1 / 50

Mireille Bétrancourt

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.

mcain
Télécharger la présentation

Mireille Bétrancourt

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Few words on learning from multimedia documents Examples of research Outline The case of computer animation M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  3. Multimedia learning M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Depends on various factors! Multimedia effect Type of illustration Type of learners Presentation format M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. The case of animation M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  10. Attract attention Inform about an on-going process NEW Types of animation M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  11. Attract attention Inform about an on-going process Demonstrations Interactive simulations Types of animation M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. Perception difficulties Trajectory of the point ? M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  17. Perception difficulties Kaiser, Profitt & Whelan, 1992 M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  18. Conceptual difficulties How a toilet works M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  19. text + animation Delayed test Retention difficulties Performance text + animation text only Training Immediate test Palmiter & Elkerton, 1993 M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  20. 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

  21. Some experiments on animation M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  22. 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

  23. 1. Type of animation matters M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  24. 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

  25. M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  26. 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

  27. Format: no diff. Collaboration: p<.01 1. Results (1): Reflection - discussion times M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  28. Format: p<.01 Collaboration: NS 1. Results (2) : retention performance M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  29. 1. Results (3) : comprehension Format: p<.05 Collaboration: NS Interaction collaboration * material: p<.01 M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  30. 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

  31. Results (5): subjective workload Format: NS Collaboration: p<.05 M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. Mayer & Chandler, 2001 Schwan & Riempp, 2004 2. Control and interactivity: hypotheses ? M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  35. Mayer & Chandler, 2001 Cognive load hyp. Attention management hyp. Schwan & Riempp, 2004 2. Control and interactivity: hypotheses M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  36. 2.1. First experiment: Methods Participants 75 psychology students (16 men, 59 women) Material M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  37. 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

  38. Transfer: F (2, 72) = 3.887; p < .05 2.1. Results (1):Retention and Inference Retention Inference Total M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  39. 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

  40. 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

  41. 2.1. Results (4):control actions Total Partial No control M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  42. 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

  43. 2.2: Material M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  44. 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

  45. 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

  46. 2.3. Material and procedure M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  47. 2.3. Preliminary results: scores for single learners M. Betrancourt - KMRC Tuebingen, May 2006

  48. 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

  49. 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

  50. 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

More Related