Download Material

TECFA
Technologies pour la
Formation et l’Apprentissage
Multimedia animation: cognitive tool or
computer gadget?
Mireille Bétrancourt
TECFA,
University of Geneva
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Outline
Few words on learning from multimedia documents
The case of computer animation
Examples of research
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Multimedia learning
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
The Multimedia principle
The bicycle pump.
handle
piston
When the handle is pulled
up, the piston goes up, the
inlet valves opens and air
enters the lower part of the
cylinder.
inlet valve
outlet valve
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Multimedia effect
Adding illustrations in text instruction :
Is beneficial to learning in 80% studies
improves memorisation with an average gain of 36%
improves comprehension and transfer
Denis, 1984; Levie & Lentz, 1982
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Multimedia effect
Depends on various factors!
Type of illustration
Type of learners
Presentation format
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Text and picture integration
Model
construction
Propositional
representation
Mental model
Surface
representation
Sub-semantic
processing
Thematic
selection
Conceptual
organisation
Semantic
processing
Visual image
Verbal
organisation
Visual
organisation
perception
Analogical mapping
Symbolic processing
Model inspection
Schnotz et al., 1999
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Multimedia effect… and conversely
The bicycle pump.
handle
piston
When the handle is pulled
up, the piston goes up, the
inlet valves opens and air
enters the lower part of the
cylinder.
inlet valve
outlet valve
Mayer & Gallini, 1990
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
The case of animation
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Types of animation
Attract attention
Inform about an on-going process
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Types of animation
Attract attention
Inform about an on-going process
Demonstrations
Interactive simulations
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Is animation beneficial?
The legitimate assumption
Animation should promote understanding of dynamic
systems
The results
Very often, animation is not more effective than static
visualization
Tversky et al., 2002; Scheiter, Gerjets & Catrambone, 2005
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Animation should support learning
Visualizes spatial changes over time
Lowe, 2004
Supports the construction of a ‘runnable mental model’
Mayer, 2001
Text-picture complementarity at the semiotic level
Levin, Anglin et Carney, 1989
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Why animation does not help?
Perception of motion
Ex
Attention paid to
relevant features
Working
memory load
Ex
Conception of a functional MM
Ex
Lowe, 2003; Schnotz, 2002
Tversky, Bauer-Morrison & Betrancourt, 2002
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
CLT and animation
intrinsic
extraneous
germane
Overwhelming effect
intrinsic
extraneous
germane
Underwhelming effect
intrinsic
extraneous
germane
germane
Lowe, 2004
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Perception difficulties
Trajectory of the point ?
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Perception difficulties
Kaiser, Profitt & Whelan, 1992
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Conceptual difficulties
How a toilet works
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Retention difficulties
Performance
text + animation
text only
text + animation
Training
Immediate test
Delayed test
Palmiter & Elkerton, 1993
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Animation can be beneficial
Type of content visualization matters
Delivery features designed to decrease extraneous
cognitive load
The learning situation should be engaging
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Some experiments on animation
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
1. Continuity * snapshots
Continuous animation > series of static graphics
Adding snapshots of critical steps of the process
should offload working memory
Learning situation: collaboration improves learning
from animation when snapshots are provided
Project founded by the Swiss Science foundation in
collaboration with Pierre Dillenbourg (EPFL).
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
1. Type of animation matters
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
1. Methods
Participants
160 university students, novices in the domain
Material
Two animations with narration on Venus transit and rift formation
Factorial Design
Format of material
(animated vs. static)
Snapshots
(with vs. without)
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Learning situation
(individual vs.
collaborative)
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
1. Procedure
Welcome - consent form
Transit of Venus
Pre-test
Intro
Material
Cog. load
Post-test
Intro
Material
Cog. load
Post-test
Rift formation
Pre-test
corsi blocks+ paper-folding
Indiv learners
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
End
1. Results (1): Reflection - discussion times
Reflection times
30
25
20
static
15
animation
10
5
0
Single
Pairs
Format: no diff.
Collaboration: p<.01
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
1. Results (2) : retention performance
Format: p<.01
Collaboration: NS
PErcent correct
80
70
60
static snapshots
animation
50
40
30
20
10
0
Single
Pairs
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
1. Results (3) : comprehension
Percent correct
Format: p<.05
Collaboration: NS
Interaction collaboration * material: p<.01
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
static snapshots
animation
Single
Pairs
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
1. Results (4): snapshots and situation
0.20
Single
Solo
Interaction between situation
and snapshots:
F(1 ;152) = 6.630; p<.05
Simple effect of snapshots in
collaborative condition: (F(1,
76) = 4.0, p = .05)
0.00
Pairs
Duo
-0.2010
=> Split interaction effect?
No snapshot
Snapshots
Snapshot condition
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Results (5): subjective workload
Format: NS
Collaboration: p<.05
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
1. Summary
A continuous animation improved retention
performance compared to a series of static frames.
Regarding comprehension, learners in pairs benefited
from animation but not single learners.
Snapshots are detrimental to learning for pairs while
they are beneficial for single
Learners in pairs reported lower mental effort than
single.
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2. Control and interactivity
 Should the animation be computer or learner
controlled?
 Can we replicate the split interaction effect?
 3 experiments
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2. Control and interactivity: hypotheses
Mayer & Chandler, 2001
?
Schwan & Riempp, 2004
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2. Control and interactivity: hypotheses
Mayer & Chandler, 2001
Cognive load hyp.
Attention
management hyp.
Schwan & Riempp, 2004
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.1. First experiment: Methods
Participants
75 psychology students (16 men, 59 women)
Material
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.1. First experiment: Methods
Experimental factor
Level of control
Procedure
10 mn
Preliminary testing
Study phase
Retention and inference
tests
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.1. Results (1): Retention and Inference
14
12
10
8
TC
PC
6
NC
4
2
0
TC
PC
NC
RepPOT
Retention
TC
PC
NC
TC
RepINF
Inference
Transfer: F (2, 72) = 3.887; p < .05
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
PC
NC
Total
RepTOT
2.1. Results (2): learning performance
cursus effect :
F (1,73) = 13.96, p <.0001
Interaction cursus * control
F (2, 69) = 3.873, p < .05
Total
Partial
No control
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.1. Results (3): control actions
Median
Total control
Partial control
Overall
16
134 (2-136)
10.5
33 (1-34)
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.1. Results (4): control actions
Total
Partial
No control
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.2. 2nd experiment: a few words
Investigating the split interaction effect
Two factors
Level of control (low vs. high)
Learning situation: individual vs collaborative
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.2: Material
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.2. Results
Control: NS
Setting: NS
Interaction control * setting: p<.05
70
60
50
40
Low control
High control
30
20
10
0
Single
Pairs
Where did the split attention go?
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.3. 3rd experiment: Goals
Control is not interactive enough
Interactivity as a higher degree of control
No interactivity
High control
Simulation
+ control group
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.3. Material and procedure
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.3. Preliminary results: scores for
single learners
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
No interactivity
High control
Simulation
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
control group
Directions for the future
Does the split interaction exist?
Results in the collaborative setting
Exploration strategies make the difference
Using eyetracking measures
Control vs. segmentation
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Critical issues in multimedia research
Ecological situations: long lasting learning task,
complex diagrams, motivated learners…
How to tackle text picture combination at the semiocognitive level?
How to address interindividual variability?
What do we mean by « learning effectiveness »?
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Thank you for your kind attention!
http://tecfa.unige.ch
Many thanks to research assistants: Cyril Rebetez and
Mirweis Sangin (PhD students), Nicolas Realini, Baptiste
Ossipow and Rolf Wipfli (Master and Bachelor students).
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006