The Roles of Mental Animations and External Animations in Understanding Mechanical Systems

The effects of computer animations and mental animation on people's mental models of a mechanical system are examined. In 3 experiments, students learned how a mechanical system works from various instructional treatments including viewing a static diagram of the machine, predicting motion from static diagrams, viewing computer animations, and viewing static and animated diagrams accompanied by verbal commentaries. Although students' understanding of the system was improved by viewing both static and animated diagrams, there was no evidence that animated diagrams led to superior understanding of dynamic processes compared to static diagrams. Comprehension of diagrams was enhanced by asking students questions that required them to predict the behavior of the machine from static diagrams and by providing them with a verbal description of the dynamic processes. This article proposes that predicting motion from static diagrams engages students' mental animation processes, including spatial visualization, and provides them with information about what they do and do not understand about how the machine works. Verbal instruction provides information that is not easily communicated in graphics and directs students' attention to the relevant information in static and animated diagrams. The research suggests that an understanding of students' mental animation abilities is an important component of a theory of learning from external animations.

[1]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Diagrams and Descriptions in Acquiring Complex Systems , 2019, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

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

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

[4]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? , 1997 .

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

[6]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  The Effects of Computer Animated Elaboration Strategies and Practice on Factual and Application Learning in an Elementary Science Lesson , 1989 .

[8]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Effects of textual and animated orienting activities and practice on learning from computer-based instruction , 1988 .

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

[10]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Shuttling Between Depictive Models and Abstract Rules: Induction and Fallback , 1996, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation , 1991 .

[12]  Susan Palmiter,et al.  Animated Demonstrations vs Written Instructions for Learning Procedural Tasks: A Preliminary Investigation , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

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

[14]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  Prospects for Scientific Visualization as an Educational Technology , 1995 .

[15]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Individual differences in use of diagrams as external memory in mechanical reasoning , 1997 .

[16]  Alistair G. Sutcliffe,et al.  Designing effective multimedia presentations , 1997, CHI.

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

[18]  M. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994 .

[19]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Judgments of natural and anomalous trajectories in the presence and absence of motion. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[21]  M A Just,et al.  Constraints on the processing of rolling motion: the curtate cycloid illusion. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[23]  J. Sweller,et al.  Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes , 1995 .

[24]  G. Stenchikov,et al.  The impact of aerosols on solar ultraviolet radiation and photochemical smog. , 1997, Science.

[25]  Jeffrey M. Zacks,et al.  Event structure in perception and conception. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[26]  Betty Boothroyd.  External cognition : how do graphical representations work ? , 1996 .

[27]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  A time for telling , 1998 .

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

[29]  H. Harman,et al.  Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests , 1976 .

[30]  Naomi Miyake,et al.  Constructive Interaction and the Iterative Process of Understanding , 1986, Cogn. Sci..

[31]  Naomi Miyake.  Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding , 1986 .

[32]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Readings in information visualization - using vision to think , 1999 .

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

[34]  H. Hecht,et al.  Influence of animation on dynamical judgments. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  Alistair G. Sutcliffe,et al.  An empirical study of attending and comprehending multimedia presentations , 1997, MULTIMEDIA '96.

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

[37]  Uwe Oestermeier,et al.  Verbal and visual causal arguments , 2000, Cognition.

[38]  William E. Montague,et al.  Computer-managed instruction in Naval technical training , 1992 .

[39]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Models of Understanding Text , 1996 .

[40]  Eugene S. Ferguson,et al.  Engineering and the Mind's Eye , 1994 .

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

[42]  Heidi S Chumley-Jones,et al.  Web‐based Learning: Sound Educational Method or Hype? A Review of the Evaluation Literature , 2002, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[43]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[44]  Ok-choon Park,et al.  Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction , 1992 .

[45]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text , 1996 .

[46]  Sharon K Tindall-Ford,et al.  When two sensory modes are better than one , 1997 .

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

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

[49]  R. Mayer,et al.  A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing Systems in Working Memory , 1998 .

[50]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  15. Understanding machines from multimedia and hypermedia presentations , 2002 .

[51]  Mitchell J. Nathan,et al.  A Comprehension-Based Approach to Learning and Understanding , 1993 .

[52]  Leonid Rozenblit,et al.  The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

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

[54]  Myke Gluck,et al.  Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative , 1997, Inf. Process. Manag..

[55]  N. J. Slamecka,et al.  The Generation Effect: Delineation of a Phenomenon , 1978 .