Abstract
This paper presents a characterization of computer-based interactions by which learners can explore and investigate visual mathematical representations (VMRs). VMRs (e.g., geometric structures, graphs, and diagrams) refer to graphical representations that visually encode properties and relationships of mathematical structures and concepts. Currently, most mathematical tools provide methods by which a learner can interact with these representations. Interaction, in such cases, mediates between the VMR and the thinking, reasoning, and intentions of the learner, and is often intended to support the cognitive tasks that the learner may want to perform on or with the representation. This paper brings together a diverse set of interaction techniques and categorizes and describes them according to their common characteristics, goals, intended benefits, and features. In this way, this paper aims to provide a preliminary framework to help designers of mathematical cognitive tools in their selection and analysis of different interaction techniques as well as to foster the design of more innovative interactive mathematical tools. An effort is made to demonstrate how the different interaction techniques developed in the context of other disciplines (e.g., information visualization) can support a diverse set of mathematical tasks and activities involving VMRs.
Article PDF
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ainsworth S.E., Bibby P.A. and Wood D.J. (1997). Information technology and multiple representations: New opportunities – new problems. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 6(1): 93–105
Arcavi A. and Hadas N. (2000). Computer mediated learning: An example of an approach. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 5: 25–45
Banks D. (1992). Interactive manipulation and display of two-dimensional surfaces in four-dimensional space. Computer Graphics 25(2): 197–207
Barwise J. and Etchemendy J. (1998). Computers, visualization and the nature of reasoning. In: Bynum, T.W. and Moor, J.H. (eds) The Digital Phoenix: How Computers are Changing Philosophy, pp 93–116. Blackwell, London
Bates M.J. (1986). An exploratory paradigm for online information retrieval. In: Brookes, B.C. (eds) Intelligent Information Systems for the Information Society, pp. North-Holland, Amsterdam
(2001). Cognitive Technology: Instruments of Mind – Proceedings of the International Cognitive Technology Conference. Springer-Verlag, Warwick, UK
Botsmanova M.E. (1972). On the role of graphic analysis in solving arithmetic problems. In: Kilpatrick, J. and Wirzup, I. (eds) Soviet Studies in the Psychology of Learning and Teaching Mathematics, pp 119–123. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Bridger M. and Bridger M. (2001). Mapping diagrams: Another view of functions. In: Cuocoand, A.A. and Curcio, F.R. (eds) The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics: 2001 Yearbook, pp. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA
Card S., MacKinlay J. and Shneiderman B. (1999). Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco
Chen C. (1999). Information Visualization and Virtual Environments. Springer-Verlag, London, UK
Cheng P. (2002). Electrifying diagrams for learning: Principles for complex representational systems. Cognitive Science 26: 685–736
(2001). The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics: 2001 Yearbook. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA
(2003). The Psychology of Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
de Souza, C.S. and Sedig, K. (2001). Semiotic considerations on direct concept manipulation as a distinct interface style for learnware. In Proceedings of the Brazilian Human–Computer Interaction Conference (IHC2001) (pp. 229–241), 15–17 October. Florianopolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
Diezmann C.M. and English L.D. (2001). Promoting the use of diagrams as tools for thinking. In: Cuocoand, A.A. and Curcio, F.R. (eds) The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics: 2001 Yearbook, pp. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA
Dix, A.J. and Ellis, G. (1998). Starting simple – adding value to static visualization through simple interaction. In Proceedings of the 4th International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI’ 98) (pp. 124–134). L’Aquilla, Italy. New York: ACM Press
(1997). Mathematical Reasoning: Analogies, Metaphors and Images. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Mahwah, NJ
Fisher R. (1990). Teaching Children to Think. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Frederickson G. (2002). Hinged Dissections: Swinging and Twisting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
Frederickson G. (2003). Dissection: Plane and Fancy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
Gadanidis G, Sedig K and Liang H (2004). Designing online mathematical investigation. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 23(3): 275–298
(1995). Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Gobet F., Lane P., Croker S., Cheng P., Jones G., Oliver I. and Pine J. (2001). Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(6): 236–243
Golightly, D. (1996). Harnessing the interface for domain learning. In M.J. Tauber (Ed), Proceedings of the CHI ’96 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Common Ground (CHI ’96) (pp. 37–38), 13–18 April. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. New York: ACM Press
Golledge R.G. (1999). Human wayfinding and cognitive maps. In: Golledge, R.G. (eds) Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes, pp 5–45. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, London
Gonzalez-Lopez M. (2001). Using dynamic geometry software to simulate physical motion. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 6: 127–142
Greeno J.G. (1978). Natures of problem-solving abilities. In: Estes, W.K. (eds) Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes, pp 239–270. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
Halpern D.F. (2003). Knowledge and Thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
Hanna G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics 44: 5–23
Hansen Y.M. (1999). Graphic tools for thinking, planning and problem solving. In: Jacobson, R. (eds) Information Design, pp 193–221. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Hanson, A. and Ma, H. (1995). Space walking. In Proceedings of IEEE Visualization ’95 (pp. 126–133), Atlanta, GA, USA
Hanson A., Munzner T. and Francis G. (1994). Interactive methods for visualizable geometry. IEEE Computer 27(7): 73–83
Hazzan O. and Goldenberg P. (1997). Students’ understanding of the notion of function in dynamic geometry environments. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 1: 263–291
Healy L. and Hoyles C. (2001). Software tools for geometrical problem solving: Potentials and pitfalls. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 6: 235–256
Hitt, F. (Ed.) (2002). Representations and mathematics visualization. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Georgia, USA
Holst, S.J. (1996). Directing learner attention with manipulation styles. In Tauber M.J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the CHI ’96 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Common Ground (CHI ’96) (pp. 43–44), 13–18 April. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. New York: ACM Press
Holzl R. (1996). How does dragging affect the learning of geometry?. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 1: 169–187
Hutchins E.L., Hollan J.D. and Norman D.A. (1986). Direct manipulation interfaces. In: Norman, D.A. and Draper, S.W. (eds) User Centered System Design: New Perspectives in Human–Computer Interaction, pp. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
Jackiw N. (1995). The Geometer’s Sketchpad, v. 3.0. Key Curriculum Press, Berkeley, CA
(1993). Structural Knowledge: Techniques for Representing, Conveying and Acquiring Structural Knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
Jones K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: Students’ interpretations when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics 44: 55–85
Jones S. and Scaife M. (2000). Animated diagrams: An investigation into the cognitive effects of using animation to illustrate dynamic processes. In: Anderson, M. and Cheng, P. (eds) Theory and Applications of Diagrams – Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence no. 1889, pp 231–244. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Kaput J. (1993). Urgent need for proleptic research. In: Romberg, T.A., Fennema, E. and Carpenter, T.P. (eds) Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of Functions, pp. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
Keller P.R. and Keller M.M. (1993). Visual Cues: Practical Data Visualization. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA
Kordaki M. and Potari D. (2002). The effects of area measurement tools on student strategies: The role of a computer microworld. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 7: 65–100
Labeke, N.V. (2001). Multiple external representations in dynamic geometry: A domain-informed design. In S. Ainsworth and R. Cox (Eds.), AI-ED 2001, Workshop Papers, External Representations of AIED: Multiple Forms and Multiple Roles (pp. 24–31), 20 May, Texas, USA
(2000). Computers as Cognitive Tools. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey
Larkin J. and Simon H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11: 65–99
Laurillard D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. Routledge Falmer, London
Leung Y.K. and Apperley M.D. (1994). A review and taxonomy of distortion-oriented presentation techniques. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 1(2): 126–160
Leung A. and Lopez-Real F. (2002). Theorem justification and acquisition in dynamic geometry: A case of proof by contradiction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 7: 145–165
Marrades R. and Gutierrez A. (2000). Proofs produced by secondary school students learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics 44: 87–125
Matsuda, N. and Toshio, O. (1998). Diagrammatic reasoning for geometry ITS to teach auxiliary line construction problems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 244–253), Canada
Morey J. and Sedig K. (2003). Archimedean kaleidoscope: A cognitive tool to support thinking and reasoning about geometric solids. In: Sarfraz, M. (eds) Geometric Modeling: Techniques, Applications, Systems and Tools, pp. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Berlin
Morey, J. and Sedig, K. (2004). Using indexed-sequential geometric glyphs to explore visual patterns. In Proceedings of Interactive Visualisation and Interaction Technologies, ICCS 2004 (pp. 996–1003), June, Krakow, Poland
Morey, J. and Sedig, K. (2004). Adjusting degree of visual complexity: An interactive approach for exploring four-dimensional polytopes. The Visual Computer: International Journal of Computer Graphics 20, 1–21. Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Morey, J., Sedig, K. and Mercer R. (2001). Interactive metamorphic visuals: Exploring polyhedra relationships. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Visualization (pp. 483–488). England: IEEE Computer Society Press
Morrison, J., Tversky, B. and Betrancourt, M. (2000). Animation: Does it facilitate learning? In Proceedings of the AAAI 2000 Spring Symposium Smart Graphics (pp. 53–60), Stanford, CA, USA
Moyer, P., Bolyard, J. and Spikell, M. (2001). Virtual manipulatives in the K-12 classroom. In A. Rogerson (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on New Ideas in Mathematics Education (pp. 184–187), Australia
(2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA
Norman D.A. (1993). Things that Make Us Smart: Defining Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine. Addison-Wesley, New York
(1986). User Centered System Design: New Perspectives in Human–Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
Olive J. (2000). Computer tools for interactive mathematical activity in the elementary school. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 5: 241–262
Ormrod J.E. (1995). Human Learning. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Otero, N., Rogers, Y. and du Boulay, B. (2001). Is interactivity a good thing? Assessing its benefits for learning. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on HCI (pp. 790–794), New Orleans, USA. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Paivio A. (1983). The empirical case for dual coding. In: Yuille, J.C. (eds) Imagery, Memory and Cognition, pp. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
Papert S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York
Park O. (1998). Visual displays and contextual presentations in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development 46(3): 37–51
Parker G., Franck G. and Ware C. (1997). Visualization of large nested graphs in 3D: Navigation and interaction. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 9(5): 299–317
Peper R.J. and Mayer R.E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology 78: 34–38
(1996). Forms of Representation. Intellect Books, Exeter, UK
Pettersson R. (1989). Visuals for Information Research and Practice. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Pimm D. (1995). Symbols and Meanings in School Mathematics. Routledge Falmer, New York
Preece J., Rogers Y. and Sharp H. (2002). Interaction Design: Beyond Human–Computer Interaction. John Wiley and Sons, New York
Raskin J. (2000). The Humane Interface: New Directions for Designing Interactive Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
Roth S., Chuah M., Kerpedjiev S., Kolojejchick J. and Lucas P. (1997). Towards an information visualization workspace: Combining multiple means of expression. Human–Computer Interaction Journal 12: 131–185
Salomon G. (1979). Interaction of Media, Cognition and Learning: An Exploration of How Symbolic Forms Cultivate Mental Skills and Affect Knowledge Acquisition. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA
Scaife M. and Rogers Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work?. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 45: 185–213
Scher D. and Goldenberg E.P. (2001). A multirepresentational journey through the law of cosines. In: Cuocoand, A.A. and Curcio, F.R. (eds) The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics: 2001 Yearbook, pp 1–1. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA
Sedig, K. (2004). Need for a prescriptive taxonomy of interaction for mathematical cognitive tools. In Proceedings of Interactive Visualisation and Interaction Technologies, ICCS 2004 (pp. 1030–1037), June, Krakow, Poland
Sedig K., Klawe M. and Westrom M. (2001). Role of interface manipulation style and scaffolding on cognition and concept learning in learnware. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 1(8): 34–59
Sedig, K. and Morey, J. (2005). A descriptive framework for designing interaction for visual abstractions. In G. Malcolm (Ed.), Multidisciplinary Approaches to Visual Representations and Interpretations 239–254. Elsevier Science
Sedig, K., Morey, J. and Chu, B. (2002). TileLand: A microworld for creating mathematical art. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002: World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, July, Denver, USA
Sedig, K., Morey, J., Mercer, R. and Wilson, W. (2005). Visualizing, interacting and experimenting with lattices using a diagrammatic representation. In G. Malcolm (Ed.), Multidisciplinary Approaches to Visual Representations and Interpretations 255–268. Elsevier Science
Sedig K., Rowhani S., Morey J. and Liang H. (2003). Application of information visualization techniques to the design of a mathematical mindtool: A usability study. Information Visualization 2(3): 142–160
Shedroff N. (1999). Information interaction design: A unified field theory of design. In: Jacobson, R. (eds) Information Design, pp 267–292. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Sherman W.R. and Craig A.B. (2003). Understanding Virtual Reality: Interface, Application and Design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA
Shneiderman B. (1988). We can design better user interfaces: A review of human–computer interaction styles. Ergonomics 3(15): 699–710
Shneiderman, B. and Kang, H. (2000). Direct annotation: A drag-and-drop strategy for labeling photos. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Visualization (pp. 88–95), July. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press
Sims R. (1999). Interactivity on stage: Strategies for learner–designer communication. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 15(3): 257–272
Sims R. (2000). An interactive conundrum: Constructs of interactivity and learning theory. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 16(1): 45–57
Spence R. (1999). A framework for navigation. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 51: 919–945
Spence R. (2001). Information Visualization. Addison-Wesley, New York
Stojanov G. and Stojanoski K. (2001). Computer interfaces: From communication to mind-prosthesis metaphor. In: Beynon, M., Nehaniv, C.L. and Dautenhahn, K. (eds) Cognitive Technology: Instruments of Mind – Proceedings of the International Cognitive Technology Conference, pp 301–310. Springer-Verlag, Warwick, UK
Straesser R. (2001). Cabri-géomètre: Does dynamic geometry software (DGS) change geometry and its teaching and learning?. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 6: 319–333
Strothotte T. (1998). Computational Visualization: Graphics, Abstraction and Interactivity. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Stylianou D. (2002). On the interaction of visualization and analysis: The negotiation of a visual representation in expert problem solving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 21: 303–317
Tall D. and West B. (1992). Graphic insight into mathematical concepts. In: Cornu, B. and Ralston, A. (eds) The Influence of Computers and Informatics on Mathematics and its Teaching, pp 117–123. UNESCO, Paris
Thompson S. and Riding R. (1990). The effect of animated diagrams on the understanding of a mathematical demonstration in 11- to 14-year-old pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology 60: 93–98
Travaglini, S. (2003). An exploratory study of interaction design issues using a tiling microworld. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Department of Computer Science, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Tufte E.R. (1997). Visual Explanations. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT
Tweedie L., Spence R., Dawkes H. and Su H. (1996). Externalizing abstract mathematical models. Proceedings of CHI’96 (pp. 406–412). New York: ACM Press
Ware C. (2000). Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA
Webb R. (2003). Stella: Polyhedron Navigator. Symmetry: Culture and Science 11(1–4): 231–268
Weisstein E.W. (2003). CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL
West T.G. (1995). Forward into the past: A revival of old visual talents with computer visualization. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 29(4): 14–19
Winn W. (1993). Perception principles. In: Fleming, M. and Levie, W.H. (eds) Instructional Message Design: Principles from the Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, pp. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Yacci M. (2000). Interactivity demystified: A structural definition for distance education and intelligent computer-based instruction. Educational Technology 40(4): 5–16
Yerushalmy M. and Shternberg B. (2001). Charting a visual course to the concept of function. In: Cuocoand, A.A. and Curcio, F.R. (eds) The Roles of Representation in School Mathematics: 2001 Yearbook, pp. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA
Zhang J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science 21(2): 179–217
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sedig, K., Sumner, M. Characterizing Interaction with Visual Mathematical Representations. Int J Comput Math Learning 11, 1–55 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-006-0001-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-006-0001-z