m. betrancourt - kmrc tuebingen, may 2006 mireille bétrancourt tecfa, university of geneva...
Post on 20-Dec-2015
217 views
TRANSCRIPT
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Mireille Bétrancourt
TECFA,University of Geneva
Multimedia animation: cognitive tool
or computer gadget?
TECFATechnologies pour la
Formation et l’Apprentissage
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Outline
The case of computer animation
Examples of research
Few words on learning from multimedia documents
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Multimedia learning
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
handle
piston
inlet valve
outlet valve
The bicycle pump.
When the handle is pulled up, the piston goes up, the inlet valves opens and air enters the lower part of the cylinder.
The Multimedia principle
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Multimedia effect
Adding illustrations in text instruction :
improves memorisation with an average gain of 36%
improves comprehension and transfer
Is beneficial to learning in 80% studies
Denis, 1984; Levie & Lentz, 1982
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Multimedia effect
Depends on various factors!
Type of learnersType of illustration
Presentation format
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Verbal organisation
Propositional representation
Surface representation
Semantic processing
Sub-semantic processing
Model inspection
Conceptual organisation
Mental model
Model construction
Text and picture integration
Schnotz et al., 1999
Visual organisation
Visual image
perception
Thematic selection
Sym
bolic
pro
cess
ing
Ana
logi
cal m
appi
ng
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Multimedia effect… and conversely
Mayer & Gallini, 1990
handle
piston
inlet valve
outlet valve
The bicycle pump.
When the handle is pulled up, the piston goes up, the inlet valves opens and air enters the lower part of the cylinder.
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
The case of animation
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Types of animation
NEWAttract attention
Inform about an on-going process
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Types of animation
Demonstrations
Attract attention
Inform about an on-going process
Interactive simulations
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Is animation beneficial?
Animation should promote understanding of dynamic systems
The legitimate assumption
Tversky et al., 2002; Scheiter, Gerjets & Catrambone, 2005
Very often, animation is not more effective than static visualization
The results
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Animation should support 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
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Why animation does not help?
Conception of a functional MM
Lowe, 2003; Schnotz, 2002 Tversky, Bauer-Morrison & Betrancourt, 2002
Attention paid torelevant features
Working memory load
Perception of motion Ex
Ex
Ex
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
CLT and animation
germaneintrinsic extraneous
germaneintrinsic extraneous
Overwhelming effect
germaneintrinsic extraneous
Underwhelming effect
germane
Lowe, 2004
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Perception difficulties
Trajectory of the point ?
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Kaiser, Profitt & Whelan, 1992
Perception difficulties
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Conceptual difficulties
How a toilet works
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
text only
text + animation
Retention difficulties
Palmiter & Elkerton, 1993
Training Immediate test Delayed test
text + animation
Performance
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)
Learning situation(individual vs.collaborative)
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
1. 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
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Single Pairs
Reflection times
static
animation
1. Results (1): Reflection - discussion times
Format: no diff.Collaboration: p<.01
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Single Pairs
PErcent correct
static snapshots
animation
1. Results (2) : retention performance
Format: p<.01Collaboration: NS
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
1. Results (3) : comprehension
Format: p<.05Collaboration: NS
Interaction collaboration * material: p<.01
0102030405060708090
Single Pairs
Percent correct
static snapshots
animation
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
1. Results (4): snapshots and situation
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)
No snapshot Snapshots
Snapshot condition
-0.2010
0.00
0.20
Infe
ren
ce s
core
(z-
sco
re) Solo
Duo
Single
Pairs
=> Split interaction effect?
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Results (5): subjective workload
Format: NSCollaboration: p<.05
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
1. Summary
A continuous animation improved retention performance compared to a series of static frames.
Learners in pairs reported lower mental effort than single.
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
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
Schwan & Riempp, 2004
Cognive load hyp.
Attention management hyp.
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.1. First experiment: Methods
Participants
Material
75 psychology students (16 men, 59 women)
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.1. First experiment: Methods
Experimental factor Level of control
Procedure
Preliminary testing
10 mn
Study phase Retention and inference tests
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.1. Results (1): Retention and Inference
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
RepPOT RepINF RepTOT
TC
PC
NC
TC PC NC TC PC NC TC PC NC
Transfer: F (2, 72) = 3.887; p < .05
Retention Inference Total
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Total Partial No control
cursus effect :F (1,73) = 13.96, p <.0001
Interaction cursus * controlF (2, 69) = 3.873, p < .05
2.1. Results (2): learning performance
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.1. Results (3): control actions
Total control
Partial control
Median Overall
16
10.5
134 (2-136)
33 (1-34)
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
Total Partial No control
2.1. Results (4): control actions
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.2. 2nd experiment: a few words
Two factors
Level of control (low vs. high)
Learning situation: individual vs collaborative
Investigating the split interaction effect
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.2: Material
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
2.2. Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Single Pairs
Low control
High control
Control: NSSetting: NS
Interaction control * setting: p<.05%
Ret
enti
on
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
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
No interactivity High control Simulation control group
M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006
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 semio-
cognitive 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!
Many thanks to research assistants: Cyril Rebetez and Mirweis Sangin (PhD students), Nicolas Realini, Baptiste Ossipow and Rolf Wipfli (Master and Bachelor students).
http://tecfa.unige.ch