consequently a group led by Krathwohl set out to update the taxonomy, adapting
it for use in the 21st century. This time "representatives of three groups [were present]: cognitive
psychologists, curriculum theorists and instructional researchers, and testing and assessment
specialists" (Anderson, & Krathwohl, 2001, p. xxviii) (Krathwohl, 2002 - a revision of Bloom’s
Taxonomy: An Overview)

A number of changes were made: terminology, structure and emphasis. The list below shows the
changes in terminology. Secondly the order of evaluating and creating was changed.

Remembering Recalling previously learned information, a slight change from recalling data
or information, with an emphasis on what’s learned before.
Understanding Very similarly defined, yet the category was relabeled to Understanding (vs
Comprehension).
Applying no change
Analyzing no change
Evaluating position in the model was changed
Creating Bigger emphasis on this part.

Table 1: Overview of changed terms2

To see how these levels would work take a look at the examples below:

2
Source: Clark, D., http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

Remembering What are the health benefits of eating apples?

Understanding Compare the health benefits of eating apples vs. oranges.
Applying Which kinds of apples are best for baking a pie, and why?
Analyzing List four ways of serving foods made with apples and explain which ones
have the highest health benefits. Provide references to support your
statements.
Evaluating Do you feel that serving apple pie for an after school snack for children is
healthy? Why or why not?
Creating Convert an "unhealthy" recipe for apple pie to a "healthy" recipe by replacing
your choice of ingredients. Explain the health benefits of using the
ingredients you chose vs. the original ones.

Table 2: Examples of cognitive processes

Finally, knowledge dimensions were added, as to allow them to be explicitly addressed. So in

effect the taxonomy now consists of a knowledge dimension – “what type of knowledge to
learn/transfer”, and a cognitive dimension – “what process to use”3. Resulting in a 6 by 4 matrix.

Summary of the Revised Taxonomy

st
The revised 21 century version of the Bloom Taxonomy is in the table below. To get an insight
in the taxonomy we will firstly discuss the knowledge dimensions and then the Cognitive process
dimension.

http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy#Revised_Bloom.27s_Ta
xonomy_.28RBT.29

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

 Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

Dimensions Cognitive Processes

The Knowledge

1. Remember

2. Understand

3. Apply

4. Analyze

5.Evaluate

6.Create
Factual 1 2 3 4 5 6
Conceptual 7 8 9 10 11 12
Procedural 13 14 15 16 17 18
Metacognitive 19 20 21 22 23 24
Figure 1 The revised Taxonomy of Bloom

Knowledge dimensions
There are 4 knowledge dimensions: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural & Metacognitive.
Each of these is divided into several sub-dimensions which will be illustrated below:

Factual Knowledge: basic elements students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or
solve problems in it
‐ Knowledge of terminology: Technical vocabulary, symbols
‐ Knowledge of specific details and elements: knowing reliable sources of information

Conceptual Knowledge: The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger setting
that enable them to function together.
‐ Knowledge of classifications and categories: generations
‐ Knowledge of principles and generalizations: for example, Pythagorean theorem, law of
supply and demand
‐ Knowledge of theories, models and structures: theory of evolution, structure of
organizations

Procedural Knowledge: How to do something, methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills,
algorithms, techniques, and methods
‐ Knowledge of subject-specific skills and algorithms: whole-number division, searching the
internet

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

‐ Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and methods: interviewing techniques,

scientific method
‐ Knowledge of criteria for determining when to use appropriate procedures: when to apply
Newton's second law, when to use a particular method of estimation

Meta-Cognitive Knowledge: Knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness and

knowledge of one's own cognition.
‐ Strategic knowledge: outlining as a means of capturing the structure of a unit of subject
matter in a textbook
‐ Cognitive tasks: knowledge of the different types of tests, cognitive demands of different
tasks
‐ Self-knowledge: knowledge that critiquing essays is a personal strength, whereas writing
essays is a personal weakness; awareness of one's own knowledge level

Meta-Cognitive knowledge is a new category, introduced in the revised taxonomy. There are
three types of meta-cognitive learning which are of particular importance: Strategic knowledge,
knowledge of tasks and self-knowledge (Pintrich, 2002). Strategic knowledge refers to knowledge
of strategies of learning and thinking. Knowledge of tasks represents knowledge about different
types of cognitive tasks, as well as classroom and cultural norms. Self-knowledge finally, is a
critical component of meta-cognitive learning, as it reflects the way students learn (Pintrich,
2002).

Cognitive Processes
Now we will discuss the sub-processes within each of the cognitive processes. This is
needed to help evaluate visualization technologies later on. To keep things clear the descriptions
will be as short as possible, where possible they’ll be illustrated as examples:

Remembering: retrieve relevant knowledge from memory

‐ Recognizing: Recognize dates and facts
‐ Recalling: recall important dates and facts

Understanding: Construct meaning from instructional messages, including graphic

communication
‐ Interpreting: Paraphrase important documents.
‐ Exemplifying: Give examples of various artistic painting styles
‐ Classifying: Classify observations
‐ Summarizing: observed events

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

‐ Inferring: for example, when learning a foreign language infer grammatical principles from
examples
‐ Comparing: compare historical events to current situations
‐ Explaining: Explain the cause and important of various events.

Applying: use a procedure in a situation

‐ Executing: carry out a division of numbers
‐ Implementing: determine in which situation a certain principle is applicable.

Analyzing: break material into its constituent parts and determine how the parts relate to one
another.
‐ Differentiating: distinguish between relevant and irrelevant facts
‐ Organizing: Structure evidence to support or counter and argument
‐ Attributing: Determining the point of view of an author in terms of his/her political view

Evaluating: make judgments based on criteria

‐ Checking: determine whether conclusions are supported from the ‘data’
‐ Critiquing: judge which of two methods is best to solve a problem

Creating: put elements together, or reorganize to form a new pattern or structure

‐ Generating: generate hypotheses to account for an observed phenomenon
‐ Planning: plan a research paper
‐ Producing: Built systems for certain purposes.

So we end up with the following model:

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effecctive Use of Visu
ualization

Table
e 3: overview ed Bloom taxxonomy4
w of the revise

Belo
ow on the ba
asis of the definitions o
of the cognittive processe
es follows a table to asssist in
categorizing:

Cogn
nitive Processs keyword
ds exa
amples

1. Re
emember Describ
be, Name, Re
elate, Boo
okmarking, ssocial networking,
List, Wrrite, Find, Telll, soccial bookmarkking, googlin
ng,
Recogn
nize, Identify, sea
arching
Retrieve
e, Locate, Fin
nd

2. Un
nderstand Explain, Compare, Advvanced searcches, Boolea
an
Discusss, Restate, Predict, Sea
arches, blog journaling,
Transla
ate, Outline, twitttering, categ
gorizing, tagg
ging,
Interpre
et, Summarizze, com
mmenting, an
nnotating,
Infer, Pa
araphrase, com
mmunicating,, social netwo
orking
Explain, Exemplify

4
Soource: http://o
oregonstate.e
edu/instruct/ccoursedev/m
models/id/taxo
onomy/#table
e (Retrieved on 1st
of au
ugust 2012)

Proce
eedings of the A
AIS SIG-ED IAIM
M 2012 Conferen
nce
Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

3. Apply Show, Complete, Use, Running, Loading, Playing,

Classify, Examine, Operating, Uploading, sharing,
Illustrate, Solve, editing, recording,
Implement, Carry Out,
Execute

4. Analyze Compare, Explain, Linking, validating, media clipping,

Examine, Categorize, polling, timelines, concept
Identify, Contrast, organizing,
Investigate, Organize,
Outline, Structure,
Integrate

5. Evaluate Assess, Justify, Prioritize, Blog commenting, reviewing,

Recommend, Decide, posting, moderating, collaborating,
Rate, Choose, Check, networking, testing, evaluating
Hypothesize, Critique, and critiquing
Experiment, Judge, Test,
Detect, Monitor

6. Create Invent, Plan, Compose, Programming, filming, animating,

Construct, Design, blogging, video, mixing, wiki-ing,
Imagine, Produce, Devise, publishing, videocasting,
podcasting, directing,
broadcasting

Table 4: Overview of Cognitive processes

Knowledge Dimension keywords examples

Factual Terminology, facts, Alfabet, Mathematical

elements, names symbols, Musical notation,

Names of politicians

Conceptual Classifications, categories Species of animals,

Newton’s law of physics,

Procedural How to do something, Solving a mathematical

procedures, methods equation, mixing colors,
statistical analysis

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

procedures.

Metacognitive Knowing strategies, which How to memorize, Outlining,

and when to use. Self- concept-mapping, problem
reflection solving and thinking.

Table 5 - Overview of Knowledge dimension

INTEGRATING THE LEARNING THEORIES WITH BLOOM

The Bloom taxonomy has been extensively used for designing curricula, however
recently people have started to explore the possibilities of using the taxonomy to map web2.0
technologies for personal use. To be able to extend this for use in a education/classroom setting
it is needed to also consider the learning theory. Therefore we propose to link the learning
theories to the Bloom taxonomy as a model of choosing a supportive visualization technology.
This way we can include both the learning approach as well as the learning objectives.

Mapping the learning theories

Behaviorism

This learning theory revolves around repetition, and given the students tasks.
Consequently on the knowledge dimension it mainly focusses on factual, conceptual and
procedural knowledge. For the cognitive process dimension, the main focus lies on remember,
understand, apply. Also slightly into analyze and evaluate. Mapping this onto the Bloom
taxonomy gives the following table5. White cells consist of learning objectives not accounted for in
behaviorism.
Keywords: internalization, repetition, skills, black-box, task-based and stimulus.

Cognitive Processes
Dimensions
The Knowledge

1. Remember

2. Understand

3. Apply

4. Analyze

5.Evaluate

6.Create

Factual 1 2 3 4 5 6

5
White areas are not accounted for in Cognitivism.

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

Conceptual 7 8 9 10 11 12
Procedural 13 14 15 16 17 18
Metacognitive 19 20 21 22 23 24
Figure 2 Linking Behaviorism to Bloom

Cognitivism

Learning in cognitivism builds on earlier knowledge, still using a repetitive process, where
storage, retrieval and encoding are important elements. Creating a clear, repeatable reasoning.

Keywords: structured / existing scheme, previous experiences , encoding, storage, retrieval,

duplicating, reasoning, clear objectives, problem solving

Cognitive Processes
Dimensions
The Knowledge

1. Remember

2. Understand

3. Apply

4. Analyze

5.Evaluate

6.Create

Factual 1 2 3 4 5 6
Conceptual 7 8 9 10 11 12
Procedural 13 14 15 16 17 18
Metacognitive 19 20 21 22 23 24
Figure 3 Linking Cognitivism to Bloom

(Social) Constructivism

Learning is seen as an active, engaged process. A process of constructing knowledge. The meta-
cognitive level is center-stage, as thinking-skills are the top-objective. ‘Social negotiation’ is part
of the process (Muir, 2001).

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

Keywords: social, personal, subjective, remixed, group feedback, and self-evaluation.

Cognitive Processes

Dimensions
The Knowledge

1. Remember

2. Understand

3. Apply

4. Analyze

5.Evaluate

6.Create
Factual 1 2 3 4 5 6
Conceptual 7 8 9 10 11 12
Procedural 13 14 15 16 17 18
Metacognitive 19 20 21 22 23 24
Figure 4 Linking (social) constructivism to Bloom

Connectivism

Cornerstone of connectivism is the network, and learning through the network and it’s
connections. Student is working collaboratively. The network is more important than the lessons’
learned, in other words a heavy focus on the meta-cognitive dimension.

Keywords: network, process, distributed, adaptive patterns, complex learning, diverse sources,
diversity of opinions, subjective and decision-making.

Cognitive Processes
Dimensions
The Knowledge

1. Remember

2. Understand

3. Apply

4. Analyze

5.Evaluate

6.Create

Factual 1 2 3 4 5 6
Conceptual 7 8 9 10 11 12
Procedural 13 14 15 16 17 18
Metacognitive 19 20 21 22 23 24

Figure 5 Linking Connectivism to Bloom

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

USING THE MODEL

From the previous overview it is clear that the Bloom taxonomy features a whole set of learning
objectives, which are not always applicable in a given learning theory. To choose a supportive
visualization technology it is therefore firstly important to determine the learning approach
chosen. Given this learning approach, the learning objectives can be selected. Next we will
categorize various supportive visualization technologies in the model. Each supportive
visualization technology will be categorized under one or more learning theories, and the learning
objectives in the taxonomy. This way we have a rich set which enables us to choose.

CATEGORIZING VISUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES

Based on the theoretical framework we have categorized a number of technologies.

In this paragraph we will use the model to categorize a number of often used visualization
technologies. The technologies have all been chosen from the list of Top 100 of 2011 tools for
learning as compiled by the Center for Learning & Performance Technologies . This list is
compiled through a questionnaire among professionals and enthusiasts on a yearly basis. It is
comprised of many different kinds of supportive technologies, amongst them visualization
technologies. For the purpose of this study we will merely categorize technologies that have been
employed by students in the cases.

In the next part we will see in what situations students have used the visualization technology,
and see if that matches with what the model suggests. But first we will categorize the visualization
technologies according to the taxonomy.

We will look at the following technologies/techniques.

- Powerpoint
- Prezi
- Info-graphics
- Wordle
- Mind-maps
- Animations
- TED Talks

Method of categorization
For each technology we will match with the knowledge dimensions and the cognitive processes
used, based on the descriptions before, see page 2 and 2. Establishing for what kind of
knowledge transfer it can be used most effectively. Next we’ll categorize it on cognitive process,
or process used in learning, to see in which circumstances it can be used best.

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

Visualization technologies
Powerpoint,

Learning Theory: predominantly behaviorism, cognitivism and (social) constructivism.

Knowledge dimension: can be used for all, however isn’t especially geared to a particular
dimension. Not very appropriate for the metacognitive dimension, as it can merely list a
strategy, but not apply.
Factual / Conceptual / Procedural / Meta-Cognitive

Cognitive process: Most appropriate for lower order learning. Can be used by students in a
classroom setting to analyze, and share.
Remember / Understand / Apply

Prezi

Learning Theory: any

Knowledge dimension: seems particularly useful in conceptual and procedural knowledge, can
be applied for factual as well.
Conceptual / Procedural

Cognitive process: while it can be seen as a presentation package with a twist, its strength lies in
the dimensions of understanding, analyzing and perhaps create. Can be used to explore
or devise complex structures.
Understanding / Analyzing / Create

Info-graphics

Learning Theory: Behaviorism, cognitivism

Knowledge dimension: Useful for all but meta-cognitive knowledge transfer. Road-signs and
flight-emergency cards are well known examples.
Factual / Conceptual / Procedural

Cognitive process: Most appropriate for lower order learning, insight into highly complex, yet
factual data, and structures.
Understanding / Analyzing / Create

Wordle

Learning Theory: Behaviorism, cognitivism

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

Knowledge dimension: factual only. Just gives an overview of terms/words, semi- to

unstructured.
Factual

Cognitive process: Remember.

Remember

Mind-maps

Learning Theory: mainly (social) constructivism & connectivism

Knowledge dimension: While these can be used for factual information, its strength lies in the
other 3 dimensions.
Conceptual, Procedural, Meta-Cognitive.

Cognitive process: Most applicable in classifying, categorizing and planning.

Understand / Apply / Analyze / Create

Animations

Learning Theory: any

Knowledge dimension: While possible to apply in practically all knowledge dimensions, due to
the labour-intensity of using animations its most applicable in Procedural and
metacognitive.
Procedural, Meta-Cognitive

Cognitive process: With the exception of Create, all other cognitive processes can be supported
by animation.
Remember / Understand / Apply / Analyze / Evaluate

TED talks

Learning Theory: any, but most likely (social) constructivism and connectivism.

Knowledge dimension: In this case the dimension is determined not so much by the possibilities
of the technology, but by the available content. Consequently this fits best with the Meta-
Cognitive process
Meta-Cognitive

Cognitive process: generally aimed at higher order learning.

Analyze / Evaluate / Create

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

CASES

The cases were taken from the courses Knowledge management & organization (3rd year
Bachelor IS curriculum), and Business Information Systems (2nd year IS curriculum) where, as
part of the course-requirements, the students were given the assignment of creating a
visualization of a topic. During an introduction class the background and possible uses of
supportive visualizations were discussed, as well as a number of examples, good and bad. After
which students could decide on what exact topic they would pick, naturally within the context of
the class. In the business information systems class students would work together as a project
team on creating a visualization, as a collaborative assignment. In the knowledge management &
Organization class students were given individual assignments. The classes were both structured
according to the social constructivist learning approach, as there was an emphasis on the group-
process. The end result of the assignments were evaluated by the learning professional
(teacher).

The students deliberately did not used the model yet, as we wished to evaluate whether the
resulting choices would be different. During the introduction class there has been an emphasis on
which type of visualization technology to choose. All students were either part of the masters of
Information Science, or an Economics program.

As a consequence of this particular group of students the technological learning curve isn’t very
important in this. However when applying this model elsewhere it should be noted that the
learning curve in using various visualization techniques can be steep. This is something which
has not been taken into account of this research.

This has merely been an preliminary attempt to evaluate the use of the model, and is not meant
to replace a more formal test, which is a matter for further research.

CASE EVALUATION

Per case we will first describe the purpose for which the visualization is intended. Based on this
we’ll use the model to find which areas are important, and which visualization technique it would
recommend.

Next we’ll describe the method chosen and used by the students. The educational professional
will give his/her judgment on whether the visualization was fitting and purposeful or not. Finally
we’ll see if the choice made by the students fits with the recommendation by the model.

Case 1 – Legacy Systems

Learning theory: social constructivist

Objective:

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

What are the problems of legacy systems, how did they come about, and how can you
deal with them.
Created as an animation of just under 3 minutes, in which the origins of this issue are
discussed and illustrated. Also the legacy systems issue is analyzed and evaluated. The
problems are discussed, including the causes. The aim is that students understand and
are capable of explaining and assessing this issue, and using this knowledge.
Categorize:
Describing consequences of legacy systems and strategies of how to deal with them.
Analyzing (identifying and comparing) and evaluating (Assess, critique) the results.
Meta-Cognitive,
Analyze & Evaluate.
Applied visualization technology:
Animation.
Recommended visualization technology:
From the categorization follows that using an animation is a feasible option. Another
option suggested is looking for a TED-talk on this particular subject.

Case 2 – Overview of Knowledge management

Learning theory: social constructivist

Objective:
Give an overview of the subject of Knowledge management based on the book by
Etienne Wenger. Outline the various elements, in the order that they will be dealt with and
illustrate the congruence of the topics.
Categorize:
Conceptual
Understand
Applied visualization technology:
Interactive InfoGraphic. An interactive map in which the various elements are clickable to
dive deeper into the presented information.
Recommended visualization technology:
In accordance with the taxonomy InfoGraphics can be used for these objectives.
Alternative options from suggested by the taxonomy are: powerpoint / prezi / mindmap.

Case 3 – Communities of practice, an overview

Learning theory: social constructivist

Objective:

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

Overview of Communities of Practice. Objective is to show the complexity of the theory,

as well as an overview of terms presented. Especially a link to the chaos theory.
Categorize:
Conceptual
Analyze
Applied visualization technology:
Powerpoint was the chosen visualization technology.
Recommended visualization technology:
Prezi / InfoGraphic /mind-maps.
The chosen visualization technology does not match with the choices suggested on the
basis of the model. In fact Powerpoint is not well suited for this particular learning
objective. The result was indeed deemed to be less than desirable, not adding to the
clarity.

CONCLUSION

From the theory we have seen that using supportive tools can be an important element to use in
education. Next we constructed a model based on learning approaches and learning objectives to
map supportive visualization technologies. By combining these two approaches we created a
model to help choosing a supportive visualization technology, while taking into account both the
process of learning and the method of learning (learning theories). This way the suggested
supportive visualizations depend both on the learning approach as well as the learning objectives.
Using this model we did a preliminary test through cases created by students.

We categorized a number of visualization technologies, to test the model. Also we evaluated

visualizations created by students for use in a classroom setting, and tested whether the
technology they choose to employ is suggested by the model or not.

Very preliminary we’ve seen an example where a visualization technology was applied, which
was according to the model not suitable for the learning objective at hand, and it was not
evaluated positively.

This indicates a potential usefulness of this model, which needs to be verified by testing it. Which
is my first recommendation for further research. In order to test this model it has to be tested for
each of the learning theories, for the various learning objectives. But before this can be done, a
more complete categorization of supportive visualizations technologies need to be done.

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Clearly doing a formal test of this model is the next step to be taken. However looking again at
Gardner’s multiple intelligence could also be interesting. These are often referred to by teachers,
who observe that different students have different strengths, and they learn in different ways.
Investigating whether the theory on multiple intelligences can add to the method of choosing
supportive visualization technologies would be interesting.

Also an investigation into the influence of the various learning styles by students could be
worthwhile. This might slightly overlap with the multiple intelligences.

LIST OF STUDENT CREATED VISUALIZATIONS

Assignment: Visualize a part of the Knowledge management Book by Etienne Wenger:

Nr. Type Visualization Knowledge Dimension Cognitive Process

1 Prezi Meta-Cognitive Remember/Understand
2 Video Conceptual Analyze
3 Tekening Meta-Cognitive (reflection) Evaluate
4 Infographic Conceptual/Meta-Cognitive (Outline) Analyze
5 Kennisclip Reflection Evaluate
6 Tumbler/Blog Factual Understand
7 PPT ? (unclear) ? (unclear)
8 MindMap Conceptual Understand
9 Mindmap Conceptual Understand
10 Infographic Conceptual Analyze
11 Conceptmap? meta-cognitive Apply/Analyze
12 Prezi Conceptual analyze / structure / Explain (Understand
13 Prezi Factual Remember
14 Video/animation Factual Understand
15 Prezi Factual Remember
16 PDF/MindMap Conceptual Understand
17 PDF/MindMap Conceptual Understand
18 PPT Factual Understand
19 Mindmap (ipad) Factual Remember
20 MindMap (Ipad) Factual Remember

Opdracht: Student projects

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

1 Research COP with Logica NL mindmap

2 AerData - COP Prezi
3 Human resource management at KLM movie
4 Knowledge management at NautaDutilh Infographic

LIST OF REFERENCES
Abcouwer, A.W. & Smit, B.J. (2008) Choosing a supportive technology for learning, in

Schambach, T. (ed), Proceedings of the ICIS 2008 – International Academy for Information

Management Conference

Abcouwer, A.W., Smit, B.J. (2009). BACK TO BASICS, UNDERSTANDING THE CHOICE OF

SUPPORTIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Phoenix, US.

Abcouwer, A.W., Smit, B.J. (2011). Enhance learning with visualization. Beijing, China.

Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular alignment: A re-examination. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 255-

260. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_9

Anderson, L. W. (2002). This issue. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 210-211. doi:

10.1207/s15430421tip4104_1

Bartlett, S., Burton, D., & Peim, N. (2001). Introduction to education studies. London: Chapman.

Bloom, Benjamin. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New

York: David McKay, 1956.

Cole, M., & Cole, S. R. (2001). The development of children (4th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.

Cox, M. T. (2005). Metacognition in computation a selected research review, Artificial intelligence:

an international journal (Vol. 169, pp. 104-141).

Emst, A. v. (2002) {in Dutch}: Koop een auto op de sloop, Utrecht, APS.

Ireland, T. (2007). Situating connectivism. Retrieved November 7, 2008, from

http://design.test.olt.ubc.ca/Situating_Connectivism

Ivanova (2009) Net-Generation Learning Style – a Challenge for Higher Education,

CompSysTech '09, ACM, New York.

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kral, M. (2005) {in Dutch}. Hoe leren leraren constructivistisch leren en onderwijzen met ict?

Nijmegen: Hogeschool van Arnhem en Nijmegen Faculteit Educatie/ILS Kenniskring 'Leren

met ict'.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,

41(4, Revising Bloom's Taxonomy), pp. 212-218.

Ormrod, J. E. (1995). Educational psychology: Principles and applications . Englewoods Cliffs,

N.J.: Merrill.

Ormrod, J., Schunk, D., & Gredler, M. (2008). Overview. In Learning theories and instruction

(Laureate custom edition) (pp. 1-26). New Jersey, NY: Pearson.

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226-232. doi:

10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4

Naps, T., Ross, R. J., Anderson, J., Fleischer, R., Kuittinen, M., McNally, M., . . . Rantakokko, J.

(2003). Evaluating the educational impact of visualization ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(4), 124.

doi: 10.1145/960492.960540

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing.

Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3

Pressey, S.L. (1926). A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores - and teaches. School and

Society, 23 (586), 373-376.

Siemens,G. , Gráinne Conole, Siemens, G., & Gráinne Conole.Special issue - connectivism:

Design and delivery of social networked learning. International Review of Research in Open

and Distance Learning, 12(3)

Siemens, G. (2005, Jan). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal

of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Retrieved from

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm

Skinner, B. F. (1972). "I Have Been Misunderstood...". Center Magazine (March-April): 63.

Skinner, B.F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128 (3330), 969-977.

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference

Smit, Abcouwer Effective Use of Visualization

Valcke, M.M.A., & De Craene, B.M.C., (2000) {in Dutch}. Van een constructivistische visie op

leren naar het ontwerpen van instructie. In: M.M.A. Valcke (ed.), (2000). Onderwijskunde als

ontwerpwetenschap (p.141-196). Gent: Academia Press.

VanLehn, K. J., Randolph M. (1993). What mediates the self-explanation effect? Knowledge

gaps, schemas or analogies. Paper presented at the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the

Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Proceedings of the AIS SIG-ED IAIM 2012 Conference