Role of Interaction in Enhancing the Epistemic Utility of 3D Mathematical Visualizations

Abstract

Many epistemic activities, such as spatial reasoning, sense-making, problem solving, and learning, are information-based. In the context of epistemic activities involving mathematical information, learners often use interactive 3D mathematical visualizations (MVs). However, performing such activities is not always easy. Although it is generally accepted that making these visualizations interactive can improve their utility, it is still not clear what role interaction plays in such activities. Interacting with MVs can be viewed as performing low-level epistemic actions on them. In this paper, an epistemic action signifies an external action that modifies a given MV in a way that renders learners' mental processing of the visualization easier, faster, and more reliable. Several, combined epistemic actions then, when performed together, support broader, higher-level epistemic activities. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role that interaction plays in supporting learners to perform epistemic activities, specifically spatial reasoning involving 3D MVs. In particular, this research investigates how the provision of multiple interactions affects the utility of 3D MVs and what the usage patterns of these interactions are. To this end, an empirical study requiring learners to perform spatial reasoning tasks with 3D lattice structures was conducted. The study compared one experimental group with two control groups. The experimental group worked with a visualization tool which provided participants with multiple ways of interacting with the 3D lattices. One control group worked with a second version of the visualization tool which only provided one interaction. Another control group worked with 3D physical models of the visualized lattices. The results of the study indicate that providing learners with multiple interactions can significantly affect and improve performance of spatial reasoning with 3D MVs. Among other findings and conclusions, this research suggests that one of the central roles of interaction is allowing learners to perform low-level epistemic actions on MVs in order to carry out higher-level cognitive and epistemic activities. The results of this study have implications for how other 3D mathematical visualization tools should be designed.

User-elicited dual-hand interactions for manipulating 3D objects in virtual reality environments

“…They also indicated that it was not easy to interact with the touchpad while also carrying out motion gestures with the device. This seemed to agree with earlier research about input devices, where it was found that despite providing multiple features that were considered useful, actual users may not be able to take advantage of them and use more than one feature simultaneously [18,46].…”

Collaborative behavior, performance and engagement with visual analytics tasks using mobile devices

“…As a visualization tool, no direct or explicit instructions about how they should interact with the tool are provided. Users have to explore and analyze by themselves using the tool's visual interactive functions and interpret the results and draw their own conclusions [76,77]. Figure 1 shows the interface of the tool, which is implicitly divided into 5 sections: (1) Synchronize function: The transformation of three solids will be synchronous when changing from one same shape to another same shape; (2) User ID: It indicates how many users are using the tool at the same time; (3) 3D solid visualizations: There are three solids, cube, tetrahedron and Octahedron; (4) Solid transition maps (STM): They can support active navigation within and between visualizations.…”

Supporting Sensemaking of Complex Objects with Visualizations: Visibility and Complementarity of Interactions

“…If interactions do not contribute in any significant manner to the exploration process, instead of being beneficial, they may actually lead to unwanted consequences-sometimes referred to as "interaction costs" [59]. Some of these consequences include: spending time finding an appropriate interaction, figuring out what combinations of interactions to use, and spending time to try them out [60]. This is also in line with research in the personalization of user interfaces for productivity applications, where task performance was found to be faster for a minimalist interface than for an interface with a fuller set of choices [61].…”