Animation of various types has been used increasingly in different disciplines in computer-based learning environments to facilitate achievements of different kinds of learning objectives. However, the result of empirical animation studies has been mixed and mostly discouraging. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the instructional effectiveness of different types of enhancement strategies used to complement animated instruction. Eleven hundred and twenty-four college-level students participated in 12 independent experimental studies. The uniqueness of this meta-analysis lies in the fact that the instructional content and four independent criterion measures were held constant in all studies. One hundred and twenty-four effect sizes were calculated. The results indicate that when “conventional” one dimensional animation strategies are employed to complement animated instruction, small to moderate effect sizes are realized and that the various enhancement strategies were not equally effective in facilitating different types of educational objectives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlesandriniK. L.RigneyJ. (1981). Pictorial presentation and review strategies in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 465–474.
2.
AusmanB. (2005). Effect of animation and verbally redundant audio in facilitating achievement. State College, The Pennsylvania State University.
3.
AusmanB.LinH.KidwaiK.MunyofuM.SwainJ.DwyerF. M. (2004). Effects of varied animation strategies in facilitating animated instruction. Proceedings of selected research papers. In SimonsonM.CrawfordM. (Eds.), Proceedings of AECT: Association for Educational Communications & Technology Research and Theory Division (pp. 49–58). Chicago, IL: AECT.
4.
AusubelD. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning: An introduction to school learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
5.
CaraballoA. (1985). An experimental study to investigate the effects of computer animation on the understanding and retention of selected levels of learning outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
6.
ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.
7.
ChanLinL.-J. (2000). Attributes of animation for learning scientific knowledge. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(4), 228–238.
8.
ClarkR. C.MayerR. E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
9.
CohenJ. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
CooperG. (1998). Research into cognitive load theory and instructional design at UNSW. 2003.
12.
DabbaghN. (2003). Scaffolding: An important teacher competency in online learning. TechTrends, 47(2), 39–44.
13.
DwyerF. M. (1978). Strategies for improving visual learning. State College, PA: Learning Services.
14.
DwyerF. M. (1994). One dimension of visual research: A paradigm and its implication. In MooreD.DwyerF. (Eds.), Visual learning: A spectrum of visual learning. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
15.
GlassG. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3–8.
16.
GlassG. V.McGawB.SmithM. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. London: Sage.
17.
GreenhouseJ. B.IyengarS. (1994). Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 383–398). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
18.
HannafinM. J.HannafinK. M.LandS. M.OliverK. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. ETR&D, 45(3), 101–117.
19.
HarrelsonG. L.Leaver-DunnD. (2003). Four tips to manage cognitive overload. Athletic Therapy Today, 8(1), 47–49.
20.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. London: Academic Press.
21.
JarvelaS. (1995). The cognitive apprenticeship model in a technologically rich learning environment: Interpreting the learning interaction. Learning and Instruction, 5(3), 237–259.
22.
JohnsonB. T.EaglyA. H. (2000). Quantitative synthesis of social psychological research. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
KaiserM. K.ProffittD. R.AndersonK. (1985). Judgments of natural and anomalous trajectories in the presence and absence of motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 795–803.
24.
KidwaiK.MonyofuM.SwainW.AusmanB.LinH.DwyerF. M. (2004). Effect of visual scaffolding and animation on students' performance on measures of higher order learning. In SimonsonM.CrawfordM. (Eds.), Proceedings of AECT: Association for Educational Communications & Technology Research and Theory Division (pp. 451–459). Chicago, IL: AECT.
25.
KingW. A. (1975). A comparison of three combinations of text and graphics for concept learning. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
26.
LinC.-L.DwyerF. M. (2004). Effect of varied animated enhancement strategies in facilitating achievement of different educational objectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(2), 185–198.
27.
LinH.ChenT.DwyerF. M. (2005). Advance organizers—Do they aid computer-generated animated lesson. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Association for Educational Communications & Technology, Orlando.
28.
LinH.KidwaiK.MunyofuM.SwainW.AusmanB.DwyerF. M. (2004). The effect of visual statement and question advance organizers in complementing animated instruction in a Web-based environment on undergraduate student achievement of different educational objectives. In RichardsG. (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on e-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2004 (pp. 2007–2012). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
29.
LinH.SwainJ.DwyerF. M. (2005). The effect of different cognitive strategies on students' achievement of different educational objectives of animated instruction. The Pennsylvania State University.
30.
MayerR. E.AndersonR. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444–452.
31.
MayerR. E.HeiserJ. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198.
32.
MillerA. G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Retrieved June 19, 2005 from http://www.well.com/user/smalin/miller.html.
33.
MooreM.NaworckiL.SimutisZ. (1979). The instructional effectiveness of three levels of graphics displays for computer-assisted instruction. Arlington, VA: Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences.
34.
MorenoJ. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.
35.
MorenoR.MayerR. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156–163.
36.
MunyofuM. (2005). Effect of different chunking strategies in complementing animated instruction among undergraduates of varying reading ability. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.
37.
MunyofuM.SwainJ.AusmanB.LinH.KidwaiK.DwyerF. M. (in press). Effect of different chunking strategies in complementing animated instruction. Journal of Learning, Media and Technology.
38.
OwensR.DwyerF. M. (2005, in press). The effect of varied cueing strategies on complementing animated visual imagery in facilitating achievement of different educational objectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(4), 373–384.
39.
PaivioA. (1986). Mental representation: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
40.
ParkO.GittelmanS. S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction. ETR&D, 40(4), 27–38.
41.
PenneyC. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 17, 398–422.
42.
PennyA. R.CoeR. (2004). Effectiveness of consultation on student ratings feedback: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(2), 215–253.
43.
PressleyM. (1996). The challenges of instructional scaffolding: The challenges of instruction that supports student thinking. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(3), 138–146.
44.
ReedS. K. (1985). Effects of computer graphics on improving estimates to algebra word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 285–298.
45.
RieberL. P.HannafinM. J. (1988). The effects of textual and animated orienting activities and practice on learning from computer-based instruction. Computers in the Schools, 5, 77–89.
46.
RieberL. P. (1989). The effects of computer-animated elaboration strategies on factual and application learning in an elementary science lesson. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5(4), 431–444.
47.
RieberL. P.BoyceM. (1990). The effects of computer animation on adult learning and retrieval tasks. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17, 46–52.
48.
RieberL. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning and continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 318–328.
ShadishW. R.HaddockC. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261–281). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
51.
SimonH. A. (1974). How big is a chunk?Science, 183, 482–488.
52.
SpottsJ.DwyerF. M. (1996). The effect of computer-generated animation on student achievement of different types of educational objectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23(4), 365–375.
53.
StoneC. L. (1983). A meta-analysis of advance organizer studies. Journal of Experimental Education, 51(4), 194–199.
54.
SwainJ.MunyofuM.KidwaiK.LinH.AusmanB.DwyerF. M. (2004). The effect of oral description in complementing animated instruction in a Web-based learning environment on undergraduate students' achievement of different educational objectives. In SimonsonM.CrawfordM. (Eds.), Proceedings of AECT: Association for Educational Communications & Technology Research and Theory Division (pp. 788–794). Chicago, IL: AECT.
55.
SzaboM.PoohkayB. (1996). An experimental study of animation, mathematics achievements, and attitude toward computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 390–402.
56.
YoungM. F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. ETR&D, 41(1), 43–58.
