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

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 learners Type 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 Symbolic processing Analogical mapping

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 NEW Attract 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 to relevant features Working memory load Perception of motion 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 works

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006 text only text + animation Retention difficulties Palmiter & Elkerton, 1993 TrainingImmediate 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 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 Type of animation matters

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 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

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

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

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

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

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 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 Inference score (z-score ) Solo Duo Single Pairs => Split interaction effect?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 < Results (2): learning performance

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May Results (3): control actions Total control Partial control Median Overall (2-136) 33 (1-34)

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

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May nd 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 : Material

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

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May rd experiment: Goals Control is not interactive enough Interactivity as a higher degree of control No interactivity High controlSimulation + control group

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May Material and procedure

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

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).