M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Mireille Bétrancourt TECFA, University of Geneva Multimedia animation: cognitive tool or computer gadget? TECFA

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

Mireille Bétrancourt

TECFA,University of Geneva

Multimedia animation: cognitive tool

or computer gadget?

TECFATechnologies pour la

Formation et l’Apprentissage


Outline

The case of computer animation

Examples of research

Few words on learning from multimedia documents


Multimedia learning


handle

piston

inlet valve

outlet valve

The bicycle pump.

When the handle is pulled up, the piston goes up, the inlet valves opens and air enters the lower part of the cylinder.

The Multimedia principle


Multimedia effect

Adding illustrations in text instruction :

improves memorisation with an average gain of 36%

improves comprehension and transfer

Is beneficial to learning in 80% studies

Denis, 1984; Levie & Lentz, 1982


Multimedia effect

Depends on various factors!

Type of learnersType of illustration

Presentation format


Verbal organisation

Propositional representation

Surface representation

Semantic processing

Sub-semantic processing

Model inspection

Conceptual organisation

Mental model

Model construction

Text and picture integration

Schnotz et al., 1999

Visual organisation

Visual image

perception

Thematic selection

Sym

bolic

pro

cess

ing

Ana

logi

cal m

appi

ng


Multimedia effect… and conversely

Mayer & Gallini, 1990

handle

piston

inlet valve

outlet valve

The bicycle pump.

When the handle is pulled up, the piston goes up, the inlet valves opens and air enters the lower part of the cylinder.


The case of animation


Types of animation

NEWAttract attention

Inform about an on-going process


Types of animation

Demonstrations

Attract attention

Inform about an on-going process

Interactive simulations


Is animation beneficial?

Animation should promote understanding of dynamic systems

The legitimate assumption

Tversky et al., 2002; Scheiter, Gerjets & Catrambone, 2005

Very often, animation is not more effective than static visualization

The results


Animation should support learning

Visualizes spatial changes over time

Mayer, 2001

Supports the construction of a ‘runnable mental model’

Text-picture complementarity at the semiotic level

Lowe, 2004

Levin, Anglin et Carney, 1989


Why animation does not help?

Conception of a functional MM

Lowe, 2003; Schnotz, 2002 Tversky, Bauer-Morrison & Betrancourt, 2002

Attention paid torelevant features

Working memory load

Perception of motion Ex

Ex

Ex


CLT and animation

germaneintrinsic extraneous


Overwhelming effect


Underwhelming effect

germane

Lowe, 2004


Perception difficulties

Trajectory of the point ?


Kaiser, Profitt & Whelan, 1992

Perception difficulties


Conceptual difficulties

How a toilet works


text only

text + animation

Retention difficulties

Palmiter & Elkerton, 1993

Training Immediate test Delayed test

text + animation

Performance


Animation can be beneficial

Type of content visualization matters

Delivery features designed to decrease extraneous cognitive load

The learning situation should be engaging


Some experiments on animation


1. Continuity * snapshots

Continuous animation > series of static graphics

Adding snapshots of critical steps of the process should offload working memory

Learning situation: collaboration improves learning from animation when snapshots are provided

Project founded by the Swiss Science foundation in collaboration with Pierre Dillenbourg (EPFL).


1. Type of animation matters


1. Methods

Participants

160 university students, novices in the domain

Material

Two animations with narration on Venus transit and rift formation

Factorial Design

Format of material(animated vs. static)

Snapshots(with vs. without)

Learning situation(individual vs.collaborative)



1. Procedure

Welcome - consent form

Pre-test Material Cog. load Post-test

Rift formation

Intro

Endcorsi blocks+ paper-folding

Indiv learners

Pre-test Material Cog. load Post-test

Transit of Venus

Intro


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Single Pairs

Reflection times

static

animation

1. Results (1): Reflection - discussion times

Format: no diff.Collaboration: p<.01


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Single Pairs

PErcent correct

static snapshots

animation

1. Results (2) : retention performance

Format: p<.01Collaboration: NS


1. Results (3) : comprehension

Format: p<.05Collaboration: NS

Interaction collaboration * material: p<.01

0102030405060708090

Single Pairs

Percent correct

static snapshots

animation


1. Results (4): snapshots and situation

Interaction between situation and snapshots: F(1 ;152) = 6.630; p<.05

Simple effect of snapshots in collaborative condition: (F(1, 76) = 4.0, p = .05)

No snapshot Snapshots

Snapshot condition

-0.2010

0.00

0.20

Infe

ren

ce s

core

(z-

sco

re) Solo

Duo

Single

Pairs

=> Split interaction effect?


Results (5): subjective workload

Format: NSCollaboration: p<.05


1. Summary

A continuous animation improved retention performance compared to a series of static frames.

Learners in pairs reported lower mental effort than single.

Regarding comprehension, learners in pairs benefited from animation but not single learners.

Snapshots are detrimental to learning for pairs while they are beneficial for single


2. Control and interactivity

Should the animation be computer or learner controlled?

Can we replicate the split interaction effect?

3 experiments


2. Control and interactivity: hypotheses

?

Mayer & Chandler, 2001

Schwan & Riempp, 2004


2. Control and interactivity: hypotheses

Mayer & Chandler, 2001

Schwan & Riempp, 2004

Cognive load hyp.

Attention management hyp.


2.1. First experiment: Methods

Participants

Material

75 psychology students (16 men, 59 women)


2.1. First experiment: Methods

Experimental factor Level of control

Procedure

Preliminary testing

10 mn

Study phase Retention and inference tests


2.1. Results (1): Retention and Inference

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

RepPOT RepINF RepTOT

TC

PC

NC

TC PC NC TC PC NC TC PC NC

Transfer: F (2, 72) = 3.887; p < .05

Retention Inference Total


Total Partial No control

cursus effect :F (1,73) = 13.96, p <.0001

Interaction cursus * controlF (2, 69) = 3.873, p < .05

2.1. Results (2): learning performance


2.1. Results (3): control actions

Total control

Partial control

Median Overall

16

10.5

134 (2-136)

33 (1-34)


Total Partial No control

2.1. Results (4): control actions


2.2. 2nd experiment: a few words

Two factors

Level of control (low vs. high)

Learning situation: individual vs collaborative

Investigating the split interaction effect


2.2: Material


2.2. Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Single Pairs

Low control

High control

Control: NSSetting: NS

Interaction control * setting: p<.05%

Ret

enti

on

Where did the split attention go?


2.3. 3rd experiment: Goals

Control is not interactive enough

Interactivity as a higher degree of control

No interactivity High control Simulation

+ control group


2.3. Material and procedure


2.3. Preliminary results: scores for single learners

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

No interactivity High control Simulation control group


Directions for the future

Does the split interaction exist?

Results in the collaborative setting

Exploration strategies make the difference

Using eyetracking measures

Control vs. segmentation


Critical issues in multimedia research

Ecological situations: long lasting learning task,

complex diagrams, motivated learners…

How to tackle text picture combination at the semio-

cognitive level?

How to address interindividual variability?

What do we mean by « learning effectiveness »?


Thank you for your kind attention!

Many thanks to research assistants: Cyril Rebetez and Mirweis Sangin (PhD students), Nicolas Realini, Baptiste Ossipow and Rolf Wipfli (Master and Bachelor students).

http://tecfa.unige.ch

Documents

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Mireille Bétrancourt TECFA, University of Geneva Multimedia animation: cognitive tool or computer gadget? TECFA