Challenges in Making Meaning from Ground‐Motion Visualizations: The Role of Geoscience Knowledge in Interpreting Dynamic Spatiotemporal Patterns
M. R. Brudzinski, Allison J. Jaeger, Thomas F. Shipley · Seismological Research Letters · 2019
Research Article| April 17, 2019 Challenges in Making Meaning from Ground‐Motion Visualizations: The Role of Geoscience Knowledge in Interpreting Dynamic Spatiotemporal Patterns Michael R. Brudzinski; Michael R. Brudzinski Corresponding Author aDepartment of Geology and Environmental Earth Science, Miami University, 250 S Patterson Avenue, Oxford, Ohio 45056 U.S.A., [email protected] Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Allison Jaeger; Allison Jaeger bDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 N 13th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122 U.S.A.cNow at Department of Psychology, St John's University, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica, New York 11439 U.S.A. Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Thomas F. Shipley Thomas F. Shipley bDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 N 13th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122 U.S.A. Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Author and Article Information Michael R. Brudzinski Corresponding Author aDepartment of Geology and Environmental Earth Science, Miami University, 250 S Patterson Avenue, Oxford, Ohio 45056 U.S.A., [email protected] Allison Jaeger bDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 N 13th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122 U.S.A.cNow at Department of Psychology, St John's University, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica, New York 11439 U.S.A. Thomas F. Shipley bDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 N 13th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122 U.S.A. Publisher: Seismological Society of America First Online: 17 Apr 2019 Online Issn: 1938-2057 Print Issn: 0895-0695 © Seismological Society of America Seismological Research Letters (2019) 90 (4): 1692–1701. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180289 Article history First Online: 17 Apr 2019 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Michael R. Brudzinski, Allison Jaeger, Thomas F. Shipley; Challenges in Making Meaning from Ground‐Motion Visualizations: The Role of Geoscience Knowledge in Interpreting Dynamic Spatiotemporal Patterns. Seismological Research Letters 2019;; 90 (4): 1692–1701. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180289 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietySeismological Research Letters Search Advanced Search ABSTRACT The USArray ground‐motion visualization (GMV) is an Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) video product that illustrates how seismic waves travel away from an earthquake by depicting seismometers as symbols that vary in color according to the recorded amplitudes. GMVs are typically the most popular product the IRIS produces following an earthquake (e.g., ∼10,000 unique views for a recent Oklahoma earthquake). Many instructors feel that dynamic visualizations offer learning advantages over static media when demonstrating dynamic processes, but research indicated they can impede learning by placing greater information processing requirements on the learner. We sought to evaluate changes in student understanding of seismic waves from GMVs by collecting data from three different college‐level settings: general student population in a psychology laboratory (novices), students in middle‐ and upper‐level geoscience courses (geoscience majors), and a seismology research group. A seven‐question multiple‐choice assessment was developed for use in all three settings and then administered in the laboratory and classroom. Using a similar question before and after the GMV viewing, we found that most geoscience majors understood seismic‐wave concepts prior to the GMV and the GMV improved their understanding. Only about half of the novices appeared to understand seismic‐wave concepts prior to the GMV and performance decreased after the GMV. Performance decreases were larger when students watched an alternative tutorial GMV developed to further illustrate what a GMV represents. An increase in the breadth of incorrect answer selections by novices indicates they became more confused about what happens to energy from an earthquake when shown a GMV. Lower performance on other post‐GMV questions by novices suggests that the current style of GMVs are unable to teach basic seismological concepts to people who do not have some formal geoscience training. Although web traffic to GMVs indicates people's interest in watching the videos, watching GMVs does not appear to translate to improved understanding of seismic waves for novices. Future development of dynamic visualizations such as GMVs should consider the cognitive load these learning materials impose on the learner and seek to further implement principles of multimedia instructional design that minimize cognitive processing demands. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.