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 conflict
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
