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

The Cognitive Benefit of Dynamic Representations on Procedural Skill Acquisition: A Computational Modeling Approach

“…The human data do not include timings for the substages of the assembly, and comparison with model data was therefore limited to the final build times only. In addition, the sample size for human participants (Watson et al, 2010) was small, which may account for the large deviations reported in that study. Despite this, the reported human data clearly show the trend of learning differences and interface effectiveness between the compared groups.…”

“…Task performance of the independent groups was compared on the factors of device assembly time and errors. Watson et al (2010) data describes the immediate postlearning performance effect on the first build as well as long-term retention and performance convergence for the three compared groups over five builds. Our modeling effort however is limited to the early stages of performance for the animated video (dynamic or Vgroup) and static diagram (static or S-group) instruction groups only.…”

“…The mean assembly times (in seconds) for 100 runs each of the S-model and V-model and the corresponding data from human participants (Watson et al, 2010) are shown in Table 6. The table also shows data for 10 runs each of the cognitive models groups (S-model [10] &V-model [10]) for direct comparison with the equivalent sample size of human participants from Watson et al (2010) study.…”

“…The table also shows data for 10 runs each of the cognitive models groups (S-model [10] &V-model [10]) for direct comparison with the equivalent sample size of human participants from Watson et al (2010) study. The human data do not include timings for the substages of the assembly, and comparison with model data was therefore limited to the final build times only.…”

Comparing apples and oranges? A critical look at research on learning from statics versus animations

“…Following the differentiation noted byPlass, Homer, and Hayward (2009), we categorize two types of interaction: (a) secondary interaction (e.g., clicking navigational or pace-control buttons) is our definition of affordances that do not learning content; and (b) primary interaction (e.g., dragging and changing the depicted elements), includes the interactivity that affects the learning content.Regarding secondary interaction bias, an example where only the animation was provided with pace-control buttons is the study byWatson, Butterfield, Curran, and Craig (2010) with adult participants learning to assemble an engineering model device. Although the authors did not observe significant differences between the visualizations, statics presented no interaction, but animations included interactive buttons to rewind, fast forward, and pause the depiction.…”