Predictive vs. passive animation learning tools

ABSTRACT

We investigate the effectiveness of a predictive interaction animation tool for understanding graph algorithms. We compare performance improvement of students after they have used two different animation tools for the given algorithms, when one of the tools forces a more active, predictive approach while the other is a more traditional animation. Results show significant improvement in performance after students use the predictive tool.

REFERENCES

• 1: Stina Bridgeman , Michael T. Goodrich , Stephen G. Kobourov , Roberto Tamassia, PILOT: an interactive tool for learning and grading, Proceedings of the thirty-first SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.139-143, March 07-12, 2000, Austin, Texas, United States
• 2: Michael D. Byrne , Richard Catrambone , John T. Stasko, Evaluating animations as student aids in learning computer algorithms, Computers & Education, v.33 n.4, p.253-278, Dec. 1999 [doi>10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00023-8]
• 3: C. D. Hundhausen, S. A. Douglas, and J. T. Stasko. A meta-study of software visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 13(3):259--290, 2002.
• 4: Duane J. Jarc , Michael B. Feldman , Rachelle S. Heller, Assessing the benefits of interactive prediction using Web-based algorithm animation courseware, Proceedings of the thirty-first SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.377-381, March 07-12, 2000, Austin, Texas, United States
• 5: A. Korhonen. Visual Algorithm Simulation. PhD thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, 2003.
• 6: M.-J. Laakso, T. Salakoski, and A. Korhonen. The feasibility of automatic assessment and feedback. In Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, and P. T. Isaías, editors, CELDA, pages 113--122. IADIS, 2005.
• 7: A. W. Lawrence, A. M. Badre, and J. T. Stasko. Empirically evaluating the use of animations to teach algorithms. In Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pages 48--54. IEEE, 1994.
• 8: A. Lurie. Investigating the effectiveness of active interaction tools on student learning. Master's thesis, San José State University, 2008.
• 9: Clifford A. Shaffer , Matthew Cooper , Stephen H. Edwards, Algorithm visualization: a report on the state of the field, Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, March 07-11, 2007, Covington, Kentucky, USA
• 10: John Stasko , Albert Badre , Clayton Lewis, Do algorithm animations assist learning?: an empirical study and analysis, Proceedings of the INTERCHI '93 conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.61-66, May 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
• 11: Barbara Tversky , Julie Bauer Morrison , Mireille Betrancourt, Animation: can it facilitate?, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.57 n.4, p.247-262, October 2002 [doi>10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017]
• 12: http://algoviz.cs.vt.edu/AlgovizWiki.
• 13: http://www.cs.usfca.edu/galles/visualization.
• 14: http://nova.umuc.edu/~jarc/idsv.
• 15: http://www.mincel.com/java/prim.html.
• 16: http://links.math.rpi.edu/applets/appindex/graphtheory.html.
• 17: http://www.cs.hut.fi/Research/TRAKLA2/index.shtml.
• 18: http://www.lupinho.de/gishur/html/BFSApplet.html.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education
          Subjects: Computer science education

Additional Classification:
  G. Mathematics of Computing
  G.2 DISCRETE MATHEMATICS
      G.2.2 Graph Theory
          Subjects: Graph algorithms

General Terms:
Algorithms, Experimentation, Human Factors, Measurement

Keywords:
active learning, animations, research study