Diagrams and Text in Instruction: Comprehension of the Assembly Process Julie Heiser Marie-Paule Daniel Ginet Barbara 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 undergraduate Introductory Psychology students - Between subjects, 21 S’s in 2 conditions 1) Experience questionnaire 2) 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 questionnaire 2) 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 questionnaire 2) 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: vs 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: vs 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 IndependentDependent

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

Individual Differences Condition Unconstrained Constrained Time # of parts drawn # of interactive # structural SA Low High Time # of parts drawn # of interactive # structural

Correlations MR score and Assembly time = MR score and Quality of drawings =.543 MR score and Quality of 3-D =.478 Assembly experience and # parts drawn = 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!