Supporting the translation between representations in a simulation-based learning environment Jan van der Meij, University of Twente Ton de Jong, University of Twente EARLI

2/20 General question How can relationships between multiple representations be shown, to facilitate the translation between the representations?

3/20 Benefits of multiple representations When one representation should become to complex if it had to show all the information To show the domain from different perspectives To vary the precision of the representation of the domain To use the particular properties of representations To constrain the interpretation of a second unfamiliar representation

4/20 Costs of multiple representations Understand the semantics of each representation Understand which parts of the domain are represented Relate the representations Translate between the representations

5/20 Relation Time (dynamic linking) Place (integration) Color references Mapping

6/20 Research questions 1. What is the effect of dynamic linking and integration? 2. Is there an interaction effect with the complexity of the learning environment? 3. Is there a differential effect on domain, transfer, and representational knowledge?

7/20 Method - subjects 90 subjects 4 schools 1 st year of mechanical engineering middle vocational training 16 – 18 years old

8/20 Method – exp. conditions Time Place No Linking Dynamic Linking SeparatedCondition 1Condition 2 IntegratedXCondition 3

9/20 Simulation “Moment”

10/20 Pretest and posttest

11/20 a b c d Test questions If you tighten a bolt with an open-end spanner, then where is the moment the largest? a. At the bolt b. Between the hand and bolt c. At the hand d. At the end of the open-end spanner

12/20 Test questions In the picture you see a hand exercising a negative force on an open-end spanner. Which of the following figures is the right reproduction of length, force, and moment? ab c d

13/20 Means (SD) pretest and posttest Posttest score significantly better than pretest score t (89) = 5.01, p <.01

14/20 Posttest scores per condition No multivariate main effect of condition on item type scores F (6,172) =.44, p =.85 No interaction effects

15/20 Electronic Questionnaire

16/20 Electronic Questionnaire No significant effect of the experimental conditions on experienced domain difficulty (F(2,56) = 2.34, p =.11). Significant effect for the comparison of the separated with the integrated condition at the fourth instance (F(1,46) = 9.40, p = <.01).

17/20 Electronic Questionnaire

18/20 Electronic Questionnaire Significant effect on difficulty experience of working with the simulation (F(2,51) = 6.17, p <.01) Significant effect at the fourth instance the questionnaire was filled out (F(2,64) = 2.23, p = <.01)

19/20 Conclusions Why no differences between conditions? –Did the way the representations were presented not matter because subjects could interact with the system? –Did the assignments help to translate between representations? –Were the assignments to ‘leading’?

20/20 Conclusions Why no differences between conditions? –Did the test not distinguish between conditions? –Was the treatment to short to find differences between conditions? –Was the topic not complex enough to distinguish between conditions? –Did subjects not use the simulation to answer the assignments?