Communicating Dynamic Behaviors: Are Interactive Multimedia Presentations Better than Static Mixed-Mode Presentations?

Static mixed-mode presentations consisting of verbal explanations illustrated with diagrams have long been used to communicate information. With the advent of multimedia, such presentations have become dynamic, by migrating from paper to the computer and by adding interactivity and animation. The conventional wisdom is that computer-based multimedia presentations are better than printed presentations. However, does the communicative power of mixed-mode representations stem from their careful design to match cognitive processes involved in comprehension or from their interactive and animated nature? This is an important issue that has never been investigated. This paper first presents a cognitive model of comprehension of mixed-mode representations. We describe how this model generates design guidelines for mixed-mode representations that present expository material in two domains - the concrete domain of mechanical systems and the abstract domain of computer algorithms. We then report on a series of studies that compared computer-based interactive multimedia presentations and their paper-based counterparts. Both were designed in accordance with the comprehension model and were compared against each other and against competing representational forms such as books, CD-ROMs, and animations. These studies indicate that the effectiveness of mixed-mode presentations has more to do with their match with comprehension processes than the medium of presentation. In other words, benefits of interactivity and animation are likely being overstated in the current milieu of fascination with multimedia.

[1]  John T. Stasko.  Tango: A Framework and System for Algorithm Animation , 1990, Computer.

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

[3]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Analog Imagery in Mental Model Reasoning: Depictive Models , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  M. Hegarty,et al.  Learning With Real Machines or Diagrams: Application of Knowledge to Real-World Problems , 1995 .

[5]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Assessing dynamics in computer-based instruction , 1996, CHI.

[6]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Animation: Does It Facilitate Learning? , 2000 .

[7]  R. Mayer,et al.  The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning , 1992 .

[8]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  The effects of computer animation on adult learning and retrieval tasks , 1990 .

[9]  M Hegarty,et al.  Mental animation in the visuospatial sketchpad: Evidence from dual-task studies , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[10]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  External cognition: how do graphical representations work? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[11]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  Multimedia instruction: lessons from evaluation of a theory-based design , 1999 .

[12]  M. Just,et al.  Eye fixations and cognitive processes , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  Neil Ardley,et al.  The new way things work , 1998 .

[14]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  COORDINATING MULTIPLE REPRESENTATIONS FOR REASONING ABOUT MECHANICAL DEVICES , 1996 .

[15]  M. Just,et al.  Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. , 1993 .

[16]  Susan Palmiter,et al.  Animated Demonstrations for Learning Procedural Computer-Based Tasks , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[17]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals , 1998, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[18]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Using Computer Animated Graphics in Science Instruction with Children , 1990 .

[19]  M. Hegarty,et al.  Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[20]  M. Hegarty.  Mental animation: inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  Steven Hansen,et al.  Empirical Studies of Animation-embedded Hypermedia Algorithm Visualizations , 1998 .

[22]  R. Mayer,et al.  For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. , 1994 .

[23]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Selectivity in diagrams: reading beyond the lines , 1994 .

[24]  N. Chater,et al.  Proceedings of the fourteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society , 1992 .

[25]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  Reasoning Visually about Spatial Interactions , 1991, IJCAI.

[26]  Joan K. Gallini,et al.  When Is an Illustration Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1990 .

[27]  David Macaulay,et al.  The Way Things Work , 1988 .

[28]  Patrick Olivier,et al.  Smart Graphics: Papers from the AAAI Spring Symposium , 2000, AAAI 2000.