This article discusses the affordances of the explanatory animation creation process on the person who makes the animation, specifically, how his or her own conceptual understanding of any chosen topic is challenged, deepened, and ultimately consolidated throughout this process. Third generation activity theory was used in this study as a methodological lens to examine the explanatory animation process at various stages as both a tool and an object. Whilst educational animations have traditionally been the result of collaborations between professional animators and educators, this article documents how children can be engaged in this same process, as a means in itself, for the sake of their own learning. Our claim here is that the children’s mental models, as depicted through the animation key frames, functioned as both flexible models and diagnostic tools.
AdamsP (2006) Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. Education34(3): 243–257.
2.
BaddeleyAD (1999) Essentials of Human Memory. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
3.
BatemanJA (2008) Multimodality and Genre. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
BurnAParkerD (2003) Tiger’s big plan: Multimodality and the moving image. In: JewittCKressG (eds) Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang, 56–72.
5.
CallonM (1992) The dynamics of techno-economic networks. In: CoomsR. (eds) Technological Change and Company Strategies. London: Academic Press.
6.
CareyS (1985) Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
7.
CawsP (1974) Operational, representational, and explanatory models. American Anthropologist76(1): 1–10.
8.
ChandlerPSwellerJ (1991) Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction8(4): 293–332.
9.
ClementJ (2008) The role of explanatory models in teaching for conceptual change. In: VosniadouS (ed.) International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change. New York: Routledge, 417–452.
10.
DanielsH (2012) The interface between the sociology of practice and the analysis of talk in the study of change in educational settings. In: ValsinerJ (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 817–829.
11.
DiakidoyINKendeouP (2001) Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: A comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning and Instruction11: 1–20.
12.
FleurkeN (2011) Imaging the storyboard: On networks, concepts and communication. International Journal of the Image1(3): 155–162.
13.
FloridiL (2011) A defence of constructionism: Philosophy as conceptual engineering. Metaphilosophy42(3): 282–304.
14.
GibsonJJ (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
GilbertJK (2007) Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In: GilbertJK (ed.) Visualization in Science Education. Netherlands: Springer, 9–27.
16.
GoldmanSR (2008) Animating the issues for research on animation. In: LoweRSchnotzW (eds) Learning with Animation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 357–370.
Hubscher-YoungerTNarayananNH (2008) Turning the tables: Investigating characteristics and efficacy of student-authored animations and multimedia representations. In: LoweRSchnotzW (eds) Learning with Animation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 235–259.
John-SteinerV (2000) Creative Collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
JonassenDH (2008) Model building for conceptual change. In: VosniadouS (ed.) International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change. New York: Routledge, 676–693.
22.
KirschnerPASwellerJClarkRE (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist41(2): 75–86.
23.
KressGVan LeeuwenT (2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.
24.
LatourB (1992) Where are the missing masses? Sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In: BijkerWELawJ (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 225–258.
MayerRE (1993) The instructive metaphor. In: OrtonyA (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press, 561–578.
28.
MayerRE (2001) Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
MayerRE (2005) Introduction to multimedia learning. In: MayerRE (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–18.
30.
MayerRE (2009) Multimedia Learning, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
MillerGA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review63: 81–97.
32.
MitchellCDe LangeNMoletsaneR (2011) Before the cameras roll: Drawing storyboards to address gendered poverty. In: TheronL. (eds) Picturing Research: Drawing as Visual Methodology. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 219–231.
33.
NarayananNH (2007) The impact of cognitively based design of expository multimedia. In: AlamargotD. (eds) Written Documents in the Workplace. Oxford: Elsevier, 243–259.
34.
NersessianNJ (1984) Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff/Kluwer Academic.
35.
NersessianNJ (2002) The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In: CarruthersP. (eds) The Cognitive Basis of Science. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 133–153.
36.
NersessianNJ (2008) Creating Scientific Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
NersessianNJ (2012) Engineering concepts: The interplay between concept formation and modeling practices in bioengineering sciences. Mind, Culture, and Activity19(3): 222–239.
38.
OsbourneRFreybergP (1985) Learning in Science: The Implications of Children’s Science. Hong Kong: Heinemann.
39.
PrainVTytlerR (2013) Representing and learning in science. In: TytlerR. (eds) Constructing Representations to Learn in Science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 1–14.
40.
RappD (2007) Mental models: Theoretical issues for visualizations in science education. In: GilbertJK (ed.) Visualization in Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer, 43–60.
41.
ResnickM (2007) All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, 13–15 June, Washington DC, 1-6.
42.
RieberLP (1996) Animation as a distractor to learning. International Journal of Instructional Media23(1): 53–57.
43.
RobinB (2008) The effective uses of digital storytelling as a teaching and learning tool. Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy through the Communicative and Visual Arts, Vol. 2. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, 429–440.
44.
RobinBTillmanDAlexanderC (2010) Creating digital video. In: BullGBellL (eds) Teaching with Digital Video. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education, 165–182.
45.
SimonHA (1974) How big is a chunk?Science183(4124): 482–488.
46.
SullivanG (2005) Art Practice as Research: Inquiry in the Visual Arts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
TverskyB. (2008) Enriching animations. In: LoweRSchnotzW (eds) Learning with Animation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 263–285.
49.
VailleJA (ed.) (1998) Guidelines for the Evaluation of Instructional Technology Resources. Modesto, CA: Stanislaus County Office of Education.
50.
VeresovN (2013) Cultural–Historical Research Methodology: What It Is and How Does It Work?Keynote address presented to the Deakin University Methodology Symposium, Melbourne, November.
51.
VygotskyL (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52.
VygotskyL (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
VygotskyL (1987) Collected Works of LS Vygotsky, Vol. 1, ed. RW RieberRWAS CartonASNew York: Plenum Press.
54.
WellsB (2011) Frame of reference: Toward a definition of animation. Animation Practice, Process & Production1(1): 11–32.
