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
