IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orited/v19y2019i3p121-142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic Interactive Visualizations: Implications of Seeing, Doing, and Playing for Quantitative Analysis Pedagogy

Author

Listed:
  • Shailesh S. Kulkarni

    (Information Technology and Decision Sciences Department, College of Business, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas 76201)

  • Bin Mai

    (Educational Administration and Human Resource Development, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843)

  • S. Yasaman Amirkiaee

    (Information Technology and Decision Sciences Department, College of Business, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas 76201)

  • S. Yasaman Amirkiaee

    (Information Technology and Decision Sciences Department, College of Business, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas 76201)

Abstract

Teaching relatively complex quantitative topics in statistics, operations management, and management science to undergraduate as well as graduate students can pose numerous pedagogical challenges. However, several topics in these disciplines are amenable to exposition by means of dynamic interactive visualizations. We present a sample of such visualizations and discuss their implications for pedagogy. We also discuss how optimization modeling and a single data set can be leveraged to expose students to multiple variants of covering models and, more importantly, how visualizations can be used to quickly demonstrate the differences in these models. We present empirical evidence that by using dynamic interactive visualizations we are able to enhance the student learning experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Shailesh S. Kulkarni & Bin Mai & S. Yasaman Amirkiaee & S. Yasaman Amirkiaee, 2019. "Dynamic Interactive Visualizations: Implications of Seeing, Doing, and Playing for Quantitative Analysis Pedagogy," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 121-142, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orited:v:19:y:2019:i:3:p:121-142
    DOI: 10.1287/ited.2018.0203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/ited.2018.0203
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/ited.2018.0203?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ina S. Markham & Susan W. Palocsay, 2006. "Scenario Analysis in Spreadsheets with Excel's Scenario Tool," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 23-31, January.
    2. Thanasis Baloukas & Konstantios Paparrizos & Angelo Sifaleras, 2009. "Teaching Note ---An Animated Demonstration of the Uncapacitated Network Simplex Algorithm," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 34-40, September.
    3. Wood, Robert E., 1986. "Task complexity: Definition of the construct," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 60-82, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aron Lindberg & Nicholas Berente & James Gaskin & Kalle Lyytinen, 2016. "Coordinating Interdependencies in Online Communities: A Study of an Open Source Software Project," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 751-772, December.
    2. Ramon Rico & Cristina Gibson & Miriam Sanchez-Manzanares & Mark A. Clark, 2020. "Team adaptation and the changing nature of work: Lessons from practice, evidence from research, and challenges for the road ahead," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(3), pages 507-526, August.
    3. Matthijs J. Verhulst & Anne-Françoise Rutkowski, 2018. "Decision-Making in the Police Work Force: Affordances Explained in Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 827-852, October.
    4. Koo, Chulmo & Wati, Yulia & Jung, Jason J., 2011. "Examination of how social aspects moderate the relationship between task characteristics and usage of social communication technologies (SCTs) in organizations," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 445-459.
    5. Shahla Ghobadi & John Campbell & Stewart Clegg, 2017. "Pair programming teams and high-quality knowledge sharing: A comparative study of coopetitive reward structures," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 397-409, April.
    6. Odette M. Pinto, 2015. "Effects of Advice on Effectiveness and Efficiency of Tax Planning Tasks," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 307-329, December.
    7. Caglio, Ariela & Ditillo, Angelo, 2008. "A review and discussion of management control in inter-firm relationships: Achievements and future directions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 865-898.
    8. Christian Julmi, 2019. "When rational decision-making becomes irrational: a critical assessment and re-conceptualization of intuition effectiveness," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 291-314, April.
    9. Stocks, Morris H. & Harrell, Adrian, 1995. "The impact of an increase in accounting information level on the judgment quality of individuals and groups," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(7-8), pages 685-700.
    10. Ge, Xiangyu & Zhou, Qianxiang & Liu, Zhongqi, 2020. "Assessment of space station on-orbit maintenance task complexity," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. Keumseok Kang & Jungpil Hahn & Prabuddha De, 2017. "Learning Effects of Domain, Technology, and Customer Knowledge in Information Systems Development: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 797-811, December.
    12. Gist, Marilyn E. & Stevens, Cynthia Kay, 1998. "Effects of Practice Conditions and Supplemental Training Method on Cognitive Learning and Interpersonal Skill Generalization," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 142-169, August.
    13. Venkataraghavan Krishnaswamy & R. P. Sundarraj, 2017. "Organizational implications of a comprehensive approach for cloud-storage sourcing," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 57-73, February.
    14. Abdulmonem Alzalabani, 2017. "Antecedents of Job Satisfaction in Saudi Arabia: Impact of Industrial Sector," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(11), pages 1-61, October.
    15. Maximilian Trommer & Hildegard Schaeper & Gregor Fabian, 2021. "KWReq—a new instrument for measuring knowledge work requirements of higher education graduates," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 55(1), pages 1-24, December.
    16. Andrew Burton-Jones & Camille Grange, 2013. "From Use to Effective Use: A Representation Theory Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 632-658, September.
    17. Liu, Peng & Li, Zhizhong, 2014. "Comparison of task complexity measures for emergency operating procedures: Convergent validity and predictive validity," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 289-293.
    18. Hong Jiang & Wentao Liu & Lili Jia, 2019. "How Humble Leadership Influences the Innovation of Technology Standards: A Moderated Mediation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-20, October.
    19. Brian E. Mennecke & Joseph S. Valacich & Bradley C. Wheeler, 2000. "The Effects of Media and Task on User Performance: A Test of the Task-Media Fit Hypothesis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 507-529, November.
    20. Bayuk, Julia Belyavsky & Patrick, Vanessa M., 2021. "Is the uphill road the one more taken? How task complexity prompts action on non-pressing tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 436-449.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orited:v:19:y:2019:i:3:p:121-142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.