learning from animations and static pictures: the impact ... · impact of spatial ability and...
TRANSCRIPT
ruhr-university bochum
- Cognitive Load Conference 2009 -
Learning from animations and static pictures: The impact of spatial ability and cognitive loadimpact of spatial ability and cognitive load
Ferdinand Stebner, Morena Lebens & Joachim WirthRuhr-University Bochum
Maria OpfermannDuisburg-Essen University
ruhr-university bochum
Aims and objectives of the current study
Learning with animations and static pictures: Gaining an insight aboutthe impact of the type of visualization and different aspects of spatialability on
− learning outcome (factual knowledge) andlearning outcome (factual knowledge) and−mental efficiency (cf. Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1993).
ruhr-university bochum
Theoretical backgroundAnimations vs. static pictures: Heterogeneous findings of research(Betrancourt & Tversky, 2000; Höffler & Leutner, 2007)
– „[…] we need to focus more attention on student‘s internal visualization abilities“ (Hegarty, 2004, S. 349).
Two key factors of spatial ability (Carroll, 1993)– Visualization (Paper Folding Test (PFT); Ekstrom et al., 1976)– Spatial Relations (Card Rotation Test (CRT); Ekstrom et al., 1976)
– …
The impact of spatial ability for multimedia learning– Ability-as-enhancer/ Ability-as-compensator hypothesis (Mayer & Sims, 1994)
P F ldi T d C d R i T– Paper-Folding Test and Card Rotation Test (e.g. Brünken et al., 2000; Höffler, 2007; Mayer & Massa, 2003; Mayer & Sims, 1994)
Höffler (2007): Learning with dynamic visualizations
– Ability-as-compensator effect with Paper Folding TestNo interactions with Card Rotation Test– No interactions with Card Rotation Test
ruhr-university bochum
Theoretical background
Requirements for generating mental models
– Paper Folding Test vs. Card Rotation Test, differences in:− Ordering static information into a meaningful sequence (PFT)− …
PFT
CRT
– Animations vs. static pictures, differences in:− Ordering static information into a meaningful sequence (static pictures)− …
ruhr-university bochum
Research question
The ability to order static information into a meaningful sequence:
– Is this the reason for Höffler‘s varying impact of the spatial abilityIs this the reason for Höffler s varying impact of the spatial ability tests?
– Does this ability lead to higher learning outcome and higher mental– Does this ability lead to higher learning outcome and higher mental efficiency, especially when learning with static pictures?
ruhr-university bochum
Methods: Material
Example of the learning environment: Chemical processes during washing laundry
Visualization: Dynamic and static version
Same narration for both versions
2D presentation
L h 3 dLength: 73 seconds
Puristic design (low complexity)
Höffler (2007)
ruhr-university bochum
Methods: Material
-Logical Ordering Test (LOT)
Designed to assess the ability to mentally generate logical orders of static information by recognizing the transformation of objects
ruhr-university bochum
Methods: Material
Mental efficiency calculation
Mental Effort (translated):
When dealing with the learning material, my mental effort was…
very low low rather low medium rather high high very high
_______________________________________________________________________
Mental efficiency = Z Performance – Z Mental Effort
√2
(cf. Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1993).
ruhr-university bochum
Methods: Participants and procedureSample
102 university students– M = 24.37 years (SD = 2.48)– 78 female, 24 male– Educational Science students– 49 animation version, 53 static picture version
Procedure
Pretest– Background variables
Domain specific knowledge– Domain specific knowledge– Spatial ability (PFT, CRT, LOT)
Implementation of the learning environmentImplementation of the learning environment
Posttest– Mental effort, perceived difficulty itemsMental effort, perceived difficulty items– Learning outcome
ruhr-university bochum
Results: Different aspects of spatial ability
Correlations: Spatial ability tests and learning outcome/ mental efficiency
N = 102 PFT CRT LOT
PFT 1 .22* .40**
CRT .22* 1 .23*
LOT .40** .23* 1
Learning outcome .44** .29* .51**
Anim./Static .48** / .41* .31 / .25 .38* / .65**Mental efficiency .27** .38** .36**
Anim./Static .27 /.28** .58** / .17 .32 / .45*** Correlations significant on .05 level (2-tailed)** Correlations significant on .01 level (2-tailed)
ruhr-university bochum
Results: Learning outcome and mental efficiency
Main effects:
(1) Animations were superior to static pictures.(2) High spatial ability students outperformed low spatial ability students.
Analysis of variance df F p Eta²
Learning outcomeVersion 1 4.765 .031 .047
Spatial ability (LOT) 1 19.578 .000 .168
Mental efficiencyVersion 1 4.681 .034 .070
Spatial ability (LOT) 1 18.670 .000 .231
ruhr-university bochum
Descriptive Results: ATI Interactions (condition*spatial ability)−Ability-as-compensator effect
Hi h ti l bilit t d t t di d t f t ti i t− High spatial ability students compensate disadvantages of static pictures− Especially low ability students benefit from animations
Learning outcome Mental efficiencyLearning outcome Mental efficiency
p > .05
ruhr-university bochum
Discussion and implicationsThe ability measured by our new test leads learners to higher learning outcome as well as to higher mental efficiency.
On a descriptive level, this ability seems to compensate the disadvantages of static pictures in comparison to animations.
Using this instrument enables researchers to derive a more sophisticated view on the requirements of animations and static pictures p q pand also on spatial ability and its classification.
Measuring spatial ability requires researchers to choose the appropriateMeasuring spatial ability requires researchers to choose the appropriate tests.
Future researchFuture research
– Replication with a new posttest and/ or different sample
– Replication with different learning contents/ environmentsReplication with different learning contents/ environments
– Validating our new test by combining with different [email protected] 13
ruhr-university bochum
LiteratureAyres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Making instructional animations more effective: A cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 21, 695–700.
Betrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp 287–296) Cambridge: Cambridge University Presshandbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287 296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Betrancourt, M., & Tversky, B. (2000). Effect of computer animation on users' performance: A review. Le Travail Humain, 63(4), 311–329.
Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., & Leutner, D. (2000). Räumliches Vorstellungsvermögen und Lernen mit Multimedia. In D. Leutner & R.Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., & Leutner, D. (2000). Räumliches Vorstellungsvermögen und Lernen mit Multimedia. In D. Leutner & R. Brünken (Eds.), Neue Medien in Unterricht, Aus- und Weiterbildung, Neue Medien in Unterricht, Aus- und Weiterbildung (pp. 37–46). Münster: Waxmann.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., & Harman, H. H. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Höffler, T. N. (2007). Lernen mit dynamischen Visualisierungen: Metaanalyse und experimentelle Untersuchungen zu einem naturwissenschaftlichen Lerninhalt. Essen, unveröffentlichte Dissertation.
Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 833–846.
Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words?: Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389–401.
Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35(4), 737–743.