The effect of static and animated visualization: a perspective of instructional effectiveness and efficiency

Research Article

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of three different levels of enhancement strategies utilized to facilitate students’ learning from static and animated visualization when taking the time-on-task into consideration. Participants were randomly assigned to six treatment groups, and then took four criterion measures. The time-on-task was measured and used as a covariate in the analysis. The results suggest that animation is more effective than static visuals for improving learning across all levels of learning. Questions plus feedback embedded into the visualized material are most effective in enhancing higher-level but not lower-level learning objectives. Furthermore, time-on-task may be interpreted differently. On the one hand, students should be allowed as much time as needed to learn material when it is enriched, such as in the animated lesson. On the other hand, requiring students in a static-only treatment to review the visuals may produce the same learning effect as the use of animated visuals.

Keywords

Instructional animation Visualization Questions Feedback Web-based learning 

References

  1. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Making instructional animations more effective: A cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Learning for mastery. In C. W. Fisher & D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Perspectives on instructional time (pp. 73–93). New York: Longman Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Buss, A. R., & Poley, W. (1976). Individual differences: Traits and factors. New York: Gardner.Google Scholar
  6. Canelos, J. (1983). Instructional congruency as an educational tool for engineering education. Paper presented at the 1983 Frontiers in Education Annual Conference.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, J. B. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and education (pp. 87–136). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  8. Catrambone, R., & Fleming Seay, A. (2002). Using animation to help students learn computer algorithms. Human Factors, 44, 495–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ChanLin, L. J. (1998). Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(3), 166–175.Google Scholar
  10. Clariana, R. B., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1991). The effects of different feedback strategies using computer-administered multiple-choice questions as instruction. Education Technology, Research and Development, 39(2), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Individual differences in use of external visualizations to perform an internal visualization task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 701–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crooks, S. M., Ou, C.,White, D. R., Olivarez, A., & Wang, Q. (2005). Contiguity in low cognitive load instruction: Does it have a place. Paper presented at the 2005 American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Conference.Google Scholar
  13. de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 731–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dwyer, F. M. (1994). One dimension of visual research: A paradigm and its implication. In D. Moore & F. M. Dwyer (Eds.), Visual learning: A spectrum of visual learning (pp. 383–401). NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Dwyer, F. M., & Lamberski, R. (1977). The human heart: Parts of the heart, circulation of blood and cycle of blood pressure. US: Published Privately.Google Scholar
  16. Gilman, D. A. (1969). Comparisons of several feedback methods for correcting errors by computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(6), 503–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graesser, A., Langston, M., & Baggett, W. (1993). The psychology of learning and motivation. In Exploring information about concepts by asking questions (Vol. 29, pp. 411–436). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 713–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 325–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hegarty, M., Narayanan, N. H., & Freitas, P. (2002). Understanding machines from multimedia and hypermedia presentations. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 357–384). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Hegarty, M., Quilici, J., Narayanan, H., Holmquist, S., & Moreno, R. (1999). Multimedia instruction: Lessons from evaluation of a theory-based design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 119–150.Google Scholar
  23. Herber, H., & Nelson, J. (1975). Questioning is not the answer. Journal of Reading, 18(7), 512–517.Google Scholar
  24. Husen, T. (1967). International study of educational achievement in mathematics: A comparison of twelve countries. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211–232.Google Scholar
  26. Lusk, M. M., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 747–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Merrill, J. (1985). Levels of questioning and forms of feedback: Instructional factors in courseware design. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  29. Moreno, R. (2007). Optimizing learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Osman, M. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (1994). Effects of advance questioning and prior knowledge on science learning. Journal of Education Research, 88(1), 5–13.Google Scholar
  31. Otero, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2001). PREG: Elements of a model of question asking. Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paas, F., Van Gerven, P. W. M., & Wouters, P. (2007). Instructional efficiency of animation: Effects of interactivity through mental reconstruction of static key frames. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 783–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rieber, L. P. (1991a). Animation, incidental learning and continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 318–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rieber, L. P. (1991b). Effects of visual grouping strategies of computer-animated presentations on selective attention in science. Educational Technology. Research and Development, 39(4), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Animation as feedback in a computer based simulation: Representation matters. ETR&D, 44(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rieber, L. P., Boyce, M. J., & Assad, C. (1990). The effects of computer animation on adult learning and retrieval tasks. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 17(2), 46–52.Google Scholar
  38. Rikers, R. M. J. P., van Gerven, P. W. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2004). Cognitive load theory as a tool for expertise development. Instructional Science, 32, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sales, G. C. (1988). Designing feedback for CBI: Matching feedback to the learner and learner outcomes. Computers in the Schools, 5(1–2), 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sha, L. S., & Kaufman, D. M. (2005). Managing cognitive load while playing computer games. Paper presented at the 2005 American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Conference.Google Scholar
  41. Smyth, W. J. (1985). A context for the study of time and instruction. In C. W. Fisher & D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Perspectives on instructional time (pp. 3–27). New York: Longman Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Stevens, J. (2002). Intermediate statistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  43. Szabo, M., & Poohkay, B. (1996). An experimental study of animation, mathematics achievement, and attitude toward computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 390–402.Google Scholar
  44. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Waldrop, P. B., Justin, J. E., & Adams, T. M. (1986). A comparison of three types of feedback in a computer-assisted instruction task. Educational Technology, 26, 43–45.Google Scholar
  46. Wong, A. Y. K. (1994). The use of animation in computer-assisted instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.English DepartmentNational Kaohsiung Normal UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Instructional Systems ProgramThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations