Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis, in Learning and Instruction

1. Références

Référence complète APA : Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis, in Learning and Instruction, 17-6, 722-738.

Auteur(s) : Tim Höffler et Detlev Leutner

Revue : Learning and Instruction

2. Copies

Copie en ligne : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475207001077

Copie locale : Fichier:Hoffler Leutner 2007.pdf

Copie physique : oui (EU)

3. Mots-clés

4. Abstract

Ameta-analysis of 26 primary studies, yielding 76 pair-wise comparisons of dynamic and static visualizations, reveals a medium-sized overall advantage of instructionalanimations over static pictures. The mean weighted effect size on learning outcome is d = 0.37 (95% CI 0.25–0.49). Moderator analyses indicate even more substantial effect sizes when the animation is representational rather than decorational (d = 0.40, 95% CI 0.26–0.53), when the animation is highly realistic, e.g., video-based (d = 0.76, 95% CI 0.39–1.13), and/or when procedural-motor knowledge is to be acquired (d = 1.06, 95% CI 0.72–1.40). The results are in line with contemporary theories of cognitive load and multimedia learning, and they have practical implications for instructional design.

5. Résumé (facultatif)

Une métaanalyse montrant qu'à information égale, l'animation semble plus efficace que l'image statique. L'effet est plus grand pour les connaissances procédurales que déclaratives, et quand le support visuel est représentationnel plutôt que décoratif.