Diagrams and Text in Instruction: Comprehension of the Assembly Process Julie Heiser Marie-Paule...
40
Diagrams and Text in Instruction: Comprehension of the Assembly Process Julie Heiser Marie-Paule Daniel Ginet Barbara Tversky Special thanks to Christina Vincent!
-
Upload
annabel-york -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Diagrams and Text in Instruction: Comprehension of the Assembly Process Julie Heiser Marie-Paule...
Diagrams and Text in Instruction: Comprehension of the Assembly Process
Julie HeiserMarie-Paule Daniel GinetBarbara Tversky
Special thanks to Christina Vincent!
Why assembly?
- A process that requires a match between visual and verbal internal representations and the external counterpart.
- Requires action- structure into function.
- A common task for all ages…also a common problem.
Assembling a BBQ
BBQ assembly broken into steps
Why assembly?
- A process that requires a match between visual and verbal internal representations and the external counterpart.- Requires action- structure into function.- A common task
Why furniture?
- Has both structure and function- Requires nearly perfect action on mental representations, perhaps driven by instructions. - A common experience, becoming more common with assemble-your- own everything. - Nearly universal.- Also a common problem (sample of responses).
A simple 2 drawer dresser…
Assembly instruction project outline:
Experiment 1:
Collection of instruction protocols
Experiment 2:
Compilation of individual protocols into a ‘mega-description’
Experiment 3:
Quality rating of instruction protocols
Experiment 4:
Efficiency and effectiveness evaluation of representative instructions
Experiment 1 - 42 undergraduate Introductory Psychology students - Between subjects, 21 S’s in 2 conditions
1) Experience questionnaire2) Spatial Ability tasks
- Mental rotation test- Money navigation test
3) Assemble TV stand (w/only picture of completed stand)4) Write instructions for assembly
- unconstrained- constrained
Spatial ability: Mental Rotation Test (Vandenburg & Kuse, 1978)
Spatial ability: Money Task (Money & Kuse, 1966)
Experiment 1- method - 42 undergraduate Introductory Psychology students - Between subjects, 21 S’s in 2 conditions
1) Experience questionnaire2) Spatial Ability tasks
- Mental rotation test- Money navigation test
3) Assemble TV stand (w/only picture of completed stand)4) Write instructions for assembly
- unconstrained- constrained
Given parts and a picture of the completed stand…... ….….Assemble
Experiment 1- method - 42 undergraduate Introductory Psychology students - Between subjects, 21 S’s in 2 conditions
1) Experience questionnaire2) Spatial Ability tasks
- Mental rotation test- Money navigation test
3) Assemble TV stand (w/only picture of completed stand)4) Write instructions for assembly
- unconstrained (2 pages)- constrained (1/2 pg- minimal amount of information)
Constrained Unconstrained
TV Stand Instruction Protocols
Example 1: unconstrained, low spatial ability
Example 2: constrained, high spatial
Example 3: unconstrained, low spatial
Protocol Analysis
Text- effect of space constraint- effect of drawings (condition 3)
Drawings
- diagrammatic elements- types of diagrams (interactive, structural, etc.)- individual differences
Text Analysis
Effect of space constraint:
- Strong decrease of number of propositions: 43.33 vs. 21.60- Resistance of assembly action category- Decrease of part description, other non-assembly categories
Effect of presence of drawings on text:
- Overall, no significant effect on the number of propositions: 38.57 vs. 42.33- Number of propositions referring to actions is less with drawings (9.3 vs. 6.7)- When drawings are present, less time indicators present in text. - Information in text duplicates information in drawings.
Diagram Analysis
•Condition (U vs C)
Time to assemble Number of steps specified Step elements Start protocol with text or diagram? Number of separate parts drawn Number of interactive drawings Number of non-interactive drawings Parts labeled, how? Elements in diagrams (lines, arrows) Diagram representations End result or procedural diagrams Integrated or exploded Quality of drawing Quality of 3-D
•Mental Rotations score•Money task score•Assembly experience•Self-rated assembly ability•Self-rated mechanical ability
Diagram Analysis
•Condition (U vs C)
Time to assemble Number of steps specified Step elements Start protocol with text or diagram? Number of separate parts drawn Number of interactive drawings Number of non-interactive drawings Parts labeled, how? Elements in diagrams (lines, arrows) Diagram representations End result or procedural diagrams Integrated or exploded Quality of drawing Quality of 3-D
•Mental Rotations score•Money task score•Assembly experience•Self rated assembly ability•Self rated mechanical ability
Independent variables
Diagram Analysis
•Condition (U vs C)
Time to assemble Number of steps specified Step elements Start protocol with text or diagram? Number of separate parts drawn Number of interactive drawings Number of non-interactive drawings Parts labeled, how? Elements in diagrams (lines, arrows) Diagram representations End result or procedural diagrams Integrated or exploded Quality of drawing Quality of 3-D
•Mental Rotations score•Money task score•Assembly experience•Self-rated assembly ability•Self-rated mechanical ability
Independent Dependent
Unconstrained vs. Constrained
- No group differences (MR scores etc., time to assemble)
- No difference in # of steps, interactive or structural drawings,
- More separate parts drawn in Unconstrained
-Diagram representations- dual.-constrained more likely to use new information in diagrams.
-Indicating steps- generally used numbers-- unconstrained use more indirect cues
- Labeling parts: • constrained- part A,part B, etc.• unconstrained- top, bottom, side, etc.
- Both conditions more likely to start with text than diagram.
- Diagram elements- if any, arrows and lines indicate direction or interaction
- Integrated diagrams most common. Constrained more likely to use exploded.
Unconstrained vs. Constrained
- No group differences (MR scores etc., time to assemble)
- No difference in # of steps, interactive or structural drawings,
- More separate parts drawn in Unconstrained
-Diagram representations- dual.-constrained more likely to use new information in diagrams.
-Indicating steps- generally used numbers-- unconstrained use more indirect cues
- Labeling parts: • constrained- part A,part B, etc.• unconstrained- top, bottom, side, etc.
- Both conditions more likely to start with text than diagram.
- Diagram elements- if any, arrows and lines indicate direction or interaction
- Integrated diagrams most common. Constrained more likely to use exploded.
Unconstrained vs. Constrained
- No group differences (MR scores etc., time to assemble)
- No difference in # of steps, interactive or structural drawings,
- More separate parts drawn in Unconstrained
-Diagram representations- dual.-constrained more likely to use new information in diagrams.
-Indicating steps- generally used numbers-- unconstrained use more indirect cues
- Labeling parts: • constrained- part A,part B, etc.• unconstrained- top, bottom, side, etc.
- Both conditions more likely to start with text than diagram.
- Diagram elements- if any, arrows and lines indicate direction or interaction
- Integrated diagrams most common. Constrained more likely to use exploded.
Unconstrained vs. Constrained
- No group differences (MR scores etc., time to assemble)
- No difference in # of steps, interactive or structural drawings,
- More separate parts drawn in Unconstrained
-Diagram representations- dual.-constrained more likely to use new information in diagrams.
-Indicating steps- generally used numbers-- unconstrained use more indirect cues
- Labeling parts: • constrained- part A,part B, etc.• unconstrained- top, bottom, side, etc.
- Both conditions more likely to start with text than diagram.
- Diagram elements- if any, arrows and lines indicate direction or interaction
- Integrated diagrams most common. Constrained more likely to use exploded.
Unconstrained vs. Constrained
- No group differences (MR scores etc., time to assemble)
- No difference in # of steps, interactive or structural drawings,
- More separate parts drawn in Unconstrained
-Diagram representations- dual.-constrained more likely to use new information in diagrams.
-Indicating steps- generally used numbers-- unconstrained use more indirect cues
- Labeling parts: • constrained- part A,part B, etc.• unconstrained- top, bottom, side, etc.
- Both conditions more likely to start with text than diagram.
- Diagram elements- if any, arrows and lines indicate direction or interaction
- Integrated diagrams most common. Constrained more likely to use exploded.
Unconstrained vs. Constrained
- No group differences (MR scores etc., time to assemble)
- No difference in # of steps, interactive or structural drawings,
- More separate parts drawn in Unconstrained
-Diagram representations- dual.-constrained more likely to use new information in diagrams.
-Indicating steps- generally used numbers-- unconstrained use more indirect cues
- Labeling parts: • constrained- part A,part B, etc.• unconstrained- top, bottom, side, etc.
- Both conditions more likely to start with text than diagram.
- Diagram elements- if any, arrows and lines indicate direction or interaction
- Integrated diagrams most common. Constrained more likely to use exploded.
Unconstrained vs. Constrained
- No group differences (MR scores etc., time to assemble)
- No difference in # of steps, interactive or structural drawings,
- More separate parts drawn in Unconstrained
-Diagram representations- dual.-constrained more likely to use new information in diagrams.
-Indicating steps- generally used numbers-- unconstrained use more indirect cues
- Labeling parts: • constrained- part A,part B, etc.• unconstrained- top, bottom, side, etc.
- Both conditions more likely to start with text than diagram.
- Diagram elements- if any, arrows and lines indicate direction or interaction
- Integrated diagrams most common. Constrained more likely to use exploded.
Unconstrained vs. Constrained
- No group differences (MR scores etc., time to assemble)
- No difference in # of steps, interactive or structural drawings,
- More separate parts drawn in Unconstrained
-Diagram representations- dual.-constrained more likely to use new information in diagrams.
-Indicating steps- generally used numbers-- unconstrained use more indirect cues
- Labeling parts: • constrained- part A,part B, etc.• unconstrained- top, bottom, side, etc.
- Both conditions more likely to start with text than diagram.
- Diagram elements- if any, arrows and lines indicate direction or interaction
- Integrated diagrams most common. Constrained more likely to use exploded.
Unconstrained vs. Constrained
- No group differences (MR scores etc., time to assemble)
- No difference in # of steps, interactive or structural drawings,
- More separate parts drawn in Unconstrained
-Diagram representations- dual.-constrained more likely to use new information in diagrams.
-Indicating steps- generally used numbers-- unconstrained use more indirect cues
- Labeling parts: • constrained- part A,part B, etc.• unconstrained- top, bottom, side, etc.
- Both conditions more likely to start with text than diagram.
- Diagram elements- if any, arrows and lines indicate direction or interaction
- Integrated diagrams most common. Constrained more likely to use exploded.
Individual Differences
Condition
Unconstrained
Constrained
Time # of parts drawn # of interactive # structural
9.6 3.43 1.76 1.0
10.9 2.95 1.5 1.2
Individual Differences
Condition
Unconstrained
Constrained
Time # of parts drawn # of interactive # structural
SA
Low
High
Time # of parts drawn # of interactive # structural
9.6 3.43 1.76 1.0
10.9 2.95 1.5 1.2
11.4 3.8 .57 1.57
8.1 2.6 2.64 .73
Correlations
• MR score and Assembly time = -.531
• MR score and Quality of drawings = .543
• MR score and Quality of 3-D = .478
• Assembly experience and # parts drawn = -.653
• MR score and # interactive drawings = .584
Assembly instruction project outline:
Experiment 1:
Collection of instruction protocols
Experiment 2 (analysis in progress):
Compilation of individual protocols into a ‘mega-description’
Experiment 3:
Quality rating of instruction protocols
Experiment 4:
Efficiency and effectiveness evaluation of representative instructions
Assembly instruction project outline:
Experiment 1:
Collection of instruction protocols
Experiment 2:
Compilation of individual protocols into a ‘mega-description’
Experiment 3 (experiment in progress):
Quality rating of instruction protocols
Experiment 4 (to be continued…):
Efficiency and effectiveness evaluation of representative instructions
(Preliminary) general conclusions
- People have different ideas of what makes effective manuals. Is this in production of instruction or in comprehension, or both?
- There are performance differences in assembly tasks depending on prior experience and spatial ability.
- There are individual differences in internal mental representations for external representations in assembly tasks.
-Important to design instructions using design principles developed by cognitive psychologists.
-Would be great to have automated visual instructions that can balance text and diagrams in relation with the experience of the user!
