Text, Table and Graph -- Which is Faster and More Accurate to Understand?

Gollapudi V. R. J. Sai Prasad, A. Ojha
{"title":"Text, Table and Graph -- Which is Faster and More Accurate to Understand?","authors":"Gollapudi V. R. J. Sai Prasad, A. Ojha","doi":"10.1109/T4E.2012.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Today's school and college textbooks are full of static, multimodal content. This research investigates which of the three modalities - text, table or graph - is more efficient in conveying a given message to students. For fixed content, we hypothesized that graph representation is better of the three for comprehension. Experiment results (N=25)suggest that graphs are indeed 25.5% faster to understand than text and 46.5% faster than tables. In terms of accuracy of responses, graphs were 13.5% worse than text and 8.6%more accurate than tables. When the ratio of amount of accurate answers for each second taken to respond was checked, graphs were faster as they enabled downloading of5.7% of the answer in one second time, whereas text downloaded only 3.6% and table only 3.9%. For our experimental data, it appears that graph mode might be faster but less accurate. However, when it comes to amount of correct comprehension, graph mode does come out better.","PeriodicalId":202337,"journal":{"name":"2012 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Technology for Education","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2012 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Technology for Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/T4E.2012.18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Today's school and college textbooks are full of static, multimodal content. This research investigates which of the three modalities - text, table or graph - is more efficient in conveying a given message to students. For fixed content, we hypothesized that graph representation is better of the three for comprehension. Experiment results (N=25)suggest that graphs are indeed 25.5% faster to understand than text and 46.5% faster than tables. In terms of accuracy of responses, graphs were 13.5% worse than text and 8.6%more accurate than tables. When the ratio of amount of accurate answers for each second taken to respond was checked, graphs were faster as they enabled downloading of5.7% of the answer in one second time, whereas text downloaded only 3.6% and table only 3.9%. For our experimental data, it appears that graph mode might be faster but less accurate. However, when it comes to amount of correct comprehension, graph mode does come out better.
文本、表格和图表——哪个理解得更快更准确?
今天的学校和大学教科书充满了静态的、多模式的内容。本研究调查了三种形式——文本、表格或图表——哪一种更有效地向学生传达给定的信息。对于固定内容,我们假设图形表示在三种理解方式中更好。实验结果(N=25)表明,图形的理解速度确实比文本快25.5%,比表格快46.5%。在回答的准确性方面,图表比文字差13.5%,比表格准确8.6%。当检查每秒钟回答的准确答案的比例时,图表更快,因为它们可以在一秒钟内下载5.7%的答案,而文本下载仅为3.6%,表格下载仅为3.9%。对于我们的实验数据,图形模式可能更快,但准确性较低。然而,当涉及到正确理解的数量时,图形模式确实更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信