ABSTRACT
Title of Dissertation: THE EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES IN SPATIAL
VISUALIZATION ABILITY ON
DUAL-TASK PERFORMANCE
Diane Lindwarm Alonso, Doctor of Philosophy, 1998
Dissertation Directed by: Professor Kent L. Norman Department of Psychology
Technology has the ability to amplify individual differences. It has long been known that each person has different ways of processing information. However, as computers and other technological devices are being developed to assist us in our daily lives, the gap between those who easily navigate their way through on-line hierarchies and those who get lost in a maze of confusion, widens. It is, therefore, becoming increasingly necessary to understand the basis for these individual differences so as to lessen this gap. This study examined how Spatial Visualization Ability (SVA) affects different individuals' abilities to perform two concurrent tasks, a visual/spatial task with an auditory/verbal task, in terms of allocation and usage of cognitive resources. This was addressed within the framework of Wickens' (1992) Multiple Resource Theory (MRT). Within this paper, a new model was proposed, based upon Wickens' model, focusing on this interaction of SVA and MRT. Two experiments were conducted to test that model using a method similar to the dual-task paradigm. The first experiment pinpointed basic research questions using a test of SVA called the VZ-2, followed by a listening comprehension activity, then by the two tasks performed concurrently. The second experiment continued that line of research, and tested whether the use of apparency (a method of revealing hidden contingencies) diminishes the differences between the high SVA and low SVA groups. Additionally, a classroom study was conducted to observe the effects of SVA differences on performance and attitudes within two semester-long classes. Findings from the experiments do not provide support for the proposed model, however, the discrepancies between the two experiments suggest that further investigation is in order. As for the issue of apparency, results from the second experiment support the benefits of apparency for low SVA (as well as high SVA) individuals. Finally, some suggestions are given which may help low SVA individuals overcome obstacles in navigating complex hierarchical databases (such as the World Wide Web). Hopefully, this will allow them to successfully interact with, and reap the benefits of, the growing technological maze of information.
THE EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SPATIAL
VISUALIZATION ABILITY ON DUAL-TASK
PERFORMANCE
by
Diane Lindwarm Alonso
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Maryland in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
1998
Advisory Committee:
Professor Kent L. Norman, Chair/Advisor
Professor Emerita Nancy S. Anderson
Professor Thomas O. Nelson
Professor John Newhagen
Professor Dana Plude
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my wonderful family. Particularly to my understanding and patient husband, Tom, who has put up with these many years of research, and to our precious daughter Lisa, who is the joy of our lives. I must also thank my loving mother and my terrific in-laws who have helped so much with baby-sitting and have given me their fullest support. Finally, I dedicate this work to my late father, Joseph Lindwarm and my late grandmother, Miriam Kotch, both of whom believed in diligence, science, art, and the pursuit of academic excellence.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank all of those people who helped make this dissertation possible.
First, I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Kent Norman for all his guidance, encouragement, support, and patience. His sincere interests in science, psychology, human-computer interaction and education have been a great inspiration to me. Also, I would like to thank my committee members Dr. Emerita, Nancy Anderson, Dr. Tom Nelson, Dr. Dana Plude, and Dr. John Newhagen for their very helpful insights, comments and suggestions as well as Dr. James Greenberg for his input at my proposal meeting. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge all of those people who provided technical support and assistance with running the experiment: Jake Eidelman, for assisting me with the process of running subjects in the AT&T; Teaching Theater and the aITs classroom; Kevin Bloomfield, Nimrod Levy, Karen Kuo, Dinesh Salvi, Jim Chang, Neil Tsao, Terri Anh, Adebowale Adeyiga, and Charles Goldman, the technicians who provided technical support during the actual experiments; and Tonie Davis, Stephanie Yun, Tara Stachura, and Jo Ann Yang who were able to work with my hectic schedule to find time for me to use the classrooms. Many thanks also go to Walt Gilbert, Associate Director,
Academic Environments, and Project Director, and Ellen Yu Borkowski, Coordinator, Instructional Technology and Support, for
use of the AT&T; Teaching Theater and of the aITs classroom. Finally, I
would like to thank my fellow graduate students, Ben Harper, Betty Murphy, Laura Slaughter, and George Ziets, who provided invaluable support and suggestions throughout this process.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Effects of Individual Differences in Spatial Visualization Ability in terms of Dual-Task Performance Multiple Resource Theory The Mental Representation of Images Dual Coding Theory The Imagery Debate Kosslyn's Picture Theory Pylyshyn's and Hinton's Descriptionalism Spatial Ability and Spatial Visualization Ability -- Definitions Spatial Visualization Ability -- Applications Apparency and Manipulability Individual Differences in Spatial versus Verbal Processing Working Memory and its Effect on Verbal and Spatial Processing Practical Implications Education and the Electronic Classroom The Electronic Classroom HyperCourseware™ in the Electronic Classroom The Model The Present Study Hypotheses
Experiment 1 Method Participants Design The AT&T; Teaching Theater VZ-2 On-line Listening Comprehension Procedure
|
Results Dependent Variables Subject Demographics Descriptive Statistics Difference Scores Correlations between VZ-2 and LC Scores Reliability/Validity and Internal Consistency Scores Individual Scores (Condition Plots) Survey Scores Ways of Thinking Additional Spatial-Verbal Preference Questions Predictive Scores/ Ordering / Frequency Counts Discussion H1 and H2: Performance Differences between High and Low SVA individuals in terms of Single- and Dual- Task Performance H5: Correlation between SVA and Listening Comprehension
Experiment 2 Method Participants Design Procedure Results Dependent Variables Subject Demographics Descriptive Statistics Difference Scores Correlation between Items per Trial and Number of Trials Single-Task and Dual-Task Scores Reliability/Validity and Internal Consistency Scores |
Individual Scores (Condition Plots) Apparency Correlations Among the Various Tests Survey Scores Ways of Thinking Additional Spatial-Verbal Preference Questions Predictive Scores/Ordering / Frequency Counts Discussion H1 and H2: Performance Differences between High and Low SVA individuals in terms of Single- and Dual- Task Performance H3 & H4: Performance Differences in terms of Apparency H5: Correlation between SVA and Listening Comprehension Observational Classroom Study Method Participants Design and Procedure Results Dependent Variables Class Demographics Correlation between VZ-2 and LC Scores Scores and Course Grades Working Memory Survey Scores Ways of Thinking Additional Spatial-Verbal Preference Questions Subjective Questionnaire (Based on the QUIS) Predictions Usage Comments Discussion
|
General Discussion H1 and H2: Performance Differences between High and Low SVA individuals in terms of Single and Dual-Task Performance H5: Correlation between SVA and Listening Comprehension An Alternative Model H3 & H4: Performance Differences in terms of Apparency Current Shortcomings of this Research Suggestions for Future Research What does all this mean?/ A Practitioner's Summary APPENDIX A: Instructions for the VZ-2 On-Line APPENDIX B: VZ-2 Items VZ-2 Part 1 VZ-2 Part 2 APPENDIX C: Listening Comprehension Items Listening Comprehension #1 Listening Comprehension #2 APPENDIX D: Background Questionnaire APPENDIX E: Ways of Thinking Questionnaire APPENDIX F: Subjective Questionnaire APPENDIX G: Sample Path (Path Apparent Condition) APPENDIX H: Sample Path (Non Apparent Condition) APPENDIX I: Subjective Questionnaire for the Observational Classroom Study APPENDIX J: Students' Comments from the Observational Classroom Study APPENDIX K: Raw Score Data for Experiments 1 and 2 References |