See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/220495654

Instructional animations can be superior to static when learning human

motor skills

Article  in  Computers in Human Behavior · March 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.012 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

163 1,127

7 authors, including:

Nadine Marcus Graham Cooper

UNSW Sydney Southern Cross University
56 PUBLICATIONS   1,731 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   2,478 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fred Paas
Erasmus University Rotterdam and University of Wollongong
318 PUBLICATIONS   34,329 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ace Your Self-study: Using a Mobile Device App to Support Self-regulated Learning View project

PhD "Cueing in multimedia practicals" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nadine Marcus on 31 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009) 339–347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Instructional animations can be superior to statics when learning

human motor skills
Anna Wong a,*, Nadine Marcus a,*, Paul Ayres b, Lee Smith c, Graham A. Cooper c, Fred Paas d,e, John Sweller b
a
School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
b
School of Education, University of New South Wales, Australia
c
School of Multimedia and Information Technology, Southern Cross University, Australia
d
Educational Technology Expertise Center, Open University of the Netherlands, The Netherlands
e
Institute of Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Based on the assumption of a working memory processor devoted to human movement, cognitive
Available online 4 January 2009 load theory is used to explore some conditions under which animated instructions are hypothesised
to be more effective for learning than equivalent static graphics. Using paper-folding tasks dealing
Keywords: with human movement, results from three experiments confirmed our hypothesis, indicating a supe-
Instructional animations riority of animation over static graphics. These results are discussed in terms of a working memory
Human motor skills processor that may be facilitated by our mirror-neuron system and may explain why animated
Mirror-neuron system
instructional animations are superior to static graphics for cognitively based tasks that involve human
Cognitive load theory
movement.
Crown Copyright ! 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Instructional animations have a varied history. Most studies
have concluded that animation is at best no more effective and
sometimes less effective than the equivalent static graphics (e.g.,
Hegarty, Kriz, & Cate, 2003; Mayer, DeLeeuw, & Ayres, 2007;
Mayer, Hegarty, Mayer, & Campbell, 2005; Schnotz, Böckheler, &
Grzondziel, 1999; Tversky, Morrison, & Betrancourt, 2002). How-
ever, when additional supporting strategies are introduced such
as segmenting animations into smaller parts (see Hasler, Kersten,
& Sweller, 2007; Mayer & Chandler, 2001; Moreno, 2007) or pro-
viding user-control (see Hasler et al., 2007; Mayer & Chandler,
2001; Schwan & Riempp, 2004), animations become more effec-
tive. Nevertheless, a recent meta-analysis by Höffler and Leutner
(2007) found that animations facilitated better learning outcomes
than static graphics if they contained certain features, e.g., realism
and procedural-motor knowledge. Reasons have been proposed for
the frequent ineffectiveness of animations, but no comprehensive
theory has been articulated. For instance, Lowe (1999, 2003)
looked at learning from weather map animations and suggested
that perceptually salient features of an animation may attract
learners’ attention away from more-subtle, but thematically rele-
vant features. Mayer et al. (2005) proposed that statics allow better
management of intrinsic processing by allowing learners to control
* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: annawong@cse.unsw.edu.au (A. Wong), nadinem@cse.unsw.
edu.au (N. Marcus).
the pace and order of presentations, and engage more active pro-
cessing as learners are required to make inferences from frame
to frame. We suggest that the poor performance of instructional
animations compared with static graphic can be explained by cog-
nitive load theory.
Cognitive load theory (Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller, 2006; Paas,
Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Sweller, 1999, 2004; Sweller & Sweller,
2006) is concerned with relations between working memory
(WM) and long-term memory (LTM) and the effects of those rela-
tions on learning and problem solving. The theory applies to a par-
ticular category of knowledge that Geary (2002, 2005, 2007) refers
to as biologically secondary knowledge. Biologically secondary
knowledge, such as learning differential calculus or how to write,
is knowledge that we have not evolved to learn readily, and is ac-
quired with conscious, effortful processing within WM. On the
other hand, biologically primary knowledge is not learned con-
sciously because we have evolved to acquire that knowledge easily
and automatically. The examples of learning a first language, rec-
ognising faces, learning general problem solving techniques, or
learning about basic social interactions fall into this category. Such
knowledge can be stored directly in LTM without being consciously
processed by WM (Geary, 2007). Because we have not evolved to
effortlessly acquire the biologically secondary knowledge charac-
teristically taught in educational institutions, it must be explicitly
taught and we have invented educational institutions in order to
teach such knowledge. The manner in which such knowledge is
taught needs to take into account the characteristics of WM, LTM
and the relations between them. Cognitive load theory, based on

0747-5632/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright ! 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.012
340 A. Wong et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009) 339–347
the relations between working and long-term memory, primarily
applies to biologically secondary, not biologically primary
knowledge.
2. Cognitive load theory and its biological base
Cognitive load theory treats human cognition as a natural infor-
mation processing system that duplicates other natural informa-
tion processing systems such as evolution by natural selection
(Sweller, 2003, 2004). As adapted to human cognition, such sys-
tems can be specified by five principles:
1. Long-term memory and the information store principle. Most
human cognitive action is driven by the contents of a huge LTM
that acts as an information store. For example, activities such as
determining previously learned, domain-specific problem solving
moves are heavily dependent on the contents of LTM (e.g., Chase
& Simon, 1973; De Groot, 1965).
2. Schema theory and the borrowing and reorganising principle.
How does information enter LTM, given its massive capacity?
According to the borrowing and reorganising principle, we borrow
information from the long-term stores of other people by imitating
what they do, listening to what they say or reading what they
write. Techniques for facilitating knowledge acquisition through
the borrowing principle are central to cognitive load theory (for
summaries, see Paas et al., 2003; Sweller, 1999, 2005; Sweller,
van Merriënboer, & Paas, 1998; van Merriënboer & Sweller,
2005). Knowledge elements are assumed to be stored in LTM in
schematic form. A schema is a cognitive construct that allows peo-
ple to categorize multiple elements of information into a frame-
work of knowledge according to the manner in which it will be
used (Sweller, 1999). Schema acquisition based on the borrowing
principle attempts to copy other people’s schemas but rarely re-
sults in an exact copy of another person’s schema resulting in inev-
itable changes, some of which are random.
3. Problem solving and the randomness as genesis principle. The
borrowing principle does not create new knowledge except insofar
as borrowing is inexact. New knowledge is created through prob-
lem solving and the randomness as genesis principle. We need to
solve problems when unable to borrow knowledge from others
or from LTM. Failing the availability of relevant knowledge, ran-
domly generating problem solving moves and determining their
effectiveness provides us with new knowledge.
4. Working memory and the narrow limits of change principle.
Working memory processes novel information of the sort dealt
with by the randomness as genesis principle. Because of the ran-
dom nature of novel elements, only a few elements of novel infor-
mation can be processed in working memory at a time (Miller,
1956; Peterson & Peterson, 1959) resulting in a limited capacity
and limited duration working memory. Attempting to organize
and establish meaningful relations for more than a few elements
in working memory will result in combinatorial explosions.
5. Relations between long-term and working memory and the envi-
ronmental organizing and linking principle. This principle allows us
to bring unlimited amounts of previously organized schematic
information from long-term to working memory to allow us to
function in our environment (Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). Thus,
working memory load is reduced through schema acquisition.
Schemas, which consist of multiple elements, can be transferred
to and processed by working memory as a single element and so
reduce cognitive load. Schema automation, which further de-
creases the amount of processing required in working memory
(e.g., Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977; Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977), can
further reduce cognitive load.
These characteristics of human cognition suggest that the pri-
mary function of instruction is the acquisition of schemas in
LTM. Instructional procedures not designed to alter LTM and which
ignore the limitations of WM when dealing with new information
are likely to be ineffective. Cognitive load theory provides instruc-
tional design principles based on this cognitive architecture and
identifies three categories of cognitive load (see Ayres, 2006a,b;
Paas et al., 2003; Sweller et al., 1998):
Intrinsic cognitive load is the ‘‘natural” load imposed by the
information that must be acquired. It consists of interacting ele-
ments of information that must be processed simultaneously in
WM to understand and learn new material. It cannot be altered
without affecting understanding.
Extraneous cognitive load is the load imposed by instructional
procedures. It is under the control of the instructional designer.
Most work on cognitive load theory has been concerned with pro-
cedures for reducing extraneous cognitive load and a large number
of instructional design principles have been generated (see Sweller,
2004; van Merriënboer & Ayres, 2005 for reviews).
Germane cognitive load refers to the WM resources required to
acquire information. Any reduction in extraneous cognitive load
permits an increase in germane cognitive load thus freeing WM
capacity for learning and understanding (Paas & van Merriënboer,
1993).
Cognitive load theory has been used to generate many instruc-
tional procedures (Sweller, 2003, 2004). Efficient instructional de-
signs should therefore manipulate instructional materials and
procedures to reduce extraneous or unnecessary cognitive load
via the borrowing principle and enhance schema construction
and automation.
3. Human movement, mechanical object movement, and a
human movement working memory processor
Animation has a critical characteristic that is frequently over-
looked when used for instructional purposes – it is usually transi-
tory (see Ayres & Paas, 2007a,b). The transitory nature of animation
has significant working memory implications. Unless rehearsed,
material will remain in WM for no more than a few seconds. When
presenting complex, novel instructional material in animated form,
learners are likely to find it difficult to both process current infor-
mation and remember previous information. If both current and
previous information interact, and so must be considered simulta-
neously in order to be understood, comprehension may be difficult,
because information presented during earlier phases of an anima-
tion may be lost. The transitory nature of animation linked with
the limited duration of WM may be a major reason for failure in
instructional animation as it creates an extraneous cognitive load
due to the need to attempt to hold information in WM for extended
periods. In contrast, static graphical displays can be revisited a
number of times when required, in a manner difficult or impossible
when using animation. Consequently, static graphics may reduce
this source of extraneous cognitive load and possibly eliminate
the problem of transitory information.
While working memory limitations may limit the effectiveness
of many animations, one possibility is that humans may have
evolved a specific component of working memory that may allow
us to cope with some animations better than others. As humans
learn some movements by imitating others via the borrowing
and reorganising principle, we may have developed a separate
working memory processor for this purpose, just as we have work-
ing memory processors for auditory and visual information
(Baddeley, 1992). As a consequence, we may be able to learn from
animations more readily when dealing with human movement
than with mechanical object movement. The following section
outlines some evidence for a human movement, WM processor
and uses cognitive load theory to predict that animations can be
 A. Wong et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009) 339–347
effective when acquiring new knowledge dependent upon human
movement (motor skills). In doing so, we stress that we intend to
only use one aspect of neuroscience to further understand and en-
hance cognitive load theory.
Under many theories of WM, humans have separate WM pro-
cessors for visual and auditory information (e.g., Baddeley, 1992).
Effective working memory capacity can be increased by using both
visual and auditory working memory, rather than by either mem-
ory stream alone (Penney, 1989). We suggest there may also be a
working memory processor for dealing with human movement
and the perception and imitation of human movement. That pro-
cessor may relate to the recently described mirror-neuron system
(Iacoboni et al., 1999, also see Van Gog, Paas, Marcus, Ayres, &
Sweller, 2007, for a related discussion of the mirror-neuron system
and learning by observing).
Iacoboni et al. (1999) provided evidence of similarities in brain
activities that occur when observing someone carrying out certain
actions and when carrying out the actions oneself. In neuropsycho-
logical terms, observing actions made by others activates the cor-
tical circuits responsible for the planning and execution of those
same actions (Meltzoff & Prinz, 2002). This observation–execu-
tion-matching system (mirror-neuron system) is thought to play
an important role in the understanding of actions made by others.
Recently, Tettamanti et al. (2005) used fMRI scans to show that
when a person listens to another person explain an action they
were about to do (such as put together parts or walk across the
room), the neurons in the listener’s brain responsible for those ex-
act muscle movements were activated. It is believed that these
mirror neurons are responsible for our ability to engage in imita-
tive learning (see Blandin, Lhuisset, & Proteau, 1999) and to empa-
thize. With the discovery of the mirror-neuron system, we can
begin to understand how observing human movements can en-
hance our mastery of complex motor behaviours. We suggest the
basic capabilities of our mirror-neuron system may be used to help
foster more complex motor skill development. If this is the case,
then animations may tap into these basic capabilities in a way that
static graphics cannot.
Based on these neuropsychological results, we hypothesize that
observational learning from animation showing human manipula-
tion may trigger the use of a ‘‘movement” processor in a manner
that does not occur when faced with static graphics or with
mechanical object movement. While the above neuropsychological
results by no means prove the existence of a human movement
processor, they are compatible with the existence of such a
hypothesised processor. Assuming such a processor exists, observ-
ing human movement may involve biologically primary knowledge
processed in a very resource-efficient manner and so assist in the
acquisition of secondary knowledge. Consequently, instructional
animations may be potentially ideal for teaching someone to
manipulate an object. Accordingly, our central hypothesis is that
animations will be superior to equivalent static diagrams when
acquiring knowledge that involves human movement. We tested
this hypothesis in a series of three experiments involving paper-
folding tasks.
4. Experiment 1
Experiment 1 investigated the benefits of narrated animation-
based instructions compared to equivalent narrated static gra-
phic-based instructions in learning a motor skill. An origami pa-
per-folding task was chosen because it requires hand
manipulations and therefore involves human movement and may
thus benefit from the observational learning components of ani-
mated instructional materials. A traditional static approach for
demonstrating a complex procedural task, such as how to fold an
341
origami model, has been to present a series of static diagrams cap-
turing discrete steps within the procedure in a step-by-step man-
ner. The learner is generally shown the beginning state of the
fold and then in the next step, what the model looks like after
the fold has been made. Ancillary support in the form of arrows
is usually given to indicate the direction of the fold to be made,
along with brief textual descriptions of the actions required. In this
situation, the learner is required to deduce how the change be-
tween the beginning and end step has occurred. In this experiment,
two versions of a static graphic instructional format were used.
One version (the single-static group) was in the traditional format
described above and consisted of a series of single-static diagrams
each representing a key fold in the process. In the second version
(the double-static group) additional information was provided,
by showing a series of paired static diagrams, each pair illustrating
the before-and-after shots of each fold. The double-static condition
was the static graphics analogue of the animation. However, unlike
the animated version, where both start and finish of the fold were
shown with one image and an animation demonstrating their rela-
tion, the double-static version only depicted the start and end
states of each fold and omitted the animation. The third group
was a narrated animation depicting every action in the paper-fold-
ing process. All three groups received narrated explanations simul-
taneously as the visual information was provided.
It was hypothesised that students receiving narrated anima-
tions would learn the paper-folding task more successfully than
students receiving narrated, static-image based instructions.
5. Methods
5.1. Participants and design
The participants were 32 sixth grade students of mixed levels of
ability from a regional New South Wales Public School. The chil-
dren were drawn from four composite 5th/6th grade classes and
were in the age range 11–12 years. Participants were randomly as-
signed to one of three instructional conditions: animated (n = 11),
single static (n = 11) and double static (n = 10).
5.2. Materials
After pilot testing on potential participants in the desired age
range (11–12 years) the Viking Helmet construction (consisting
of 13 steps) was chosen. The materials for this experiment were
developed using a combination of Macromedia Director 8 and Mac-
romedia Flash 5. The animation material used was manipulated in
Flash 5 and then embedded within a Director 8 projector file,
which was used to track the various time attributes related to
the task. Three different versions of the program were developed,
namely, a narrated animation version, a narrated single-static ver-
sion and a narrated double-static version. All three presentations
used the traditional diagrams for the Viking Helmet model found
in most origami books and all showed each fold to be made.
We sought to make all three instructional programs identical in
as many respects as possible, other than the differences in pre-
sented images. For the animated version, a narration can be heard
explaining the fold as it is made. Fig. 1 shows an example of the
double-static version. Unlike the animated version, where both
start and finish of the fold can be shown in real time, the double-
static version represents the motion by having two images on
screen together, depicting the start and end states of each fold. A
narration was provided, identical to that used for the animated
version, to explain how to perform each fold. The single-static ver-
sion (see Fig. 2) consists of a series of single-static diagrams accom-
panied by the narration. As neither of the static versions can
342 A. Wong et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009) 339–347

Fig. 1. Screen shot from the double-static version in Experiment 1.

Fig. 2. Screen shot from the single-static version in Experiment 1. Note: The single-static version is similar to the animated version except that in the single-static
presentation, the end state of the fold is not shown and arrows are used to convey the fold, rather than real-time movement.

directly show changes through motion, arrows were used to show
the direction in which the folds were to proceed.
In each version buttons were present at the bottom of the
screen showing the folds that could be accessed in any particular
stage. Students were able to move through the steps using these
buttons. A replay button was also available to all students; for
the students in the animated condition, pressing this button re-
played the animation and narration for the step they were cur-
rently on, while for each of the static conditions the button
replayed the narration for that step. The only other materials pro-
vided were the paper squares used for performing the required
folds during testing.
 A. Wong et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009) 339–347
5.3. Procedure
Participants were informed that they were going to view a short
computer tutorial showing how to fold an origami model of a Vik-
ing Helmet and then shown a completed Viking Helmet. Each par-
ticipant was run individually in one session and was presented
with either animated, double-static or single-static origami
instructions. In order to ensure that all participants would feel
comfortable using the program and the procedure of events, a
small demonstration version was made in replica of each instruc-
tional condition demonstrating a simple paper fold. The interface
was explained and participants were informed that they would
be able to click through each of the steps. It was made explicit that
they should pay careful attention to how each fold was done so
that they would be able to remember them. In the acquisition
phase, participants were told that there would be three stages con-
sisting of five folds, three folds, and five folds, respectively, and that
after they had worked through the instructions for a particular
stage, they would be handed a piece of paper with which they
could attempt the folds they had just seen. They were also told that
if they could not complete all the folds in a stage, then a model al-
ready folded to the correct place would be provided to them so that
they could continue at the next stage. They were then informed
that after they had completed all three stages there would be a
revision stage in which they would be able to review all 13 steps
again in sequence. In the test phase, after the revision phase, par-
ticipants were asked to fold the complete model without reference
to any instructional materials. The maximum time allocated for
each stage in the acquisition phase was 125 s for Stage 1, 75 s for
Stage 2, and 125 s for Stage 3. For the revision and test phases, par-
ticipants were allocated 270 and 300 s to work through all three
stages, respectively.
6. Results and discussion
The total time taken to complete the three tasks during acquisi-
tion was recorded, as was the time spent during the revision period
(see Table 1). The number of completed tasks was also recorded
during the test phase for each student (see Table 1). A one-way AN-
OVA indicated that there was a significant difference between the
three groups for time in acquisition, F(2, 29) = 3.53, MSE = 9557.24,
p < 0.05, g2p = 0.20. Subsequent pair wise comparisons using New-
man–Keuls post-hoc tests (a = 0.05) indicated that the animated
group spent less time in acquisition than the single-static group.
No other group differences were found. An ANOVA was also con-
ducted on time in the revision phase and indicated a significant dif-
ference between groups, F(2, 29) = 7.43, MSE = 2815.37, p < 0.05,
g2p = 0.34. A Newman–Keuls comparison (a = 0.05) revealed that
the animation group spent less time in revision than both the sin-
gle-static and double-static groups, which did not differ from each
other. For scores assessing how many students successfully com-
pleted the paper-folding task during the test phase, a chi-squared
test revealed a between group difference, v2(2, N = 32) = 7.28,
p < 0.05. Fisher Exact Probability tests indicated that more students
Table 1
Mean times and standard deviations taken per group and number of participants that
successfully completed the paper-folding task in the test phase across each condition
in Experiment 1.
Group Time taken (s) Number of participants that
completed tasks
Acquisition Revision Test
Animated 409 (141) 188 (81) 8
Single static 514 (42) 270 (0) 3
Double static 495 (83) 257 (41) 2 The animation was developed using the multimedia-authoring
343
within the animation group were able to complete the required
origami model than students in both the single-static group
(p < 0.05) and the double-static group (p < 0.025). No differences
were observed between the single-static and double-static groups.
The results of Experiment 1 support our hypothesis that students
who were given the animated version of the paper-folding task
performed better than students given either of the equivalent sta-
tic graphics versions, and also took less time during acquisition.
7. Experiment 2
Two underlying issues which Tversky et al. (2002) suggest con-
found the effectiveness of animation over static graphics are: (1)
lack of informational equivalence between animated and static
graphics conditions, and (2) the inclusion of learner control. In a
survey of existing studies, Tversky et al. (2002) found that static
graphics were often at a disadvantage compared to animation be-
cause the static graphics condition often presented less informa-
tion compared to the equivalent animation. It is also known from
the literature that learner control and interaction can improve
learning from animations (see Hasler et al., 2007; Schnotz et al.,
1999). It is plausible therefore that the superior performance of
the animation group in the first experiment was due to learner
control and/or less information provided in the static conditions.
As a result of these considerations a number of conditions were
changed in Experiment 2. Both narration and learner control were
eliminated. The static graphics were re-designed to convey move-
ment more effectively by increasing the number of frames used per
step. To avoid overwhelming the participants, individual frames
composing the steps were included or excluded based on pilot test-
ing results, which indicated whether they helped convey the
movement of the fold effectively when added to the existing group
of frames. To improve equivalency between conditions in terms of
the amount of information given, acquisition times were also stan-
dardized. To further generalise the results of Experiment 1 we
chose a much younger group of students to work with (age 9–
10). The instructional content chosen was learning to construct
an origami basket, which again required hand manipulations (hu-
man movement) and was novel for the participants used. Lastly,
the double static group of Experiment 1 was not used, as there
was no significant difference found between it and the single-static
group. Again, we tested the hypothesis that the animation group
would outperform the static group.
8. Methods
8.1. Participants and design
The participants were 26 children (16 female, 10 male) in year 3
and 4 with an age range of 8–9 years from a co-educational Sydney
primary school. Most of the students had a small amount of previ-
ous experience making origami figures, but none had previously
learnt how to fold the origami basket used in the current experi-
ment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two instruc-
tional conditions: animation (n = 15) or static graphics (n = 11).
Initially, we began with 19, 8–10 year old children in each group
but random allocation resulted in unequal distributions of older
children (10 year olds) between groups. Removing all students
who were 10 years or older (four from the animation group and
eight from the static graphics group) equalized ages across groups.
8.2. Materials
program Macromedia FlashTM. It consisted of a series of 13 steps
344 A. Wong et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009) 339–347
showing the origami basket being folded and lasted a total of 64 s.
Each fold consisted of between 6 and 15 individual frames from
start to finish, i.e., enough frames to obtain smooth movement.
Over the entire animation sequence, there were 1032 frames. Total
time was established based on the results from pilot testing, i.e.,
participants had sufficient time to watch the animation and still
be able to successfully complete approximately 60% of the folds
when asked afterwards to perform the folding task.
The static graphics were screenshots of individual frames cap-
tured from the animation. The graphic design program Adobe Illus-
tratorTM was used to compile the frames together into the final
static graphics presentation. The frames chosen for inclusion into
the static graphics were selected on the basis of which combina-
tion of frames would make the fold clearest to the participant.
More specifically, individual frames were included or excluded
based on pilot testing results, which indicated whether they helped
convey the movement of the fold effectively when added to the
existing group of frames. The presentation had a total of 13 steps
and was shown on a single screen. Each step comprised of one
complete movement, e.g., folding a piece of paper in half and fold-
ing it back out consisted of one step (see Fig. 3). We aimed to elim-
inate redundancy but still effectively convey the movement at each
step. Each step thus contained 3 to 4 frames (depending on the per-
ceptual complexity of the fold), showing the fold being made (with
the exception of step 13). Step 13 contained 6 frames, as it was
found during pilot testing that it was perceptually the most diffi-
cult step to understand and that participants required more guid-
ance. In total, there were 42 frames in the entire static graphics
sequence. The last frame of the previous fold was shown as the first
frame of the next fold to avoid split attention effects, particularly at
the end of lines.
Both animation and static graphics conditions were presented
on a computer to maintain equivalence between the two condi-
tions. Participants were presented a single sheet of A4 paper and
tested on whether they could fold the entire origami basket from
start to finish. The test was scored out of 13 rather than a suc-
cess/fail score as in Experiment 1, as we wanted a more sensitive
measure of performance. Each fold was counted as one mark. Half
a mark was deducted from the mark allocated for the fold if a par-
ticipant made an incorrect fold, but then successfully corrected it,
as it indicated partial schema formation. Participants were given a
total score out of 13, according to the number of correct folds
made.
8.3. Procedure
The students were presented with learning materials and tested
individually. The experiment consisted of consecutive learning and
test phases. Participants were randomly allocated to either the ani-
mation or static graphics condition. They were asked if they had
any previous experience in origami and paper-folding tasks and
if so, were asked to recall what kinds of figures they had previously
folded. Any origami figures that participants had previously learnt
to fold were noted.
After collecting the preliminary data, the learning phase began.
All participants were told they would have 64 s to study the
instructions and that afterwards they would be asked to fold what
Fig. 3. Example of a folding step and the individual frames that form it (static graphics condition) in Experiment 2.
they had just seen. Participants in the animation condition were
asked to study an animation on the computer monitor, which
taught them how to fold a sheet of paper into an origami basket.
Participants in the static graphics condition were asked to study
a set of pictures on the computer monitor, which taught them
how to make the same origami basket. For the animation condi-
tion, the pace of the presentation was not under learner control.
Those in the animation condition were shown the animation once
and those in the graphics condition were shown the graphics for
64 s. Participants were not allowed to practice folding the basket
during this time. After watching the presentation, the testing phase
was administered. Participants were given an A4 sheet of paper
and asked to fold the piece of origami they had just seen. After par-
ticipants had either finished the task or indicated they had folded
as much as they could remember, the experimenter collected the
origami piece.
9. Results and discussion
A t-test on the folding scores revealed a significant group differ-
ence, t(24) = 2.58, p < 0.05, g2p = 0.22. Participants who received
animation performed better (M = 6.60, SD = 3.96) than those who
received static graphics (M = 3.10, SD = 2.51). The results of this
experiment indicate that the animation group learnt more than
the static group, thus supporting our hypothesis. The pattern of re-
sults replicate those found in Experiment 1, suggesting that not
only was lack of informational equivalence not an issue, but that
the superiority of animation over static graphics remained when
learner control and interactivity were removed.
10. Experiment 3
Experiment 3 investigated the nature of the results obtained
in Experiment 2 further, by exploring the hypothesis that anima-
tion is superior to static graphics when the task requires human
movement but that static graphics may be superior to animated
instructional aids for tasks that do not involve human move-
ment. Such a result would lend further support to the existence
of a separate working memory processor devoted to human
movement. Again, a paper-folding task was used to distinguish
whether animation was superior, but in addition cognitive tasks
were also included, which did not involve manual manipulation.
For the cognitive tasks learners were required to recognise the
previous or next fold of the paper-folding task, given a particular
state of completion. Recognising the next fold was included as a
control task, because although it could be classified as a non-
movement based task, it still involves recognising forward move-
ment and so could also activate the proposed WM human move-
ment processor. In contrast, recognising the previous fold may
be less likely to activate our motor memory processor, as the
task requires inferences to be made in the opposite direction
to what occurs naturally in time. Consequently, it was predicted
that there would be a group ! task interaction, where animation
would be superior for the actual folding task, but this advantage
would disappear for purely cognitive tasks (in particular for the
backwards-based task).
 A. Wong et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009) 339–347
11. Methods
11.1. Participants and design
The participants were 24 children (11 female, 13 male) in year 3
and 4 (age range = 8–9 years old) from a co-educational Sydney
primary school. Most of the students had a small amount of previ-
ous experience making origami figures, but none had previously
learnt how to fold the origami basket used in the current experi-
ments. As with Experiment 2, participants were randomly assigned
to one of two instructional conditions: animation (n = 12) or static
graphics (n = 12).
11.2. Materials
The origami task and instructional materials were identical to
Experiment 2. Testing included an additional set of 8 tasks requir-
ing participants to recognise the next or previous fold of the basket
at varying stages of the folding task. Each task consisted of a target
(partially folded model), and four other partially folded models
representing the next fold, the previous fold, two folds forward
and two folds back of the target. Each target and its four accompa-
nying models were presented on a single sheet of cardboard. Four
tasks required recognition of the previous fold to the target and
four questions required the next fold to be identified. One mark
was given for each correctly recognised fold, with a maximum pos-
sible score of four marks for the two different types of tasks.
11.3. Procedure
The procedure for Experiment 3 was identical to Experiment 2,
except for the addition of the cognitively based recognition task,
which was administered after the folding task. Before the recogni-
tion task was administered, the concepts of the next fold and the
last fold were demonstrated to participants, using a part of the
folding task that was not tested in one of the questions. The partic-
ipants were also told that they had 10 s to respond. Questions for
the recognition task were presented in random order. Participants
were shown the question and asked which was the last fold or the
next fold, depending on the question. They were then given 10 s to
respond, by pointing to the partially folded model that they
thought was the correct answer. Any responses taking longer than
10 s were coded as incorrect.
12. Results and discussion
Table 2 shows the mean scores and standard deviations for the
folding and fold recognition tasks. A 2 (animation vs static graph-
ics) ! (3) ANOVA with repeated measures (folding task vs forward
recognition vs backward recognition) showed no significant main
effects but a significant interaction: F(2, 21) = 4.06, MSE = 4.19,
p < 0.05, g2p = 0.279. Simple effects tests indicated that for the mo-
tor-based folding task performance in the animation condition was
superior to static graphics: t(22) = 2.36, p < 0.05, g2p = 0.20. While
differences between means on the last-fold task favoured the static
graphics group over the animation group, those differences were
Table 2
Group means (standard deviations) of folding, last and next fold tasks in Experiment
3.
Animation Static graphics
Folding task 7.17 (4.30) 3.75 (2.57)
Last fold recognition 2.58 (1.08) 2.75 (1.35)
Next fold recognition 3.17 (0.72) 2.83 (0.84)
345
not significant: t(22) = "0.33, p = 0.74, g2p = 0.005. Differences for
the next fold task were also not significant: t(22) = 0.79, p = 0.31,
g2p = 0.04, but in contrast they favoured the animation group.
In summary, we found a significant effect favouring the anima-
tion over the static graphics condition for a human movement-
based task replicating the results from Experiment 2. However, this
advantage did not carry over to non-movement based tasks, either
in recognition of forward or backward steps.
13. General discussion
We have demonstrated that instructional animations that foster
motor skills can indeed be superior to the equivalent static graph-
ics, consistent with the findings of Höffler and Leutner (2007). Our
results also lend support to the possible existence of a separate
WM human movement processor. In particular, for paper-folding
tasks requiring motor skills, animated instructional materials were
superior to static graphics, a pattern that we consistently demon-
strated across the three experiments. In contrast, for the non-mo-
tor based recognition tasks (Experiment 3), animation was no
longer superior to static graphics.
Both the paper folding and recognition tasks were from the
same domain, however, the difference between the tasks focused
on whether they involved motor skills. Animations led to improved
performance under conditions where people were required to
reproduce human movement and thus invoke a hypothesised
‘movement’ based processor. These benefits did not carry over
for non-movement based tasks. It is interesting to note that these
effects persisted despite changes in many different variables, such
as the folding task, number of static graphics, interactivity, learner
control, inclusion of narration and different participant cohorts. In
particular, the persistence of the effect indicates that the advantage
of animations over statics graphics for human movement-based
tasks may not necessarily be an artifact of introducing interactivity
and learner control, but of our inherent ability to learn human-
movement based tasks more efficiently through observation of
the activity being performed. Results similar to ours were obtained
by Ayres, Marcus, Chan, and Qian (2009) using metal puzzles and
constructing knots, both tasks that involve human movement.
Video based animations led to superior learning when compared
to a series of still frames for both the metal puzzle construction
task and the knot-tying task.
We acknowledge the current lack of neurophysiological evi-
dence demonstrating a relation between the mirror-neuron system
and WM. Nevertheless, the results are in accord with this putative
relation.
Our results support the existing literature demonstrating that
people can learn motor skills purely through observation, such as
found by Blandin et al. (1999), who go further to suggest that when
we learn through observation, we also engage in cognitive pro-
cesses similar to those occurring during physical practice. Watch-
ing an animation appears to be tapping into these cognitive
capabilities. The lack of benefits of animation over static graphics
for non-movement based tasks also suggests that the benefits of
observational learning do not necessarily transfer to non-motor
tasks that are more cognitive in nature. The results support those
of Iacoboni et al. (1999), who found that people asked to observe,
then execute a hand movement showed greater levels of cortical
activation in fMRI scans when given an animated hand as a cue,
than when they were given either spatial or symbolic cues. Our re-
sults may also partly explain the inconsistent outcomes such as
those found for animated materials in the mechanical, biological
and computational domains by Tversky et al. (2002). Over and
above any methodological shortcomings, mechanical, biological
and computational systems are typically biologically secondary
346 A. Wong et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009) 339–347
domains of knowledge. They do not involve human movement. The
biologically secondary nature of the subject matter means that
processing such information is effortful and we need to make use
of WM to do so. It is possible that in such cases, WM becomes con-
strained, due to the transitory nature of the animation, resulting in
less effective learning, relative to static graphics-based materials.
We believe it is telling that Mayer et al. (2005) in a series of
experiments obtained results equally as consistent as ours but in
the reverse direction. Static graphics consistently proved superior
to animations. We suggest that the contrasting results are due to
Mayer et al. (2005) using mechanical object movement that did
not require human manipulation and that the transitory nature
of animations imposed an excessive working memory load that
interfered with learning. We suggest that load may be ameliorated
where learners are able to use the hypothesised human movement
processor, a processor that is likely to be irrelevant when dealing
with mechanical object movement.
Although the paper-folding task involved human hand move-
ments, we did not show hands explicitly. If, as we assume, there
is a human movement processor, it should not be necessary to
explicitly show hands because the relevant hand movements
should be implicitly assumed by learners as part of biologically pri-
mary knowledge (see also Van Gog et al., 2007, for a discussion of
the necessity of the presence of a human actor). Analogously, we
learn tongue movements when learning a first language without
either explicit tuition or even vision of other peoples’ tongues.
We intentionally did not show hands performing the folds, as
we were concerned that the inclusion of hands may obstruct the
participant’s view of the movement. Michas and Berry (2000) per-
formed an experiment comparing learning outcomes from video
stills and continuous video showing a first aid person applying
bandages. They showed hand movements and obtained a similar
pattern of results to the current set of experiments, where partic-
ipants given the video performed better than in the video stills
condition for a real bandaging procedure and for questions relating
to the steps in the bandaging procedure.
It could be argued that the results obtained are an artifact of
procedural and conceptual knowledge, rather than differences be-
tween biologically primary and secondary knowledge. We doubt
this possible explanation. While tasks involving human movement
are clearly procedural, the non-movement tasks of Experiment 3,
while not requiring physical movement, do require the manipula-
tion of a cognitive procedure and in that sense, are procedural. Fur-
thermore, as indicated above, the mechanical, biological and
computational tasks that demonstrated an advantage of static
graphics over animation in other experiments clearly were proce-
dural in nature making it unlikely that our results are due to a pro-
cedural-conceptual distinction.
As is the case for all experiments concerned with cognitive pro-
cesses and instructional design, we acknowledge that there may be
alternative explanations for the current set of results. Tversky et al.
(2002) suggested that animations might be effective if the external
and internal representations of both structure and content are
commensurate with each other (congruence principle). That is, a
natural correspondence needs to exist between the conceptual
information, the change over time and the basis of the animation.
So long as the animated instructional material can be naturally
construed as an animation, then the congruence principle should
be satisfied. It is possible that our results can be explained by a cor-
respondence between the internal representation (the cognitive
process of folding the piece of paper) and the external representa-
tion (the physical act of folding the piece of paper). However, we
believe the congruence principle is primarily descriptive and fails
to sufficiently explain the emerging evidence that animation is
more effective than static graphics under specific conditions (e.g.,
Höffler & Leutner, 2007). Further, Tversky et al. (2002) note that
satisfying the congruence and apprehension principles are neces-
sary but not sufficient to make animations more effective than
the equivalent static graphics.
Another possible alternative explanation is that the static
graphics may facilitate retention of stages, whereas animations
may facilitate human movement-based learning (Zacks & Tversky,
2001). Due to the spatial nature of static graphics, participants gi-
ven graphics may have learned the paper-folding task in stages,
reinforcing the learning of the procedure as steps, but conse-
quently leading to less fluid performance. Conversely, the fluid nat-
ure of the animation may render the steps irrelevant when
learning, leading to better performance than the static graphics.
If this were the case, we would expect the static graphics condition
to perform as well or better than the animation condition in the
next fold recognition task in Experiment 3. The next fold task,
which asked participants to recognise the next fold in the paper-
folding procedure, corresponds to fine-grain, bottom-up small
event boundaries (Zacks & Tversky, 2001). We instead found the
animation condition still outperformed the static graphics condi-
tion. As a result, we also doubt this explanation is viable.
In terms of implications for instructional design, the results
from the current set of experiments indicate that learning some
forms of biologically secondary knowledge (specifically, human
movement-based tasks) may be aided by the use of animated
instructional materials. The benefits of the animation for the learn-
ing of motor tasks is most likely directly related to our hard wired
abilities to learn by imitating. Geary (2002, 2005, 2007) suggests
that tasks can consist of both biologically primary and secondary
elements, writing being such an example. Whilst hand movement
is biologically primary, the specific motor movements that produce
letters are biologically secondary. Thus, teaching handwriting
using animations is likely to be more beneficial than using a series
of static graphics (see Marcus, Lu, Kam, & Ayres, 2006). A possible
future direction of research may be to develop other instructional
design techniques that bridge biologically secondary learning
material by tapping into the appropriate biologically primary
knowledge. Conversely, presenting materials or tasks that are not
inherently based around human movement in animated formats
may result in less effective learning than if the same material or
task was to be presented as static graphics.
We reiterate that the human movement WM processor is
hypothesised. Our results are compatible with such a construct
but further research is needed to firmly establish the existence of
a separate WM movement processor. In particular, human move-
ment based instructional materials need to be directly compared
to mechanical movement based instructions, using a larger num-
ber of participants. More data also needs to be collected using dif-
ferent motor skills.
References
Ayres, P. (2006a). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic
cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389–400.
Ayres, P. (2006b). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a
mathematical domain. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 287–298.
Ayres, P., Marcus, N., Chan, C., & Qian, N. (2009). Learning hand manipulative tasks:
When instructional animations are superior to equivalent static represen-
tations. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 348–353.
Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007a). Making instructional animations more effective: A
cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 695–700.
Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007b). Can the cognitive load approach make instructional
animations more effective? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 811–820.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.
Blandin, Y., Lhuisset, L., & Proteau, L. (1999). Cognitive processes underlying
observational learning of motor skills. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 52A, 957–979.
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4,
55–81.
Clark, R., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based
guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Fransisco: Pfeiffer.
 A. Wong et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009) 339–347
De Groot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton
[Original work published 1946].
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological
Review, 102, 211–245.
Geary, D. (2002). Principles of evolutionary educational psychology. Learning and
Individual Differences, 12, 317–345.
Geary, D. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general
intelligence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Geary, D. (2007). Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations for an
evolutionary educational psychology. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.),
Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues (pp. 1–99).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and
instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 713–729.
Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The role of mental animations and external
animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21,
325–360.
Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A
meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722–738.
Iacoboni, M., Woods, R., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J., & Rizzolatti, G. (1999).
Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science, 286, 2526–2528.
Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual
learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 225–244.
Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in
dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157–176.
Marcus, N., Lu, P., Kam, B., & Ayres, P. (2006). Animations with a trace lead to more
effective learning than equivalent static graphics. Paper presented as part of an
effective learning from animations symposium at the annual meeting of the
American education research association, San Francisco.
Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple
user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 93, 390–397.
Mayer, R. E., DeLeeuw, K. E., & Ayres, P. (2007). Creating retroactive and proactive
interference in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 795–809.
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, 256–265.
Meltzoff, A., & Prinz, W. (2002). The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain
bases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Michas, I. C., & Berry, D. C. (2000). Learning a procedural task: Effectiveness of
multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 555–575.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on
our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
Moreno, R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimizing cognitive
load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation
methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 765–781.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional
design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.
View publication stats
347
Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions:
An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human
Factors, 35, 737–743.
Penney, C. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory.
Memory and Cognition, 17, 398–422.
Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automatic human
information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological
Review, 84, 1–66.
Schnotz, W., Böckheler, J., & Grzondziel, H. (1999). Individual and cooperative
learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology and
Education, 14, 245–265.
Schwan, S., & Riempp, R. (2004). The cognitive benefits of interactive videos:
Learning to tie nautical knots. Learning and Instruction, 14, 293–305.
Shiffrin, R., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information
processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.
Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Melbourne: ACER.
Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Ed.). The
psychology of learning and motivation (vol. 43, pp. 215–266). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between
evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional
Science, 32, 9–31.
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In
R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 19–30). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems.
Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 434–458.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and
instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.
Tettamanti, M., Buccino, G., Saccuman, M. C., Gallese, V., Danna, M., Scifo, P., et al.
(2005). Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor
circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 273–281.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate?
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (in press). The mirror-neuron
system and observational learning: Implications for the effectiveness of
dynamic visualizations. Educational Psychology Review.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its
design implications for E-learning, Educational Technology. Research and
Development, 53(3), 5–13.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex
learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology
Review, 17, 147–177.
Zacks, J., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and cognition.
Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3–21.