Attributes of Animation for Learning Scientific Knowledge.

The main purpose of this study was to explore different instructional attributes provided by animation in facilitating descriptive and procedural learning. In the study, subjects were eighth-grade and ninth-grade students. Spatial ability was used as a variable to observe students' learning of different knowledge. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed in exploring how students learned physics concepts.

Animation has been used in instruction in scientific and mathematical learning for many years. However, recent advances in technology have permitted the creation of desktop animations for a wide range of instruction (Szabo & Poohkay, 1996). With the advent of Internet technology in recent years, various computer-based learning courses employing animation techniques have been developed to assist learning. The use of modern technologies has become common in education and is considered necessary for computer-based materials. For example, various mathematical problem-solving courses developed on the World Wide Web highlight the impact of visualization on learning (Dixon & Falba, 1997; Halpin & Kossegi, 1996). Many medical simulations using state-of-the-art technology are also available on the web to provide real-time animation for medical learning (Grange, Bunker & Cooper, 1997; Lehmann, Lehmann & Freedman, 1997).

In designing interactive multimedia applications, animation is seen as an integral component in presenting information on the computer screen. The use of animation provides potential visual interest for presenting computer-based materials, which makes scientific learning more appealing and enjoyable to learners.

Defined as a series of graphics that change over time and/or space, animation has been found effective in illustrating the complex structural, functional, and procedural relationships among objects and events (Park & Gittelman, 1992). Through the use of a model for interpretation, students can form accurate schematic representations while learning abstract concepts.

The most effective arrangement of animated visual aids may vary with the differing spatial abilities of students. Literature suggests that students scoring high in spatial abilities should be able to conceptualize the processes of diffusion in animation more completely or to a greater depth of elaboration (Hay, 1996). Individual differences in the use of their perception and judgment have become an indicator for analyzing students' learning patterns, especially in hypermedia learning environments. It therefore seems useful to determine whether the use of visual strategies produces different effects on different learner groups. The ultimate aim is to design learning materials optimized for the preferred modes of presentation among groups with differing characteristics to improve their performance. How users evolve an appropriate strategy during the process of learning is also highlighted in the study.

Static and Dynamic Graphics

Park and Hopkins (1993) use the terms "static visual display" and "dynamic visual display" to differentiate between the use of graphics and animation. From their definition, "graphics" refers to representations that do not rely solely on the use of text or numbers to provide informational content, while animation is the combination of a series of graphics and motions to form a visual scenario to represent information. Rieber & Hannafin (1988) define animation as a series of rapidly changing computer screen displays that represent the illusion of movement. In recent years, the increased availability of design tools has also permitted the design of instructional materials that incorporate unlimited variations and forms of verbal and visual information for presentation (Rieber, 1995). The representation of motion provides potential learning interest and stimulates viewer's attention.

The effectiveness of the use of animation is confirmed only when appropriate learning content is provided. If a concept is too simple, any single medium can convey it successfully. If a concept is too difficult to grasp, the presentation may fail regardless of what combination of media is used. Large (1996) comments that failures in using animation were due to the complexity of the textual material. Animation cannot necessarily compensate for knowledge deficiencies if the material to be learned or the animation itself is too complex.

One note of caution should be sounded when using animation to present information. A number of researchers have identified individual differences among learners as influencing the effectiveness of animation. For example, Mayer & Sims (1994) concluded that learners with either high- or low- spatial abilities used different cognitive activities in processing visual information. In a study of middle-school students on the use of animation to improve understanding of mathematical concepts, Blissett & Atkin (1993) report that those with less prior knowledge or lower-ability learners tended to find the learning demands confusing when learning with graphics. Reid & Beridge (1993) find that the use of graphics causes reading difficulties for less able students. The lower-ability students spend more time in deciphering the pictorial and textual information. However, Mayer and Anderson (1992) found that inexperienced students were better able to transfer what they had learned from a procedural text about a scientific system when visual and verbal explanations were presented simultaneously. Further study on individual differences in perceiving visual information is required before any firm conclusions can be drawn.

Attributes of Animation

Animation provides viewers with two different visual attributes: images and motion (Rieber, 1996). For scientific learning, images and motions are both essential for understanding and memorization. Mayer & Sims (1994) differentiate the functions of animation in describing textual materials and in helping students construct problem-solving procedures. The motion provided by animation serves several different instructional purposes. In learning descriptive scientific concepts, animation can be used as mnemonic devices to facilitate memorization of principles and rules. However, in learning scientific procedural concepts, the spatial and procedural elements in animation play an important role in deciphering information (ChanLin, 1998).

In their study of the effects of animation used with different instructional texts, Large, Beheshti, Breuleux, & Renaud (1994) found that animation enhanced procedural texts but had no significant effect on descriptive texts. ChanLin (1998) observed that learning with animation was effective for both descriptive and procedural information. To design animation effectively, taking into consideration the instructional attributes of the learning materials is important.

Spatial Ability

In studying individual differences, "spatial ability" is one of the most important indicators used in mathematics and science learning. The term "spatial ability" identifies what has also been labeled as the spatial sense, spatial perception, visual imagery, spatial visualization, visual skills, spatial reasoning, mental rotations, and visual processes (Davey & Holliday, 1992; Dixon, 1995; Stanic & Owens, 1990; Wheatley, 1990). Spatial ability also refers to the ability to rotate or fold objects in two or three dimensions and to imagine the changing configurations or objects that would result from such manipulation (Mayer & Sims, 1994). Sternberg (1990) noted that "this ability is involved in visualization of shapes, rotation of objects, and how pieces of a puzzle would fit together" (p. 93). It is suggested that higher-spatial-ability people can more easily create and manipulate representations of the objects and events mentally and should be more likely to form some type of spatial representation during scientific learning (Hay. 1996). The ability to image spatially is due to more efficient use of the amount of rehearsal time spent working with the mental objects (Bejar, 1990; Lord, 1987).

Spatial ability can be trained through various spatial activities. To develop spatial ability, an individual must have experience with geometric relationships; the direction, orientation, and perspectives of objects in space; the relative shapes and sizes of figures and objects; and how a change in shape relates to a change in size (NCTM, 1987). With good spatial skills, learners should be able to construct images or to keep an image active in their working memory in the absence of visual stimuli, and to construct referential connections between images and a verbally based representation (Mayer & Sims, 1994).

Research into the nature spatial ability basis has addressed the subject from various perspectives. Orde (1997) explains the relationship between drawing ability and spatial and visual-perceptual ability. It is suggested that drawing and spatial/visual perceptual skills demand similar brain functions for information processing, which enables the conversion of an abstract visualization to a concrete product.

Spatial visualization is considered an important indicator of conceptual performance in scientific and mathematical learning. In a study investigating the relation between the factors of gender, spatial visualization, mathematical confidence, basic ability, and classroom graphing utilization to conceptual mathematical performance with graphing calculators in college algebra, Cassity (1997) found that spatial visualization is related to conceptual mathematical performance.

In order to provide appropriate spatial experiences for mathematical learning, curriculum and instruction were available in computer-based learning. The dynamic graphic capabilities of the personal computer allow for geometry to be introduced to students through transformation (Kantowski, 1987). In addition, in a study exploring children's spatial cognition, McClurg (1996) suggested the of use a computer program, HyperGami, to help students improve their visualization ability. Dixon (1995) observed eighth-grade students in a bilingual classroom exploring the geometric concepts of reflection and rotation and also concluded that using computer-based dynamic instruction had a positive effect. These cases support the use of computers to enhance learners' spatial ability as well as concept formation in learning mathematics.

Although from a design aspect, visualization is a fundamental component of presenting information on the computer screen, different presentation formats (non-graphics, still graphics, and animated graphics) may facilitate learner encoding of information differently for students with different levels of spatial reasoning ability. For example, Mayer and Sims (1994) explored high- and low-spatial ability students learning from computer-based instruction. They concluded that spatial ability allowed high spatial learners to devote more cognitive resources to building referential connections between visual (graphical) and verbal representations of the presented material, whereas low-spatial ability learners had to devote more cognitive resources to building representational connections between visually presented materials and its internal representation (Mayer & Sims, 1994). Large et al. (1996) found that primary school students with higher spatial ability gained more benefit from the presence of animation with text than students with lower spatial ability did. Supporting evidence also comes from Hegarty and Sims (1994). They found that visual representations appeared to help ,chose subjects who already had good visualization skills more than those subjects who had more difficulty in visualizing.

Although providing the use of visual treatment aims to facilitate effective mental processing, individual differences in processing spatial information may be a fundamental factor requiting consideration. Specifically, the purposes of this research were to: (a) study the effects of visual treatment and differences in spatial ability in learning from scientific multimedia instruction; (b) observe how individuals differ in navigating and processing visual information in a hypermedia environment, and (c) examine how differing visual treatments influence learning in students with different degrees of spatial ability.

Methods and Procedures

Subjects and Instructional Materials

The study consisted of nine classes of eighth-grade and ninth-grade students. A total of three hundred and fifty seven students participated in this study. They were assigned to different visual treatments on a class basis. The material used for teaching physics was a computer-based learning program, covering lever problems, direction of force, resultant force, composition of forces, component forces, and equilibrium of force. Students studied the instructional materials individually. After a period of study, a criterion reference test was conducted to assess students' learning performance.

With an emphasis on using meaningful representations, which would encourage thinking, the lesson was designed with various scenarios for interaction. Several physics problems were embedded in the scenarios, which had adventures to draw students into becoming actively involved in finding the solutions.

Basically, two major knowledge areas were covered: descriptive and procedural knowledge. Descriptive knowledge refers to knowledge that can be communicated through a recital of facts or the description of objects or events. In the learning and application of scientific concepts, it is essential for providing the basic information to be remembered. For example, in Figure 1, the definition of "resultant" and "force vector" provided in the lesson is considered descriptive knowledge. As opposed to descriptive knowledge, procedural knowledge refers to learning and construction of the problem-solving procedures related to physics concepts. Learners need to relate rules and facts to formulate a problem solving procedure. For example, in Figure 2, step-by-step problem-solving procedures are provided to help students construct a problem-solving concept.

[Figures 1-2 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The lesson was designed in three versions. The following is a description of the three different treatments:

Treatment 1. Text (Control group): In this version, only textual information was presented to explain scientific concepts (The textual information in Figures 1 and 2). Students receiving this mode of instruction could only interact with the textual content. In a problem-solving scenario, the verbal description was used to provide hints and solutions. Students needed to use their own spatial abilities to visualize the concepts in their mind according to the verbal description.

Treatment 2. Graphics with Text: In this version, static graphics with textual information were presented to explain scientific concepts (Figure 1 and 2). Students receiving this mode of instruction could interact with the textual content and the still graphics provided. Students could use the external graphic representation to help them visualize the concepts and construct a meaning for the textual materials.

Treatment 3. Animation with Text: In this version, the instructional materials contain textual instructions and animated graphics. Students receiving this mode of instruction can interact with the textual content and the animated graphics. Animation allowed students to comprehend the information through the graphics objects and motions provided by the visual stimuli. For example, in Figure 1, different pairs of "force vectors" appeared on the screen with a sequence of frames to indicate their combination into a "resultant". On the other hand, in Figure 2, a sequence of frames were presented showing a cart sliding downward due to gravity, and being pulled upward by a force. An arrow was also presented simultaneously with the motion to indicate the direction.

Instruments

Classification of students as to their spatial ability was determined by a spatial ability test. This test had several sub-test which were part of the educational testing services package, "Multiple Factor Test" (Lu, et. al, 1994). The spatial test involves several visualizing tasks that require students identify the specific three-dimensional shapes that result after an object rotates to a certain angle. This kit of spatial tests was selected for a variety of reasons. The first was because the visualizing tasks involved in the test were related to learning the spatial concepts in the lesson. Also, through official assessment, the test has been determined to be a reliable indicator of spatial ability. In Taiwan, it has been adopted by all secondary schools.

To assess students' performance, a criterion reference test was created based on the content provided. The criterion reference test contained 25 testing items. Twelve of them were to assess students' learning of descriptive knowledge, and thirteen were to assess students' learning of procedural knowledge. The examples for assessing descriptive learning and procedural learning were listed in Table 1. Kuder-Richardson Reliability (KR21) for the criterion test items used in this study was 0.76.

Table 1. Examples of test items used for different learning

Descriptive Learning (Rule)

When two forces act on an object, a
resultant is formed. Which of the
following statements is true?
  a. The smaller the angle formed by the
     two forces, the greater the resultant
     we get.
  b. The smaller the angle, the smaller
     resultant we get.
  c. The angle formed by the two force
     vectors has nothing to do with how
     much resultant force we get.

Procedural Learning (Problem Solving)

A cart weighing 20 kg is pushed along a
slanted surface with an angle of 37 [degrees] from
horizontal. How much force is needed to
move the cart upward?

a. 56 kg
b. 33.3 kg
c. 16 kg
d. 12 kg

Results

Three hundred and fifty seven eighth and ninth-grade students participated in the study. Among the subjects, 182 were classified as being high in spatial abilities, and 175 were classified as low in spatial abilities based on the spatial ability test. To determine the effects of visual treatments and students' spatial ability in descriptive and procedural learning, a 3 (Text/Graphics/ Animation) X 2 (High/Low Spatial Ability) ANCOVA was employed to examine the effects of these two factors. Separate ANCOVAs were also used to describe the effects of visual treatments on different spatial groups. Since in the Pearson correlation analysis, students' grade levels, prior physics, and mathematics scores were significantly correlated with post-test scores for both descriptive and procedural knowledge (p [is less than] 0.05), all of these factors were used as covariates for controlling the initial differences among groups.

Descriptive Learning: For descriptive learning, the 3 X 2 ANCOVA indicated insignificant effects for both spatial ability [F(1, 348) = 0.675, p = 0.412] and visual treatment [F(2,348) = 2.429, p = 0.090] ([Alpha] = 0.05 level). No interaction was found between the two variables (p = 0.572)(Table 2).

Table 2: Effects of spatial ability and visual treatment (2 X 3 ANCOVA)

      Descriptive Knowledge

Main             Significance
Effect

Spatial     F(1,348)=0.675, p=0.412
Ability     Comparison of main effect:
(SP)        High SP > Low SP: p=0.412

Visual      F(2,348)=2.429, p=0.090
Treatment   Comparison of main effect:
            Animation > Text, p=0.035(*)
            Animation & Graphics,
            p=0.596
            Graphics & Text, p=0.105

Interaction: F(2,348)=0.560, p=0.572

              Procedural Knowledge

Main             Significance
Effect

Spatial     F(1,348)=0.000, P=0.988
Ability     Comparison of main effect:
(SP)        High SP > Low SP: p=0.988

Visual      F(2,348)=3.582, p=0.029(*)
Treatment   Comparison of main effect:
            Graphics > Text, p=0.013(*)
            Animation > Text, p=0.035(*)
            Graphics & Animation,
            p=0.711

Interaction: F(2,348)=0.603, p=0.548

(*) Significant Level: 0.05; Corvariate: mathematics, physics, and grade level

In order to see whether animation or still graphics assist learning of descriptive texts, separate analyses were conducted within each spatial level group for treatment comparisons. It was found that among high-spatial ability learners, only the group using animation was better than text group (p [is less than] 0.05); while among low-spatial ability learners there were no significant differences in any of the tests (p [is greater than] 0.05). (Table 3)

Table 3. Effect of Visual Treatment for Different Spatial Learners

Spatial       Descriptive Knowledge
Ability

High       F(2,169)=2.486, p=0.086
           Treatment Comparison:
           Animation > Text, p=0.039(*)
           Animation & Graphics, p=0.680
           Graphics & Text, p=0.070

Low        F(2,176)=0.396, P=0.674
           Treatment Comparison:
           Animation & Text, p=0.375
           Animation & Graphics, p=0.696
           Graphics & Text, p=0.641

Spatial       Procedural Knowledge
Ability

High       F(2,169)=1.204, p=0.303
           Treatment Comparison:
           Animation & Text, p=0.153
           Animation & Graphics, p=0.805
           Graphics & Text, p =0.197

Low        F(2,176)=2.437, P=0.090
           Treatment Comparison:
           Animation & Text, p=0.178
           Animation & Graphics, p=0.389
           Graphics > Text, p=0.031(*)

(*) Significant Level: 0.05; Corvariate: mathematics, physics, and grade level

Procedural Learning: For procedural learning, the 3 X 2 ANCONA indicated an insignificant effect for spatial ability [F(1, 348) = 0.000, p = 0.988] and a significant effect for visual treatment [F(2,348) = 3.582, p = 0.029] ([Alpha]= 0.05 level). No interaction was found between the two variables (p = 0.548) (Table 3). The comparison between the high and low spatial-ability students indicated insignificant difference (p [is greater than] 0.05). Students learning with animation and still graphics performed significantly better than those learning with text did (p [is less than] 0.05). No significant difference was found between the animation and the still graphics group.

In order to see whether animation or still graphics assisted learning of procedural texts, separate analyses were conducted within each spatial level group for treatment comparisons. It was found that among high-spatial ability learners there were no significant differences in any of the tests (p [is greater than] 0.05); while among low-spatial ability learners, only the group using still graphics did better than the text group (p [is less than] 0.05) (Table 3)

Observation: When learning spatial concepts, students used different processing strategies: (1) external visual representations, (2) internal visual representations, and (3) combinations of both types of visual representations. When processing spatial information with external visual representations, students often used their own drawings as well as the graphics and animation provided by the teaching materials in the lesson to construct their own understanding of the meaning. Even when graphics were provided by the computer, students translated the visualizations they saw into their own drawings, and made comparisons between the different forms of visualization. By contrast, when processing spatial information internally, students used the images created in their minds with the description or concepts provided in the lesson to construct their own internal representations. Even when graphics were not provided, they translated the verbal information into internal spatial representations for further processing. It was also observed that students shifted their spatial strategies either from external to internal or from internal to external visual representations in order to process and assimilate complex information.

Although there were differences in the use of external visualization and internal visualization strategies among learners, learning spatial concepts does require internalization of the external representations provided by the graphics or animation. The difference between students' spatial performance is determined by their ability to create, rotate and manipulate objects in their minds, and their knowledge of how to use these abilities to perform the spatial tasks given.

During the formation of a correct spatial concept, using both internal and external visualization strategies was needed. Although learning requires internalization of the external visualization, learning spatial concepts without using any memory aids increased cognitive overload when performing the spatial tasks, especially when internalized visual strategies were not automatic processes employed by most learners. Several kinds of errors were found when students tried to combine segments of visual information they perceived to solve spatial tasks without conceptual integration of the materials presented visually. For instance, students placed vectors and resultants mistakenly, and used the wrong equations to solve problems.

Discussion

In studying the effects of differing spatial abilities and visual treatments in learning computer-based materials, different results were obtained from the 2 x 3 ANCOVA for different learning tasks. The main effect of visual treatment was significant for procedural learning, but not for descriptive learning, indicating that differences in visual treatment (the use of animation, still graphic, and text) were an important concern in procedural learning. Comparisons among different visual treatments reveal that animation is better than text for descriptive learning, while still graphics and animation were both better than text for procedural learning.

No significant effects were found from the ANCOVAs for spatial ability for either descriptive or procedural learning. Although literature reveals that spatial differences might favor students with higher spatial abilities in scientific learning (Cassity, 1997), the insignificant effect of spatial ability observed in the study indicates that the effects of spatial differences may be tempered by factors within the training and instructional setting. The use and training of various spatial strategies also serves as a function of gaining experiences of solving problems in descriptive and procedural learning.

The analysis of different visual treatments among different spatial-ability learners shows that the use of animation promotes descriptive learning among those with high spatial abilities, while the use of still graphics promotes procedural learning among those with low spatial abilities. Inconsistent with other studies (Hay, 1996; Hegarty and Sims, 1994), which concluded that lower spatial-ability learners benefit more from animation, the study found that those with lower spatial-abilities learned better with still graphics in the procedural tasks. For those with low spatial abilities, the element of motion in animation might require some extra effort in constructing the procedural links among rules and steps. Motion might not be suitable for students when the procedural links among rules and concepts can be presented with sufficient clarity in a graphic form. In addition, the limited capacity of working memory in processing animation among lower spatial-ability learners might be worth noting.

Among high spatial-ability learners, animation provided some level of elaboration from the visual information, and it might facilitate learning of descriptive tasks. With the motion cues embedded in animation, high spatial learners can devote more cognitive resources to building mental connections for elaboration. However, low-spatial ability learners must devote more cognitive resources to building representation connections (Mayer & Sims, 1994). As a result, low spatial-ability learners did not benefit from animation in descriptive learning.

In summary, this research points to the theoretical and practical benefits of visual treatment. Different treatment effects among different learners implies the need for considering the cognitive processes in different learning tasks. On the theoretical level, this study concludes that the use of animated and graphic representations facilitates assimilation of scientific knowledge. On a practical level, this study raises the issue of differing mental processes for different learning tasks among different learners. From the qualitative assessment, it is concluded that learning requires internalization of the external visualization. Cognitive overload and spatial meta-cognition among learners when performing the spatial tasks is worth noting. Animation should be used with some caution, especially when internalized visual strategies are not an automatic processes employed by most learners.

The conclusions of this research do not yet have board applicability because a major limitation of this study is that it focuses on a single lesson. Subsequent research is needed to determine whether the same pattern of findings would occur in other instructional cases.

Acknowledgement

This paper was excerpted from a project supported by a grant from the National Science Council. Grateful acknowledgement is made to the National Science Council for financial support on this project. Thanks also go to the Fu-Ying Middle School for providing assistance needed in conducting the study

References

Blissett, G. & Atkins, M. (1993). Are they thinking? Are they learning? A study of the use of interactive video, Computer's in Education, 21, 31-39.

Bejar, I. (1990). A generative analysis of a three-dimensional spatial task. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(3), 237-245.

Cassity, C. L. (1997). Learning with technology: Research on graphing calculators. ERIC Document No.: ED409880

ChanLin, L. (1998). Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(3), 166-1;75.

Chinese Behavioral Sciences Corporation. (1994). Multiple factor test. Chinese Behavioral Sciences Corporation: Taipei, Taiwan

Davey, G. & Holliday, J. (1992). Van Hiele guidelines for geometry. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 48(2), 26-29.

Dixon, J. K. (1995). Limited English proficiency and spatial visualization in middle school students' construction of the concepts of reflection and rotation. The Bilingual Research Journal, 19(2), 221-247.

Dixon, J. K. & Falba, C. J. (1997). Graphing in the information age: Using data from the world wide web. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 2(5), 298-304.

Grange, S., Bunker, T., & Cooper, J. (1997). Virtual reality, a training world for shoulder arthroscopy. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-British Volume, 79-B(1S) Supplement, 104.

Halpin, P. & Kossegi, J. D. (1996). The WWW, preservice teachers and their mathematics courses. ERIC Document: ED405819.

Hays, T.A. (1996). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term and long-term memory comprehension, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(2), 139-155.

Hegarty, M. & Sims, V. K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 22, 411-430.

Kantowski, M. G. (1987). Using the computer to teach geometry. In I. Wirszup and R. Streit (Eds.), Developments in School Mathematics Education Around the Word. Proceedings of the UCSMP International Conference on Mathematics Education, 587-603.

Large, A. (1996). Computer animation in an instructional environment, Library & Information Science Research, 18(1), 3-23.

Large, A., Beheshti, J., Breuleux, A., & Renaud, A. (1994). Multimedia and comprehension: A cognitive study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 515-528.

Large, A., Beheshti, J., Breuleux, A. & Renaud, A. (1996). The effect of animation in enhancing descriptive and procedural texts in a multimedia learning environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(6), 437-448.

Lehmann, H. P., Lehmann, C. U., & Freedman, J. A. (1997). The use of simulations in computer-aided learning over the World Wide Web. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(21), 1788.

Lord, T. (1987). A look at spatial abilities in undergraduate women in science majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(8), 757-767.

Lu, J. et al (1994). Multiple factor test. Taipei, Taiwan: Chinese Behavioral Sciences Corporation.

Mayer, R. E. & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Psychology, 84 (4), 444-452.

Mayer, R. E. & Sims, V. K. (1994). From whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a Dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389-401.

McClurg, P. et al. (1996). Exploring children's spatial visual thinking in an HyperGami environment. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association. ERIC Document No.: ED408976

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1987). Mathematics for Language Minority Students. Official NCTM position statement published in the NCTM News Bullein, May 1987.

Orde, B. J. (1997). Drawing as visual-perceptual and spatial ability training. Paper presented at the 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. ERIC Document No: ED409859.

Park, O. & Gittelman, S. S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 27-38.

Park, O. & Hopkins, R. (1993). Instructional conditions for using dynamic visual displays. Instructional Science, 21, 427-447.

Reid, D. J. & Beveridge, M. (1993). Reading illustrated science text: A micro-computer based investigation of children's strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 76-87.

Rieber, L. P. (1995). A historical review of visualization in human cognition. ETR&D, 43(1), 45-56.

Rieber, L. P. & Hannanfin, M. J. (1988). Effects of textual and animated orienting activities and practice on learning from computer-based instruction. Computer in Schools, 5(1/2), 77-89.

Stanic, G. M. A. & Owen, D. T. (1990). Spatial sense. Arithmetic Teacher, 37(6), 48-51.

Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of Mind: Conceptions of the Nature of Intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Szabo, M. & Poohkay, B. (1996). An experimental study of animation, mathematics achievement, and attitude toward computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 390-402.

Wheatley, G. H. (1990). Spatial sense and mathematics learning. Arithmetic Teacher, 37(6), 10-11.

Dr. Lih-Juan, Associate Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, Fu-Jen Catholic University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Lih-Jaun, Associate Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, Fe-Jen Catholic University, 510 Chung-Chen Road, Hsin-Chuang, 24205, Taiwan