Instructional Science

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 471–485 | Cite as

Learning from animation enabled by collaboration

  • Cyril Rebetez
  • Mireille Bétrancourt
  • Mirweis Sangin
  • Pierre Dillenbourg
Article

Abstract

Animated graphics are extensively used in multimedia instructions explaining how natural or artificial dynamic systems work. As animation directly depicts spatial changes over time, it is legitimate to believe that animated graphics will improve comprehension over static graphics. However, the research failed to find clear evidence in favour of animation. Animation may also be used to promote interactions in computer-supported collaborative learning. In this setting as well, the empirical studies have not confirmed the benefits that one could intuitively expect from the use of animation. One explanation is that multimedia, including animated graphics, challenges human processing capacities, and in particular imposes a substantial working memory load. We designed an experimental study involving three between-subjects factors: the type of multimedia instruction (with static or animated graphics), the presence of snapshots of critical steps of the system (with or without snapshots) and the learning setting (individual or collaborative). The findings indicate that animation was overall beneficial to retention, while for transfer, only learners studying collaboratively benefited from animated over static graphics. Contrary to our expectations, the snapshots were marginally beneficial to learners studying individually and significantly detrimental to learners studying in dyads. The results are discussed within the multimedia comprehension framework in order to propose the conditions under which animation can benefit to learning.

Keywords

Multimedia Animation Learning Collaboration Dynamic mental model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Gaëlle Molinari and the three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and helpful comments on the first version of this paper, and to Peter Gerjets and Katharina Scheiter who greatly improved the final version through multiple comments and proposals. This research was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant #11-68102.02).

References

  1. Ainsworth, S., & Van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berney, S., Bétrancourt, M., & Rebetez, C. (2005). Effect of verbalization and self-explanation on learning from multmedia instruction. Paper presented at the Interlearn conference 05, Helsinki (Finland).Google Scholar
  4. Bétrancourt, M., Dillenbourg, P., & Clavien, L. (2003). Reducing cognitive load by delivery features in learning from computer animation. Paper presented at the 10th EARLI biennale conference, Padova (Italy).Google Scholar
  5. Catrambone, R., & Seay, A. F. (2002). Using animations to help students learn computer algorithms. Human Factors, 44, 459–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington: APA Books.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and conceptual approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P., & Bétrancourt, M. (2006). Collaboration Load. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: research and theory. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–184). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understandig mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 325–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hegarty, M., & Sims, V. K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 411–430.Google Scholar
  14. Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Intructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lowe, R. K. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualisation during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When Learning is just a click away: Does simple interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moore, J. L., & Rocklin, T. R. (1998). The distribution of distributed cognition: Multiple interpretations and uses. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Narayanan, N. H., & Hegarty, M. (2002). Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 279–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ploetzner, R., Dillenbourg, P., Praier, M., & Traum, D. (1999). Learning by explaining to oneself and to others. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 103–121). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Sangin, M., Dillenbourg, P., Rebetez, C., Bétrancourt, M., & Mollinari, G. (2008). The effect of animations on verbal interaction in computer supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5), 394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Making the abstract concrete: Vizualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schnotz, W., Böckheler, J., & Grzondziel, H. (1999). Individual and co-operative learning with animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(2), 245–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2008). Functions of animations in comprehension and learning. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 93–113). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 215–266). New-York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Bétrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 57, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cyril Rebetez
    • 1
  • Mireille Bétrancourt
    • 1
  • Mirweis Sangin
    • 2
  • Pierre Dillenbourg
    • 2
  1. 1.Tecfa, Faculty of Psychology and Educational SciencesUniversity of GenevaCarougeSwitzerland
  2. 2.Craft, Federal Institute of Technology of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations