slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Mireille Bétrancourt PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Mireille Bétrancourt

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 50

Mireille Bétrancourt - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 230 Views
  • Uploaded on

TECFA Technologies pour la Formation et l’Apprentissage Multimedia animation: cognitive tool or computer gadget? Mireille Bétrancourt TECFA, University of Geneva Few words on learning from multimedia documents Examples of research Outline The case of computer animation

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Mireille Bétrancourt' - JasminFlorian


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

TECFA

Technologies pour la Formation et l’Apprentissage

Multimedia animation: cognitive tool or computer gadget?

Mireille Bétrancourt

TECFA,

University of Geneva

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide2

Few words on learning from multimedia documents

Examples of research

Outline

The case of computer animation

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

multimedia learning

Multimedia learning

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

the multimedia principle

handle

piston

inlet valve

outlet valve

The Multimedia principle

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

multimedia effect
Multimedia effect

Adding illustrations in text instruction :

Is beneficial to learning in 80% studies

improves memorisation with an average gain of 36%

improves comprehension and transfer

Denis, 1984; Levie & Lentz, 1982

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

multimedia effect6

Depends on various factors!

Multimedia effect

Type of illustration

Type of learners

Presentation format

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

text and picture integration

Model construction

Mental model

Model inspection

Thematic selection

Conceptual organisation

Visual image

Visual organisation

perception

Text and picture integration

Propositional representation

Semantic processing

Symbolic processing

Surface

representation

Analogical mapping

Verbal organisation

Sub-semantic processing

Schnotz et al., 1999

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide8

handle

piston

inlet valve

outlet valve

Multimedia effect… and conversely

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.

Mayer & Gallini, 1990

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

the case of animation

The case of animation

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

types of animation

Attract attention

Inform about an on-going process

NEW

Types of animation

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

types of animation11

Attract attention

Inform about an on-going process

Demonstrations

Interactive simulations

Types of animation

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide12

The results

Very often, animation is not more effective than static

visualization

Is animation beneficial?

The legitimate assumption

Animation should promote understanding of dynamic systems

Tversky et al., 2002; Scheiter, Gerjets & Catrambone, 2005

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

animation should support learning
Animation should support learning

Visualizes spatial changes over time

Lowe, 2004

Supports the construction of a ‘runnable mental model’

Mayer, 2001

Text-picture complementarity at the semiotic level

Levin, Anglin et Carney, 1989

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

why animation does not help
Why animation does not help?

Ex

Perception of motion

Attention paid to

relevant features

Working

memory load

Ex

Ex

Conception of a functional MM

Lowe, 2003; Schnotz, 2002

Tversky, Bauer-Morrison & Betrancourt, 2002

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

clt and animation

Overwhelming effect

intrinsic

extraneous

germane

Underwhelming effect

germane

intrinsic

extraneous

germane

CLT and animation

intrinsic

extraneous

germane

Lowe, 2004

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide16

Perception difficulties

Trajectory of the point ?

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide17

Perception difficulties

Kaiser, Profitt & Whelan, 1992

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide18

Conceptual difficulties

How a toilet works

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide19

text + animation

Delayed test

Retention difficulties

Performance

text + animation

text only

Training

Immediate test

Palmiter & Elkerton, 1993

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

animation can be beneficial
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

Some experiments on animation

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

1 continuity snapshots
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
1. Type of animation matters

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

1 methods
1. Methods

Participants

160 university students, novices in the domain

Material

Two animations with narration on Venus transit and rift formation

Factorial Design

Learning situation

(individual vs.

collaborative)

Format of material

(animated vs. static)

Snapshots

(with vs. without)

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

1 procedure

Welcome - consent form

Transit of Venus

Pre-test

Intro

Material

Cog. load

Post-test

Rift formation

Pre-test

Intro

Material

Cog. load

Post-test

corsi blocks+ paper-folding

End

Indiv learners

1. Procedure

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

1 results 1 reflection discussion times

Format: no diff.

Collaboration: p<.01

1. Results (1): Reflection - discussion times

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

1 results 2 retention performance

Format: p<.01

Collaboration: NS

1. Results (2) : retention performance

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

1 results 3 comprehension
1. Results (3) : comprehension

Format: p<.05

Collaboration: NS

Interaction collaboration * material: p<.01

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)

0.20

Solo

0.00

Inference score (z-score)

Duo

-0.2010

No snapshot

Snapshots

Snapshot condition

1. Results (4): snapshots and situation

Single

Pairs

=> Split interaction effect?

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

results 5 subjective workload
Results (5): subjective workload

Format: NS

Collaboration: p<.05

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

1 summary
1. Summary

A continuous animation improved retention performance compared to a series of static frames.

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

Learners in pairs reported lower mental effort than single.

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

2 control and interactivity
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

slide34

Mayer & Chandler, 2001

Schwan & Riempp, 2004

2. Control and interactivity: hypotheses

?

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide35

Mayer & Chandler, 2001

Cognive load hyp.

Attention management hyp.

Schwan & Riempp, 2004

2. Control and interactivity: hypotheses

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide36

2.1. First experiment: Methods

Participants

75 psychology students (16 men, 59 women)

Material

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide37

Procedure

10 mn

Preliminary testing

Study phase

Retention and inference tests

2.1. First experiment: Methods

Level of control

Experimental factor

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide38

Transfer: F (2, 72) = 3.887; p < .05

2.1. Results (1):Retention and Inference

Retention

Inference

Total

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide39

2.1. Results (2):learning performance

cursus effect :

F (1,73) = 13.96, p <.0001

Interaction cursus * control

F (2, 69) = 3.873, p < .05

Total

Partial

No control

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide40

2.1. Results (3):control actions

Median

Overall

Total control

16

134 (2-136)

Partial control

10.5

33 (1-34)

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

slide41

2.1. Results (4):control actions

Total

Partial

No control

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

2 2 2nd experiment a few words
2.2. 2nd experiment: a few words

Investigating the split interaction effect

Two factors

Level of control (low vs. high)

Learning situation: individual vs collaborative

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

2 2 material
2.2: Material

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

2 2 results
2.2. Results

Control: NS

Setting: NS

Interaction control * setting: p<.05

% Retention

Where did the split attention go?

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

2 3 3rd experiment goals
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
2.3. Material and procedure

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

2 3 preliminary results scores for single learners
2.3. Preliminary results: scores for single learners

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

directions for the future
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

How to tackle text picture combination at the semio-cognitive level?

How to address interindividual variability?

What do we mean by « learning effectiveness »?

Critical issues in multimedia research

Ecological situations: long lasting learning task, complex diagrams, motivated learners…

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

thank you for your kind attention
Thank you for your kind attention!

http://tecfa.unige.ch

Many thanks to research assistants: Cyril Rebetez and Mirweis Sangin (PhD students), Nicolas Realini, Baptiste Ossipow and Rolf Wipfli (Master and Bachelor students).

M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006