Do dynamic work instructions provide an advantage over static instructions in a small scale assembly task?

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 84-93

  Watson, Gareth ^a   Butterfield, Joe ^a   Curran, Ricky ^b   Craig, Cathy ^a  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^b DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Assembly task; Dynamic visualisation; Industrial learning; Instructional animation; Procedural motor learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449623134     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Baggett P. Learning a procedure from multimedia instructions: the effects of film and practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology 1 3 (1987) 183-195
2. Baggett P., and Ehrenfeucht A. Conceptualizing in assembly tasks. Human Factors 30 3 (1988) 269-284
3. Baggett P., and Ehrenfeucht A. Building physical and mental models in assembly tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 7 3 (1991) 217-227
4. Betrancourt M., and Tversky B. Effect of computer animation on users' performance: a review. Le Travail Humain 63 4 (2000) 311-329
5. Butterfield J., Crosby S., Curran R., Price M., Armstrong C.G., Raghunathan S., et al. Optimization of aircraft fuselage assembly process using digital manufacturing. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 7 3 (2007) 269-275
6. Ganier F. Factors affecting the processing of procedural instructions: implications for document design. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 47 1 (2004) 15-26
7. Ganier F., Gombert J., and Fayol M. Effets du format de presentation des instructions sur l'apprentissage de procedures a l'aide de documents techniques (The effects of instructional formats on procedural learning when using technical documents). Le Travail Humain 63 (2000) 121-152
8. Guthrie J.T., Bennett S., and Weber S. Processing procedural documents: a cognitive model for following written directions. Educational Psychology Review 3 (1991) 249-265
9. Hasler B.S., Kersten B., and Sweller J. Learner control, cognitive load, and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology 21 (2007) 713-729
10. Hegarty M. Multimedia learning about physical systems. In: Mayer R.E. (Ed). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), Cambridge University Press, New York 447-466
11. Hoffler T.N., and Leutner D. Instructional animation versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction 17 (2007) 722-738
12. Kosslyn S.M. Image and brain (1994), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
13. Larkin J.H., and Simon H.A. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11 1 (1987) 65-100
14. Mayer R.E. Multimedia learning (2001), Cambridge University Press, New York
15. Mayer R.E., Hegarty M., Mayer S., and Campbell J. When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 11 (2005) 256-265
16. Mayer R.E., and Moreno R. Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review 14 (2002) 87-99
17. Michas I.C., and Berry D.C. Learning a procedural task: effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology 14 (2000) 555-575
18. Moreno R. Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: cognitive and affective consequences of signalling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology 21 (2007) 765-781
19. Paivio A. Mental representations: A dual coding approach (1986), Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
20. Palmiter S., and Elkerton J. Animated demonstrations for learning procedural computer-based tasks. Human-Computer Interaction 8 (1993) 193-216
21. Rizzolatti G., and Craighero L. The mirror neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience 27 (2004) 169-192
22. Schnotz W. An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In: Mayer R.E. (Ed). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), Cambridge University Press, New York 49-69
23. Schnotz W., and Bannert M. Construction and interface in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 141-156
24. Spangenberg R.W. The motion variable in procedural learning. Audio Visual Communication Review 21 (1973) 419-436
25. Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4 (1994) 295-312
26. Sweller J. Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In: Mayer R.E. (Ed). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2003), Cambridge University Press, New York 19-30
27. Sweller J., Chandler P., Tierney P., and Cooper M. Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 119 (1990) 176-192
28. Tversky B., Morrison J.B., and Betrancourt M. Animation: can it facilitate?. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 57 (2002) 247-262
29. Van Dijk T.A., and Kintsch W. Strategies of discourse comprehension (1983), Academic, New York