How to Optimize Learning From Animated Models: A Review of Guidelines Based on Cognitive Load
Open accessAbstract
Animated models explicate the procedure to solve a problem, as well as the rationale behind this procedure. For abstract cognitive processes, animations might be beneficial, especially when a supportive pedagogical agent provides explanations. This article argues that animated models can be an effective instructional method, provided that they are designed in such a way that cognitive capacity is optimally employed. This review proposes three sets of design guidelines based on cognitive load research: The first aims at managing the complexity of subject matter. The second focuses on preventing activities (attributed to poor design) that obstruct learning. The last incites learners to engage in the active and relevant processing of subject matter. Finally, an integrative framework is presented for designing effective animated models.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Active engagement in cognitive processes is necessary for effective and sustainable learning as well as deep levels of understanding.
“Active engagement in cognitive processes is necessary for effective and sustainable learning as well as deep levels of understanding (see Wouters et al. 2008).”
From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Wouters et al. 2008
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 118 · Cited by 224
- Authors
- Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
- Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen
- ORCID
- Paas, Fred
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 645-675
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-1046
- OpenAlex
- W2125410086
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 118
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 16.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.ou.nl
- Locations
- Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- animated models, cognitive load, instructional design guidelines, educational agents, explanation, active learning, design framework
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.
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
