Abstract
OUR RESEARCH SUGGESTS static and animated graphics can lead to more animated thinking and more correct problem solving in computer-based probability learning. Pilot software modules were developed for graduate online statistics courses and representation research. A study with novice graduate student statisticians compared problem solving in five graphic versions: text, static visual, static motion cues, computer animated, and interactive computer animated. Groups were also compared on transfer problems with static graphics without motion cues. Level of animation in thinking was assessed as number of images and movement symbols in notes. All groups provided with graphic maps had more correct solutions than the text group. Displaying static motion cues, computer animated, and interactive animated maps resulted in more correct solutions and animation in notes than just text or static visuals without motion cues. Graphic maps with static motion cues or computer animated overlay resulted in equally more correct solutions and greater animation in notes. Graphic maps with static motion cues better prepared learners for solving less animated and more difficult problems. Imagery and movement in notes were significant predictors of correct training and transfer problem solutions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Anglin, G.J., Hossein, V., & Cunningham, K.L. (2004). Visual representations and learning: The role of static and animated graphics In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.).Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (865–916). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Baek, Y.K., & Layne, B.H. (1988). Color, graphics, and animation in a computer-assisted learning tutoring lesson.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15, 131–135.
Bauer, M.I., & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1993). How diagrams can improve reasoning.Psychological Science, 4, 372–378.
Betrancourt, M., & Tversky, B. (2000). Effect of computer animation on users’ performance: A review.Le travail Humain, 63(4), 311–330.
Bryant, D., & Tversky, B. (1999). Mental representations of perspective and spatial relations from diagrams and models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 137–156.
ChanLin, L.J. (1998). Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels.Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 166–175.
ChanLin, L.J. (2000). Attributes of animation in learning scientific knowledge.Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(4), 239–243.
Chase, W., & Bown, F. (1999).General Statistics. (4th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Craik, K. (1943).The Nature of Explanation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferguson, E.L., & Hegarty, M. (1995). Learning with real machines or diagrams: Application of knowledge to real-world problems.Cognition and Instruction, 13, 129–160.
Gentner, D., & Stevens, A.L. (Eds.) (1983).Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hays, T.A. (1996). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on shortterm and long-term comprehension.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(2), 139–55.
Harrison, S.M. (1995). A comparison of still, animated, or nonillustrated on-line help with written or spoken instructions in a graphical user interface. In I.R. Katz, R. Mack, L. Marks, M.B. Rosson, & J. Nielsen (Eds.),Proceedings of ACM conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 82–89). Denver, CO: ACM.
Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1084–1102.
Hegarty, M., Meyer, B., & Narayanan, N.H. (Eds.) (2002).Diagrams. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hegarty, M., Quilici, J., Narayanan, N.H., Holmquist, S., & Moreno, R. (1999). Multimedia instruction: Lessons from evaluation of a theory-based design.Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 2(8), 119–150.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983).Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press, MA.
Kaplan, D.E., & Black, J.B. (2003). Mental model development and reasoning about a causal system in a computer-based inquiry environment.Journal of Science Education and Technology.
Larkin, J.H., & Simon, H.A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words.Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
Mayer, R.E., & Gallini, J. (1990). When is a picture worth a thousand words?Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715–727.
Mayer, R.E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 253–284). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mayer, R.E. (1997). Multimedia in learning: Are we asking the right question?Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19.
Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multi-media learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory.Journal of Educational Psychology, 312–320.
Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning.Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87–98.
Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive overload in multimedia learning.Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity.Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.
Morrison, J.B., Tversky, B., & Betrancourt, M. (2000). Animation: Does it facilitate learning? Paper presented at theAAAI 2000 Spring Symposium Smart Graphics, 20–22 March 2000, Stanford, CA.
Pane, J.F., Corbett, A.T., & John, B.E. (1996). Assessing dynamics in computerbased instruction. Paper presented at theProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver.
Park, O., & Gittelman, S.S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction.ETR&D, 40(4), 27–38.
Park, O. (1994). Dynamic visual displays in media-based instruction.Educational Technology, 34(4), 21–25.
Park, O., & Gittelman, S.S. (1995). Dynamic characteristics of mental models and dynamic visual displays.Instructional Science, 23, 303–320.
Peters, H., & Dalker, K.C. (1982). Graphics and animation as instructional tools: A case study.Pipeline, 7, 11–13.
Rieber, L.P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics with science instruction with children.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 135–140.
Rieber, L.P., & Hannafin, M.J. (1988). Effects of textual and animated orienting activities and practice on learning from computer-based instruction.Computers in the Schools, 5, 77–89.
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, 46–52.
Rigney, J.W., & Luta, K.A. (1976). Effects of graphics analogies of concepts in chemistry on learning and attitude.Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 305–311.
Schwartz, D.L., & Black, J.B. (1996a). Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules.Cognitive Science, 20, 457–497.
Schwartz, D.L., & Black, J.B. (1996b). Analog imagery in mental model reasoning: Depictive models.Cognitive Psychology, 30, 154–219.
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (2002). External Representations Contribute to the Dynamic Construction of Ideas. In M. Hegarty, B. Meyer, & N.H. Narayanan (Eds.),Diagrams 2002 (pp. 341–343). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tversky, B. (2000). Some ways that maps and diagrams communicate. In C. Freksa, W. Brauer, C. Habel, & K.F. Wender (Eds.),Spatial Cognition II (pp. 72–79). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tversky, B., Zacks, J., Lee, P.U., & Heiser, J. (2000). Lines, blobs, crosses, and arrows: Diagrammatic communication with schematic figures. In M. Anderson, P. Cheng, & V. Haarslev (Eds.),Theory and Application of Diagrams (pp. 221–230). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J.B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can It Facilitate?International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.
Tversky, B., Heiser, J., Lee, P., & Zacks, J.M. (2002). Diagrams to augment cognition.Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Fairfax, VA.
Williamson, V.M., & Abraham, M.R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521–34.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Danielle E. Kaplan was an Assistant Professor of Technology and Education in the Department of Math, Science and Technology in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, and is currently a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Learning Technologies and the Center for Research on Evaluation of Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). She received a PhD, EdM, and MA in Cognitive Studies and Instructional Technology from Teachers College, Columbia University, an MES from Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and a BA from Tisch School of the Arts, New York University. She was a Spencer Doctoral Research Training Grant Fellow, Sussman Fellow, Mellon grant recipient, Founders Scholar, Alumni Scholar, and Artist and Scholar. Dr. Kaplan has worked in the entertainment and software industries, and educational and governmental organizations, as a producer, researcher, and learning facilitator. Her research is in the areas of cognition and reasoning, distance instruction and learning, multimedia design and evaluation, and learning and assessment using technology. Dr. Kaplan’s research involves the design, production, and research of technologies for the improvement of skills essential to learning and knowing, such as observation, inquiry, representation, and reasoning.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kaplan, D.E., Wu, E.Cl. Computer-based graphical displays for enhancing mental animation and improving reasoning in novice learning of probability. J. Comput. High. Educ. 18, 55–79 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03032724
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03032724