Explaining the Gap: Visualizing One's Predictions Improves Recall and Comprehension of Data

ABSTRACT

Information visualizations use interactivity to enable user-driven querying of visualized data. However, users' interactions with their internal representations, including their expectations about data, are also critical for a visualization to support learning. We present multiple graphically-based techniques for eliciting and incorporating a user's prior knowledge about data into visualization interaction. We use controlled experiments to evaluate how graphically eliciting forms of prior knowledge and presenting feedback on the gap between prior knowledge and the observed data impacts a user's ability to recall and understand the data. We find that participants who are prompted to reflect on their prior knowledge by predicting and self-explaining data outperform a control group in recall and comprehension. These effects persist when participants have moderate or little prior knowledge on the datasets. We discuss how the effects differ based on text versus visual presentations of data. We characterize the design space of graphical prediction and feedback techniques and describe design recommendations.

References

1. Shaaron Ainsworth and Andrea Th Loizou. 2003. The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science 27, 4 (2003), 669--681.
2. Gregor Aisch, Amanda Cox, and Kevin Quealy. 2015. You Draw It: How Family Income Predicts Children's College Chances. The NY Times, May 28, 2015, http://nyti.ms/1ezbuWY,. (2015).
3. Vincent Aleven and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2002. An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive science 26, 2 (2002), 147--179.
4. Vincent Aleven, Octav Popescu, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2001. Towards tutorial dialog to support self-explanation: Adding natural language understanding to a cognitive tutor. In Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Citeseer, 246--255.
5. Katerine Bielaczyc, Peter L Pirolli, and Ann L Brown. 1995. Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and instruction 13, 2 (1995), 221--252.
6. Sally Bogacz and J Gregory Trafton. 2002. Understanding static and dynamic visualizations. In International Conference on Theory and Application of Diagrams. Springer, 347--349.
7. Matt Canham and Mary Hegarty. 2010. Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and instruction 20, 2 (2010), 155--166.
8. Patricia A Carpenter and Priti Shah. 1998. A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 4, 2 (1998), 75.
9. Andrea Cheshire, Linden J Ball, and CN Lewis. 2005. Self-explanation, feedback and the development of analogical reasoning skills: Microgenetic evidence for a metacognitive processing account. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. BG Bara, L. Barsalou & M. Bucciarelli. Citeseer, 435--41.
10. Michelene TH Chi. 2000. Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Advances in instructional psychology 5 (2000), 161--238.
11. Michelene TH Chi, Miriam Bassok, Matthew W Lewis, Peter Reimann, and Robert Glaser. 1989. Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive science 13, 2 (1989), 145--182.
12. Michelene TH Chi, Nicholas Leeuw, Mei-Hung Chiu, and Christian LaVancher. 1994. Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive science 18, 3 (1994), 439--477.
13. Cristina Conati and Kurt VanLehn. 1999. Teaching meta-cognitive skills: Implementation and evaluation of a tutoring system to guide self-explanation while learning from examples. In Artificial Intelligence in Education. IOS Press, 297--304.
14. Cristina Conati and Kurt Vanlehn. 2000. Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: A computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED) 11 (2000), 389--415.
15. Leda Cosmides and John Tooby. 1996. Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. cognition 58, 1 (1996), 1--73.
16. Richard Cox. 1999. Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and instruction 9, 4 (1999), 343--363.
17. Ruth B Ekstrom, John W French, Harry H Harman, and Diran Dermen. 1976. Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational testing service (1976).
18. Monica GM Ferguson-Hessler and Ton de Jong. 1990. Studying physics texts: Differences in study processes between good and poor performers. Cognition and Instruction 7, 1 (1990), 41--54.
19. Carolina E Hagberg, Annika Mehlem, Annelie Falkevall, Lars Muhl, Barbara C Fam, Henrik Ortsäter, Pierre Scotney, Daniel Nyqvist, Erik Samén, Li Lu, and others. 2012. Targeting VEGF-B as a novel treatment for insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Nature 490, 7420 (2012), 426--430.
20. Mary Hegarty. 2004. Diagrams in the mind and in the world: Relations between internal and external visualizations. In Diagrammatic representation and inference. Springer, 1--13.
21. Mary Hegarty and Marcel-Adam Just. 1993. Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of memory and language 32, 6 (1993), 717--742.
22. Mary Hegarty and Sarah Kriz. 2008. Effects of knowledge and spatial ability on learning from animation. Learning with animation: Research implications for design (2008), 3--29.
23. Mary Hegarty, Sarah Kriz, and Christina Cate. 2003. The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and instruction 21, 4 (2003), 209--249.
24. Mary Hegarty and Kathryn Steinhoff. 1997. Individual differences in use of diagrams as external memory in mechanical reasoning. Learning and Individual differences 9, 1 (1997), 19--42.
25. Dianne E Howie and Kim J Vicente. 1998. Making the most of ecological interface design: The role of self-explanation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 49, 5 (1998), 651--674.
26. Jessica Hullman, Eytan Adar, and Priti Shah. 2011. The impact of social information on visual judgments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1461--1470.
27. Sirkka L Jarvenpaa. 1990. Graphic displays in decision making the visual salience effect. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 3, 4 (1990), 247--262.
28. Wilson Andrews Josh KatZ and Jeremy Bowers. 2014. Elections 2014: Make Your Own Senate Forecast. The NY Times, Sep 2, 2014, http://nyti.ms/1plfIyv,. (2014).
29. Joshua Klayman and Young-Won Ha. 1987. Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological review 94, 2 (1987), 211.
30. Stephen M Kosslyn. 1989. Understanding charts and graphs. Applied cognitive psychology 3, 3 (1989), 185--225.
31. Jill H Larkin and Herbert A Simon. 1987. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive science 11, 1 (1987), 65--100.
32. Edith Law, Ming Yin, Kevin Chen Joslin Goh, Michael Terry, and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2016. Curiosity Killed the Cat, but Makes Crowdwork Better. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4098--4110.
33. Zhicheng Liu and John T Stasko. 2010. Mental models, visual reasoning and interaction in information visualization: A top-down perspective. Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on 16, 6 (2010), 999--1008.
34. George Loewenstein. 1994. The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological bulletin 116, 1 (1994), 75.
35. Richard E Mayer. 2014. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 43 (2014).
36. Danielle S McNamara, Tenaha Oâ O'Reilly, Michael Rowe, Chutima Boonthum, and IB Levinstein. 2007. iSTART: A web-based tutor that teaches self-explanation and metacognitive reading strategies. Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (2007), 397--421.
37. Hedwig M Natter and Dianne C Berry. 2005. Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19, 1 (2005), 123--135.
38. Steven Pinker. 1990. A theory of graph comprehension. Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (1990), 73--126.
39. Peter Pirolli and Margaret Recker. 1994. Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and instruction 12, 3 (1994), 235--275.
40. Alexander Renkl. 1997. Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive science 21, 1 (1997), 1--29.
41. Alexander Renkl, Robin Stark, Hans Gruber, and Heinz Mandl. 1998. Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary educational psychology 23, 1 (1998), 90--108.
42. Marguerite Roy and Michelene TH Chi. 2005. The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), 271--286.
43. R Ryan. 1996. Self-explanation and adaptation. Psychology (1996).
44. Priti Shah, Richard E Mayer, and Mary Hegarty. 1999. Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology 91, 4 (1999), 690.
45. Keith Stenning and Jon Oberlander. 1995. A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive science 19, 1 (1995), 97--140.
46. Elsbeth Stern, Carmela Aprea, and Hermann G Ebner. 2003. Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learning and Instruction 13, 2 (2003), 191--203.
47. J Gregory Trafton, Susan B Trickett, and Farilee E Mintz. 2005. Connecting internal and external representations: Spatial transformations of scientific visualizations. Foundations of Science 10, 1 (2005), 89--106.
48. Jeff Zacks and Barbara Tversky. 1999. Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Memory & Cognition 27, 6 (1999), 1073--1079.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing