CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 404Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesScience Education and PedagogySpatial Cognition and Navigation

The Roles of Mental Animations and External Animations in Understanding Mechanical Systems

Open access
Hegarty, Mary, Kriz, Sarah, Cate, Christina·2003·Cognition and Instruction
DOI 10.1207/s1532690xci2104_1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The effects of computer animations and mental animation on people's mental models of a mechanical system are examined. In 3 experiments, students learned how a mechanical system works from various instructional treatments including viewing a static diagram of the machine, predicting motion from static diagrams, viewing computer animations, and viewing static and animated diagrams accompanied by verbal commentaries. Although students' understanding of the system was improved by viewing both static and animated diagrams, there was no evidence that animated diagrams led to superior understanding of dynamic processes compared to static diagrams. Comprehension of diagrams was enhanced by asking students questions that required them to predict the behavior of the machine from static diagrams and by providing them with a verbal description of the dynamic processes. This article proposes that predicting motion from static diagrams engages students' mental animation processes, including spatial visualization, and provides them with information about what they do and do not understand about how the machine works. Verbal instruction provides information that is not easily communicated in graphics and directs students' attention to the relevant information in static and animated diagrams. The research suggests that an understanding of students' mental animation abilities is an important component of a theory of learning from external animations.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Across three experiments, students learned about a flushing cistern from static diagrams, phase diagrams, animations, and verbal instruction, but animated diagrams were not superior to static diagrams for understanding dynamic processes. Prediction from static diagrams and verbal instruction improved comprehension, while spatial ability related to some outcomes without interacting with instructional condition.

Key findings

  • Animated diagrams showed no advantage over static diagrams. In Experiment 2, static media produced marginally more complete causal descriptions than animated media (M = 14.48 vs. 13.26), F(1, 92) = 3.35, p = .07; in Experiment 3, animation and three phase diagrams did not differ, though both outperformed a single static diagram.
  • Predicting system behavior from static phase diagrams improved causal understanding. In Experiment 1, predictors described more correct causal steps than non-predictors (M = 11.02 vs. 9.02), F(1, 92) = 10.97, p = .001; in Experiment 2, predictors also described more steps (M = 14.92 vs. 12.82), F(1, 92) = 10.70, p < .01.
  • Verbal instruction substantially improved causal descriptions. Combined groups described: static diagrams only M = 7.09 steps; kinematic diagrams M = 9.51; diagrams plus verbal M = 13.27; diagrams plus verbal plus prediction M = 14.21, F(1, 244) = 73.26, p < .001.
  • High-spatial students generally performed better on causal descriptions and troubleshooting in Experiments 1 and 2, but spatial ability did not interact significantly with instructional treatments; functional understanding was unaffected by experimental manipulations (Exp 1 M = 3.12, Exp 2 M = 3.28).

Methods

  • Three experiments with University of California, Santa Barbara undergraduates: Experiment 1 (N = 100), Experiment 2 (N = 100), and Experiment 3 (N = 58). Participants learned how a flushing cistern works from combinations of a static labeled diagram, three phase diagrams, computer animation, verbal commentary/text, and prediction questions.
  • Comprehension was measured by written or oral descriptions of the causal chain, scored against 19 steps; troubleshooting questions about possible faults; and function questions in Experiments 1 and 2. Spatial ability was measured with the Paper Folding test.
  • Main analyses compared instructional conditions, prediction, animation/static media, and spatial ability, using ANOVA and post hoc comparisons.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the animations may not have been optimal, that interactive animations allowing pace control might be more effective, that visual attention limits learning from simultaneous motions, and that viewing animation is passive. It also notes low variance in physics training and practical experience and that participants were novices.
  • The paper states that one phase-diagram limitation is that participants may not have been able to interpolate between the two stages shown, though all stages were shown in the animation.
  • Evident from the text: the prediction effect on troubleshooting was found in Experiment 1 but not replicated in Experiment 2; functional understanding showed no experimental effects; and direct evidence for internal visualization comes from a related eye-tracking study, not the reported experiments.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s1532690xci2104_1

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

7 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 77 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Participants who predicted how the system worked included more steps in their descriptions of the causal chain than those who did not predict.

    “Participants who predicted how the system worked also included more steps in their descriptions of the causal chain (M = 11.02,SD = 3.55) than those who did not predict: M = 9.02, SD = 4.01; F(1, 92) = 10.97,p = .001.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Spatial ability did not significantly affect these measures (F < 1).

    “Spatial ability did not significantly affect these measures (F < 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Participants could accurately infer some aspects of the behavior of a complex mechanical system from the three phase diagrams.

    “Performance in the prediction phase of the experiment (for those in the prediction and combination conditions) indicated that participants could accurately infer some aspects of the behavior of a complex mechanical system from the three phase diagrams.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 19-step causal chain compiled by the authors is a correct and complete description of the flushing cistern's operation.
  • Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, there was no significant difference in gain scores between those who received the static instruction and those who received the animated instruction.

    “There was no significant difference in these gain scores between those who received the static instruction (gain score = 6.32,SD = 3.59) and those who received the animated instruction (gain score = 5.60, SD = 3.17; F < 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There was no evidence for a negative effect of prediction of system behavior.

    “There was no evidence for a negative effect of prediction of system behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 40
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Comprehension of diagrams was enhanced by asking students questions that required them to predict the behavior of the machine from static diagrams and by providing them with a verbal description of the dynamic processes.

    “Comprehension of diagrams was enhanced by asking students questions that required them to predict the behavior of the machine from static diagrams and by providing them with a verbal description of the dynamic processes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Although students' understanding of the system was improved by viewing both static and animated diagrams, there was no evidence that animated diagrams led to superior understanding of dynamic processes compared to static diagrams.

    “Although students' understanding of the system was improved by viewing both static and animated diagrams, there was no evidence that animated diagrams led to superior understanding of dynamic processes compared to static diagrams.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants rarely described incorrect steps in the causal chain (less than 1 incorrect step), and they almost always reported steps in the correct causal order.

    “Participants rarely described incorrect steps in the causal chain (less than 1 incorrect step), and they almost always reported steps in the correct causal order.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The interaction between the experimental treatments was not significant, indicating that the effects of the two manipulations were independent.

    “The interaction between the experimental treatments was not significant (F < 1), indicating that the effects of the two manipulations were independent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In response to the first question, which asked them to explain the causal chain of events in the behavior of the system, they described 7.88 correct steps on average (SD = 2.45) and only 0.31 incorrect steps (SD = 0.57) in the causal chain, and they answered 3.00 of the other four prediction questions correctly (SD = 1.00).

    “In response to the first question, which asked them to explain the causal chain of events in the behavior of the system, they described 7.88 correct steps on average (SD = 2.45) and only 0.31 incorrect steps (SD = 0.57) in the causal chain, and they answered 3.00 of the other four prediction questions correctly (SD = 1.00).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 19-step causal chain compiled by the authors is a correct and complete description of the flushing cistern's operation.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, participants in the prediction conditions described on average 8.1 correct steps in the causal chain and answered 2.76 of the other four prediction questions correctly.

    “In response to the first prediction question, participants in the prediction conditions described on average 8.1 correct steps in the causal chain (SD = 2.28), and they answered 2.76 (SD = 1.02) of the other four prediction questions correctly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 3, post hoc tests indicated that performance of students in the control condition was significantly worse than that of students who saw the three phase diagrams and that of students who saw the animation, but the phase-diagrams and animation conditions did not differ.

    “Post hoc (Scheffe) tests indicated that performance of students in the control condition was significantly worse than that of students who saw the three phase diagrams (p = .004)and that of students who saw the animation (p = .01),but the phase-diagrams and animation conditions did not differ.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 3, post hoc tests indicated a marginally significant difference between performance of those who saw the three phase diagrams and those in the control condition, but performance in the animation condition was not significantly different from the other conditions.

    “Post hoc (Scheffe) tests indicated a marginally significant difference between performance of those who saw the three phase diagrams and those in the control condition (p = .087),but performance on the animation condition was not significantly different from the other conditions”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The difference between these groups was highly significant, and post hoc comparisons indicated that the groups were all significantly different from each other.

    “The difference between these groups was highly significant, F(1, 244) = 73.26,MSE 10.70, p < .001;post hoc (Scheffe) comparisons indicated that the groups were all significantly different from each other (p < .01).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, there was no significant advantage of viewing the animation on written descriptions of the causal chain; there was a marginally significant trend for those who studied the static media to write more complete descriptions than those who studied the animated media.

    “As shown in Figure 3, there was no significant advantage of viewing the animation; in fact, there was a marginally significant trend for those who studied the static media (M = 14.48,SD = 3.35) to write more complete descriptions of the causal chain than those who studied the animated media: M = 13.26,MSE = 10.60,SD = 3.50; F(1, 92) = 3.35, p = .07.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the combined analysis, the static diagrams group described on average 7.09 steps, the kinematics diagrams group 9.51 steps, the diagrams plus verbal instruction group 13.27 steps, and the diagrams plus verbal plus prediction group 14.21 steps in the causal chain.

    “Using this classification, the static diagrams group described, on average, 7.09 (SD = 2.84, N = 43) steps in the causal chain; the kinematics diagrams group described 9.51 steps (SD = 2.62, N = 65); the diagrams plus verbal instruction group described 13.27 steps (SD = 3.93, N = 76); and the diagrams plus verbal plus prediction group described 14.21 steps (SD = 3.27, N = 75).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Asking prediction questions in addition to showing three phase diagrams may have an additional small effect on comprehension, but the difference did not reach statistical significance.

    “Comparison of the three-diagrams condition of Experiment 3 with that of the prediction condition of Experiment 1 suggests that asking prediction questions in addition to showing the three phase diagrams may have an additional small effect on comprehension, but this difference did not reach statistical significance in our experiments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The refilling mechanism, which students understood well even without verbal instruction, involved highly salient movements of the float and float arm, which are relatively large components.

    “In contrast, the refilling mechanism, which students understood well even without verbal instruction, involved highly salient movements of the float and float arm, which are relatively large components.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    These differences were evident in students' ability to describe the causal chain of events from memory and in their ability to solve troubleshooting problems from memory.

    “These differences were evident in students' ability to describe the causal chain of events from memory and in their ability to solve troubleshooting problems from memory.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In this study, formal education in physics and informal practical experience with machines had no significant effects on the dependent measures.

    “In this study, we collected data on students' formal education in physics and informal practical experience with machines and found no significant effects of these variables.”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “Physics training and practical experience were not significantly correlated with any of the dependent measures of the experiments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Tversky et al. (2002) concluded that there was no evidence for an advantage of animations over static media.

    “Tversky et al. (2002) concluded that there was no evidence for an advantage of animations over static media.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tversky et al. (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Predicting motion from static diagrams engages students' mental animation processes, including spatial visualization, and provides them with information about what they do and do not understand about how the machine works.

    “This article proposes that predicting motion from static diagrams engages students' mental animation processes, including spatial visualization, and provides them with information about what they do and do not understand about how the machine works.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The flushing cistern is a representative complex mechanical system for studying how people learn from animations and static diagrams.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Verbal instruction provides information that is not easily communicated in graphics and directs students' attention to the relevant information in static and animated diagrams.

    “Verbal instruction provides information that is not easily communicated in graphics and directs students' attention to the relevant information in static and animated diagrams.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    High-spatial individuals had more spatial working memory resources available to mentally integrate different components of motion of objects in the animation.

    “Isaak and Just (1995) found that high-spatial individuals perceived animations of dynamic events more accurately, and they argued that these individuals had more spatial working memory resources available to mentally integrate different components of motion (i.e., translation and rotation) of objects in the animation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Isaak and Just (1995)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The animation was designed to conform to the prescriptions of previous research on effective animations.

    “The animation was designed to conform to the prescriptions of previous research on effective animations (Faraday & Sutcliffe, 1996, 1997;Mayer & Moreno, 1998;Mayer & Sims, 1994;Mousavi et al., 1995).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Faraday & Sutcliffe, 1996, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mayer & Moreno, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mayer & Sims, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Rozenblit and Keil (2002) found that people have false confidence with respect to understanding of causal systems.

    “Rozenblit and Keil (2002) found that people have false confidence with respect to understanding of causal systems.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rozenblit and Keil (2002)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    There were no significant differences between the groups in spatial ability, physics background, or practical experience (F < 1 in all cases).

    “There were no significant differences between the groups in spatial ability, physics background, or practical experience (F < 1 in all cases).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mental animation ability is highly related to spatial ability but not verbal ability.

    “Therefore, mental animation ability is highly related to spatial ability (Hegarty & Kozhevnikov, 1999;Hegarty & Sims, 1994;Hegarty & Steinhoff, 1997) but not verbal ability, and mental animation interferes more with a visual-spatial working memory load than with a verbal working memory load (Sims & Hegarty, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hegarty & Kozhevnikov, 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hegarty & Sims, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hegarty & Steinhoff, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Two raters independently scored the responses of 20 participants and agreed on the scoring of 83% of the propositions.

    “Two raters independently scored the responses of 20 participants and agreed on the scoring of 83% of the propositions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Students spontaneously describe the behavior of mechanical systems when they view static diagrams that are annotated with arrows showing the movement of parts of the system.

    “Finally, students spontaneously describe the behavior of mechanical systems when they view static diagrams that are annotated with arrows showing the movement of parts of the system (Heiser & Tversky, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Heiser & Tversky, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    People may know that every other gear in a gear chain moves in the same direction, so they do not need to use visualization processes to infer this information.

    “For example, people may know that every other gear in a gear chain moves in the same direction, so they do not need to use visualization processes to infer this information (Schwartz & Black, 1996).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schwartz & Black, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    People can be quite successful in inferring the behavior of a machine from a static diagram when they are explicitly asked to predict how system components will move.

    “However, people can be quite successful in infer- ring the behavior of a machine from a static diagram when they are explicitly asked to predict how system components will move (e.g., Hegarty, 1992).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hegarty, 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    People construct dynamic mental models of machines when they read an accompanying text describing the behavior of a machine.

    “People also construct dynamic mental models of machines when they read an accompanying text describing the behavior of a machine (Hegarty & Just, 1993).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hegarty & Just, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The function questions measured participants' ability to infer the purpose of each component in the system, as opposed to its behavior.

    “The function questions measured participants' ability to infer the purpose of each component in the system, as opposed to its behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Two people independently scored 20 of the descriptions; the correlations between their scores were .93 for number of correct steps, .78 for number of incorrect steps, and .94 for number of correct steps in order.

    “Two people independently scored 20 of the descriptions (chosen at random from the different experimental conditions); the correlations between their scores were .93 for number of correct steps, .78 for number of incorrect steps, and .94for number of correct steps in order.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Two raters independently scored the responses of 30 participants on this measure and agreed on the scoring of 91% of responses.

    “Two raters independently scored the responses of 30 participants on this measure and agreed on the scoring of 91% of responses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Twenty-five participants were assigned to each of the four conditions on the basis of performance on the Paper Folding test to ensure that the spatial abilities of participants in the four groups was about equal.

    “Twenty-five participants were assigned to each of the four conditions on the basis of performance on the Paper Folding test (Ekstrom, French, Harman, & Derman, 1976) to ensure that the spatial abilities of participants in the four groups was about equal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ekstrom et al., 1976

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Describing the behavior of the system is a measure of whether the individual has inferred this behavior from the static diagrams or comprehended the animation and commentary.

    “Describing the behavior of the system is a measure of whether the individual has inferred this behavior from the static diagrams (in the control and prediction conditions) or comprehended the animation and commentary (in the animation condition).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In Experiment 2, the amount of time for which the animations and the texts and diagrams were available was controlled to equate exposure to the two sets of learning materials and to ensure that participants took time to study the materials thoroughly.

    “In this experiment, we also controlled the amount of time for which the animations and the texts and diagrams were available, to equate exposure to the two sets of learning materials and to ensure that participants took time to study the materials thoroughly.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Both groups in Experiment 2 learned from the instruction, and the amount of learning did not depend on the format of instruction (whether the diagram was static or animated).

    “This result indicates that both groups learned from the instruction, and the amount of learning did not depend on the format of instruction (whether the diagram was static or animated).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Experiment 3, there were no significant differences between the groups in spatial ability, physics education, or practical experience.

    “There were no significant differences between the groups in spatial ability, physics education, or practical experience.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The groups in Experiment 2 did not differ significantly in spatial ability, physics training, or practical experience.

    “The groups did not differ significantly in spatial ability, physics training, or practical experience (F < 1 in all cases).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Asking students to generate a causal description and answer questions about device behavior while viewing phase diagrams improved comprehension of the device, as measured by the causal chain and troubleshooting questions, and the effects of this manipulation were independent of the effects of viewing an animation.

    “That is, asking students to generate a causal description and answer questions about device behavior while viewing phase diagrams improved comprehension of the device, as measured by the causal chain and troubleshooting questions, and the effects of this manipulation were independent of the effects of viewing an animation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationown data

    Students who received kinematic diagrams demonstrated more mechanistic understanding than the control group.

    “Students who received kinematic diagrams (either 3 phases or an animation) demonstrated more mechanistic understanding.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The three diagrams clearly provided more information about the behavior of the system than a single static diagram, although further inference is also necessary to generate a full causal description of the system from the static diagrams.

    “These three diagrams clearly provided more information about the behavior of the system than a single static diagram, although further inference is also necessary to generate a full causal description of the system from the static diagrams.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Students who received the static media were able to construct a dynamic mental model of the system on the basis of the verbal description of motion in the text, and viewing an external animation is not essential to students' learning.

    “This suggests that students who received the static media were able to construct a dynamic mental model of the system on the basis of the verbal description of motion in the text and that viewing an external animation is not essential to students' learning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Students who predicted how the system worked also saw diagrams of three critical phases in the flushing and refilling of the cistern, whereas students in the other conditions did not study these three diagrams.

    “However, students who predicted how the system worked also saw diagrams of three critical phases in the flushing and refilling of the cistern, whereas students in the other conditions did not study these three diagrams.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    People can understand some aspects of the behavior of a mechanical system from an animation alone, without a verbal commentary, and participants in Experiments 1 and 2 gained some understanding from the animations and did not learn exclusively from the verbal description of motion.

    “Therefore, people can understand some aspects of the behavior of a mechanical system from an animation alone, without a verbal commentary, and it can be concluded that participants in Experiments 1 and 2 gained some understanding from the animations and did not learn exclusively from the verbal description of motion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The control group gained some understanding of the function of the two subsystems (or drew on everyday knowledge of how toilets work), but did not gain a mechanistic understanding of these systems.

    “Therefore, it can be concluded that this group gained some understanding of the function of the two subsystems (or drew on their everyday knowledge of how toilets work), but did not gain a mechanistic understanding of these systems.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Rozenblit and Keil attributed overestimation partially to confusion between function and mechanism.

    “They attributed this partially to confusion between function and mechanism (i.e., people judged themselves as understanding a machine if they knew the functions of the different subcomponents).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rozenblit & Keil, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    One possible reason for the misperception of animations and real events is that these events often occur very quickly.

    “One possible reason for the misperception of animations and real events is that these events often occur very quickly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    This result was confined to relatively simple mechanical events and did not scale up to more complex situations.

    “However, this result was confined to relatively simple mechanical events and did not scale up to more complex situations (Kaiser et al., 1992).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kaiser et al., 1992

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The flushing mechanism involved relatively small movements of the siphon disks, which might not be easily noticed in an animation.

    “This mechanism involved relatively small movements of the siphon disks, which might not be easily noticed in an animation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    When a machine is in motion, many of its components move at once; therefore, a realistic animation of a machine shows these simultaneous motions.

    “When a machine is in motion, many of its components move at once; therefore, a realistic animation of a machine shows these simultaneous motions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    People learn more from information presentations if they first participate in activities that activate their knowledge relevant to the topic or generate the important distinctions relevant to understanding the topic.

    “Similarly, people learn more from information presentations if they first participate in activities that activate their knowledge relevant to the topic of the presentation (Britton & Graesser, 1996;Kintsch et al., 1993;McNamara et al., 1996) or generate the important distinctions relevant to understanding the topic (Schwartz & Bransford, 1998).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Britton & Graesser, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kintsch et al., 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites McNamara et al., 1996 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Diagrams can provide information about kinematics, but an animated or static diagram alone can only partially communicate the causal relations between events or the dynamic forces that underlie these causal relations.

    “Although diagrams can provide information about kinematics (i.e., the geometry of movement in a mechanical system), an animated or static diagram alone can only partially communicate the causal relations between events or the dynamic forces that underlie these causal relations (Oestermeier & Hesse, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Oestermeier & Hesse, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    In complex machines, several components move at once; in the flushing cistern, two chains of events overlap in time.

    “In complex machines, several components move at once.For example, in the case of the flushing cistern, there are two chains of events that overlap in time: one that flushes water out of the cistern and the other that refills the cistern.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Rozenblit and Keil (2002) found that people overestimated their understanding of how everyday mechanical devices worked.

    “Similarly, Rozenblit and Keil (2002) found that people overestimated their understanding of how everyday mechanical devices worked.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rozenblit & Keil, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Kaiser, Proffitt, and Anderson (1985) found that people can sometimes recognize the correct trajectory of a moving object in an animation, although they cannot predict the correct trajectory.

    “Kaiser, Proffitt, and Anderson (1985) found that people can sometimes recognize the correct trajectory of a moving object (such as a ball emerging from a curved tube) in an animation, although they cannot predict the correct trajectory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kaiser, Proffitt, & Anderson, 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Classifying individuals as low or high spatial on the basis of a median split loses information, but regression analyses using Paper Folding test scores did not change conclusions.

    “Classifying individuals as low or high spatial on the basis of a median split involves converting a ratio scale to a categorical measure and, therefore, losing information.This was done for ease of exposition.We also conducted regression analyses using students' scores on the Paper Folding test, and the conclusions from these analyses did not differ from those reported for any of the experiments”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    High- and low-spatial individuals may not differ in their ability to interpolate motion from different phase diagrams, suggesting this might be a particularly effective way to communicate the kinematics of a device for students of all ability levels.

    “Therefore, high-and low-spatial individuals may not differ in their ability to interpolate motion from different phase diagrams, suggesting that this might be a particularly effective way to communicate the kinematics of a device for students of all ability levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    There was low variance in the measures of physics education and practical experience, and the students were novices.

    “However, there was low variance in these measures, and our students were novices.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
57 of 57

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The flushing cistern is a representative complex mechanical system for studying how people learn from animations and static diagrams.

    “In this article, we examine the effects of computer animations and mental animation on people's comprehension of a relatively complex mechanical system, the flushing cistern (shown in Figure 1).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 19-step causal chain compiled by the authors is a correct and complete description of the flushing cistern's operation.

    “We compiled a list of 19 steps in the causal chain of events that results when the handle of the flushing cistern is pushed down.3 These were either explicitly stated or implied in the commentary that accompanied the animation, and each step was mentioned by at least one fifth of the participants.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The flushing cistern's operation involves two causal chains of events that occur in tandem but are temporarily dependent on each other, making it a challenging comprehension task.

    “Understanding this mechanism is a challenging comprehension task because its operation involves two causal chains of events that occur in tandem but are also temporarily dependent on each other.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The number of steps in the causal chain is a valid measure of understanding of the mechanical system.

    “we compared their answers to the first prediction question to their written causal descriptions of the system.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The troubleshooting questions measure the ability to apply causal understanding of the system to solve novel problems.

    “Performance on the troubleshooting questions mirrored performance on the descriptions of system behavior, indicating that students could also apply their causal understanding of the system to solve novel problems.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Force is not a visible property.

    “Force is not a visible property”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Language can express all types of information relevant to understanding a mechanical system, including kinematics, causal relations, and dynamic forces.

    “In contrast, language can express all of these types of information.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Reading of static diagrams and text is self-paced and interactive.

    “In contrast, reading of static diagrams and text is self-paced and interactive in the sense that one can slow down or reread when one encounters a difficult passage.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Our visual attention is typically focused on only one location at a time.

    “our visual attention is typically focused on only one location at a time”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Viewing an animation is a passive process.

    “Finally, viewing an animation is a passive process.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The three phase diagrams represent the main events in students' mental representations of how the machine functions.

    “these three phases represent the main events in students' mental representations of how the machine functions”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The flushing mechanism depends on an appreciation of the forces underlying the operation of a siphon.

    “which depends on an appreciation of the forces underlying the operation of a siphon”
12 of 12

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The beneficial effect on learning of prompting learners to predict the next step in a process has been replicated in several multimedia studies.

    “The beneficial effect on learning of prompting learners to predict the next step in a process has been replicated in several multimedia studies (Hegarty et al. 2003;Mayer et al. 2003;Moreno et al. 2001).”

    From Interactivity in Video-based Models (2007) · cites this paper as Hegarty et al. 2003

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 92) = 9.19, p < .001

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .003. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .003

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: F(1, 92) = 6.05, p = .01

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .01 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .016. The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .016

2 of 2

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 92) = 6.05reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .016

    “F(1, 92) = 6.05, p = .01”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 92) = 9.19reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .003

    “F(1, 92) = 9.19, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 92) = 10.97reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(1, 92) = 10.97,p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 92) = 8.66reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .004

    “F(1, 92) = 8.66, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 92) = 3.35reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .070

    “F(1, 92) = 3.35, p = .07”

  • ConsistentF(1, 92) = 10.7reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(1, 92) = 10.70,p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 92) = 5.03reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .027

    “F(1, 92) = 5.03, p < .05”

7 of 7

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

  • Experiment 3 participant allocation does not match its total

    Major

    Four conditions with 20 participants each would require 80 participants, not the reported 58. The later description lists only three conditions.

    Reported 58 · recomputed 80

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Hegarty, M. & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Spatial abilities, working memory and mechanical reasoning. In J. Gero & B. Tversky (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design (pp. 221-239). Sydney, Australia: Key Centre of Design and Cognition.
  2. Hegarty M., 1999, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 119
  3. Kriz, S. & Hegarty, M. (2003, August). Staring into space: Evaluating mechanical motion, mental animation and eye movements. Paper presented at the Twelth European Conference on Eye Movements, Dundee, UK.
  4. Narayanan, N. H., Suwa, M. & Motoda, H. (1995). Diagram-based problem solving: The case of an impossible problem. In Cognitive Science Society (Ed.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 206-211). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  5. 10.1016/s0364-0213(99)80012-3 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Hegarty, Mary
ORCID
Hegarty, Mary
Venue
Cognition and Instruction
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2003-12
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
209-249
ISSN
  • 0737-0008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-690X
DOI
10.1207/s1532690xci2104_1
OpenAlex
W2156645509
Semantic Scholar
a7ef37ad5687fe2d6bd7e7a16d0d6dea8b3f1f8a
Cited by
404
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 19
FWCI
7.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Cognition and Instruction (publishedVersion)
Funders
Office of Naval Research (N00014)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
Keywords
computer animation, mechanical systems, mental models, verbal instructions, spatial visualization, science learning, instructional design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review