An Investigation of Human-Computer Interaction Approaches Beneficial to Weak Learners in Complex Animation Learning

Abstract

Animation is one of the useful contemporary educational technologies in teaching complex subjects. There is a growing interest in proper use of learner-technology interaction to promote learning quality for different groups of learner needs. The purpose of this study is to investigate if an interaction approach supports weak learners, who have poor domain knowledge and comprehension difficulty of the learning subject, in complex animation learning. Three interaction approaches were designed and evaluated in an educational animation program teaching a complex subject of data structures. Participants were 70 undergraduate students performed poorly in the experimental course of introductory data structures. They were randomly assigned into one of the three interaction approaches: pure-reason-dialogue, predict-oriented, and reason-predict-combination interactions. Learning effects of these interaction approaches were measured by near-transfer and far-transfer tests as well as learning process surveys including perceived content difficulty, mental effort expenditure, and usefulness of the interaction approach. Findings indicate that the reason-predict-combination interactions approach led to the greatest transfer performance and was rated by students as the most useful interaction approach for understanding the animation content. The findings generally recommend that for weak learners, interactions of reasoning dialogue is effective to develop near-transfer ability at the initial learning phase, whereas when learners’ knowledge grows to be capable of near-transfer task, the predict-oriented interactions become more helpful to gain far-transfer knowledge. Implications for design principles for interactive instructional animations and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Keywords

• Human-computer interaction, Instructional animation, Weak learner, Data structures

References

1. Betrancout, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287-296). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Byrne, M. D., Catrambone, R., & Stasko, J. T. (1999). Examining the effects of animation and predictions in student learning of computer algorithms. Computers & Education, 33, 253- 278.
3. ChanLin, L. J. (1998). Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 166-175.
4. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W. & Eysink, T.H.S. (2009). Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 360- 370.
5. Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., & Stasko, J. T. (2002). A meta-study of software visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 13(3), 259-290.
6. Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7. Levy, R.B.-B., Ben-Ari, M., & Uronen, P.A. (2003). The Jeliot 2000 program animation system. Computers & Education, 40(1), 1-15.
8. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 87-99.

9. Morrison, J., & Tversky, B. (2001). The (in)effectiveness of animation in instruction. In J. Jacko & A. Sears, Eds. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 377-378. Seattle: ACM.Park, O. C., & Gittelman, S. S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40, 125-167.
10. Price, S. J. (2002). Diagram representation: The cognitive basis for understanding animation in education (Technical Report CSRP 553): School of Computing and Cognitive Sciences, University of Sussex.
11. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 9-25.
12. Schnotz, W., Böckheler, J., & Grzondzeil, H. (1999). Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 245-265.
13. Sweller, J. (2005). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 159-167). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, M S: Harvard University Press.
15. Yeh, Y.-F., Chen, M.-C., Hung, P.-H., & Hwang, G.-J. (2010). Optimal self-explanation prompt design in dynamic multi-representational learning environments. Computers & Education, 54, 1089-1100.
16. Correspondence: Yu-Fang Yeh, Assistant Professor, Sports Information and Communication,
17. Aletheia University, New Taipei City, Taiwan