References

1. Ainsworth, S.E., & Loizou, A. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669-681.
2. Arcavi, A., & Hadas, N. (2000). Computer mediated learning: An example of an approach. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 5, 25-45.
3. Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (2004, May). Designing interaction, not interfaces. Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI ’04, pp. 15-22). Gallipoli, Italy. Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (2000, April). Instrumental interaction: An interaction model for designing post-WIMP user interfaces. Proceedings of ACM Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2000, pp. 446-453), The Hague, Amsterdam. New York, NY: ACM Press.
4. Bhatt, G. (2004). Bringing virtual reality for commercial Web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 1–15.
5. Burgoon, J.K., Bonito, J.A., Bengtsson, B., Cederberg, C., Lundeberg, M., & Allspach, L. (2000). Interactivity in human-computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 553-574.
6. Card, S., MacKinlay, J., & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
7. Chai, L. (2003, January). To have or have not: An examination of feedback, learner control and knowledge type in online learning. Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’03, pp. 6-15). Hawaii, HI.
8. Corbett, A.T., & Anderson, J.R. (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, (pp. 245-252). Seattle, WA.
9. De Léon, D. (2002). Cognitive task transformations. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 349-359.
10. Duval, R. (1999). Representation, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. Basic issues for learning. In F. Hitt, & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the TwentyFirst International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 326), Finland.
11. Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (1990). Cognitive psychology (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fretz, E.B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B.H., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (2002). A further investigation of scaffolding design and use in a dynamic modeling tool. Paper presented at the 2002 conference of The American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
12. Gadanidis, G., Sedig, K., & Liang, H. (2004). Designing online mathematical investigation. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(3), 275-298.
13. Gibbons, A.S., & Fairweather, P.G. (1998). Computer-based instruction: Design and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
14. Golightly, D. (1996, April). 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, (pp. 37-38), Vancouver, BC, Canada. New York, NY: ACM Press.
15. Gustavsen, P.A., & Tilley, E. (2003). Public relations communication through corporate websites: Towards an understanding of the role of interactivity. PRism 1(1).
16. Guzdial, M., & Kehoe, C. (1998). Apprenticeship-based learning environments: A principled
17. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof, explanation and exploration: An overview. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44, 5-23. Hannafin, M.J.
18. Holst, S.J. (1996, April). Directing learner attention with manipulation styles. In M.J. Tauber (Ed.), Proceedings of the CHI ’96 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Common Ground. Vancouver, BC, Canada. (pp. 43-44). New York: ACM Press.
19. Holzl, R. (1996). How does dragging affect the learning of geometry? International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1, 169-187.
20. Hutchins, E.L. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
21. Hutchins, E.L, Hollan, J.D., & Norman, D.A. (1986). Direct manipulation interfaces. In D.A.
22. Jackson, S.L., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). The design of guided learning-adaptable
23. Jensen, J.F. (1998). Interactivity: Tracing a new concept in media and communication studies. Nordicom Review, 19(1), 185-204.
24. Jonassen, D.H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 362-381.
25. Jonassen, D.H., & Carr, C.S. (2000). Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledge representations for learning. In S.P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools – Vol. 2, no more walls: Theory
26. Jonassen, D.H., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B.G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
27. Jones, S., & Scaife, M. (2000). Animated diagrams: An investigation into the cognitive effects of using animation to illustrate dynamic processes. In M. Anderson, & P. Cheng (Eds.), Theory
28. Kettanurak, V., Ramamurthy, K., & Haseman, W. (2001). User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: An empirical investigation
29. Kieran, C., Boileau, A., & Garancon, M. (1996). Introducing algebra by means of a technologysupported, functional approach. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra:
30. Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18, 513-549.
31. Kristof, R., & Satran, A. (1995). Interactivity by design: Creating and communicating with new media. Mountain View, CA: Adobe Press.
32. Laine, P. (2003). Explicitness and interactivity. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Information and Communication Technologies, (pp. 421-426). Dublin, Ireland.
33. Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
34. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. New York: Routledge.
35. Liu, Y. (2003, June). Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 207-216.
36. Liu, Y., & Shrum, L.J. (2003). What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing?
37. Loh, B., Reiser, B.J., Radinsky, J., Edelson, D.C., Gomez, L.M., & Marshall, S. (2001). Developing reflective inquiry practices: A case study of software, the teacher, and students. In K. Crowley, C.D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings, (pp. 279-323). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38. McMillan, S. J., & Downes, E. J. (2000). Defining interactivity: A qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media and Society, 2(2), 157-179.
39. Milheim, W.D., & Martin, B.L. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: Three different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(3), 99-105.
40. Morey, J., & Sedig, K. (2004a). 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.
41. Morey, J., & Sedig, K. (2004b). Archimedean kaleidoscope: A cognitive tool to support thinking and reasoning about geometric solids. In M. Sarfraz (Ed.), Geometric modeling: Techniques, applications, systems and tools, (pp. 376-393). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
42. Morey, J., Sedig, K., & Mercer, R. (2001). Interactive metamorphic visuals: Exploring polyhedra relationships. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information Visualization, (pp. 483-488), London, England. Chicago: IEEE Computer Society Press.
43. Nakakoji, K., & Yamamoto, Y. (2003, June). Toward a taxonomy of interaction techniques for externalizing in creating work. In C. Stephanidis & J. Jacko (Eds.), Proceedings of Tenth International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII2003), Vol.2: Theory and practice (Part II, pp.1258-1262). Crete, Greece.
44. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
45. Neth, H., & Payne, S.J. (2002). Thinking by doing? Epistemic actions in the tower of Hanoi. In W.D. Gray & C.D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 691-696). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. Norman, D.A. (1991). Cognitive artifacts. In J.M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47. Norman, D.A. (1993). Things that make us smart: Defining human attributes in the age of the machine. New York: Addison-Wesley.
48. Norman, D.A. (1999). Affordance, conventions and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38-43.
49. Ormrod, J.E. (1995). Human learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
50. Otero, N., Rogers, Y., & Du Boulay, B. (2001). Is interactivity a good thing? Assessing its benefits for learning. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on HCI, (pp. 790-794),New Orleans. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. Pea, R.D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
52. Pérez-Quiñones, M.A., & Sibert, J.L. (1996, April). A collaborative model of feedback in human-computer interaction. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Common Ground, (pp.316-323), Vancouver, BC, Canada. New York: ACM Press.
53. Pimm, D. (1995). Symbols and meanings in school mathematics. New York: Routledge.
54. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: Beyond human computer interaction. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
55. Reiser, B. (2002). Why scaffolding should sometimes make tasks more difficult for learners. Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, (pp. 255-264), Boulder, CO.
56. Rogers, Y., & Brignull, H. (2003, July/August). Computational offloading: Supporting distributed team working through visually augmenting verbal communication. Proceedings of TwentyFifth Annual Meeting of Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA. Sedig and Liang
57. Rogers, Y., & Scaife, M. (1998). How can interactive multimedia facilitate learning? In J. Lee (Ed.), Intelligence and multimodality in multimedia interfaces: Research and applications. Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Press.
58. Roussou, M. (2004, January). Learning by doing and learning through play: An exploration of interactivity in virtual environments for Children. ACM Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(2), Article 1.
59. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20, 2-9.
60. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 185-213.
61. Schwan, S. (2002, July). Do it yourself? Interactive visualizations as cognitive tools. International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Learning, (pp. 1501-1506), Tübingen, Germany.
62. Sedig, K. (2004, June). Need for a prescriptive taxonomy of interaction for mathematical
63. Sedig, K., Klawe, M., & 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.
64. Sedig, K., & Morey, J. (2004). A descriptive framework for designing interaction for visual abstractions. In G. Malcolm (Ed.), Multidisciplinary approaches to visual representations and interpretations (Vol. 2, pp. 239-254). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Press. Sedig, K., Morey, J., & Chu, B.
65. Mathematical art. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002: World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Denver, CO.
66. Sedig, K., Morey, J., Mercer, R., & Wilson, W. (2004). Visualizing, interacting and experimenting with lattices using a diagrammatic representation. In G. Malcolm (Ed.), Multidisciplinary
67. Sedig, K., Rowhani, S., & Liang, H. (2005). Designing interfaces that support formation of
68. Sedig, K., Rowhani, S., Morey, J., & Liang, H. (2003). Application of information visualization techniques to the design of a mathematical mindtool: A usability study. Information Visualization, 2(3), 142-160.
69. Shneiderman, B. (1994). Dynamic queries for visual information seeking. IEEE Software, 1(6), 70-77. Shneiderman, B. (1988). We can design better user interfaces: A review of human-computer interaction styles. Ergonomics, 3(15), 699–710.
70. Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2004). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction (4th Edition). Boston: Addison-Wesley.
71. Sims, R. (1999). Interactivity on stage: Strategies for learner-designer communication. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 257-272.
72. Sims, R. (2000). An interactive conundrum: Constructs of interactivity and learning theory Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 45-57.
73. Spence, R. (2001). Information visualization. New York: ACM Press.
74. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73-93.
75. Steuer, J. (1995). Virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. In F. Biocca, & M.R. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality, (pp. 33–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stojanov, G., & Stojanoski, K. (2001). Computer interfaces: From communication to mind-prosthesis metaphor. In M. Beynon, C.L. Nehaniv, & K. Dautenhahn (Eds.), Cognitive technology: Instruments
76. Straesser, R. (2001). Cabri-géomètre: Does dynamic geometry software (DGS) change geometry
77. Svanæs, D. (1999). Understanding interactivity: Steps to a phenomenology of human-computer
78. Svendsen, G.B. (1991). The influence of interface style on problem solving. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35(3), 379–397.
79. Teoa, H.H., Oha, L.B., Liua, C., & Weib, K.K. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 281–305.
80. Thagard, P. (1996). M ind: Introduct ion to cogn it ive sc ience . Cambr idge, Mass.: M IT Press.
81. Toth, E.E. (2000). Representational scaffolding during scientific inquiry: Interpretive and expressive use of inscriptions in classroom learning. In L.R. Gleitman, & A.K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 953 - 958). Mahvah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
82. 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.
83. Trudel, C., & Payne, S.J. (1995). Reflection and goal management in exploratory learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 42, 307-339.
84. Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. Tufte, E. R. (1997). Visual explanations. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
85. Van der Meij, J., & De Jong, T. (2003, August). Learning with multiple representations: Supporting students’ translation between representations in a simulation-based learning environment. Paper presented at the EARLI Conference 2003, Padua, Italy.
86. Whiteley, W. (2002). Teaching to see like a mathematician. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Visual Representations and Interpretations (VRI 2002), Liverpool, England.
87. Yacci, M. (2000). Interactivity demystified: A structural definition for distance education and intelligent computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 39(4), 5-16. Sedig and Liang
88. Yamamoto, Y., Nakakoji, K., & Aoki, A. (2002, May). Visual interaction design for tools to think
89. Yerushalmy, M. (2004, July). Does technology transform the content of algebra curricula? An
90. Zhang, J., & Norman, D.A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 87-122.
91. 8 See Tufte (1990, 1997) for a discussion on “Time-Space Narrative,” elaborating on how transformations to representations can be narrated through different models.
92. 9 See also Beaudouin-Lafon (2000) for a discussion on the difference between spatial and temporal interaction instruments.

Cited By

• Developing Learning Objects for Secondary School Students: A Multi-Component Model

  Robin Kay & Liesel Knaack, Development, evaluation, secondary school, learning object, Canada

  Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan 01, 2005) pp. 229–254

• Exploring the impact of learning objects in middle school mathematics and science classrooms: A formative analysis

  Robin Kay & Liesel Knaack, University Of Ontario Institute Of Technology

  Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie Vol. 34, No. 1 (Dec 31, 2008)

• Evaluating the Use of Web-Based Learning Tools in Middle Classrooms

  Robin Kay, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

  EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2010 (Jun 29, 2010) pp. 3630–3637

• Computer Assisted Learning in Undergraduate Precalculus at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: A comparison of test results five years prior to and three after the introduction of a web-based online homewor

  Brian Emond, University of Massachusetts, United States

  EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2010 (Jun 29, 2010) pp. 1665–1673

• Utility of Interaction in Knowledge-Oriented Activities

  Paul Parsons & Kamran Sedig, University of Western Ontario, Canada

  EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2010 (Jun 29, 2010) pp. 895–904

• Scaffolded Gameplay as a Strategy for Engaging Learners with Complexity

  Sonja Rowhani & Kamran Sedig, University of Western Ontario, Canada

  EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2009 (Jun 22, 2009) pp. 784–792

• Application of Frameworks in the Analysis and (Re)design of Interactive Visual Learning Tools

  Liang Hai-Ning & Kamran Sedig, The University of Western Ontario, Canada

  Journal of Interactive Learning Research Vol. 20, No. 2 (April 2009) pp. 215–254

• From Play to Thoughtful Learning: A Design Strategy to Engage Children With Mathematical Representations

  Kamran Sedig, The University of Western Ontario, Canada

  Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching Vol. 27, No. 1 (January 2008) pp. 65–101

• Learner-Information Interaction: A Macro-Level Framework Characterizing Visual Cognitive Tools

  Kamran Sedig & Hai-Ning Liang, The University of Western Ontario, Canada

  Journal of Interactive Learning Research Vol. 19, No. 1 (January 2008) pp. 147–173

• Evaluating the Use of Learning Objects for Secondary School Science

  Robin Kay & Liesel Knaack, University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), Canada

  Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching Vol. 26, No. 4 (October 2007) pp. 261–289

• Scaffolding as a Strategy to Make Tools More Accessible to Young Children

  Hai-Ning Liang & Kamran Sedig, The University of Western Ontario, Canada

  EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2007 (Jun 25, 2007) pp. 978–985

• Presentation of feedback in interactive learning environments: Some dimensions

  Hai-Ning Liang & Kamran Sedig, University of Western Ontario, Canada

  EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2007 (Jun 25, 2007) pp. 972–977

• Macro-level characterization of mathematical cognitive tools

  Kamran Sedig & Hai-Ning Liang, University of Western Ontario, Canada

  EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2006 (June 2006) pp. 712–719

• A survey of navigation interaction in computer-based learning environments

  Hai-Ning Liang & Sedig Kamran, University of Western Ontario, Canada

  EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2006 (June 2006) pp. 684–691

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.