Making instructional animations more effective: a cognitive load approach

This themed issue consists of seven empirical papers, as well as an introduction and discussion, and has its genesis in three symposia, organised by the authors of this article and presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in San Francisco, California. The papers investigate a number of conditions under which instructional animations may be effective. This article uses cognitive load theory (CLT) to provide an explanation for why animated instructions have not currently produced the learning benefits expected. A brief overview of the papers with a focus on how they accommodate critical aspects of cognitive load is given. The issue finishes with a discussion on each paper and identifies some common principles and recommendations for instructional design and research into animations. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Richard K. Lowe,et al.  Dynamic visualisations and learning , 2004 .

[2]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[3]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[4]  R. Mayer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage: A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 1998 .

[5]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics , 2003 .

[6]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[7]  Richard K. Lowe.  Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning , 1999 .

[8]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures , 1999 .

[9]  J. Merriënboer,et al.  Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning , 2005 .

[10]  L. R. Peterson,et al.  Short-term retention of individual verbal items. , 1959, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  J. Sweller.  Evolution of human cognitive architecture , 2003 .

[12]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Animation: can it facilitate? , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Roland Brünken,et al.  The function of annotations in the comprehension of scientific texts: Cognitive load effects and the impact of verbal ability , 2005 .

[14]  J. Sweller.  Instructional Design Consequences of an Analogy between Evolution by Natural Selection and Human Cognitive Architecture , 2004 .

[15]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Expertise in Problem Solving. , 1981 .

[16]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  The Roles of Mental Animations and External Animations in Understanding Mechanical Systems , 2003 .

[17]  P. Chandler,et al.  The crucial role of cognitive processes in the design of dynamic visualizations , 2004 .

[18]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments , 2003 .

[19]  R. Mayer,et al.  When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? , 2001 .

[20]  Mireille Betrancourt,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Animation and Interactivity Principles in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .