You are here:

Impact of static graphics, animated graphics and mental imagery on a complex learning task
ARTICLE

,

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Volume 28, Number 1, ISSN 0814-673X Publisher: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education

Abstract

The present study compared the impact of different categories of graphics used within a complex learning task. One hundred eighty five native English speaking undergraduates participated in a task that required learning 18 Chinese radicals and their English equivalent translations. A post-test only control group design compared performance differences following training between 5 groups of participants (control, concrete verbal imagery information, single static graphics, multiple gradient static graphics, and animated graphics) on both immediate and 4-week retention tests. Data analysis indicated all graphic groups significantly outperformed the control group immediately following training. A 4-week delayed test showed those originally receiving multiple gradient static graphics significantly outperformed all other groups except those receiving the animated graphics. Implications are discussed based on cognitive load and the cognitive theory of multimedia learning.

Citation

Lai, F.Q., Newby, T. & Newby, T. (2012). Impact of static graphics, animated graphics and mental imagery on a complex learning task. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1),. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved March 9, 2021 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Alesandrini, K. (2002). Visual constructivism in distance learning. USDLA Journal, 16(1). Http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JAN02_Issue/article03.html
  2. Ayres, P., Marcus, N., Chan, C. & Qian, N. (2009). Learning hand manipulative tasks: When instructional animations are superior to equivalent static representations. Computers and Human Behavior, 25(2), 348-353.
  3. Bellezza, F.S. (1981). Mnemonic devices: classification, characteristics, and criteria. Review of Educational Research, 51(2), 247-275.
  4. Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R.E. (2007). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
  5. Clark, J.M. & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149-210.
  6. George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Lai and Newby 103
  7. Höffler, T.N. & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A metaanalysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722-738.
  8. Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, 177-189. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00019-1
  9. Macdonald-Ross, M. (1977). Graphics in text. Review of Research in Education, 5, 49-85.
  10. Mayer, R.E. (1999). Research-based principles for the design of instructional messages: The case of multimedia explanations. Document Design, 1(1), 7-20.
  11. Mayer, R.E. (2008). Learning and instruction, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  12. Mayer, R.E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Mayer, R.E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S. & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 256-265. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076898X.11.4.256
  14. Mayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 107-119. Http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00018-4
  15. Mayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
  16. Mayer, R.E. & Sims, V.K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389-401.
  17. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  18. Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
  19. Shu, N.C. (1988). Visual programming. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc. Sweller, J. (2005. Implications of cognitive load theory of multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 19-30.
  20. Tversky, B., Morrison, J.B. & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
  21. Wittrock, M.C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345-376.
  22. Wong, A., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., Smith, L., Cooper, G.A., Paas, F. & Sweller, J. (2009). Instructional animations can be superior to statics when learning human motor skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 339-347.
  23. Wouters, P., Paas, F. & Van Merrienboer, J.G. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 645-675. Lai

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References