The
Animation and Interactivity Principles in Multimedia Learning Mireille
Betrancourt
What
Are the Animation Principle and the Interactivity Principle?
Conceptions
of animation. Despite its extensive use in instructional material, computer
animation still is not well understood. Baek and Layne (1988) defined animation
as “the process of generating a series of frames containing an object or
objects so that each frame appears as an alteration of the previous frame in
order to show motion” (p. 132). Gonzales (1996) proposed a broader definition
of animation as “a series of varying images presented dynamically according to
user action in ways that help the user to perceive a continuous change over
time and develop a more appropriate mental model of the task” (p. 27). This
definition however contained the idea that the user interacts with the display
(even minimally by hitting any key). In this chapter we do not restrict
animation to interactive graphics, and choose Betrancourt and Tversky’s (2000)
definition: “computer animation refers to any application which generates a
series of frames, so that each frame appears as an alteration of the previous
one, and where the sequence of frames is determined either by the designer or
the user” (p 313). This definition is broader by design than either of the
preceding definition. It does not stipulate what the animation is supposed to
convey, and it separates the issue of animation from the issue of interaction.
According
to Schnotz and Lowe (2003), the concept of animation can be characterized using
three different levels of analysis: Technical, semiotic and psychological. The
technical level refers to the technical devices used as the producers and
carriers of dynamic signs. With the evolution of the computer graphics
industry, distinguishing between events captured by way of a camera or events
completely generated by computer is becoming harder and irrelevant to learning
issues. Second, there is a semiotic level, which refers to the type of sign,
that is the kind of dynamics that is conveyed in the representation. This
includes concerns about what is changing in the animation and how (e.g.,
motion, transformation, changing of points of view). Third, there is a
psychological level, which refers to the perceptual and cognitive processes
involved when animations are observed and understood by learners. Discussions
about the design of animation often focus on technical or surface
characteristics. From a learning perspective, issues regarding realism,
3-dimensionality, or abstraction are important only insofar as they change the
way the content to be learned is going to be perceived and apprehended by
learners.
Conceptions
of interactivity
First of all, a clear distinction should be
made between two kinds of interactivity: control and interactive behavior.
Whereas control is the capacity of learner to act upon the pace and direction
of the succession of frames (e.g., pause-play, rewind, forward, fast forward,
fast rewind, step by step, and direct access to the desired frame),
interactivity is defined as the capability to act on what will appear on the
next frame by action on parameters. In this case animation becomes a simulation
of a dynamic system in which some rules have been implemented. Simulations are
not be the focus of this chapter and are mentioned as a specific feature of
animation. Examples of scenario using animation and interactivity, Supporting
the visualization and the mental representation process, and Producing a
cognitive conflic.
Review
of Research on Animation and Interactivity
Space in graphics
is used to convey spatial and functional relations between objects, which are
directly perceived by learners whereas they must be inferred from verbal
information. Similarly temporal changes in animations make temporal information
directly perceivable by learners whereas they must be inferred from static
graphics. However, as with the research on the effect of pictures in text, the
research on animation yields mixed and contradictory results, with actual
effects of animation ranging from highly beneficial to detrimental to learning.
Two main explanations
related to the way human perceive and conceive of dynamic information may
account for the failure of animation to benefit. First, human perceptual
equipment is not very efficacious regarding processing of temporally changing
animation. Though we track motion quite automatically, we are very poor in
mentally simulating real trajectories (Kaiser et al. 1992). Second, even when
actual motion is smooth and continuous, people may conceive of it as composed
of discrete steps (Hegarty, 1992; Zacks, Tversky & Iyer, 2001). For
example, the functioning of the four-stroke engine is in most mechanical
handbooks represented by a static picture of each of the four steps. If dynamic
systems are conceived of a series of discrete steps, giving an animation will
not make comprehension easier than a series of static graphics. In learning how
a flushing cistern works, Hegarty, et al. (2003) found that an animation did
not lead to better understanding than a series of three static diagrams
representing phases of the system, both conditions being more beneficial than
one static diagram of the system. However, animation is the only way to
represent transitions between the discrete steps in a dynamic system and
remains necessary for learners who are not able to mentally simulate the
functioning of the system from static graphics (which Schnotz (2002) called the
enabling function of animation). Rebetez et al. (2004) showed that a continuous
(but learner controllable) animation led to better comprehension performance
than a succession of static snapshots for instructional materials explaining
geological and astronomic phenomena when learners were in pairs.
Implication
for Cognitive Theory
As Schnotz (2003) stated, three functions can
be attributed to animations with regard to the elaboration of a mental model of
a dynamic system: enabling, facilitating or inhibiting functions. When learners
are novices or have poor imagery capabilities, animations enable learners to
visualize the system that otherwise they would not be able to mentally
simulate. Second, even when learners are capable of mentally simulating a
dynamic system, providing animation can lower the cognitive cost of mental
simulation thus saving cognitive resources for learning. The formation of a
“runnable” mental model of the system (Mayer, 1989) is then facilitated.
However, as animation saves learners from mentally simulating the functioning
of the system, it may induce a shallow processing of the animated content, and
consequently leads to what can be called the “illusion of understanding”. Then
the elaboration of a mental model is inhibited by animation. This obstacle can
be avoided by designing carefully the instructional situation, in which
learners are engaged in active processing while viewing the animated document.
Implications
for Instructional Design
Animations are attractive and intrinsically
motivating for learners. However, they are hard to perceive and conceive, their
processing requires a heavy cognitive load and there is chance that learners do
not get any benefit from studying the animation compared with static graphics.
To
use or not to use animation
1) When the concept or phenomenon depicted in the
animation involves change over time and that it can be assumed that learners
would not be able to infer the transitions between static depictions of the
steps. If animation is used when it is not really needed from a cognitive point
of view, learners will process a material that is complex but not directly
useful for understanding how the phenomenon works. Mayer, Heiser and Lonn
(2001) have shown that learning is impaired when non-relevant material is added
(see coherence principle, chapter 12, this volume).
2) When
learners are novices of the domain, so they cannot form a mental model of the
phenomenon (enabling function) or are faced with a very high cognitive load
(facilitating function). If learners are able to mentally simulate the
phenomenon given a reasonable mental effort, providing them with an animation
will prevent them from performing the mental simulation of the system, thus
leading to a shallow processing of the graphic matter. In this case animation
is not beneficial and even can impair learning (inhibiting function mentioned
in Schnotz, 2002).
Instructional
Implications
The effect of using
animated display is often investigated in laboratory experiments with the traditional
mental model paradigm, involving studying the material and then answering
explicit and transfer questions. From a designer or practitioner point of view,
some reflection is needed on pedagogical uses of animation. Three main uses of
animations in learning situations can be distinguished:
-
Supporting the visualization and the
mental representation process: From a pedagogical perspective, animation is not
opposed to static graphics but to the observation of the real phenomenon. With
an enabling or facilitating cognitive function according to the level of
expertise of learners, animation can be used to visualize a dynamic phenomenon
when it is not easily perceptible (space and time scale), when the real
phenomenon is practically impossible to realize in a learning situation (too
dangerous or too expensive) or when the phenomenon is not inherently visual
(representation of abstract concept such as forces).
-
To produce a cognitive conflict: animation
can be used to visualize phenomena that are not spontaneously conceived the
right way. We could cite many situations in physics in which naïve conceptions
dominate over the scientific conceptions (e.g., the fact that object of same
volume and different weights fall at the same speed, or the trajectory of
falling objects from moving platforms). In this case using several animations
of the correct and false response could help learners to make their conceptions
explicit.
-
To have learners explore a phenomenon:
here interactivity is a key factor. It can be a simple VCR control on the pace
and direction of the animation with a suitable learning activity. But it can
include a high degree of interactivity with a learning task that encourages
learners to generate hypotheses and test them by manipulating the parameters.
In this case the animation becomes a simulation that is used in a
discovery-learning approach.
Design
principles of the instructional animation
Given that the content is appropriate, five
design principles can be derived from the research, besides the contiguity
principle, modality principle and signaling principle.
-
Apprehension principle (Tversky et al.,
2002): The external characteristics should be directly perceived and
apprehended by learners. In other words, the graphic design of objects depicted
in the animation follow the conventional graphic representation in the domain.
This principle also recommends that any additional cosmetic feature that is not
directly useful for understanding should be banished from animation. For
example, 3D graphics should be avoided as should bi-dimensional motion or
change in the display. Similarly, realism is not necessary when the point is to
understand the functioning of a system or to distinguish its parts.
-
Congruence principle: Changes in the animation
should map changes in the conceptual model rather than changes in the behavior
of the phenomenon. In other word, the realism of the depicted phenomenon can be
distorted if it helps understanding the cause-effect relationships between
events in the system. For example, in mechanics, events that occur
simultaneously can be successive in the chain of causality (e.g. a valve opens
and the water flows in). In this case, it should be better to represent the two
events successively in the animation, so that the learners can build a
functional mental model of the display.
-
Interactivity principle: The information
depicted in the animation is better comprehended if the device gives learners
the control over the pace of the animation. This can be a simple “Resume”
function in a pre-segmented animation, which has be shown to improve learning
(Mayer & Chandler, 2001). Not only this simple control gives learners time
to integrate information before proceeding to the next frame, but also it
segments the animation into relevant chunks. The addition of a higher degree of
control (traditional functions of a VCR) should be used when it can be assumed
that learners have the capabilities of monitoring the cognitive resources they
should allocate to each phase of the animation. In Schwan’s et al. (2000)
study, learners could evaluate their needs since they could mimic the procedure
of tying the knot. Conversely, Lowe (2003) showed that learners were not able
to evaluate the most conceptually relevant parts of animation but that they
rather focused on perceptually salient features.
-
Attention-guiding principle: As animation
is fleeting by nature, often involving several simultaneous changes in the
display, it is very important to guide learners in their processing of the
animation so that they do not miss the change. Moreover, Lowe (2003) showed
that learners' attention is driven by perceptually salient features rather than
thematically relevant changes, simply because novice learners are not able to
distinguish between relevant and irrelevant features. To direct learners’
attention to specific parts of the display, designers can use signaling in the
verbal commentary (see Signaling principle, in Chapter 12) and graphic devices
(e.g., arrows or highlights) that appear close to the element under focus.
-
Flexibility principle: As it is not often
possible to know in advance the actual level of knowledge of learners,
multimedia instructional material should include some options to activate the
animation. Then information provided in the animation should be clearly
described to avoid redundancy between the static and animated visual material.
Source
Mireille Betrancourt TECFA Geneva University
Mireille.Betrancourt@tecfa.unige.ch Phone: +41 22 379 93 71 Fax: +41 22 379 93
79 Chapter proposed to R.E. Mayer (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia
Learning
