| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Articles |
Department of Biology, University of Toronto at Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 1C6
Submitted January 12, 2007; Revised April 11, 2007; Accepted April 21, 2007
Monitoring Editor: Dennis Liu
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
An extensive review of the literature covering all educational disciplines has indicated that there are certain parameters that need to be considered when making a teaching animation (O'Day, 2006a, 2006b). Of relevance here is that animations are most effective when text is adjacent to important structures and is spoken simultaneously to reinforce the learning process ("spatial contiguity effect," "multimedia effect," and "personalization effect," respectively; Mayer, 2003). Many biological animations that are freely available online do not include narratives. Often, these animations are intended for in-class use with the instructor providing the narrative (Stith, 2004; McClean et al., 2005). Students who access these animations online do not have the benefit of the instructor's narration. However, research in other disciplines indicates that animations and graphics with a spoken or written narrative are more effective than those lacking a narrative (e.g., Mayer, 2003).
In spite of the amount of research that has been done on the value of animations as tools of pedagogy, no study has yet addressed the issue of retention of learned information in any area. The primary goal of this study was to determine whether short- and long-term memory retention are greater with an animation compared with a graphic regardless of the availability of a narrative. Data are presented here using several different types of animations and graphics that support the value of animations in the learning process and that reveal for the first time that students retain significantly more information 21 d after viewing animations lacking a narration compared with graphics whether or not a legend was available.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|
Instructions Given to Students and TAs
Each TA was provided with a specific script for either the animation or graphic that was to be viewed, and he or she was asked to carry out the instructions exactly as indicated. The exact text that was provided to the TAs for the apoptosis evaluation for both the graphic and animation, respectively, is provided in Supplemental Material 1. Minor variations in the text were included that were specific to whether the graphic or animation was being viewed. The text also was varied slightly based on the specific animation/graphic under analysis (e.g., length of time provided; Table 2).
Questionnaires
For consistency, the questionnaire design followed that of a previous study (O'Day, 2006a). An example of the full questionnaire that was used for the apoptosis analysis is shown in Supplemental Material 2. For each evaluation, only the questions were changed. The questions for the influenza virus evaluation are provided as Supplemental Material 3, whereas those for the cholesterol uptake evaluation are shown in Supplemental Material 4. For the retention analysis, only the 10 specific questions about the animation or graphic were provided (part II).
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Short- and Long-Term Retention
The attributes of each graphic and animation are summarized in Table 2. The results of the short-term and long-term retention analyses are shown in Figure 2. For the groups learning about apoptosis, neither the graphic nor animation had a written or oral narrative provided. In the initial responses to the questions from the group viewing the apoptosis graphic, the students got 58.1 ± 0.353% of the questions correct (Figure 2, apoptosis). When the students were tested 21 d later, they got 35.8 ± 0.318% of the questions correct. Those viewing the apoptosis animation initially got 77.9 ± 0.221% of the answers correct in part II. After 3 wk, their average mark dropped to 43 ± 0.304%. For the cholesterol uptake group who viewed a graphic with a detailed figure legend, the mean mark after viewing the graphic was 80.6 ± 0.136%, which decreased to 50.0 ± 0.308% after 21 d (Figure 2, cholesterol uptake). For the cholesterol uptake animation for which narration was not made available, the mean mark of the students was initially 75.0 ± 0.249%, but it decreased to 63.1% ± 0.303 after testing 21 d later. Due to the limited number of tutorials that were available for the analyses, it was not possible to compare a graphic with the influenza virus animation. The influenza virus animation was viewed without the available narration, leading to an initial mean mark of 77.9 ± 0.221% (Figure 2, influenza virus). After 21 d, those who studied the influenza virus animation obtained an average grade of 61.9 ± 0.354% on retesting. All of the means were significantly different from each other (P < 0.05) except for the means for the cholesterol uptake animation for which the original and retention scores were not deemed to be significantly different.
|
|
Summary of Responses to Questionnaire with Student Comments
In response to the question (part III, 1) "Did you find the material provided a useful learning experience?", 80.9% of the total respondents answered "yes" (78.8% for the animation and 84.7% for the graphic). About 12% (12.9% for animation and 9.7% for graphic) responded "no," and 7.4% (8.3% for animation and 5.6% for graphic) had no opinion. All who answered "no" responded as requested to part III, 2, essentially reiterating various points raised in part III, 3 as indicated below. In all of the responses only two negative comments were received: "We should have been paid to do this" and "This tutorial was a waste of time. I could have been sleeping."
Essentially half of the respondents (49% total, 52.3% animation, and 43.2% graphic) wrote comments in part III, 3. It was difficult to summarize some of the students' comments due to lack of clarity or focus of the response; however, some general trends were observed. Some comments centered on the lack of narration (10.3% of respondents) in the animations, but this was a much lower level than expected. Many (54%) expressed their opinion in various ways that animations are a useful tool for learning the complex sequence of events:
"I really enjoy animation as a means of studying/learning. I feel that it provides a different way of visualizing the process."
"Although the animation didn't explain ‘everything,’ it served a GREAT purpose in laying out basic and fundamental steps in apoptosis."
"... especially useful for remembering the order of events."
Some students (22.7%) indicated the value of animations in getting right to the point compared with reading long tracts of text or reviewing static graphics, "...especially when you're tired ..."; "... more efficient to learn complicated processes ... than trying to work out visually what is meant from the text." Or, they argued that animations serve a specific use in the study process such as, "...cramming for a test"; "... afterward one can study from the text with the overall process clear in your mind." One student expressed the idea: "This was a good way to see how much info could be remembered without having prior knowledge of the topic."
Of all of the student responses, only one student expressed concern about the value of animations in the learning process: "I question whether this method promotes long-term memory of events." This point was interesting, because it was never addressed what the focus of the study was. Alternatively, that same student also stated animations are "... excellent for revision and visualization," a point addressed by others. There were other singleton comments (e.g., "apoptosis animation should have been presented in two parts" and "protein cleavage was not clear in apoptosis animation") and some technical issues (e.g., size of text, the need for more labels, "Video not large enough to see details") that can provide insight into how such animations and graphics are developed for and presented to students. Two students offered some valid insight: "Discrete animations don't allow for linking between events" and "A good learning method would be to have integrated the animation with follow-up questions..." during lecture.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
I am not aware of any studies that have been done previously comparing the value of animations versus static graphics in long-term memory retention for any discipline. It is well established that memory of specifics declines over time. Originally defined by Hermann Ebbinghaus in 1885, this "forgetting curve" is a general property of essentially all retrospective memory (Hicks et al., 2000). The forgetting curve or decline of memory retention over time is essentially logarithmic with a fast early phase of forgetting followed by a progressively slower phase. In educational terms without relearning, most students will remember 
25% of learned information after a week and 21% after 2 to 4 wk. In this study, "spaced retention" was evaluated: the ability to remember facts and visual information over a specific period of time (21 d). By projection from the forgetting curve, students would be expected to retain around 21% of the originally learned information from both the animations and graphics. However, based on those projections, the memory retention demonstrated here was much greater than expected in all cases.
As expected, forgetting did occur over time for all cases (Figure 2). For the two different graphics that were viewed, the level of long-term retention was approximately 60% (apoptosis) to >200% (cholesterol uptake) higher than the expected 21% retention based upon general forgetting curve data. These higher retention levels are likely due, in part, to the nonrandom nature and the relevance of the information that was presented to the target audience. These results also indicate that the presence of a figure legend (cholesterol uptake) enhances long-term memory retention. The retention data were even more impressive with the groups who viewed the animations. In both comparative cases, the retention of information by those who viewed the animation exceeded that of the groups who viewed the graphics whether or not a figure legend was provided. Thus, the retention levels were 204% (apoptosis) to 300% (cholesterol uptake) higher than expected based on the basic forgetting curve and 83–79% higher than the comparative graphic, respectively. The results with the influenza animation supported this higher-level retention after viewing an animation. These results support the value of visuals in general in the learning of biological information, and they suggest that animations can provide a better learning experience, leading to greater long-term retention of that learned information.
In his study, Stith (2004) compared the correct responses to specific questions by groups viewing the apoptosis animation versus students who did not. Stith's data suggested that questions involving rote memory (definition) did not benefit from the animation, but those involving dynamic processes (order or location of events) did benefit. The evaluation of specific questions here partly supported this idea for cholesterol uptake, but overall did not support this idea. For example, the poorest retention was seen with two questions (2, apoptosis and 5, cholesterol uptake), but examination of those questions versus the other questions as to difficulty, question type, or complexity did not yield any insight into a potential cause. The current results then suggest that animations lead to better memory retention regardless of the nature of the material that is being learned. This conclusion clearly needs much more in-depth research to validate it. Although the intent and design of our experiments were different from those of Stith (2004), in retrospect it would have been useful to have used Stith's questionnaire in this study. In the future, more emphasis should be put on the careful design of questionnaires with well-defined, type-specific questions (e.g., rote vs. sequence of events vs. interrelationships of components) that might provide more critical insight into when animations should be used over static graphics or text. The formulation of such questions will require a firm grounding in models of learning and memory. Rather than just using multiple-choice questionnaires, it also might be wise to ask students to write a short synopsis of what they learned to determine whether they are truly understanding events or simply regurgitating key points.
Narration is considered to be an important attribute of educational animations (Sweller, 1994; Lowe, 2003; Mayer, 2003). As a result, it was expected that the majority of students would complain about a lack of narrative in the presented material, but only a small number of students made any comments about the lack of a narrative or figure legend (10.3% of respondents). The question still remains: Is a narrative a critical component of life science animations? This is an important issue, because many biological animations are developed without a narrative for specific, complementary use in lectures. Because many of these animations are freely available online, it is important to understand the implications of their use by students who may not have access to the lecture component. More importantly, adding a narrative to an animation not only involves additional steps but also potentially increases the size of animation files, compromising their effectiveness for online teaching and learning. For these and other reasons, the value of a verbal narrative in animations was compared with static graphics (figures) that either had or lacked a written narrative (legend). Although the subject matter of the presentations differed, the results are suggestive. Based on studies in other disciplines showing the value of a proper narrative, the expected result was that the three separate cases of unnarrated animations in this study would all lead to lower mean marks compared with a previous equivalent study with a narrated animation (87.5%; O'Day, 2006). In keeping with this, the mean initial retention average (76.9%) for the three unnarrated animations used in this study was 10% less than observed previously, supporting the view that narration is a valuable, if not essential, component in biological animations. Although no previous studies seem to have been conducted on the value of figure legends, in this study the group viewing the graphic with a legend obtained a much higher mean grade (80.6%, cholesterol uptake) compared with those who viewed the graphic lacking a legend (58.1%; apoptosis). Viewing the figure with a legend also led to slightly higher initial marks than the respective unnarrated animation (75.0%; cholesterol uptake). These suggestive data support the widely held view that a written (graphic data or figures) or verbal narrative (animations) enhances the pedagogical value of visually presented information. However, future research that focuses on a single subject (e.g., cholesterol uptake) with narrated versus unnarrated animations compared with graphics with and without an equivalent legend would strengthen these tentative conclusions.
Student feedback is useful in assessing the pedagogical value of animations and graphics (O'Day, 2006a). The student comments in the present study were similar to those expressed in a previous study, and they raise some interesting points (O'Day, 2006a). Students enjoy animations as a change from reading text and attempting to interpret graphics. Biology is a visual subject often involving complex sequences of events. Animations provide one way of communicating such complex sequences clearly and efficiently. To paraphrase the idea expressed by several students, "after viewing the animation, reading the textbook becomes easier and more enlightening."
This study provides evidence that animations lead to greater long-term memory retention than simple graphics. This is an important conclusion that needs further research not only to verify it but also to understand why animations enhance learning retention. Are animations more effective simply because they are more engaging to students than simple text or static graphics, or do they truly lead to deeper learning? The study of the value of animations in the life sciences is fundamentally in its infancy. Currently, a diversity of animations is available online (e.g., http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/w3cellan/) or as part of textbook packages. For those who are interested in developing their own animations, Heyden (2004) has reviewed the various programs, their attributes, and their use in producing teaching animations and has listed complementary resources. More recently, a simple animation technique has been discussed that both students and teachers can use to easily develop their own high-quality, effective teaching animations (O'Day, 2006a). With all of these available resources, there is an opportunity for instructors to carry out further studies on the value of animations in life science teaching. Well-formulated hypotheses and well-designed experiments will go a long way to providing insight into the true value of animations as pedagogical tools.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Hicks, J. L., Marsh, R. L., and Russell, E. J. (2000). The properties of retention intervals and their affect on retaining prospective memories. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 5, 1160–1169.
Lodish, H., Berk, A., Zipursky, L. S., Matsudaira, P., Baltimore, D., and Darnell, J. (2000). Molecular Cell Biology, 4 ed., New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learn. Instr. 13, 157–176.[CrossRef]
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learn. Instr. 13, 125–139.[CrossRef]
McClean, P., Johnson, C., Rogers, R., Daniels, L., Reber, J., Slator, B. M., Terpstra, J., and White, A. (2005). Molecular and cellular biology animations: development and impact on student learning. Cell Biol. Educ. 4, 169–179.[CrossRef][Medline]
O'Day, D. H. (2006a). Animated cell biology: a quick and easy method for making effective high-quality teaching animations. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 5, 255–263.
O'Day, D. H. (2006b). How to make pedagogically meaningful animations for teaching and research using PowerPointTM and CamtasiaTM. In: Proceedings of the IPSI-2006, International Conference on Advances in the Internet, Processing, Systems, and Interdisciplinary Research, Chapter IV. Marbella, Spain, February 6.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learn. Instr. 12, 61–86.[CrossRef]
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn. Instr. 4, 295–312.[CrossRef]
Stith, B. J. (2004). Use of animation in teaching cell biology. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 181–188.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tversky, B., and Morrison, J. B. (2002). Animation: can it facilitate? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 57, 247–262.[CrossRef]
Williams, V. M., and Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 32, 521–534.[CrossRef]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
