An Investigation of the Effects of Different Types of Activities during Pauses in a Segmented Instructional Animation

Since the complex and transient information in instructional animations requires more cognitive resources, the segmenting principle has been proposed to reduce cognitive overload by providing smaller chunks with pauses between segments. This study examined the effects of different types of activities during pauses in a segmented animation. Four groups were asked to do different tasks in system-controlled pauses after each segment of an instructional animation: passive pauses (i.e., no-reflection vs. reflection), and active pauses (i.e., free-recall vs. short-answer). The results showed that active pause with free-recall group outperformed the two passive pause groups on both recall and transfer tests. However, no significant differences in mental effort for the instruction or the tests were found. The findings of this study provide valuable implications for effective ways of using pauses between segments in instructional animations. Keyword Segmenting principle, Instructional animation, Pauses in segments, Active pauses

[1]  Yol,et al.  A cognitive multimedia environment and its importance: A conceptual model for effective learning and development , 2016 .

[2]  B. Postle,et al.  The cognitive neuroscience of working memory. , 2007, Annual review of psychology.

[3]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. , 2002 .

[4]  T. Gog,et al.  Segmentation of Worked Examples: Effects on Cognitive Load and Learning , 2012 .

[5]  Tamara van Gog,et al.  An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

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

[7]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  The (in)effectiveness of animation in instruction , 2001, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[8]  Huy P. Phan.  A cognitive multimedia environment and its importance: A conceptual model for effective learning and development , 2011 .

[9]  F. Paas,et al.  Instructional Efficiency: Revisiting the Original Construct in Educational Research , 2008 .

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

[11]  M. Hegarty.  Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions , 2004 .

[12]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  The role of spatial descriptions in learning from multimedia , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

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

[14]  D. Leutner,et al.  Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis , 2007 .

[15]  R. Mayer,et al.  Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments Special Issue on Interactive Learning Environments: Contemporary Issues and Trends , 2007 .

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

[17]  Béatrice S. Hasler,et al.  Learner Control, Cognitive Load and Instructional Animation , 2007 .

[18]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  The psychology of science text comprehension , 2014 .

[19]  Richard E Mayer,et al.  Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[20]  Steven M. Crooks,et al.  Does segmenting principle counteract modality principle in instructional animation? , 2014, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[21]  F. Paas,et al.  How to Optimize Learning From Animated Models: A Review of Guidelines Based on Cognitive Load , 2008 .

[22]  T. Gog,et al.  A Theoretical Analysis of How Segmentation of Dynamic Visualizations Optimizes Students' Learning , 2010 .

[23]  M. D’Esposito.  Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[24]  R. Moreno.  Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: cognitive and affective consequences of signalling and segmentation methods , 2007 .

[25]  J. Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions , 2005 .

[26]  F. Paas.  Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. , 1992 .

[27]  F. Hesse,et al.  Do film cuts facilitate the perceptual and cognitive organization of activitiy sequences? , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[28]  J. Sweller.  Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load , 2010 .

[29]  A. Baddeley.  Working Memory, Thought, and Action , 2007 .

[30]  David S. Weiss.  The effects of text segmentation on children's reading comprehension∗ , 1983 .

[31]  David Richard Moore,et al.  E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning , 2006 .

[32]  B. Tversky,et al.  Effect of computer animation on users' performance : A review , 2000 .

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

[34]  Tamara van Gog,et al.  Explaining the segmentation effect in learning from animations: The role of pausing and temporal cueing , 2012, Comput. Educ..

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

[36]  F. Paas,et al.  Attention Cueing as a Means to Enhance Learning from an Animation , 2007 .

[37]  Fred Paas,et al.  Making instructional animations more effective: a cognitive load approach , 2007 .

[38]  F. Paas,et al.  Interactivity in Video-based Models , 2007 .

[39]  Thomas Andre,et al.  Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/ animation on learning electrochemistry , 2003 .

[40]  John T. Stasko,et al.  Evaluating animations as student aids in learning computer algorithms , 1999, Comput. Educ..

[41]  Michelle L. Gaddy,et al.  The influence of text cues on the allocation of attention during reading , 2001 .

[42]  Fred Paas,et al.  Instructional efficiency of animation: effects of interactivity through mental reconstruction of static key frames , 2007 .

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

[44]  Rolf Ploetzner,et al.  What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity , 2010 .

[45]  Alfred Bork,et al.  Multimedia in Learning , 2001 .

[46]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent , 2003 .

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

[48]  James Hartley,et al.  Planning the Typographical Structure of Instructional Text , 1986 .

[49]  Peter E. Doolittle,et al.  Multimedia learning and individual differences: Mediating the effects of working memory capacity with segmentation , 2009, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[50]  R. Mayer,et al.  Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning , 2003 .

[51]  P. Barrouillet,et al.  The Time-Based Resource-Sharing Model of Working Memory , 2020, Working Memory.

[52]  G. Hanley.  e‐Learning and the Science of Instruction , 2004 .

[53]  Wilbert Spooren,et al.  Text representation : linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects , 2001 .

[54]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory , 2003 .

[55]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: Frontmatter , 2001 .