Table 6.1 Summary of Empirical Research on the Instructional Effects of Animation (listed alphabetically by author).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||||
Baek & Layne, 1988 |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments: Students' attention was focused on information contained in the animation. | |||||
|
|||||
Caraballo, A., 1985 |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments: Animation was used an aid to conceptual understanding, not as an elaboration of the lesson content. | |||||
|
|||||
Caraballo, J., 1985 |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments:No pilot studies conducted to determine a need for external visualization. | |||||
|
|||||
Collins, Adams, & Pew, 1978 |
|
|
|
|
Labeled Map> Unlabeled Map |
Comments: Animation for attention-gaining within an interactive graphic (blinking dots). | |||||
King, 1975 |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments: Possible confounding due to an easy learning task, verbally-heavy tests which may not have been sensitive toward visualization tasks, and crude graphics. | |||||
|
|||||
Mayer & Anderson, 1991 |
|
|
|
|
Animation with narration> Animation only= Narration only= Control |
Comments: Study involved three separate experiments testing various predictions of dual coding theory. Summary above shows general results of the final experiment. Results of the first two experiments showed that animation with narration supports dual coding more than narrations before animation. | |||||
|
|||||
Moore, Nawrocki, & Simutis, 1979 |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments: The study was confounded due to instructional design. A review was given to all students after each of four lesson parts if they did not achieve at least 85% master on the respective part. This induced an artificial ceiling effect. | |||||
Reed, 1985 | 180 | Adult |
|
|
|
Comments: Lessons were iteratively improved over the course of four separate experiments. Animation was effective when replacing rather than supplementing verbal information. | |||||
|
|||||
Rieber & Hannafin, 1988 |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments: There was not enough variance in the lesson treatments. Animation not powerful enough effect, especially within an orienting activity. Students also found the material very difficult to understand. | |||||
|
|||||
Rieber, 1989 |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments: The study may have been confounded due to the difficulty of the content. Students may not have been attending to the animation appropriately as evidenced by latency data of the time spent by students processing each frame of instruction. | |||||
|
|||||
Rieber, 1990b |
|
|
Newton's laws of motion |
|
Animation>Static= None; Interaction between visuals & practice |
Comments: Animation most effective as a presentation strategy when practice support was moderate. The structured simulation was effective as a practice strategy. | |||||
|
|||||
Rieber, 1991a |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments: Evidence that the visually-based structured simulation was intrinsically motivating for students. Students also learned a rule incidentally from an animated display, but they also became prone to a scientific misconception. | |||||
|
|||||
Rieber, in press |
|
|
|
|
Chunked Anim.> Static |
Comments: Animation was an effective presentation strategy, but only when screens were presented in parts, or "chunks," to aid students in selectively attending to information in the animated visual. | |||||
|
|||||
Rieber, Boyce, & Alkindi, 1991 |
|
|
|
|
NSD on orienting activity; Simulation results mixed |
Comments: A visually-based simulation was ineffective as an orienting activity, but effective as a practice strategy for near transfer tasks only. Feedback from subjects indicated that they found the content quite demanding. They also seemed uncomfortable with the simulation in that they seemed to expect more structure. | |||||
|
|||||
Rieber, Boyce, & Assad, 1990 |
|
|
|
|
NSD on learning; Animation>Static> None on response latency |
Comments: Although no differences were found on performance measures, animated presentations may have aided organization and retrieval as evidenced by latency data on posttest. Structured simulation generally effective as practice strategy. | |||||
|
|||||
Rieber & Parmley, 1992 |
|
|
|
|
Structured Sim= All Tutorial Groups>Unstructured Sim& Test Only Groups |
Comments: Subjects were able to inductively learn from a structured simulation, but not an unstructured simulation. Subjects' response confidence lower without access to traditional tutorial. | |||||
|
|||||
Rigney & Lutz [Alesandrini], 1975 |
|
|
|
|
Pictorial group> verbal group |
Comments: Since there was no control for the use of static versus animated graphics, effectiveness of animation can not be inferred from the results. |