1. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Mireille Bétrancourt TECFA, University of Geneva Multimedia animation: cognitive tool or computer gadget? TECFA Technologies pour la Formation et l’Apprentissage

2. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Outline The case of computer animation Examples of research Few words on learning from multimedia documents

3. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Multimedia learning

4. 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

5. 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

6. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Multimedia effect Depends on various factors! Type of learners Type of illustration Presentation format

7. 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 Symbolic processing Analogical mapping

8. 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.

9. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 The case of animation

10. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Types of animation NEW Attract attention Inform about an on-going process

11. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Types of animation Demonstrations Attract attention Inform about an on-going process Interactive simulations

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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 to relevant features Working memory load Perception of motion Ex

15. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 CLT and animation germaneintrinsic extraneous germaneintrinsic extraneous Overwhelming effect germaneintrinsic extraneous Underwhelming effect germane Lowe, 2004

16. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Perception difficulties Trajectory of the point ?

17. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Kaiser, Profitt & Whelan, 1992 Perception difficulties

18. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Conceptual difficulties How a toilet works works

19. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 text only text + animation Retention difficulties Palmiter & Elkerton, 1993 TrainingImmediate test Delayed test text + animation Performance

20. 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

21. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Some experiments on animation

22. 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).

23. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 1. Type of animation matters

24. 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)

25. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

26. 1. Procedure Welcome - consent form Pre-testMaterialCog. loadPost-test Rift formation Intro Endcorsi blocks+ paper-folding Indiv learners Pre-testMaterialCog. loadPost-test Transit of Venus Intro

27. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 1. Results (1) : Reflection - discussion times Format: no diff. Collaboration: p<.01

28. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 1. Results (2) : retention performance Format: p<.01 Collaboration: NS

29. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 1. Results (3) : comprehension Format: p<.05 Collaboration: NS Interaction collaboration * material: p<.01

30. 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 snapshotSnapshots Snapshot condition -0.2010 0.00 0.20 Inference score (z-score ) Solo Duo Single Pairs => Split interaction effect?

31. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 Results (5) : subjective workload Format: NS Collaboration: p<.05

32. 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

33. 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

34. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 2. Control and interactivity: hypotheses ? Mayer & Chandler, 2001 Schwan & Riempp, 2004

35. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 2. Control and interactivity: hypotheses Mayer & Chandler, 2001 Schwan & Riempp, 2004 Cognive load hyp. Attention management hyp.

36. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 2.1. First experiment: Methods Participants Material 75 psychology students (16 men, 59 women)

37. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 2.1. First experiment: Methods Experimental factor Level of control Procedure Preliminary testing 10 mn Study phaseRetention and inference tests

38. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 2.1. Results (1): Retention and Inference Transfer: F (2, 72) = 3.887; p <.05 RetentionInferenceTotal

39. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 TotalPartialNo control cursus effect : F (1,73) = 13.96, p <.0001 Interaction cursus * control F (2, 69) = 3.873, p <.05 2.1. Results (2): learning performance

40. 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)

41. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 TotalPartialNo control 2.1. Results (4): control actions

42. 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

43. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 2.2: Material

44. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 2.2. Results Control: NS Setting: NS Interaction control * setting: p<.05 % Retention Where did the split attention go?

45. 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 controlSimulation + control group

46. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 2.3. Material and procedure

47. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 2.3. Preliminary results: scores for single learners

48. 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

49. 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 »?

50. 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