Chapter 18. The Animation and Interactivity Principles in Multimedia
Learning
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.
Chapter 18. The Animation and
Interactivity Principles in Multimedia Learning
Mireille Betrancourt
Abstract
Computer animation has a tremendous potential to provide visualizations
of dynamic phenomena that involve change over time (e.g., biological processes,
physical phenomena, mechanical devices, historical development). However, the
research reviewed in this chapter showed that learners did not systematically
take advantage of animated graphics in terms of memorization and comprehension
of the underlying causal or functional model. This chapter reviewed the
literature about the interface and content features that affect the potential benefits
of animation over static graphics. Finally, I proposed some guidelines that
designers should consider when designing multimedia instruction including
animation.
What Are the
Animation Principle and the Interactivity Principle?
In the last decade, with the rapid progression of
computing capacities and the progress of graphic design technologies,
multimedia learning environments have evolved from sequential static text and
picture frames to increasing sophisticated visualizations. Two characteristics
appear to be essential to instruction designers and practitioners: the use of
animated graphics as soon as depiction of dynamic system is involved, and the
capability for learners to interact with the instructional material.
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.
Conceptions
of interactivity
First of all, a clear distinction should be made
between two kinds of interactivity: control and interactive behavior. In this
chapter we do not consider that control and interactive behavior are different
degrees on the same scale but rather are two different dimensions. 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 (for
more details on simulation, see chapter 33). For purposes of this chapter,
interactivity is meant as control over the pace of animation.
Examples of
scenario using animation and interactivity
The main concern for instructional designers and
educational practitioners can be summarized by the simple question: When and
how should animation be used to improve learning? Three main uses of animations
in learning situations can be distinguished.
Supporting
the visualization and the mental representation process
The first situation is not substantially different from the situations
in which graphics are used: Animation provides a visualization of a dynamic
phenomenon, when it is not easily observable in real space and time scales
(e.g., plaques tectonics, circulatory system, or weather maps), when the real
phenomenon is practically impossible to realize in a learning situation (too
dangerous or too costly), or when it is not inherently visual (e.g., electrical
circuit, expansion of writing over times, or representation of forces). In this
perspective, animation is not opposed to static graphics but to the observation
of the real phenomen
Producing a
cognitive conflict
Animation can be used to visualize phenomena that
are not spontaneously conceived the way they are in the scientific domain. For
example, there are many situations in physics in which naïve conceptions
dominate over the scientific conceptions (e.g. the fact that objects of same
volume and different weights fall at the same speed, or the trajectory of
falling objects from moving objects). In this case an instructional scenario
can provide several animations of the same phenomenon and ask the learner to
pick up the correct situation. Kaiser, Proffitt, Whelan and Hecht (1992) used
such situations, but though learners recognized the correct animation, they
were still unable to produce in a drawing the correct trajectory afterwards. A
scenario that includes groups of learners viewing and discussing the animations
could improve learning in encouraging learners to make their conceptions
explicit.
Enabling
learners to explore a phenomenon
In this third use, the learner actively explores the animation in order
to understand and memorize the phenomenon. Here interactivity is a key factor.
It can be a simple VCR control on the pace and direction of the animation with
a s. 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.
Whatever
the function animation serves, it can include several level of interactivity
form the simple “resume” function, to complete learner control over the pace
and direction of the animation. Roughly speaking, complete control should
benefit advanced learners more than beginners, since it supposes that learners
have the capability to monitor their inspection of the animation. Another
feature of interactivity that can be incorporated into an animation is the
possibility to change the view point. Changing viewpoint enables learners to
explore the phenomenon from different perspectives, similar to those that would
be available to an active, moving observer. Though this feature is not
difficult to implement, it is hardly used in multimedia instructions, but is
extensively used in video games.
Review of
Research on Animation and Interactivity
It seems
reasonable to assume that providing a visualization of what “really” happens in
a dynamic system will facilitate learners’ comprehension of the functioning of
the system. 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. The question whether animation is more
effective than static graphics can not been answered in the general case.
Rather the question should be: when and why is animation more effective than
static graphics?
In many
cases, animation does not add any benefit compared with static graphics, even
when the content involved change over time (Betrancourt & Tversky, 2000;
Tversky, Bauer-Morrison and Betrancourt, 2002). For example, Narayanan and
Hegarty (2002) report studies on learning in the domain of mechanics in which
animation could be expected to improve understanding of novices, since the
behavior of the system is not predictable from naïve conceptions. In one
experiment, they compared two hypermedia and two printed versions of
instruction about the functioning of flushing cistern: The first hypermedia was
designed following guidelines deriving from a cognitive model of multimedia
comprehension (Hegarty, Quilici, Narayanan, Holmquist, & Moreno, 1999); the
second hypermedia instruction was a commercially available products. The two
hypermedia instructions were compared to printed versions of either the
cognitively designed hypermedia material or the commercial product. Both
hypermedia instructions included animated and interactive graphics.
Participants spent
obtained
with mechanical systems (Hegarty, Narayanan and Freitas, 2002; Hegarty, Kriz
and Cate, 2003): Participants who studied the animation with oral commentary
did not get better comprehension scores than those who studied equivalent
static graphics with written text, but those who were asked questions that
induced them to predict the behavior of the system had better understanding of
the device than those who were not asked prediction questions.
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 (Figure 1).
Figure 1
– Snapshot of the instructional material on subduction used in Rebetez et al.
(2004).
Interactivity
may overcome these perceptual and conceptual obstacles. Control over pace and
direction could be considered as a simple surface feature at the interface
level, which would hardly affect learners’ motivation. Research showed however
that learners in control of the pace of the animation not only find the
material more enjoyable but also perform better tests of deep learning than
learners who have no control of animation. This gain has been found even when
control was minimal such as deciding when to run the next sequence (Mayer
& Chandler, 2001). Control can thus
overcome perceptual limitations, since the presence of pauses in the animation
enables learners to process the continuous flow of information without
perceptual and conceptual overload. New information can be processed and
integrated progressively in the mental model (Mayer & Chandler, 2001).
Moreover, learners who have complete control over the pace and direction of the
animation can monitor the cognitive resources (e.g., attention and processing)
they allocate to each part of the animation. Schwan and his colleagues (Schwan,
Garsoffky & Hesse, 2000; Schwan & Riempp, 2004) showed that users who
were in control of the pace and direction of a video spent more time on
difficult parts of the video.
Another
concern is the need to provide segmentation in order to help learners
conceptualize the functioning of the system. A direct way to convey
segmentation in the animation is to insert a pause after each main phase.
According to this conception, learners should benefit more from computer-paced
than user-paced control device. The research shows that users who had partial
of full control over the animation performed better in post-test than users who
had no control (Mayer & Chandler, 2001), but results are scarce and
inconsistent regarding the gain of having full control. Preliminary research
showed that in most cases novice learners do not have the knowledge to identify
the most relevant parts of the animation and do not monitor the control very effectively
(Lowe, 2003; Kettanurak, Ramamurthy & Haseman, 2001).
What Are
the Limitations of Research on Animation and Interactivity?
The
effect of using animated displays with or without interactivity has mostly been
investigated in laboratory experiments with the traditional mental model
paradigm, involving studying the material and then answering explicit and
transfer questions in a posttest with little or no delay. The effect of
animation over longer retention intervals has hardly been investigated,
primarily for practical reasons (e.g., engaging participants to come back one
or several weeks later, or ensuring that they did not study the material by
themselves in the meantime). Similarly, studies on animation in real learning
settings and using rigorous experimental methods are scarce. Though such
studies could provide interesting and ecological results, it should be made
sure that the animated and non- animated situations are equivalent with all
other respects, especially the attitude of the teacher or trainer and the
learning activities.
Research
carried out from a cognitive perspective has not shown much consideration for
the kind of learning material. Designing an animation--like designing
graphics--requires decisions on the way objects, motion and other non visual
features (force, speed, etc.) are represented. Animation involves in most cases
a mixture of representational features, which bear a resemblance to the real
object, of domain-specific or common conventional signs and symbols (e.g. arrows)
and, of primary importance, of verbal information. As some format factors have
multimedia instructional value, the semiotic information conveyed by
representational, symbolic, and verbal information and their relationships
probably affect the way learners process the material. At least designers
should ensure contiguity between verbal and graphic information, use signaling
to reinforce important information and logical links and provide commentary in
the aural modality (see Chapter 12x,y and z).
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.
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
In this
context, and given the cost of designing animated graphics compared to static
ones, the first question an instructional designer should ask is “Do I really
need to use animation?”. According to the research on animation, animation
should be used only when needed, that is when it is quite clear that learners
will benefit from an animation. Two conditions are:(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.
6.2.
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 described in Chapters 11 and 12.
- 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.
Animation
has a tremendous potential to improve understanding of dynamic information such
as trajectories, transformations or relative motions, both in physical domains
(e.g., biology, mechanics, geology) and abstract domains (e.g. electric or
magnetic forces, computer algorithms). However the research rarely found
benefit from having animation compared with traditional and “low cost”
instructions. In this chapter I mentioned the available guidelines both on the
content and design levels that designers should keep in mind when planning to
use animation. Further research is needed to fully understand “when” animation
should be used and “how” it should be designed to promote learning.
References
Baek, Y.
K. & Layne, B. H. (1988). Color, graphics, and animation in a
computer-assisted learning tutorial lesson. Journal of Computer-Based
Instruction, 15, 131–135.
Betrancourt
and Tversky (2000). Effect of computer animation on users’ performance: a
review. Le travail Humain, 63, 311–330.
Byrne, M.
D., Catrambone, R. & Stasko, J. T. (1999). Evaluating animations as student
aids in learning computer algorithms. Computers & Education, 33, 253–278.
Catrambone,
R. and Fleming Seay, A. (2002). Using animation to help students learn computer
algorithms.
Human
Factors, 44, 495–511.
Gonzales,
C. (1996). Does animation in user interfaces improve decision making? in
Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction, CHI’96 (Vancouver, April 1996), ACM
Press, 27–34
Hegarty,
M. (1992). Mental animation : Inferring motion from static displays of
mechanical systems. Journal of
experimental
psychology : Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18 (5), 1084–1102.
Hegarty
M., Kriz S. and Cate C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external
animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 2,
325–360.
Hegarty,
M., Narayanan, N. H. & Freitas, P. (2002). Understanding machines from
multimedia and hypermedia presentations. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon & A.
Graesser, Eds. The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension, pp. 357–384.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hegarty,
M., Quilici, J., Narayanan, N. H., Holmquist, S. & Moreno, R. (1999).
Designing multimedia manuals that explain how machines work: Lessons from
evaluation of a theory-based design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia, 8, 119–150.
Kaiser,
M. K., Proffitt, D. R.,Whelan, S. M. & Hecht, H. (1992). Influence of
animation on dynamical judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 18, 669–690.
Kettanurak,
V. N., Ramamurthy, K. & Haseman, D. (2001). User attitude as a mediator of
learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: an
empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 541–583.
Lowe, R.
K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in
dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 247–262.
Lowe, R.
K. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning
and Instruction,14, 257–274.
Mayer,
R.E. & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple
interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93, 390–397.
Mayer,
R.E. & Sims, K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words ?
Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multi-media learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 389–401.
Mayer,
R.E., Heiser, J. and Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on Multimedia
learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198.
Narayanan,
N.H. & Hegarty, M. (2002). Multimedia design for communication of dynamic
information.
International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 279–315.
Rebetez,
C., Sangin, M., Betrancourt, M., & Dillenbourg, P. (2004). Effects of
collaboration in the context of learning from animations, in Proceedings of
EARLI SIG meeting on Comprehension of Text and
Graphics:
Basic and applied issues, 9-11 September 2004, Valencia (Spain), 187–192.
Rieber,
L. P. (1989). The effects of computer animated elaboration strategies and
practice on factual and application learning in an elementary science lesson.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5 , 431–444.
Rieber,
L. P. & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Effects of textual and animated orienting
activities and practice on learning from computer-based instruction. Computers
in the Schools, 5, 77–89.
Schnotz,
W. (2002). Enabling, Facilitating, and Inhibiting Effects in Learning from
Animated Pictures. Paper presented at the Dynamic Visualizations workshop,
Knowledge Media Research Centre, Tübingen.
Schnotz,
W., & Lowe, R.K. (2003). External and internal representations in
multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction. 13, 117–123.
Schnotz,
W., Boeckheler, J., & Grzondziel, H. (1999). Individual and co-operative
learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 14, 245–265.
Schwan,
S., Garsoffky, B. & Hesse, F.W. (2000). Do film cuts facilitate the
perceptual and cognitive organization of activity sequences ? Memory and
Cognition, 28, 214–223.
Schwan,
S. & Riempp, R. (2004). The cognitive benefits of interactive videos:
learning to tie nautical knots.
Learning
and Instruction,14, 293–305.
Tversky,
B. Bauer-Morrison, J., & Betrancourt, M. (2002) Animation: Can it
facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.
Zacks,
J., Tversky, B . & Iyer, G. (2001). Perceiving, remembering, and
communicating structure in events.
Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 29–58.
Glossary
Animation:
animation refers to any application that generates a series of frames, so that
each frame appears as an alteration of the previous one, and in which the
sequence of frames is determined either by the designer or the user.
Dynamic
information: information that involves a change over time, such as translations
(trajectories, motions), transformation (deformation, relative positions and
actions) and progression (adjunction or subtraction of elements).
Control:
the possibility for the learner to act upon the pace and/or the direction of
the succession of frames in a multimedia presentation.
Interactivity:
the possibility for the learner to act upon what will appear on the next frame
by action on parameters (e.g., by clicking directly on sensitive areas or by
scaling up and down cursors) in a multimedia presentation.
