Animations of scientific concepts may improve comprehension by explaining and visualizing the steps of complex processes, but unless they engage student interest in meaningful ways, their effectiveness as teaching tools is limited. We achieve this through a novel approach to animation design that includes the target audience (undergraduates) so that the resultant animations align with their learner characteristics.
Objective:
This case study investigated whether undergraduate-generated animations were more effective educational tools than informationally equivalent text-and-illustration presentations and whether learners’ background influenced the relative benefits of animations.
Method:
Incorporating feedback from faculty and undergraduates, we created animations and text-plus-illustration content to explain how neural signals are generated and measured by scalp electrodes. Neuroscience majors and non-majors were presented with either animations or static presentations followed by comprehension and engagement assessments.
Results:
Both groups showed comprehension and engagement benefits for animations. Although majors showed better overall comprehension, animations improved comprehension for non-majors over static presentations.
Conclusion:
When educational content is directed for a target audience, animations can be more effective teaching tools for a broader student audience.
Teaching Implications:
The relevance of online tools for remote instruction makes animations, developed for and by undergraduates, important tools for effectively introducing difficult content.
AinsworthS. (2008). How do animations influence learning? In RobinsonD.SchrawG. (Eds.), Current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction: Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 37–67). Information Age Publishing.
Arslan-AriI. (2017). Learning from instructional animations: How does prior knowledge mediate the effect of visual cues?Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12222
4.
BaddeleyA. D.HitchG. J. (1974). Working memory. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60452-1
5.
BennettL. T.DwyerF. D. (1994). The effect of varied visual interactive strategies in facilitating student achievement of different education objectives. International Journal of Media, 21(1), 23–32.
BétrancourtM. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), Handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287–296). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.019
8.
BloomB. S.EngelhartM. D.FurstE. J.HillW. H.KrathwohlD. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals (Vol. 1). David McKay Company.
9.
BonnerJ. (1988). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction: Revisited. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 36(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02770012
BukachC.StewartK.CouperusJ. W.ReedC. L. (2019). Using collaborative models to overcome obstacles to undergraduate publication in cognitive neuroscience. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 549. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00549
12.
ButcherK.AreysP.PassF. (2014). The multimedia principle. Cambridge University Press.
13.
ChanLinL.-J. (1998). Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25(3), 166–175.
14.
Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, National Research Council. (1999). Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. National Academy Press.
15.
CrouchC. H.MazurE. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249
16.
DalyC. J.BullochJ. M.MaM.AidulisD. (2016). A comparison of animated versus static images in an instructional multimedia presentation. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2015
17.
de KoningB. B.TabbersH. K.RikersR. M. J. P.PaasF. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 113–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9098-7
GuyR. (2012). Overcoming misconceptions in neurophysiology learning: An approach using color-coded animations. Advances in Physiology Education, 36(3), 226–228. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00047.2012
20.
HarrisonS. M. (1995). A comparison of still, animated, or non-illustrated on-line help with written or spoken instructions in a graphical user interface. In KatzI. R.MackR.MarksL.RossonM. B.NielsenJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 82–89). ACM Press.
21.
HaysT. A. (1996). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term and long-term comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.2190/60Y9-BQG9-80HX-UEML
22.
HegartyM.KrizS.CateC. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 325–360. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2104_1
23.
HegartyM.QuiliciJ.NarayananN. H.HolmquistS.MorenoR. (1999). Multimedia instruction: Lessons from evaluation of a theory-based design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(2), 119–150.
24.
HegartyM.SimsV. K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22(4), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200867
HwangI.TamM.LamS. L.LamP. (2012). Review of use of animation as a supplementary learning material of physiology content in four academic years. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(4), 368–377.
27.
IbrahimM.AntonenkoP. D.GreenwoodC. M.WheelerD. (2012). Effects of segmenting, signaling, and weeding on learning from educational video. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.585993
28.
KalyugaS. (2014). The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. In MayerR. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 576–597). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369028
29.
KalyugaS.ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.126
30.
KayR. H. (2012). Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: A comprehensive review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 820–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.011
31.
KehoeC.StaskoJ.TaylorA. (2001). Rethinking the evaluation of algorithm animations as learning aids: An observational study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0409
KreinerD. S. (1997). Guided notes and interactive methods for teaching with videotapes. Teaching of Psychology, 24(3), 183–185. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2403_6
34.
KrizS.HegartyM. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(11), 911–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.06.005
LawsonT. J.BodleJ. H.HouletteM. A.HaubnerR. R. (2006). Guiding questions enhance student learning from educational videos. Teaching of Psychology, 33(1), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3301_7
37.
LoweR. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00018-X
38.
LoweR. K.BoucheixJ.-M. (2008). Learning from animated diagrams: How are mental model built? In StapletonG.HowseJ.LeeJ. (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 266–281). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87730-1_25
MayerR. E.JohnsonC. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.380
42.
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
O’DayD. H. (2007). The value of animations in biology teaching: A study of long-term memory retention. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(3), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0002
45.
PaikE. S.SchrawG. (2013). Learning with animation and illusions of understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030281
46.
RackawayC. (2012). Video killed the textbook star? Use of multimedia supplements to enhance student learning. Journal of Political Science Education, 8(2), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2012.667684
47.
ReberR.WinkielmanP.SchwarzN. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00008
48.
RussellJ.KozmaR.ZohdyM.SusskindT.BeckerD.RussellC. (2000). SMV: Chem (Simultaneous multiple representations in chemistry). John Wiley.
49.
Santiago-RomanA.PapadopoulosC.OhlandM.StrevelerR.DollarA.AtmanC.TurnsJ.SaigalP. E. (2011, June). Panel discussion: Completing the cycle of innovation in engineering education by fostering implementation of best practices[Paper presentation]. 2011 ASEE annual conference & exposition, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--18446
50.
ScheiterK.GerjetsP.CatramboneR. (2006). Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.009
51.
SchmidR. F.BernardR. M.BorokhovskiE.TamimR. M.AbramiP. C.SurkesM. A.WadeC. A.WoodsJ. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002
52.
SchnotzW.PicardE.HronA. (1993). How do successful and unsuccessful earners use texts and graphics?Learning and Instruction, 3(3), 181–199.
53.
SpanjersI. A.van GogT.van MerriënboerJ. J. (2010). A theoretical analysis of how segmentation of dynamic visualizations optimizes students’ learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9135-6
TrevisanM. S.OkiA. C.SengerP. L. (2009). An exploratory study of the effects of time compressed animated delivery multimedia technology on student. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(3), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9200-4
57.
TverskyB.MorrisonJ.BétrancourtM. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017
WoutersP. J. M.PaasF.van MerriënboerJ. J. G. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 645–675. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320320
60.
YangE.AndreT.GreenboweT. J. (2003). Spatial ability and the impact of visualization. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126784
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
