Advertisement

Looking Across Instead of Back and Forth: How the Simultaneous Presentation of Multiple Animation Episodes Facilitates Learning

  • Rolf Ploetzner
  • Richard Lowe
Chapter

Abstract

Many learning tasks require students to induce higher-order relationships from the learning material. Compare and contrast processes play a pivotal role in solving such inductive tasks. Different presentations of animation episodes offer affordances to students that can either impede or facilitate compare and contrast processes. While conventional behaviorally realistic animations typically present multiple episodes one after the other, i.e. sequentially, simultaneous presentation offers a feasible alternative. We investigated how the sequential and simultaneous presentation of multiple animation episodes affects students’ perceptual interrogation of the animation as well as their learning of higher-order relationships. Of the 60 students who participated in the experimental study, one half studied the animation episodes presented sequentially and the other half studied the same episodes presented simultaneously. The eye movements of eight participants from each group were recorded while they studied the animation episodes. The simultaneous presentation resulted in significantly more visual transitions between the episodes than the sequential version. Furthermore, significantly more bi-directional visual transitions occurred in case of the simultaneous presentation than for the sequential presentation. Learning of higher-order relationships was significantly more successful from simultaneously presented episodes than from sequentially presented episodes.

Keywords

Wind Direction Visual Attention Simultaneous Presentation Sequential Group External Representation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the Australian Technology Network (ATN) within the “Joint Research Cooperation Scheme”. We thank Onno Bahns and Marie Kösters for supporting the data collection and analysis.

References

  1. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2014). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 206–226). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bark, A. (2009). Sportküstenschifferschein [License for coastal sport skippers] (9. Aufl.). Bielefeld: Delius Klasing Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Blignaut, P., & Beelders, T. (2009). The effect of fixational eye movements on fixation identification with a dispersion-based fixation detection algorithm. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2, 1–14.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S., & Moulton, K. (2011). An analysis of the failure of electronic media and discovery-based learning: Evidence for the performance benefits of guided learning methods. In K. H. Silber & W. R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace (pp. 263–297). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  5. de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2014). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 371–390). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction – Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking – A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Klauer, K. J., & Leutner, D. (2012). Lehren und Lernen – Einführung in die Instruktionspsychologie (2. Aufl.) [Teaching and learning – Introduction to the psychology of instruction]. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Klauer, K. J., & Phye, G. D. (2008). Inductive reasoning: A training approach. Review of Educational Research, 78, 85–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kombartzky, U., Ploetzner, R., Schlag, S., & Metz, B. (2010). Developing and evaluating a strategy for learning from animation. Learning and Instruction, 20, 424–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2014). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 227–246). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lowe, R. K. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lowe, R. K., & Boucheix, J.-M. (2008). Learning from animated diagrams: How are mental models built? In G. Stapleton, J. Howse, & J. Lee (Eds.), Diagrammatic representations and inference – Proceedings of the fifth international conference, diagrams 2008 (pp. 266–281). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Lowe, R. K., & Boucheix, J.-M. (2011). Cueing complex animations: Does direction of attention foster learning processes? Learning and Instruction, 21, 650–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowe, R., & Boucheix, J.-M. (2017). A composition approach to design of educational animations. In R. Lowe, & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization — Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).Google Scholar
  19. Lowe, R. K., & Schnotz, W. (2014). Animation principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 513–546). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowe, R., Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2011). Aligning affordances of graphics with learning task requirements. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 452–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 279–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Overschmidt, H., & Gliewe, R. (2009). Das Bodenseeschifferpatent A + D [Yachtmaster A + D for Lake Constance]. Bielefeld: Delius Klasing Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Plass, J. L., & Schwartz, R. N. (2014). Multimedia learning with simulations and microworlds. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 729–761). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ploetzner, R. (2016). Understanding explanatory animation — An introduction to cognitive design and user support. Freiburg: eXplanatory!media.Google Scholar
  27. Ploetzner, R., & Breyer, B. (2017). Strategies for learning from animation with and without narration. In R. Lowe, & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization — Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer (this volume).Google Scholar
  28. Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. K. (2012). A systematic characterisation of expository animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 781–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. K. (2014). Simultaneously presented animations facilitate the learning of higher-order relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ploetzner, R., Lowe, R., & Schlag, S. (2013). A systematic characterization of cognitive techniques for learning from textual and pictorial representations. Journal of Education and Learning, 2, 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ploetzner, R., & Schlag, S. (2013). Strategic learning from expository animations: Short- and mid-term effects. Computers & Education, 69, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tversky, B., Heiser, J., Mackenzie, R., Lozano, S., & Morrison, J. (2008). Enriching animations. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 263–285). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. van Gog, T., Paas, F. G. W. C., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Advances in research on worked examples, animations, and cognitive load measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 375–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Education at FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  3. 3.University of BurgundyDijonFrance

Personalised recommendations