EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

Mireille BETRANCOURT

Cyril REBETEZ

Pierre DILLENBOURG

Mirweis SANGIN

CRAFT

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

Lausanne

TECFA

Dpt of Psychology and Education

Why did learners in collaborative situation benefit more from animations

than individual learners?

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

Research context

Static graphics facilitate the activity of elaborating a mental model from text information

Learning from text information means constructing a mental model

The case of understanding dynamic phenomena

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

Animation supports 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

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

Type of animation matters

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

Does animation actually help?

Animation challenges cognitive processing capacities

Conception of a functional MM

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

Attention paid torelevant features

Memory load

Perception of motion

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

Animation and collaboration

Schnotz, Boeckeler and Gzrondziel (1999)

Interactiveanimation

Static display

For detail questions only

Interactiveanimation

Static display

For both detail and understanding questions

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

Hypotheses

Continuous animation vs. series of static snaphots:

Continuous animation facilitates understanding insofar as it depicts transitions between states.

Collaboration increases extraneous cognitive load

Pair of learners vs. single learner

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

Methods

Participants

160 university students, novices in the domain

Material

Two multimedia instructions on Venus transit and rift formation

Two versions:12 static snapshots 12 animated sequences

Factorial Design

Format of material(animated vs static)

Collaboration(one learner vs. 2 learners)

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

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

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

static animation

study times

Single

Pairs

Results (1): Reflection - discussion times

Format: no diff.Collaboration: p<.01

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

static snapshots animation

Percent correct

Single

Pairs

Results (2) : scores to the retention test

material: p<.01collaboration: NS

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

static snapshots animation

Percent correct

Single

Pairs

Results (3) : comprehension

Material: p<.05Collaboration: NSInteraction collaboration * material: p<.01

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

Results (4): cognitive load

Format: NSCollaboration: p<.05

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

Summary

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

Learners in pairs reported lower mental effort than single.

Regarding comprehension, only learners in pairs benefited from animation

EARLI Conference, 23-27 August 2005

Further research

Control study under analysis on verbalization instruction in single situation

Study in progress: effect of level of interactivity and investigation of individual differences

Additional data under analysis: content of verbal interaction, and free recall performance