Explanatory Animations in the Classroom: Student-Authored Animations as Digital Pedagogy (SpringerBriefs in Education) 9811535248, 9789811535246

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN EDUC ATION

Brendan Jacobs

Explanatory Animations in the Classroom Student-Authored Animations as Digital Pedagogy

SpringerBriefs in Education

We are delighted to announce SpringerBriefs in Education, an innovative product type that combines elements of both journals and books. Briefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications in education. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the SpringerBriefs in Education allow authors to present their ideas and readers to absorb them with a minimal time investment. Briefs are published as part of Springer’s eBook Collection. In addition, Briefs are available for individual print and electronic purchase. SpringerBriefs in Education cover a broad range of educational fields such as: Science Education, Higher Education, Educational Psychology, Assessment & Evaluation, Language Education, Mathematics Education, Educational Technology, Medical Education and Educational Policy. SpringerBriefs typically offer an outlet for: • An introduction to a (sub)field in education summarizing and giving an overview of theories, issues, core concepts and/or key literature in a particular field • A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques and instruments in the field of educational research • A presentation of core educational concepts • An overview of a testing and evaluation method • A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic or policy change • An in-depth case study • A literature review • A report/review study of a survey • An elaborated thesis Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in the SpringerBriefs in Education series. Potential authors are warmly invited to complete and submit the Briefs Author Proposal form. All projects will be submitted to editorial review by editorial advisors. SpringerBriefs are characterized by expedited production schedules with the aim for publication 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance and fast, global electronic dissemination through our online platform SpringerLink. The standard concise author contracts guarantee that: • an individual ISBN is assigned to each manuscript • each manuscript is copyrighted in the name of the author • the author retains the right to post the pre-publication version on his/her website or that of his/her institution

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8914

Brendan Jacobs

Explanatory Animations in the Classroom Student-Authored Animations as Digital Pedagogy

123

Brendan Jacobs Mackay, QLD, Australia

ISSN 2211-1921 ISSN 2211-193X (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Education ISBN 978-981-15-3524-6 ISBN 978-981-15-3525-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3525-3 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover image © Brendan Jacobs This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

Are you a lifelong learner? When people think about their own learning, it is often somewhat autobiographical involving their own experiences from school up until the present day. The purpose of this opening reference to autobiographical learning journeys is to acknowledge that you, the reader, have your own story. This book was written as a sounding board for you to affirm, challenge or grow your own self-awareness about your own learning. I will only recount my own educational journey throughout this book when it is relevant to the research that I have read or conducted myself. Such descriptions are placed thematically in the different chapters. Any references to the thousands of children whom I have worked with as a teacher will be done using pseudonyms and so will any references to adults during my more recent experiences as a university lecturer and academic. Much of this book is about explanatory animation creation which is a multifaceted task. Each of the four chapters looks at the central pedagogical practice of student-authored animations but from a different perspective. Having recently moved to a sub-tropical climate near the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland, a diving analogy seems appropriate here to provide an overview of each chapter. The analogy is that you (the diver) have deliberately travelled to a reef where student-authored animations abound (by reading this book). Each chapter takes you into these waters, but you will see different things each time as follows. Chapter 1 reinforces the student-centred focus of the book through the title ‘Learning from the Driver’s Seat’. Constructionism is what you will find here and the particular variety is the co-construction of animation artefacts. Chapter 2 provides a theoretical framework for the animation creation task and covers many areas because this is clearly a multifaceted task. The most prominent and interesting feature here is Vygotsky and Sakharov’s dual stimulation method as they introduced the idea that the resolution of conceptual tasks can provide evidence of conceptual consolidation. Although this method was devised many decades ago, the application of this method in a digital context has opened some exciting possibilities in terms of data collection.

v

vi

Preface

Chapter 3 details the methodology and Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF). The literature here is entrenched with the assumption that children are animation viewers rather than animation authors. The EAF is a list of four pedagogical principles with succinct animation guidelines to assist animation authors of any age. Chapter 4 is like finding buried treasure on your way back to land, after leaving the dive site. This is because the insights from the Reverse engineering Explanatory Animation Learning Method (REALM) did not occur during my Ph.D. research but much later. The insight is that while the children were focused on designing and making animations, the way they approached their work was essentially like reverse engineering their chosen topics. The alignment between the learning and method is so intrinsic and vivid that I have named a sub-section within this chapter called ‘Theory as method’. These understandings might have been in embryonic form when I finished my master’s degree in 2007 titled Animating Best Practice. In that study, I created explanatory animations to teach musical theory concepts. The participants in that study were primary school colleagues who described themselves as ‘nonmusical’. The pre- and post-test data showed marked improvements in their knowledge of the musical concepts. When I first enrolled in the master’s degree, it was suggested that an animation student might be available to collaborate with me to make the animations and that my role would be to design the content in terms of scope and sequence. It turned out that no students were forthcoming for the collaboration so I arranged a meeting with a professional animator to discuss financing the animations myself. This meeting had a profound effect on the future of my academic career because the animator thought that it was too much work for too little money. Rather than asking for more money, he recommended that I make the animations myself. His deep understanding of the animation process was such that he could see that my own immersion in this process would enhance my understanding of the medium, regardless of the actual quality of the imagery. He also knew that there would be countless refinements throughout the process and that these refinements would be pedagogical. In 2008, I commenced my Ph.D. to understand what is it about the process of explanatory animation creation that facilitates conceptual consolidation. The niche that I had found was that I was investigating the conceptual consolidation of animator authors rather than animation viewers. After the Animating Best Practice study, I realised that the person who learnt the most from the animations was actually me, as the author. Even though I was a music teacher and I thought that I understood the concepts, my own grasp of these concepts was consolidated even further by having to represent and re-represent every word, image, sequence and so on as I started each animation with a blank canvas. The Ph.D. study was titled Storyboard because I already knew that the order and sequence of the animations would embody the learning. My initial assumption was that by introducing directors’ commentaries as a genre of data collection, I could

Preface

vii

capture the pedagogical decision-making throughout the animation creation process. My first round of data collection in 2010 turned out to be inadequate for my purposes. Again, what first appeared to be a setback ultimately proved to be beneficial. The 2010 data has now been relegated as the ‘2010 Storyboard pilot study’, but at the time I was working under the assumption that it was the actual case study. Working with 18 students, all of whom choose different topics, was a lot to manage as I only worked with these students for one hour each week over a school semester. This, however, was not the problem. The problem, as identified at my first confirmation meeting at the University of Melbourne, was that I had placed too much emphasis on the directors’ commentaries. The students created excellent animations, prior knowledge videos and directors’ commentaries, but I was not able to describe their individual conceptual journeys to the satisfaction of the confirmation panel. I knew that the students had learnt a lot, but this was difficult to demonstrate because I had placed too much emphasis on the animation product rather than the animation creation process. The second and final round of data collection occurred in 2011 with two important changes to my methodology. The first was that I reduced the size of the study to only eight participants. Just like the 2010 Storyboard pilot study, there were equal numbers of boys and girls from grades 5 and 6 who volunteered to work on their animations for one hour each week over a school semester. Reducing the size of the study from 18 to 8 participants helped, but it was the second change that was the most transformative. In both instances, the children made their imagery using Microsoft PowerPoint by inserting ‘auto shapes’ and then inserting ‘duplicate slides’ to create the movement sequences. Unlike the 2010 trial, where students simply saved their work each week, the 2011 cohort saved their work as a new file by adding in the date each week (e.g. ‘satellites210711.pptx’). This simple logistical change meant that I could refer back to previous versions of each student’s work to document their conceptual development in vivid historical detail. This provided a window into each child’s conceptual journey which gave me the insights that I needed to answer my research question about the affordances of the explanatory animation process. That question was, In what ways can storyboarding and explanatory animation creation enable primary school students to articulate and consolidate their conceptual understanding? What I had found, however, far exceeded my expectations as I had helped the children generate a wealth of multimodal, empirical data to document the actual process of conceptual learning. With few exceptions, explanatory animations in the classroom are generally made by professional animators so the children’s role is to view the animations without participating in their construction. For this reason, a reconceptualisation of animation in education is required where the students are firmly in the driver’s seat, and the teacher is beside them giving directions as needed and sharing the conceptual ride together. This signals more than a change in perspective, but a

viii

Preface

complete change in activity and, to continue the analogy, will forever change the conversation and make redundant such phrases as, ‘Are we there yet?’ and ‘How much longer?’ Mackay, Australia

Brendan Jacobs

Contents

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

1 1 2 3 4 5 9 13 17

2 Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Animation as Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Visualisation and Mental Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Abstract and Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Transmediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4 The Representation Construction Approach (RCA) 2.2 Animation and Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Metaphors and Analogies as Mediating Devices . . 2.2.2 Schematic Diagrams as Conceptual Metaphors . . . . 2.3 Animation as Co-Construction of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 The Dual Stimulation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 21 21 22 24 25 26 30 33 33 34 34 36

3 Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction to the Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Methods—Explanatory Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

39 39 40 41 41

1 Introduction—Learning from the Driver’s Seat . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Learning by Doing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Learning by Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Instructionism Versus Constructionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Explanatory Animation Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 The Storyboard Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Mutual Zones of Proximal Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 Evidence-Based Assessment Using Digital Technologies . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

xi

xii

Contents

3.5 Directors’ Commentaries as a Genre of Research 3.6 Animation as Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Animation Design Principles . . . . . . . . . 3.7 The Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF) . 3.8 EAF—Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.1 EAF—Synchronicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.2 EAF—Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8.3 EAF—Simplicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 Applying the EAF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

4 Insights from the Reverse Engineering Explanatory Animation Learning Method (REALM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Theory as Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Animation as Digital Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Variant Graphics: High Tech, Low Tech and No Tech . 4.4 Assessment as Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Explanatory Animations in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Individual Storyboard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Individual Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Individual Director’s Commentary . . . . . . . . . 4.5.4 Group Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.5 Individual Director’s Commentary on a Group Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.6 Multiple Choice Digital Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.7 Linear Nonfiction Slideshow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.8 Linear Nonfiction Slideshow with Director’s Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.9 Stop Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.10 Stop Motion with Director’s Commentary . . . . 4.6 Restatement of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

43 44 44 46 47 48 48 49 50 56

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

59 60 64 70 71 72 73 73 74 74

........ ........ ........

74 74 75

. . . . .

76 77 78 78 79

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Chapter 1

Introduction—Learning from the Driver’s Seat

Learning to drive a car is a useful analogy for learning more generally as theory and instruction alone can only take you so far. It also moves from a more passive, transmission approach towards student-centred practice. It is worth looking at some established principles in learning by way of introduction, namely, ‘learning by doing’ and ‘learning by teaching’.

1.1 Learning by Doing The old adage, ‘Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.’ is often attributed to Benjamin Franklin (Richards & Rodgers, 1986) but the saying is most likely much older as it has also been attributed to Confucius (Bucks, 1989). It is undoubtedly an ancient idea and is perhaps most eloquently put by Sophocles (415 BCE) in Trachiniae when Deianira is told, ‘One must learn by doing the thing; for though you think you know it you have no certainty, until you try’ (Young, 1888, p. 300). Although the concept of learning by doing has been around for thousands of years, it was Papert (1991) who saw the potential of technology to enhance this practice: Learning by doing is an old enough idea, but until recently the narrowness of range of the possible doings severely restricted the implementation of the idea. The educational vocation of the new technology is to remove these restrictions (p. 22).

According to Schank, Berman, and Macpherson (1999), ‘the best way to teach is to place students in situations in which the goals they wish to achieve require the acquisition of the knowledge and skills you wish to impart’ (p. 172). Others such as Revans (2011) have characterised this approach as ‘Action learning’, in which the first assumption is that ‘Learning is cradled in the task’ (p. 3, original emphasis). These participatory principles might appear to be common sense, but an interesting twist is added when the learning task has an explanatory purpose. In other words, ‘What happens when students become teachers for the sake of their own learning?’. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 B. Jacobs, Explanatory Animations in the Classroom, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3525-3_1

1

2

1 Introduction—Learning from the Driver’s Seat

1.2 Learning by Teaching The idea of learning by teaching has also been around for thousands of years and was stated succinctly by Pliny the Younger who said, ‘He [/she] who does the talking does the learning’ (Radice, 1963, p. 240). When students are empowered to research and present their own knowledge it is a win/win situation. For the students, there are benefits of increased engagement and the benefits of choosing their own learning objectives. For teachers, a clear benefit is that the ability of the student to articulate and demonstrate their own learning provides evidence of their own progress. In terms of assessment, the benefits are even clearer when digital technologies are used. A theme that is developed throughout this book is that the construction of a multimodal artefact can correspond with the conceptual learning of each student as the artefact can literally and vividly embody the learning. According to van Leeuwen (2015), ‘multimodality is seen as a key toward better learning, with different modes enabling the representation of different aspects of, and perspectives on, the objects of the learning’ (p. 461). The phrase ‘learning by teaching’ also reminds us that teaching and learning are not the same thing. These differences also need to be seen in terms of the theoretical frameworks which we use to understand our role as educators. Fosnot (2005) has noted that ‘although educators now commonly talk about a “constructivist-based” practice as if there is such a thing, in reality constructivism is not a theory of teaching; it is a theory about learning’ (p. 279). It has been over 25 years since Alison King’s seminal (1993) article From sage on the stage to guide on the side, but teachercentred practice is still the prevailing norm, despite many attempts to change it to a student-centred model. Perhaps the solution is to be found at the epistemological level. Constructivism is a widely influential theoretical framework in education but there are differences of opinion about the role of direct instruction. Tobias and Duffy (2009) captured both points of view in Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? They also noted how views tend to be entrenched as both sides tend to ‘talk past one another’ (p. 6). Jonassen (2009) is insightful here by reminding us that learning can be viewed as conceptual change, problem-solving, social negotiation, activity and a whole range of other definitions. Each of these definitions has its own assumptions and corresponding body of research. Jonassen (2009) suggests that ‘human cognitive architecture is multidimensional, that is, it must include multiple theoretical perspectives in order to explain the complexities of human learning. The how of learning cannot be comprehended through a single theoretical lens’ (p. 14). Nevertheless, there is a multifaceted theoretical lens which I believe is well suited to both facilitating and researching explanatory animation creation, namely, constructionism.

1.3 Instructionism Versus Constructionism

3

1.3 Instructionism Versus Constructionism The epistemology which informed this book is constructionism as it combines student-centred practice with both digital technology and artefact creation. ‘Instructionism’ and ‘constructionism’ are terms coined in 1980 by Seymour Papert (1928– 2016). ‘Instructionism’ is the idea that with better instruction (i.e. teaching) comes better learning. There is some merit in this idea as we know that the quality of individual teachers has a profound impact on their students. Perhaps the greatest weakness of instructionism is that it is often based on a transmission model of learning where teachers impart knowledge. The real issue is that ‘teaching’ and ‘learning’ are not the same thing. Teaching is what the teacher does, but learning describes what each student actually learns. Teachers teach so that their students might learn but there is often a disconnect because knowledge needs to be constructed in the mind of the learner. Biggs and Tang (2011) addressed this by suggesting that what a student does in a classroom is more important than what a teacher does. This is also a premise behind ‘constructivism’ which is closely related to ‘constructionism’. Papert (1991) acknowledged that his formulation of constructionism was built on the foundation laid by Piaget’s constructivism. Edith Ackermann (1991) was well qualified to comment on both of these epistemologies having worked closely with both Piaget and Papert for many years: Because of its [constructionism’s] greater focus on learning through making rather than overall cognitive potentials, Papert’s approach helps us understand how ideas get formed and transformed when expressed through different media, when actualized in particular contexts, when worked out by individual minds (Ackermann, 1991, p. 4, original emphasis).

The production of digital artefacts generates multiple sources of data. Reconciling these multimodal sources of data became a research interest for Kafai and Resnick (1996) who theorised that the ideals of constructionism can integrate both design theories and learning theories which have traditionally been seen as emphasising either the product (design) or the process (learning). They note that ‘both design theorists and learning theorists now view “construction of meaning” as a core process’ (Kafai & Resnick, 1996, p. 4). According to Bateman (2008), this cross-pollination of design and learning has paved the way for digital representations and artefacts to become part of the qualitative researcher’s tool kit in instances where conceptual artefacts are constructed. Seymour Papert and his colleagues from MIT explored the use of digital technologies to enable students to create artefacts for the sake of their own learning in the seminal book Constructionism (Harel & Papert, 1991). Rusk, Resnick and Cooke (2009) described constructionism as ‘a different model of learning and education, where the focus is on construction rather than instruction’ (p. 19, original emphasis). This distinction between construction and instruction was occasioned by Papert’s (1980) famous speech to Japanese educators when he equated teaching with instruction and learning with construction saying ‘teaching is important, but learning is much more important’ (original emphasis). Papert dismissed instructionism by

4

1 Introduction—Learning from the Driver’s Seat

suggesting that attempts to improve instruction alone are misdirected. Constructionism is more student-centred and this debate is even more important today as access to knowledge has never been easier. Papert and Harel (1991) further explained the contrast between constructionism and instructionism as an epistemological issue that goes ‘beyond the acquisition of knowledge to touch on the nature of knowledge and the nature of knowing’ (p. 8). Papert (1993) continued to draw this distinction between teaching and learning by stating that the goal of constructionism is to ‘teach in such a way as to produce the most learning for the least teaching’ (p. 139). Teachers who work in this manner often see themselves as coaches who guide students through collaborative projects where knowledge is co-constructed. For Papert (1993), working with artefacts also means that learning can take place outside of the learner’s head as an artefact can be ‘shown, discussed, examined, probed, and admired. It is out there’ (p. 142). The Storyboard project (Jacobs, 2015) sought to investigate connections between the act of making an explanatory animation and the process of conceptual consolidation. Constructionism provided a useful framework to investigate such dynamics due to the central focus on building artefacts and how these, in turn, become mediating tools for learning. Accordingly, from the constructionist point of view, ‘knowledge is a modelling process, which shapes and edits reality to make it intelligible’ (Floridi, 2011, p. 301). Martinez and Stager (2019) have distilled the essence of constructionism as follows: Papert’s constructionism takes constructivist theory a step further towards action. Although the learning happens inside the learner’s head, this happens most reliably when the learner is engaged in a personally meaningful activity outside of their head that makes the learning real and sharable (p. 36, original emphasis).

It is this interplay between the children’s external animation artefacts and internal mental models (the visible and the invisible) which makes constructionism a powerful way to conceptualise explanatory animation creation.

1.4 Explanatory Animation Creation Most explanatory animations are made by professional animators. For this reason, the subtitle of this book (Student-Authored Animations as Digital Pedagogy) is a theme that is underrepresented in the literature. This is because the vast majority of the educational animation literature is focused on the viewers of explanatory animations rather than the makers. Hubscher-Younger and Narayanan identified this gap in 2008 which is the same year that I commenced the Storyboard project: Extant literature contains many studies of the efficacy of animations and other kinds of representation created by expert teachers and researchers. However, studies on the characteristics and efficacy of student-created representations are much less numerous (p. 237).

The student-created representations, to which Hubscher-Younger and Narayanan (2008) refer, were created by undergraduate students rather than primary school

1.4 Explanatory Animation Creation

5

students. The purpose of this current section is to see what has changed in the past 10 years in terms of literature on this topic and to briefly outline the Storyboard project so that evidence from that study can start to be introduced to illuminate some core constructs. The empirical field for the Storyboard project is primary school animation authoring. Surprisingly, in a technologically rich era where electronic screens are a permanent part of our educational landscape, this field is fertile but dormant. A survey of the literature about explanatory animation creation would suggest that this multifaceted task is the exclusive domain of professional animators. This assumption ran so deep that it only began to be questioned when researchers such as Hoban, Nielsen and Carceller (2010) involved pre-service teachers to make their own animations to develop their understanding of scientific concepts. To reduce the complexity of the task, Hoban, Nielsen and Carceller (2010) used ‘slowmation’ (i.e. animation which plays at only two frames per second) to reduce the number of images required as the pre-service teacher was using the claymation technique which, as a form of stop motion, involves manipulating physical objects and taking a series of still images which creates the illusion of movement when played in sequence. Reyna and Meier (2018) have identified this as a growing area of research interest in teacher education. They refer to this genre as ‘Learner-Generated Digital Media (LGDM)’ which they define as ‘a digital artefact developed by students to learn the subject content’ (2018, p. 1). It appears that there is a scarcity of literature about children making explanatory animations for the sake of their own learning. One possible reason for this is that making explanatory animations is difficult which leads to the assumption that it is too difficult. The important distinction between primary school students and preservice teachers extends beyond the obvious distinction of their comparative ages as children and adults. The most significant difference is that pre-service teachers are generally making the animation artefacts as part of their coursework where their submissions are graded as summative assessments. Lecturers might assist with technicalor content-specific matters, but the idea of co-construction is largely absent in this context. Interestingly, from within this context Hoban, Nielsen and Carceller (2010) proposed that ‘learning theories will need to keep pace with technological advances by evolving or integrating in order to provide more sophisticated explanations about why students learn through media creation’ (p. 441). It is here that the first breakthrough occurred in the Storyboard project through my interaction with a Grade 5 girl who I have assigned the pseudonym ‘Maria’ (Jacobs & Robin, 2016).

1.5 The Storyboard Project Eight boys and girls in grades 5 and 6 participated in an explanatory animation creation project over a period of 17 weeks where they worked on their animations for one hour each week. The children were making these animations for the sake of their own learning and the multimodal nature of their work, combined with the simple

6

1 Introduction—Learning from the Driver’s Seat

practice of saving their work as different date-based files each week, created a digital chronology of their conceptual consolidation embodied in their evolving animation artefacts. The multimodal nature of the data also provided a rationale to present this dissertation in its native digital format. This resulted in an early example of a digital PhD in the field of Education (www.brendanpauljacobs.com). By ‘digital’ I mean multimodal as master’s theses and PhD dissertations are commonly archived in PDF format as an Electronic Theses or Dissertations (ETD). When postgraduate research involves the collection of digital data which is presented through a web browser, this is known as a Multimodal Thesis of Dissertation (MTD) which is a logical way to interact with this content (Jacobs, 2020). The animation platform which was used was Microsoft PowerPoint. The children simply inserted auto shapes and then created duplicate slides of each slide (i.e. animation frame) before making incremental changes in position to create the illusion of movement. Saving the work as a series of images (such as JPG) resulted in numbered frames. The images were then combined together using video editing software to render a single video file. The children required some technical help with this process but they were also given conceptual help for their topics to further explore the dynamics of co-construction. Although the children were free to choose any topic, seven out of eight children chose scientific topics as they wanted to know how things worked. Maria was an 11-year-old girl who chose solfège as her topic, which is the musical convention that was featured in the song Do, Re, Mi in the classic movie The Sound of Music. (Maria’s animation can be viewed at https://www.brendanpauljacobs.com/ solfegereview.html). Maria was a talented singer who also played the piano, but she was ready to abandon her topic when she attended her first session during the second week of the project. This was partly because she had been absent during the first session and thought that the other children were too far ahead, and partly because she didn’t know where to start, as stated in her reflection after that session: ‘When I started my animation I had no idea what I was doing, like how I was going to get there or anything’. Maria was encouraged to go and play on a keyboard for a while (with headphones on) as she was very restless. It was suggested that she could try playing the major scale in different key signatures and notice that the various key signatures required different numbers of black and white keys. During the next few sessions, we talked about having a grid with all 12 notes in all 12 key signatures. The idea was to have some sort of moveable window that could reveal the different notes as it moved up and down in front of a grid. Maria was still planning to quit the project up until the breakthrough that occurred during Session 6. It was then that I had the idea of an aeroplane with window shutters in the main cabin. At that moment, I was keenly aware that I was crossing a methodological line by providing such explicit assistance through offering my own idea. Having crossed this line, there was no turning back, but I immediately began to see the potential for clarity in any subsequent claims that I might make about Maria’s progress due to the close pedagogical proximity that we had established. As Maria had recently been on a plane returning from France when she missed the first session, she was able to grasp what was being suggested.

1.5 The Storyboard Project

7

Maria was confident that the open and closed windows would be a good way to depict the various notes from the major scale. The issue of the musical pitch was represented using the height (altitude) of the plane. The main feature of the metaphor was the equidistant windows within the plane and their affordance of opening and closing to reveal whatever was behind the window shutters. The windows of the plane illustrated the spatial distribution of musical pitch. Rather than having eight windows for the notes of the major scale, we decided to have 13 windows where each one represented a semitone. As stated in the voice-over script, ‘A semitone is from one note to the next’. The major scale is always the same regardless of the key signature. The notes (i.e. windows) that weren’t part of the major scale could then remain closed. The open windows could then reveal both the intervallic structure of the major scale and the actual notes in each particular key signature. From this moment onwards, Maria was excited about her topic and ready to commence building her imagery. She stated in her director’s commentary that, ‘The plane idea was really great and how we linked to it with all the different notes and the do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti, do because of the plane flying up and down’. Future discussions with Maria were contextualised around the plane metaphor depicted in Fig. 1.1. The diagnostic value of the plane metaphor was most apparent in Maria’s grid imagery. Much of Maria’s difficulty in the early stages of creating her animation resulted from not knowing the correct order of the notes in the chromatic scale. Figure 1.2 is an early version of Maria’s grid that clearly shows that she didn’t understand the sequence of the 12 notes, which should have been A, A#, B, C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#.

Fig. 1.1 Screenshot from Maria’s solfège animation © Brendan Jacobs

8

1 Introduction—Learning from the Driver’s Seat

Fig. 1.2 Prototype grid imagery for Maria’s solfège animation © Brendan Jacobs

Maria’s director’s commentary confirmed the importance of her early attempts at building this grid. ‘With the grid it made me understand a lot more ‘cause I didn’t realise there was alphabetical [order] at all. So I learnt a lot making that grid’. Once the grid had been corrected, we had many other fruitful discussions as part of defining the scope of the animation. One such issue was whether the plane should ascend and descend on an angle or if it should have a horizontal orientation. It seemed logical to use angles to make the plane look more realistic and also to reflect the fact that musical notation uses height to depict pitch. We eventually decided that the animation would be easier to understand if we kept the grid (and therefore the plane) on a horizontal orientation much like a plane that has reached its chosen altitude where minor deviations in altitude are less noticeable. Figure 1.3 is a screenshot of

Fig. 1.3 Screenshot of the abandoned, angled grid idea © Brendan Jacobs

1.5 The Storyboard Project

9

Fig. 1.4 Concluding screenshot from Maria’s solfège animation © Brendan Jacobs

the angled grid before we decided against it. Other imagery we considered in relation to how we could simulate flight included the idea of looping background imagery such as clouds. This idea came from the 2004 film The Aviator where some planes didn’t look like they were flying due to a uniformly blue sky. In that film, they opted to reshoot the flying sequence when it was cloudy as the clouds provided the necessary frame of reference. We liked the idea of reusing or looping the animation background, as this is a common animation technique. We also discussed having the grid displayed as a banner from another plane but this idea was also discarded as Maria eventually pointed out that the clouds weren’t necessary, as they would only raise the issue of ‘Why does the grid stay in view anyway [when it looks like the plane is moving]?’ In the final version of the animation, the grid only appears momentarily to provide the explanatory context for the metaphor by showing what was behind the open windows. Maria had noticed during the weeks after adopting the plane metaphor that the pattern of open windows doesn’t change as the main idea behind the windows was that the intervals of the major scale are the same in every key signature. Focusing on identifying relevant variables also drew attention to what doesn’t change or what was constant (i.e. the musical intervals). We decided towards the end of the project that it would have been quite an oversight to make an animation about solfège without the viewer having the opportunity to hear the major scale. Figure 1.4 was used to conclude the animation with Maria’s voice singing the major scale as each note appeared. My experience working with Maria led me to conclude that the explanatory animation creation process can be used as a diagnostic tool to identify misconceptions. The mediating affordances of this tool were theorised using Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).

1.6 Mutual Zones of Proximal Development The ZPD is usually defined as a situation where a learner can extend their learning through interaction with a more capable assistant. In my discussion of the ZPD, I commence with Wood, Bruner and Ross’ notion of ‘scaffolding’ (1976) and how it might function as a mediating device. The notion of scaffolding was introduced as a metaphor for guidance and assistance within the ZPD. As with most metaphors, there can be unintended inferences that must be identified (Pimm, 1981). There appear to

10

1 Introduction—Learning from the Driver’s Seat

be at least three issues pertaining to scaffolding which have been abstracted from the metaphor itself rather than the ZPD, which are given as follows: 1. The first abstraction is that scaffolding is temporary because scaffolding is only in place during construction. According to Holton and Clarke (2006), ‘when the building is finished or the renovation complete, the scaffolding is removed. It is not seen in the final product’ (p. 129). Yet the capacity for growth from a more capable peer will always be present as the phrase more capable peer opens up the more competent person to include a mentor rather than just a child/adult relationship. Although Vygotsky focused the ZPD on children, ‘the concept can be elaborated throughout childhood’ (Moran, 2010, p. 143). John-Steiner (1985) also shares this view and recounts a story of the composer Stravinsky being mentored as a young adult composer as an example of the ZPD. 2. The second abstraction is the notion of ‘closing the gap’ (Shepard, Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, & Rust, 2005, p. 279) within the ZPD, which is a common expression used to describe a child’s growth or progress in ability. Venn diagrams of the ZPD generally show the child’s ability as the smaller shape within the larger shape that represents their potential for learning. It follows that any growth experienced by the student doesn’t close the gap but rather expands the boundaries. 3. The third abstraction involves self-scaffolding (Holton & Thomas, 2001). Holton and Clarke’s (2006) notion of the epistemic self takes self-scaffolding even further by suggesting that self-scaffolding is ‘essentially equivalent to metacognition’ (p. 128). Self-scaffolding implies that the scaffolding originates with the child. According to Connery, John-Steiner and Marjanovic-Shane (2010), children become increasingly competent learners by independently applying the scaffolds set up by others. This notion also affirms the inherent unity between the act of creating the zone and the zone itself. ‘The activity of creating the ZPD, of creating the environment for development, is inseparable from the development that occurs’ (Connery, John-Steiner, & Marjanovic-Shane, 2010, p. 203). Development through spontaneous interaction within the ZPD is what Saye and Brush (2002) have termed ‘soft scaffolding’ as distinct from prepared interventions which they term ‘hard scaffolding’. There is also a mediating role for artefacts within the ZPD (Thompson, 2013). The mediation of learning through artefacts can also be applied to adult interactions, such as when a university lecturer provides written feedback to a doctoral student on a draft of their dissertation. When the student edits their dissertation under the guidance of their supervisor’s notes, they are working within the ZPD through the mediating device of the notes. The ZPD is a learning situation where students can experience profound growth because their needs have come into a sharp focus in ways which they can enact and understand. Vygotsky (1978) wrote: We propose that an essential feature of learning is that it creates the zone of proximal development; that is, learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in

1.6 Mutual Zones of Proximal Development

11

cooperation with his peers. Once these processes are internalised, they become part of the child’s independent developmental achievement (p. 90).

Such learning dynamics often result in shared learning for both the teacher and student. When both the student and the teacher are learning they could be said to enter a ‘mutual zone of proximal development’ (John-Steiner, 2000, p. 177) as collaborative partners. Sutter (2001) has captured this dynamic with his term ‘mutual performance’: It is like a dance, experienced people are leading, and everyone is taking part. Interpersonal processes of the dance are transformed into psychological processes also for the allegedly more knowledgeable persons; also they will learn and develop (p. 64).

Newman, Griffin and Cole (1989) speak of a ‘construction zone’ within the ZPD where ‘children’s actions get interpreted within the system being constructed with the teacher’ (p. 63). Sutter (2001) credits Newman, Griffin and Cole’s statement as solving a learning paradox about conceptual structures. The paradox is about how a child’s simple psychological structure can ever get transformed into a more complex structure. The resolution of the paradox is that there is good reason to believe that ‘psychology does not reside only within a person’s skull, it takes place between people too, and between people and their artefacts’ (Sutter, 2001, p. 43). The Storyboard project used storyboarding and explanatory animation creation as a context for the ZPD. It was hoped that the creation of the ZPD might enhance the process of conceptual consolidation for the young animators through their active participation in this multifaceted task. Diagrammatically, it is common to represent the ZPD as a Venn diagram using irregular shapes to acknowledge that learning is often a messy or fuzzy phenomenon. The point of reconceptualising the ZPD as Fig. 1.5 with the red extensions is to allow for instances where the child’s knowledge exceeds the helper’s knowledge. To enter into the process of conceptual consolidation it was important for me, as the researcher, to grapple with the same conceptual issues as each of the participants. As each participant was free to choose their own topic, this put me in an interesting position because these topics were not necessarily areas in which I claimed to have any expertise. This caused me to reflect on the abstract-concrete continuum (see Fig. 1.5 Overlap within Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development © Brendan Jacobs

12

1 Introduction—Learning from the Driver’s Seat

Fig. 1.6 Learning in a mutual ZPD © Brendan Jacobs

Chap. 2). As the ZPD is so widely accepted, it seemed that the ZPD should also be able to account for the way in which new knowledge is acquired, particularly how new knowledge might not be instantly consolidated within the mind of the learner. This new perspective led me to reconceptualise a revised diagram for the ZPD as depicted in Fig. 1.6. The dotted line for the outer shapes (for both the child and the helper) represents abstract knowledge that is known but not fully understood. The solid lines of the inner shapes indicate where conceptual consolidation has occurred. All of the shapes have been simplified (compared to Fig. 1.5) to improve the clarity of the diagram (now that there are four shapes instead of two) but the notion of the child’s knowledge exceeding the helper’s knowledge is still retained. Whether in the capacity of a researcher, teacher or both, helping students to make explanatory animations creates mutual zones of proximal development which gives the researcher/teacher privileged access to the student’s learning throughout the process of co-construction. Perhaps Vygotsky’s most profound insight into the ZPD is to be found in his speculation that ‘what children can do with the assistance of others might be in some sense even more indicative of their mental development than what they can do alone’ (1978, p. 85). The ZPD is possibly the most widely known and used concept in education, but there are differences of opinion about the nature of development within the ZPD. According to Clarà (2017), there is ‘major disagreement about what the ZPD is and how it articulates the relationship between instruction and development’ (p. 51). Vygotsky was intrigued by the various dynamics in educational settings but was clear in stating that ‘the only instruction which is useful in childhood is that which moves ahead of development, that which leads it’ (1987, p. 212). The zone itself and subsequent development are often at the forefront of this ongoing debate, but the insights that I documented during the Storyboard project revolved around ‘proximity’ as a window into the ZPD (Jacobs & Usher, 2018). The documentation process was largely a benefit of using digital technologies throughout the project.

1.7 Evidence-Based Assessment Using Digital Technologies

13

1.7 Evidence-Based Assessment Using Digital Technologies The driving analogy has now outlived its purpose due to a subtle yet important distinction. When someone is learning to drive, they have already passed a theory test and are preparing to sit for a practical test by gaining driving experience through the help of a licensed driver. Generally speaking, this practical test is focused on the learner’s ability to handle the vehicle and obey the traffic rules. Passing the test is not about accumulating points, but rather, by not losing too many points. This assessment is based on the actions of the driver as an indicator of competence. Making an explanatory animation is a very different process because it results in the creation of an artefact, even during the earliest phases where the artefact is in the form of a storyboard. It is this artefact which embodies the learning and also produces multimodal evidence of the author’s understanding. The findings from the Storyboard project are recounted thematically in every chapter linked to the individual children involved. Maria’s misconception regarding the order of the musical notes only became apparent when she was working on her table as shown in Fig. 1.2: Finding 1: The explanatory animation creation process itself is a diagnostic tool as it surfaces the animation author’s evolving conceptual understanding. Diagnostic assessment is commonly used in reference to students’ prior knowledge but my use of this term can occur at any stage of the learning process. Ideally, it is also a formative assessment so that students have the opportunity to modify their misconceptions into more accurate understandings. Findings 2, 3 and 4 also arose from Maria’s table in Fig. 1.2: Finding 2: Proximity within a mutual ZPD gives the researcher/teacher firsthand insights into conceptual learning. Finding 3: Misconceptions can become apparent through any modality as the explanatory animation creation task is intrinsically multimodal. Finding 4: The digital nature of the explanatory animation creation task documents and preserves examples of conceptual learning. The best example from the Storyboard project of working in a mutual ZPD is evident in the progress of ‘Sunny’ (Jacobs, Wright, & Reynolds, 2017). Sunny was a Grade 5 boy who chose to investigate ‘Solar cell efficiency’. (Sunny’s animation can be viewed at https://www.brendanpauljacobs.com/solarreview.html). Sunny was one of the youngest participants in the current study, but he was also very capable and articulate. Sunny had defined his topic as ‘Solar power’ during our initial discussions leading up to the first session. During the first session, his topic changed to ‘Solar panels’ to shift the focus to how solar panels worked because Sunny felt that the benefits of solar power were common knowledge. Sunny’s prior knowledge video still had echoes of the solar power theme with his reference to saving money on

14

1 Introduction—Learning from the Driver’s Seat

electricity bills. Sunny eventually changed his topic to ‘Solar cell efficiency’ towards the end of the project. I found Sunny’s topic to be the most difficult out of the eight topics that the children chose to explore. My own understanding of the children’s eight topics was expanded throughout the project, but it was my collaboration with Sunny that was most characteristic of a ‘mutual zone of proximal development’ (John-Steiner, 2000, p. 177) as I was learning alongside him throughout the project. Our conceptual journey together and the difficulties that we faced seemed related to specific content knowledge for the representation of electricity. Beaty (1995) noted that children are often presented with incorrect or simplistic information regarding electricity due to the inherent complexity of the topic and the perpetuated misconceptions held by many teachers in both primary and secondary school settings. Hence, guiding Sunny within the ZPD was particularly difficult for me, as I had reached the limits of my own understanding of this topic. I grappled with this situation and documented it in my reflexive journal: After today’s session I was further examining my role in this whole process, particularly with assisting the recording of the student reflections. Sometimes the children don’t know what to say because they’re not sure where their research is heading. This is part of the “you don’t know what you don’t know” dilemma. In such cases, I’m more like a coach where I provide encouragement and guidance. For some topics like “Solar panels” I am equally mystified.

The ZPD that Sunny and I were in was clearly a mutual zone as we were both working at our outer limits of understanding, simultaneously. Towards the end of this session, I encouraged Sunny to continue looking into NP junctions. I also promised him that I would do likewise, as it was clear to both of us that we couldn’t proceed any further without some insight here. Sunny and I had discussed animating the component parts of the NP junction and then explaining each part while it was constructed on the screen. Sunny articulated how he conceived this process in his reflection, saying, ‘I’m going to build [literally draw each part from scratch by starting with a blank screen] the solar panel as I go through. So I’m going to start with one layer and then do the next one and so on’. Of course, Sunny had to create his imagery via this construction process anyway, but he was saying that he wanted his finished animation to reflect this process. The pedagogical principle that we discussed was that of starting simple and progressively adding details. The inner workings of the NP junction, however, still eluded us. My reflection at that time was that we needed to go further into the nature of electricity at the component level: The definitions that he [Sunny] encountered for “N type” and “P type” semiconductors were identical except for certain variables which were switched around. Interestingly, Sunny concluded that each type of panel was interchangeable when, in fact, they are complete opposites. This should be resolved soon when he looks into the structure and composition of the semiconductors.

A breakthrough finally occurred when I realised that the NP junction needed to be viewed as a whole unit, rather than as component parts, an understanding that I worked on via my reflexive journal:

1.7 Evidence-Based Assessment Using Digital Technologies

15

After more reading and research into solar panels, I think I’ve identified the stumbling block that was halting our progress. This insight is that an NP junction is easier to understand in context. Viewing the N (negative) and P (positive) plates in isolation was confusing as we were breaking the system down too far. The junction effect that creates the voltage is only functioning when the two plates are brought together into a junction. It’s almost like trying to understand human reproduction by analysing the properties of sperm and ova without investigating what happens when they combine.

The potential to see this system perspective had been in front of us all along, but we didn’t see it because we were too focused on the component parts. This new, integrated view of NP junctions led to a change in the actual topic. Sunny changed his topic to ‘Solar cell efficiency’ in response to my suggestion that we narrow the scope to efficiency issues. This allowed us to cover important and interesting issues around solar cells without getting stuck at the atomic level. Figure 1.7 shows the typically dark colour of solar cells as being optimised to absorb light energy. The voltmeter on the right-hand side implies that electricity is being generated without having to address or explain the direction of the current. The most difficult issue to animate was band gap energy. Sunny defined band gap energy as ‘the strength of the voltage’ and noted that its magnitude ‘depends on how much energy is required for electrons to jump across the NP junction’. Figure 1.8 is a metaphorical visualisation of an NP junction where the phrase band gap energy was stretched to suggest a literal gap. The positive and negatively charged materials in a typical NP junction create a chemical gap and not a physical one, but the use of distance in this animation reinforced the notion of a gap to be crossed. Andreou (2013) called this a graphical metaphor when words or symbols are ‘arranged in meaningful spatial configurations that metaphorically (or allegorically) express relations among the concepts [or] the

Fig. 1.7 Screenshot from Solar cell efficiency animation © Brendan Jacobs

16

1 Introduction—Learning from the Driver’s Seat

Fig. 1.8 A graphical metaphor of band gap energy as a physical gap © Brendan Jacobs

objects’ (p. 15). Sunny also alluded to this graphical metaphor in his director’s commentary: In real life the band gap energy doesn’t mean that the negative and positive sides are further apart (like it looks like in the animation) but that was a good way to show it so that people would understand.

Figure 1.9 extends the graphical metaphor by showing how sunlight can be wasted when the NP junction is not optimised to harness strong light. Sunny realised that solar cells involved changes from one type of energy into another, but he was initially mistaken when he identified heat as the original energy source, rather than light. ‘I’m thinking that I need to find out how it changes from one type of energy, heat energy, into electricity that powers things’. When Sunny corrected this misunderstanding, he was able to discuss solar cells in terms of the reflective qualities of the outer layer of photovoltaic cells as an issue affecting solar cell efficiency. Working with Sunny throughout the Storyboard project demonstrated how coconstruction is key to engaging students in their own learning. Sunny’s prolonged engagement led to conceptual gains about complex scientific phenomena, which, to use another famous term from Vygotsky (1978), enabled him to stand ‘a head taller’ Fig. 1.9 Screenshot of wasted energy in an NP junction © Brendan Jacobs

1.7 Evidence-Based Assessment Using Digital Technologies

17

(p. 102). The use of digital technologies was simultaneously a context for learning and a source of assessment data as all of the data was available for critique due to the date-based file naming conventions. The theoretical framework for the project will be further developed in Chap. 2. Details about the methodology are in Chap. 3.

References Ackermann, E. (1991). From decontextualized to situated knowledge: Revisiting Piaget’s waterlevel experiment. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 269–294). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Andreou, A. P. (2013, October). Conceptual metaphors as image schemas in information visualizations. In 2CO Communicating complexity: 2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 12–18). Edizioni Nuova Cultura: University of Sassari, Italy. Bateman, J. A. (2008). Multimodality and genre. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Beaty, W. (1995). Why is electricity so hard to understand? [Webpage]. Retrieved from https:// amasci.com/miscon/whyhard2.html. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education. Bucks, S. (1989, October 8). Students step back in time. The Daily News, p. 2. Clarà, M. (2017). How instruction influences conceptual development: Vygotsky’s theory revisited. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1221765. Connery, M. C., John-Steiner, V. P., & Marjanovic-Shane, A. (Eds.). (2010). Vygotsky and creativity. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Floridi, L. (2011). A defence of constructionism: Philosophy as conceptual engineering. Metaphilosophy, 42(3), 282–304. Fosnot, C. T., (2005). Teachers construct constructivism: The center for constructivist teaching/teacher preparation project. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 263–275). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Hoban, G. F., Nielsen, W. S., & Carceller, C. (2010). Articulating constructionism: Learning science through designing and making “Slowmations” (student-generated animations). In C. Steel, M. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Eds.), Conference of the Australasian society for computers in learning in tertiary education (pp. 433–443). Brisbane, QLD: The University of Queensland. Retrieved from https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article= 2087&context=edupapers. Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127–143. Holton, D., & Thomas, G. (2001). Mathematical interactions and their influence on learning. In D. J. Clarke (Ed.), Perspectives on practice and meaning in mathematics and science classrooms (pp. 75–104). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hubscher-Younger, T., & Narayanan. N. H. (2008). Turning the tables: Investigating characteristics and efficacy of student-authored animations and multimedia representations. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation (pp. 235–259). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Jacobs, B. (2015). Storyboard—Primary school children designing and making explanatory animations [Doctoral dissertation]. Parkville, VIC: The University of Melbourne. Retrieved from https://www.brendanpauljacobs.com/hardcopy.html. Jacobs, B. (2020). A transdisciplinary protocol for digital scholarship. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqz087.

18

1 Introduction—Learning from the Driver’s Seat

Jacobs, B., & Robin, B. (2016). Animating best practice. Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 263–283. Retrieved from https://dx.do.org/10.1177/1746847716662554. Jacobs, B., & Usher, A. (2018). Proximity as a window into the zone of proximal development. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 9(1), 2856–2863. Retrieved from https:// dx.doi.org/10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2018.0376. Jacobs, B., Wright, S., & Reynolds, N. (2017). Reevaluating the concrete—Explanatory animation creation as a digital catalyst for cross-modal cognition. Mind, Culture and Activity, 24(4), 297– 310. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1294181. John-Steiner, V. (1985). Notebooks of the mind: Explorations of thinking. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Jonassen, D. (2009). Reconciling a human cognitive architecture. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 13–33). New York, NY: Routledge. Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35. Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2019). Invent to learn (2nd ed.). Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press. Moran, S. (2010). Commitment and creativity: Transforming experience into art. In M. C. Connery, V. P. John-Steiner, & A. Marjanovic-Shane (Eds.), Vygotsky and creativity (pp. 141–160). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Papert, S. (1980). Constructionism vs. Instructionism. Speech delivered to an audience of educators in Japan [Web site]. Retrieved from https://www.papert.org/articles/const_inst/const_inst1.html. Papert, S. (1991). Perestroika and epistemological politics. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 13–28). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books. Pimm, D. (1981). Metaphor and analogy in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 1(3), 47–50. Radice, B. (1963). The letters of the younger Pliny. London, UK: Penguin Books. Revans, R. (2011). ABC of action learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Reyna, J., & Meier, P. (2018). Using the learner-generated digital media (LGDM) framework in tertiary science education: A pilot study. Education Sciences, 8(3), 106. Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030106. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rusk, N., Resnick, M., & Cooke, S. (2009). Origins and guiding principles of the computer clubhouse. In Y. B. Kafai, K. A. Peppler, & R. N. Chapman (Eds.), The computer clubhouse—Constructionism and creativity in youth communities (pp. 17–25). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96. Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instruction-design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shepard, L., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Rust, F. (2005). Assessment. In L. DarlingHammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 275–326). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sutter, B. (2001). Instruction at heart: Activity-theoretical studies of learning and development in coronary clinical work. Karlskrona, SE: Blekinge Institute of Technology.

References

19

Thompson, I. (2013). The mediation of learning in the zone of proximal development through a co-constructed writing activity. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(3), 247–276. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure?. New York, NY: Routledge. van Leeuwen, T. (2015). Multimodality. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 447–465). Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1987). Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1. R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), New York, NY: Plenum Press. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. Young, G. (1888). The dramas of Sophocles rendered in English verse, dramatic and lyric. London, UK: George Bell and Sons.

Chapter 2

Theoretical Framework

2.1 Animation as Representation 2.1.1 Visualisation and Mental Models An area of interest to the same cognitive psychologists who investigate conceptual change is the existence of mental models. According to Rapp (2007): Mental models are internal representations of information and experiences from the outside world. Indeed, mental models have been discussed beyond psychology proper; they are often invoked by science educators to describe the types of representations that equate with adequate comprehension of educational material (p. 44).

Mental models depict an individual’s understanding of particular concepts. They are ‘representations that rely on a person’s understanding, but are not always valid or reliable’ (Rapp, 2007, p. 45). For Rapp, the reliability of a mental model relates to its alignment with the topic. Hence, faulty models are common across various subject areas, ages and demographics for a variety of reasons ranging from the quality and nature of instruction through to other pedagogical considerations such as a student’s prior knowledge (Carey, 1985; Diakidoy & Kendeou, 2001; Osbourne & Freyberg, 1985). A challenge for teachers and researchers is trying to understand what students’ mental models actually look like. Explanations require students to construct mental models of the content from which they are presented, regardless of whether the explanation includes any diagrams. This is the essence of the ubiquitous phenomenon of visualisation. Gilbert (2007) argued that, ‘visualization is central to learning, especially in the sciences, for students have to learn to navigate within and between the modes of representation’ (p. 9). Hence, visualisation is strongly associated with the development of mental models as mental models ‘refer to the model of the system actually constructed by the learner’ (Mayer, 1993, p. 568). The structure of mental models gives representational form to the given or implied particulars of a concept but a mental model does not necessarily have a physical structure (Caws, 1974). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 B. Jacobs, Explanatory Animations in the Classroom, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3525-3_2

21

22

2 Theoretical Framework

The relevance of this duality for the current study is that the explanatory animation process facilitates tangible expressions of internal, mental models. Gilbert (2007) calls this an expressed model: By its very nature, a mental model is inaccessible to others. However, in order to facilitate communication, a version of that model must be placed in the public domain and can therefore be called an expressed model (p. 12, original emphasis).

An expressed model is particularly useful to facilitate learning because it is tangible and thus available for further critique and discussion. Veresov (2013) described this as a basic premise pertaining to multimodality and knowledge representation when he suggested that representations must be visible before they can be observable, and they must be observable before they can be analysable. A recurring theme throughout this book is that learning can be enhanced when students become authors of explanatory animations rather than viewers (Jacobs & Robin, 2016). This casts the notion of mental models into a new light because the various modalities are no longer seen as vying for attention in relation to cognitive load. The commonality here is that authors and viewers alike are both tasked with understanding the content. Multimodality is a catalyst for this process as ‘comprehension is enhanced when learners are able to mentally integrate verbal and pictorial information’ (Zhao, Schnotz, Wagner, & Gaschler, 2019, p. 3). The contribution of the Storyboard project to the research literature on mental models is that the evolving animation artefacts embody the learning and surface the actual mental models of the animation authors. Accordingly, the completion of the animation and the consolidation of the subject matter will both occur together. This idea is expanded in Chap. 4 as insights from the Reverse engineering Explanatory Animation Learning Method (REALM).

2.1.2 Abstract and Concrete What comes to mind when you think about the word ‘abstract’? Is it an adjective or a verb? In the seminal book Constructionism, Turkle and Papert (1991) proposed a ‘re-evaluation of the concrete’ (pp. 161–192), where they questioned the nature of abstract thinking. This re-evaluation is clearly in reference to Piaget’s stage theory (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969), which suggested that the ‘concrete operational stage’ (most clearly associated with primary school children), preceded the ‘formal operational stage’ which is characterised by abstract reasoning. Piaget saw abstract reasoning as the hallmark of secondary school children coming of age as they grew into adulthood. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development is now widely critiqued but his categories still provide useful vocabulary for discussion. In his chapter Abstract Meditations on the Concrete, Wilensky (1991) takes this re-evaluation further by suggesting that everything is abstract until you understand it. The term ‘concretising’ (Wilensky, 1991, p. 194) was then used as a metaphor for understanding. Difficult concepts gradually ‘set’ when students are able to represent,

2.1 Animation as Representation

23

manipulate and interact with them. ‘Concepts that were hopelessly abstract at one time can become concrete’ (Wilensky, 1991, p. 198). An implication of Wilensky’s view is that abstract and concrete are not fixed categories to which different types of knowledge intrinsically belong. Instead, these categories could be more accurately described as different ends on a learning continuum across which meaning can be consolidated and represented. The relative movement of ideas from abstract to concrete depends on the comprehension of each concept, by each person, on a case-by-case basis. This notion is not new, as Dewey made the same point over 100 years ago when he commented on the interplay between concrete and abstract concepts as being ‘relative to the intellectual progress of an individual; what is abstract at one period of growth is concrete at another’ (Dewey, 1910/1997, pp. 136–137). Davydov (1990) also critiqued the notion of a fixed progress from concrete to abstract under the heading ‘The method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete’ (pp. 128–138). Of interest here is not whether abstract and concrete are constituted in a vertical relationship but, rather that new ideas are metaphorically ‘out there’ and that they become increasingly concrete as they move towards the learner and become internalised. Similarly, Vygotsky (1987) described the relationship between concrete and abstract as a two-way phenomenon depending on the context. He saw conceptual consolidation as proceeding from the abstract to the concrete whereas theorising was served by the capacity for abstraction: Concept formation…does not occur through a gradual transition from the concrete to the abstract. The reverse movement, the movement from above to below, from the general to the particular or from the top of the pyramid to its base is as characteristic of this process as is the reverse movement towards the pinnacle of abstract thinking (p. 128).

Figure 2.1 contrasts the different views on abstract and concrete diagrammatically. Of note is that they are both continuums. The traditional view based on Piaget’s Fig. 2.1 Different views on abstract and concrete © Brendan Jacobs

24

2 Theoretical Framework

stages (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) is on the left where children move through the concrete operational stage towards abstract thinking as they develop into adolescence. The view on the right is that abstract and concrete are terms that apply to people’s understanding on a case-by-case basis (Wilensky, 1991). For example, to an auto mechanic, the inner workings of an internal combustion engine are concrete but to the uninitiated, this knowledge is abstract. The construct in Fig. 2.1 calls for further discussion about how ideas might move from abstract towards concrete through the process of ‘transmediation’.

2.1.3 Transmediation Transmediation is the process of translating content from one modality to another (Broudy, 1977; Suhor, 1984). A mode is a specific type of communication such as language, imagery or gesture. Kress (2010) has expanded the definition of ‘mode’ to include attributes, such as colour. The commonality amongst modes is that they can convey meaning. Wright (2010) has articulated many of the modes including ‘gesture, body language, facial expressions, eye contact, dress, writing, speech, narratives, the mass media, advertising, drawing, photography, space, cuisine and rituals’ (pp. 11– 12) but was careful to note that for children meaning is constituted by its total effect as ‘semiotic units’ and should be ‘understood as a single multimodal act’ (p. 14). There is a link between knowledge transformation and transmediation, which Mills (2011) described as ‘transformation of knowledge by degrees’ (p. 57). Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) used the term ‘transduction’ for the same process, but Mills (2011) prefers the original term because it acknowledges the ‘genesis of the concept within the literature’ (p. 57). Siegel (1995) suggested that transmediation always involves ‘an enlargement and expansion of meaning, not a simple substitution of one thing for another’ (p. 457). Compared to metaphor, where core elements pertaining to a conceptual topic might be identified and then explained by mapping between the particulars of the target and source domains, transmediation is seen to be a catalyst for conceptual change because the core elements (i.e. variables) are translated from one modality to another. It is this notion of translation that is the hallmark of transmediation, rather than the actual modalities that are involved. The fluidity of these transmediations might appear to infer that conceptual change is an ongoing process that has no final destination point. Yet, as implied in the research question from the Storyboard project, a final destination might involve the articulation and consolidation of conceptual understanding. However, rather than considering transmediation and conceptual change as infinite versus finite, a more suitable viewpoint might be to theorise conceptual consolidation along a continuum (Wilensky, 1991) between the abstract and the concrete. Figure 2.2 presents transmediation as a catalyst for understanding building on the idea of an abstract–concrete continuum. Note that the line surrounding ‘Abstract’ is broken to suggest that abstract knowledge is not fully understood initially. The implication is that explanatory animation creation is a digital catalyst for cross-modal

2.1 Animation as Representation

25

Fig. 2.2 Transmediation as a catalyst for understanding © Brendan Jacobs

cognition (Jacobs, Wright, & Reynolds, 2017) and that transmediation enhances and accelerates the process of conceptual consolidation. The rationale for the two-way arrows in Fig. 2.2 is based on Vygotsky’s idea that abstraction and abstract thinking arises from understanding. A person’s understanding of a topic can then be linked to their ability to transmediate ideas as a cross-modal paraphrase. In the Storyboard project, the essential features that constituted the particulars of the paraphrase were the variables pertaining to each particular topic. Much of the transmediation literature discusses how ideas are changed from one mode to another such as Mills’ (2011) example where a child drew her own picture and declared that she was ‘making it different to the book’ (p. 64). It is significant to note that an explanatory animation author doesn’t need to leave the previous modes behind as the animation medium is intrinsically multimodal. (See Fig. 2.5 in this chapter where the animation artefacts are shown to contain dynamic combinations of images, written text, narration, colour, movement, metaphor, order, highlighting, spatial positioning, sound effects and music.) The format in which a mode might be expressed, such as paper, email or text message, is referred to as the medium. The animation medium is a composite mode containing elements such as imagery, language, colour, movement and music. According to Harste (2010), each modality ‘affords a particular type of meaning’ (p. 29). A fundamental presupposition that binds all systems of representation is that they have ‘the power to evoke something else’ (Pratt & Garton, 1993, p. 1). Davis, Shrobe and Szolovits (1993) have taken this notion further by describing representations as a ‘surrogate’ (p. 17) for that which they represent.

2.1.4 The Representation Construction Approach (RCA) Within the science education literature, there is a renewed focus on representation as evidence of learning because the creation of models as representations can surface what a child knows (Gilbert, Reiner, & Nakhleh, 2008; Hubber, Tytler, & Haslam, 2010; Treagust, Chittleborough, & Mamiala, 2002). This interest has also sought

26

2 Theoretical Framework

to understand how student-generated models can facilitate interactions between students and teachers (Chandrasegaran, Treagust, & Mocerino, 2011). During these interactions, the learning process relies on the teacher’s ability to interpret ‘students’ representations as evidence of their understanding’ (Waldrip & Prain, 2013, p. 29). In application, the Representation Construction Approach (RCA) to learning (Tytler, Prain, Hubber, & Waldrip, 2013) uses a pedagogical approach based on the central practice of students making representations and then using these representations as catalysts for conceptual consolidation through classroom discussion. Of particular interest is the emphasis that the RCA places on negotiation and coconstruction of meaning. When an artefact has an explicit communicative role and the creator of that artefact is present for dialogue during its creation (rather than relying on interpretation after the fact), the co-construction of meaning revolves around the explanatory purpose of that artefact. The RCA treads consciously around another issue pertaining to science education, which involves the timing and use of established, canonical representations and the exploratory, creative pursuits of letting students develop their own representations. The RCA has nuanced this issue with a keen interest in representations as a window into mental models as ‘learning about new concepts cannot be separated from learning both how to represent these concepts and what these representations signify’ (Waldrip & Prain, 2013, p. 17). Perhaps the most important premise from the RCA is that representations must be explained and critiqued, as the explanatory purpose of representations is not always self-evident. This resonates with the work of Harrison and Treagust (1996) who made the same point about using metaphors.

2.2 Animation and Metaphor The use of metaphors and analogies is a common device for the purposes of explaining one thing by relating it to another. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) have described the source domain as the familiar and the target domain as the subject for which we are seeking to infer a comparison. For example, when using the metaphor of water to explain electricity, it is assumed that people are quite familiar with the attributes of water as a source domain such as water flowing and water pressure and then some of these attributes are said to be illustrative for the less familiar attributes of electricity, which is the target domain. It is important, however, to remember that metaphors are not explanations. Their value is ‘more heuristic than analytical and more useful in the context of discovery than verification’ (Weiner, 1991, p. 929). Because metaphors are used to make connections, it is not uncommon to find multiple or even contrasting metaphors, as no metaphor provides a complete analogy. Michael Poole (1995) perhaps said this best when describing the limitations of language in relation to concepts and models by saying that ‘every comparison has a limp’ (p. 49) as comparisons deal with particulars and are therefore only partial. Petrie (1979) has proposed that metaphors are epistemologically necessary. By this, he means that it is by comparing and contrasting one thing to another that

2.2 Animation and Metaphor

27

knowledge is constructed and shared. Andreou (2013) has also noted that the use of metaphors is a creative act by ‘linking things that are originally unrelated’ (p. 14). Lakoff and Johnson (1980) have emphasised that metaphors are not merely a literary device, but rather an essential part of thinking and reasoning. Yet others such as Green (1993) have cautioned that the common pedagogical practice of using metaphors to enhance explanations can also be problematic as students often ‘transfer attributes from the teacher’s analogue to the target’ in a literal sense (Harrison & Treagust, 1996, p. 511). According to Zittoun, Gillespie, Cornish and Psaltis (2007), ‘metaphors have their affordances, their side-effects, and their unexpected consequences’ (p. 225). One problem then is that students are often not told which parts of a metaphor are relevant and which parts are not or how one concept can be mapped onto another. Fichtner (1999) is insightful here by noting that an important aspect of working with metaphors is knowing how to handle them as, ‘metaphors are not illustrations of empirical facts, but rather visual images of theoretical relationships and, thus, a means of reflection’ (p. 323). Both deliberate instructional metaphors and figurative language are often misunderstood by children as language operates on a ‘horizontal (sequentially ordered) plane as well as a vertical (associational or metaphorical) plane’ (Manning, 2003, p. 1023). Metaphors involving representations of physical objects appear to be particularly problematic for children. Deloache and Burns (1993) found that the ability of children to recognise the symbolic qualities of an object is a skill that develops throughout childhood. Ackermann (1991) noted that children often interpret metaphors literally to the detriment of their own learning as, ‘drawings are not analogues of the ideas that they express’ (p. 286). This issue is relevant to explanatory animation creation in the classroom as it shows how the mediating object (i.e. metaphor, representation or both), which is supposed to be a catalyst for conceptual consolidation, is often a stumbling block without clarification through sufficient dialogue. The following two examples bear this out in terms of how children can be prone to misconceptions when presented with metaphors: 1. Ackermann’s observation (1991) was in the context of revisiting Piaget’s waterlevel experiment. One of her students drew a ribbon around a bottle to depict the water level inside the bottle and then proceeded to treat the drawn ribbon as an actual ribbon rather than the water level. 2. Butler (1998) recounted a story about a primary school teacher who boiled a kettle of water in class to show the water changing from a liquid state to water vapour and then steam. When children were then asked to draw how this could occur in nature (assumedly with lakes and clouds and so on), one child drew a kettle placed out in the wilderness. The misunderstanding only became apparent through the child’s drawing, as the teacher had assumed that the children understood that the kettle was a metaphor. The examples of the water-level ribbon and the kettle in the wilderness show that the problem, in each case, occurred when the representations were taken literally. The

28

2 Theoretical Framework

line on the water bottle only became a metaphor when it was drawn as a ribbon. The kettle in the wilderness might as well have been the result of only presenting the child with a single metaphor. The use of multiple metaphors helps in such instances, as children are orientated to the fact that metaphors are only intended to have particular points of similarity in each instance. The relevance and implication of this for the Storyboard project is that in a well-designed explanatory animation when metaphors and analogies are used, they must be explained and not merely presented, as the intended inferences are usually not self-evident. Furthermore, ‘the point at which the analogy breaks down must be recognised by students to avoid wrong inferences on, or oversimplification of, the new concepts’ (Mason, 1994, p. 289). Metaphors, images and diagrams are particular types of signs known as ‘icons’. Teachers can mediate the understanding of metaphors by discussing icons and the process of iconicity by metaphorically mapping concepts across modes through drawing, sequencing and reflection. Nersessian (2008) noted that this process of mapping need not involve a direct correlation for all of the particulars but, rather, as ‘sources for constraints’ (p. 28). Accordingly, the combination of constraints and direct mapping is then the basis for model-based reasoning (Nersessian, 1984, 2002, 2008, 2012), where models are constructed and critiqued to understand concepts, as ‘conceptual change involves such reasoning’ (2008, p. 16). Nersessian built her theory through dialogue with others such as Clement (1988) who proposed that, when dealing with metaphorical comparisons, both the correlation and constraints of particulars are more than associations, but rather, ‘transformations’ (Nersessian, 2008, p. 211). This transformation is not initially about the content itself, but rather a person’s understanding of that content. Ultimately, the content is also transformed as evidenced in the person’s updated explanatory model. The best example from the Storyboard project of how metaphors can direct and guide learning is from ‘Ryan’ (Jacobs & Cripps Clark, 2018). Ryan was a Grade 6 boy who decided to investigate the acoustics of stadium design. (Ryan’s animation can be viewed at https://www.brendanpauljacobs.com/stadiumreview.html). The acoustics of stadium design struck me as a particularly suitable topic for an explanatory animation. My reflection at the time was that it seemed like a ‘really promising topic. I like the way that it is inherently scientific, due to acoustics, and yet quite accessible as stadiums are frequented by multitudes of people’. Ryan tended to work independently for much of the time during the initial project sessions. I soon learned that Ryan was expecting me to provide content knowledge for him as evidenced by his reflection after the second session, ‘Today I didn’t learn anything. I was just starting to work on my animation of my stadium’. The following week I discussed ripples on a pond as a widely accepted metaphor for sound waves. Ryan appreciated this suggestion and soon incorporated ripples into his imagery. ‘Today I learnt that ripples in a pond are a good way to describe what sound waves look like’ (Student reflection). Ryan had begun experimenting with a trapezium shape to show reflecting sound waves. My reflection on Ryan’s progress gave me another idea for a possible metaphor. ‘This visualisation has the potential to be quite memorable and even iconic

2.2 Animation and Metaphor

29

as it could resemble the early arcade game pong where a ball is bounced between paddles in a game of tennis’ (Researcher reflection). Ryan embraced the Pong metaphor and made consistent and rapid progress as he sought to reconcile his understanding of the invisible, yet ubiquitous, nature of sound. Choosing and critiquing appropriate metaphors proved to be the turning point for Ryan’s conceptual consolidation. The learning that was facilitated through these discussions created the ZPD for Ryan as he began to think carefully about the implications of each metaphor. During the week following Ryan’s implementation of the Pong metaphor, I wondered whether I was overdoing the preparatory research in between sessions. ‘Am I doing too much? I have spent most of tonight researching the children’s topics to be able to give them strategic guidance tomorrow. They are the ones who are supposed to be answering these questions’ (Researcher’s reflexive journal). In retrospect, I have no regrets about my additional research. In Ryan’s case, my homework led to an even bigger breakthrough as noted in my Researcher reflection: Whilst preparing for this session, I came across some information about how sound waves involve the transmission of energy but the air itself doesn’t move, as that would be wind. The pong idea might have been short lived as it suggests that the air does move. Another metaphor that might be useful involves those toy balls that hang together on strings from a frame (I can’t remember what they’re called).

I soon found out that the suspended balls were called ‘Newton’s cradle’. There was a simple animated GIF online that I was able to show to Ryan. ‘Brendan showed me this animation of the Newton’s cradle which I think is a good way of showing how the air doesn’t move. But the … it’s the … energy in the air that’s moving. Is that right?’ (Student reflection). Ryan and I had assumed that the Newton’s cradle metaphor would replace the Pong imagery. Through more discussion, we came up with a better idea. ‘Today I decided that I’ll show the pong imagery first and then I’ll show the Newton’s cradle to show how the sound moves through the air’ (Student reflection). Figure 2.3 shows the imagery for the Newton’s cradle metaphor. At the very end of the project, I mentioned to Ryan that there was an error towards the end of his completed animation where the sound loses energy. I didn’t want to tell him what it was without giving him one last chance to figure it out. From 0:19 to 0:21 the ball can be seen falling to the ground having lost energy. Ryan had not figured it out and was curious to know what it was. I explained that his falling ball Fig. 2.3 Screen shot of Newton’s cradle © Brendan Jacobs

30

2 Theoretical Framework

was misleading because air without sound energy doesn’t fall to the ground. Ryan discussed this insight directly in his director’s commentary. I made a bit of a mistake when it showed the, the ball losing energy and it just went straight to the ground. Because I really should have shown it shrinking away because air, if it has no sound, doesn’t just fall to the ground.

It appears that our discussion surrounding the falling ball provided the missing piece to Ryan’s conceptual puzzle. Ryan described his use of metaphors in his director’s commentary as a ‘breakthrough’. I think that Ryan was right to use the word ‘breakthrough’ for both the Pong and Newton’s cradle metaphors because they gave him a course of action and a context for discussion. Ryan’s case was unique amongst the eight participants in that he presented multiple metaphors and then critiqued each metaphor explicitly in his voice-over script. Waldrip and Prain (2013) have stated that students need ‘to be able to explain limitations of some of their proposed 2D representations to indicate their understanding of concepts’ (p. 27). Ryan’s ability to discuss the strengths and limitations of these two metaphors is a demonstration of model-based reasoning and the RCA, where a critique of representational choices helps to guide and focus the learning. Findings 5 and 6 came out of Ryan’s case study as follows: Finding 5: Metaphors can be generative for both imagery and narration. Finding 6: Metaphors should be critiqued to avoid unintended inferences.

2.2.1 Metaphors and Analogies as Mediating Devices The best example from the Storyboard project of the importance of metaphors as a context for discussion is from ‘Harriet’ (Jacobs & Usher, 2018). Harriet was a Grade 6 girl who decided to investigate how hair grows. (Harriet’s animation can be viewed at https://www.brendanpauljacobs.com/hairreview.html). She stated in her prior knowledge video that ‘My topic is how hair grows and I don’t really know much about it except that it’s from your skull and there’s a tiny stem inside your skull and it grows from there’. Harriet was the most independent child out of all of the eight participants. In many ways, Harriet was the model student as she was diligent, focused, engaged and making steady progress, only seeking my assistance for technical animation advice rather that specific content knowledge. She noted in her weekly reflections that I asked her questions to keep her learning. One of my first questions was ‘Is hair dead or alive?’ Harriet addressed this in the opening scene of her animation: “Is hair dead or alive?” A lot of people ask that but the truth is…hair is dead and that’s why it doesn’t hurt when you cut it. But the reason it does hurt when you pull it is because you’re also pulling the stem and that’s where the hair grows from.

2.2 Animation and Metaphor

31

These questions helped to guide Harriet’s learning as she began to seek more detail about the structure of hair. One of my suggestions was that Harriet should create some cross-sectional imagery. Harriet proceeded to identify the various components of hair in the voice-over script of her animation as follows: There are many different components that make up the hair. • • • • •

the skin around the skull which is also known as the scalp the hair string the sebaceous glands the dermal papillae and the hair shaft.

Harriet had encountered some information that I had never heard of such as ‘sebaceous glands’. (This new knowledge that Harriet had acquired independently of me led to the creation of Fig. 1.5. Overlap within Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, back in Chap. 1). She appeared to be engaged and eager to research new terminology. As such, Harriet essentially directed her own progress. I was grateful for Harriet’s self-motivation as there was always at least one of the other children wanting my assistance. I have continued to reflect on Harriet’s work since completing the data collection. My most recent reflection is that the topic that Harriet presented could have been more accurately described as “What is hair made of?” To further explore the system qualities of hair growth, we should have looked into the hair growth cycle. I have now discovered that there are three distinct stages of the hair growth cycle, which is significant because Harriet and I never encountered any of these stages during the project. The absence of this key information accounts for our failure to identify the system qualities of hair growth. These three stages could also be called phases as the Oxford English Dictionary defines a phase as “a particular stage in recurring sequence of movements or changes”. The three phases of hair growth are: 1. Anagen (active phase lasting between 2–6 years) 2. Catagen (transitional phase lasting around 2 weeks) 3. Telogen (resting phase lasting between 1–4 months) Harriet’s failure to identify the three phases of hair growth was really my own failure to ask her the right questions such as “What is the hair growth cycle?” I would have quickly discovered these terms if I had done any of my own research, but this was the one case where a child did all of their own research. This further caused me to reflect on my role as a teacher working in a primary school. The old adage the squeaky wheel gets the grease is characteristic of the way that the most demanding children usually receive the most assistance from their teacher. Harriet’s progress was unlike any of the other seven children as her animation could be characterised as an animated poster with annotated diagrams and corresponding narration, rather than an explanatory narrative. This is because Harriet’s voice-over script described components rather than explaining relationships between them or the cycle to which they belonged as follows:

32

2 Theoretical Framework So the hair grows on and on so slowly that you don’t even notice it. It grows and falls out at the same time but because it grows so fast, people can choose to have long hair. Now the reason that people have different coloured hair and different types of hair like curly, straight or wavy is because of a little something called…genes.

Harriet wrote in her director’s commentary that “Genes was my answer to different colours and curly, straight and wavy but I didn’t really get into any of the details because that’s not my topic”. Harriet used text as a graphical metaphor in Fig. 2.4: Harriet’s case is also unique in that she was the only child amongst the eight participants who didn’t use a metaphor to explain her topic. In retrospect, the cyclical nature of Harriet’s topic had escaped both Harriet and myself. It could be inferred that merely the teacher’s presence is a catalyst for learning, but anyone who has ever set foot in a classroom knows that this isn’t necessarily the case. Harriet’s animation was the least effective in terms of her own conceptual growth and yet I had characterised her as the ideal student. This was because her gradual acquisition of facts did not require her to wrestle with pedagogical issues at a conceptual crossroads where higher-level learning could occur. I know this to be true of my own experiences in these encounters with Harriet as we never had to wrestle with conceptual issues. Proximity alone did little to promote Harriet’s learning because there was no co-construction occurring, which appears to be the missing element in Harriet’s conceptual journey. Possible metaphors to demonstrate the iterative nature of the hair growth cycle could have been grass growing, or finger nails growing. I’m confident that we would have discovered these phases if we had amended the title to be “The hair growth cycle”. The hair growth cycle would have lent itself to animation as the duration of the anagen stage explains why some people can grow longer hair than other people. Fig. 2.4 A graphical metaphor of the attributes of hair © Brendan Jacobs

2.2 Animation and Metaphor

33

2.2.2 Schematic Diagrams as Conceptual Metaphors A recurring theme throughout much of the conceptual change literature (from both cognitive science and educational psychology) is that the conceptual change process can be characterised as an act of classification using perceptible attributes and features (Chi, 2008; Virkkunen & Ristimäki, 2012). This emphasis on classification is analogous to the use of Venn diagrams. Tversky, Heiser, Mackenzie, Lozano and Morrison (2008, pp. 280–281), however, suggested a more useful way to understand concepts through the metaphor of a schematic diagram. They used a map of a train network as a good example of how only the salient points are included, thus providing a conceptual focus. Yet, each train stop on the diagram is represented as being equidistant and the lines are all drawn as if they’re straight because minor deviations in distance and position are not important to the schema. ‘Concepts are given meaning according to the image schematic structures with which they are associated’ (Andreou, 2013, p. 16). Hence, in the train network example, identifying relevant variables and relationships between these variables is a system perspective. Conceptually (in terms of content), schematic diagrams are deliberately selective rather than exhaustive because they are models and function according to their ability to convey essential information. Multimodally (as representations), schematic diagrams are the result of representational choices to only include essential information, as meaning is determined and articulated at the design stage and then conveyed accordingly ‘to make abstract or complex information graphically communicative’ (Andreou, 2013, p. 12). In other words, an affordance of schematic diagrams is that both the conceptual content and representation of that content are subjugated to the intent of providing clear and effective communication. The methodological implications from the schematic diagram metaphor would appear to be immediately applicable to the process of explanatory animation creation as a mandate to keep it simple. Prioritising communication also resonates with Einstein’s guideline to ‘Make everything as simple as possible but not simpler’. For primary school children attempting to understand and explain novel topics using unfamiliar animation techniques, this is good news. More will be said about the importance of simplicity in Chap. 3 in the wider context of the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF).

2.3 Animation as Co-Construction of Learning Co-construction was a major theme in the Storyboard project which reinforced the nature of proximity within the ZPD as the children and I wrestled with the same pedagogical issues. These learning dynamics were conceptualised through Vygotsky and Sakharov’s dual stimulation method and Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT).

34

2 Theoretical Framework

2.3.1 The Dual Stimulation Method Vygotsky and Sakharov’s dual stimulation method was used as a theoretical framework to conduct this research due to the close unity between conceptual tasks and their resolution. Daniels (2012) has defined Vygotsky and Sakharov’s dual stimulation method as an experimental approach where people are placed in a situation where ‘a problem is identified and they are also provided with tools with which to solve the problem or means by which they can construct tools to solve the problem’ (p. 822). The first stimulus (i.e. problem) and the second stimulus (i.e. tools) are predetermined and so the point of this method is to understand the effectiveness of the second stimulus as a tool to resolve the first stimulus. In the Storyboard project, the first stimulus was the overall task of explaining a topic, and the second stimulus was the use of the evolving explanatory animation artefact to embody the learning. The unity between task and tool was further developed by Vygotsky (1978) when he stated that the dual stimulation method is ‘simultaneously prerequisite and product, the tool and result of study’ (p. 65). In the Storyboard project, conceptual consolidation was also understood as a history or chronology of development. An affordance of the dual stimulation method was that it created both the conditions for conceptual change and also provided the means to document conceptual change. This was achieved through the evolving, date-based multimodal animation artefacts and the proximity afforded to me as the researcher through the ZPD. The dual stimulation method requires that ‘the subject must be faced with a task that can only be resolved through the formation of concepts’ (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 124). Vygotsky explained the nature of this link by stating that ‘the path through which the task is resolved in the experiment corresponds with the actual process of concept formation’ (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 128). Hence, the power of explanatory animation creation process is its ability to track and illustrate the conceptual-developmental pathway.

2.3.2 Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) Explanatory animation creation is a multifaceted task that is well suited to CulturalHistorical Activity Theory (CHAT). CHAT is an ‘umbrella methodology’ (Anning, Cullen, & Fleer, 2009, p. 1) that has evolved from Vygotsky and Sakharov’s dual stimulation method. These are complementary methodologies as dual stimulation is the ‘cornerstone’ (Giest, 2008, p. 103) of the CHAT school. By definition, new knowledge involves venturing into the unknown. Engeström conceptualised CHAT with a focus on new knowledge creation stating that, ‘the object of activity is a moving target’ (Engeström, 2001, p. 136). Unlike a scientific experiment with clearly defined dependent and independent variables, the children’s task in the current study was to determine these variables in relation to their individual topics as evidenced by the scope and sequence of their animations. The notion of

2.3 Animation as Co-Construction of Learning

35

activity was particularly important throughout this research because each of the child participants was required to perform a variety of technical and pedagogical roles, as their explanatory animation creation task was clearly multifaceted. Harel and Papert (1991) were amongst the earliest researchers to note that constructing digital artefacts is a multifaceted task: The child-producer who wants to design a lesson on the computer must learn about the content, become a tutor, a lesson designer, a pedagogical decision-maker, an evaluator, a graphic artist, and so on (p. 78).

Figure 2.5 shows the complexity of the children’s roles and the various components of the animation artefacts: CHAT has two distinct lines of development. Vygotsky was particularly interested in the relationship between learning and development and the role of artefact mediation within the ZPD. Leontiev, on the other hand, was more concerned with activity and its organisation, and it is this emphasis that was developed by Engeström in his activity triangle. The Storyboard project drew equally on both artefact mediation and learning due to the intrinsic unity between an explanatory animation and the conceptual content contained therein. How could one describe an explanatory animation without reference to the actual topic (i.e. concept) that comprised the subject matter? Likewise, how could one look at the conceptual ideas represented in

Fig. 2.5 A synthesis model for activity © Brendan Jacobs

36

2 Theoretical Framework

animation without reference to the animation itself? These issues will be addressed in Chaps. 3 and 4.

References Ackermann, E. (1991). From decontextualized to situated knowledge: Revisiting Piaget’s waterlevel experiment. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 269–294). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Andreou, A. P. (2013, October). Conceptual metaphors as image schemas in information visualizations. In 2CO Communicating complexity: 2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 12–18). Edizioni Nuova Cultura, University of Sassari, Italy. Anning, A., Cullen, J., & Fleer, M. (2009). Research contexts across cultures. In A. Anning, J. Cullen, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Early childhood education: Society and culture (2nd ed., pp. 1–24). London, UK: SAGE. Broudy, H. S. (1977). How basic is aesthetic education? or Is it the fourth R? Language Arts, 54(6), 631–637. Butler, T. (1998). EDN7025—Child development and learning (Week 5). Frankston, VIC: Monash University. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: Bradford. Caws, P. (1974). Operational, representational, and explanatory models. American Anthropologist, 76(1), 1–10. Clement, J. (1988). Observed methods for generating analogies in scientific problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12(4), 563–586. Chandrasegaran, A., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2011). Facilitating high school students’ use of multiple representations to describe and explain simple chemical reactions. Teaching Science, 57(4), 13–20. Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). New York, NY: Routledge. Daniels, H. (2012). The interface between the sociology of practice and the analysis of talk in the study of change in educational settings. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 817–829). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Davis, R., Shrobe, H., & Szolovits, P. (1993). What is a knowledge representation? AI Magazine, 14(1), 17–33. Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in structuring of school curricula. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Deloache, J. S., & Burns, N. M. (1993). Symbolic development in young children: Understanding models and pictures. In C. Pratt & A. F. Garton (Eds.), Systems of representation in children— Development and use (pp. 91–112). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How we think. New York, NY: Dover Publications. Diakidoy, I. A. N., & Kendeou, P. (2001). Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: A comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning and Instruction, 11(1), 1–20. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–155. Fichtner, B. (1999). Metaphor and learning activity. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 314–324). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

References

37

Giest, H. (2008). The formation experiment in the age of hypermedia and distance learning. In B. Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. Veer (Eds.), The transformation of learning (pp. 100–126). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Gilbert, J. K. (2007). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.). (2008). Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Green, T. F. (1993). Learning without metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 610–620). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: Implications for teaching science. Science Education, 80(5), 509–534. Harste, J. C. (2010). Multimodality. In P. Albers, & J. Sanders (Eds.), Literacies, the arts and multimodality (pp. 27–43). Urbana, IL: NCTE. Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 5–28. Jacobs, B., & Cripps Clark, J. (2018). Create to critique—Explanatory animation as conceptual consolidation. Teaching Science, 64(1), 26–36. Jacobs, B., & Robin, B. (2016). Animating best practice. Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 263–283. Retrieved from https://dx.do.org/10.1177/1746847716662554. Jacobs, B., & Usher, A. (2018). Proximity as a window into the zone of proximal development. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 9(1), 2856–2863. Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2018.0376. Jacobs, B., Wright, S., & Reynolds, N. (2017). Reevaluating the concrete—Explanatory animation creation as a digital catalyst for cross-modal cognition. Mind, Culture and Activity, 24(4), 297– 310. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1294181. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality—A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York, NY: Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York, NY: Routledge. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Manning, P. (2003). Semiotics, pragmatism and narratives. In L. T. Reynolds & N. J. Herman-Kinney (Eds.), Handbook of symbolic interactionism (pp. 1021–1039). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Mason, L. (1994). Analogy, metaconceptual awareness and conceptual change: A classroom study. Educational Studies, 20(2), 267–291. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0305569940200209. Mayer, R. E. (1993). The instructive metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 561–578). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Mills, K. (2011). I’m making it different to the book: Transmediation in young children’s multimodal and digital texts. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(3), 56–65. Nersessian, N. J. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: Constructing meaning in scientific theories. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Nersessian, N. J. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133–153). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Nersessian, N. J. (2012). Engineering concepts: The interplay between concept formation and modeling practices in bioengineering sciences. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(3), 222–239. Osbourne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science. Hong Kong, CN: Heinemann. Petrie, H. G. (1979). Metaphor and learning. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 438– 469). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

38

2 Theoretical Framework

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books. Poole, M. (1995). Beliefs and values in science education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Pratt, C., & Garton, A. F. (1993). Systems of representation in children. In C. Pratt & A. F. Garton (Eds.), Systems of representation in children—Development and use (pp. 1–9). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Rapp, D. (2007). Mental models: Theoretical issues for visualizations in science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 43–60). Dordrecht, NL: Springer. Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: The generative power of transmediation for learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(4), 455–475. Suhor, C. (1984). Towards a semiotics-based curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 247–257. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G. D., & Mamiala, L. T. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357–368. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1991). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the concrete. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 161–192). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Tversky, B., Heiser, J., Mackenzie, R., Lozano, S., & Morrison, J. (2008). Enriching animations. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation (pp. 263–285). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.). (2013). A representation construction approach. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Veresov, N. (2013, November). Cultural-historical research methodology: What it is and how does it work? Keynote address presented to the Deakin University Methodology Symposium: Melbourne. Virkkunen, J., & Ristimäki, P. (2012). Double stimulation in strategic concept formation: An activitytheoretical analysis of business planning in a small technology firm. Mind, Culture and Activity, 19(3), 273–286. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1987). Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, (Vol. 1), R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), New York, NY: Plenum Press. Waldrip, B., & Prain, V. (2013). Teachers’ initial response to a representational focus. In R. Tytler, V. Prain, P. Hubber, & B. Waldrip (Eds.), Constructing representations to learn in science (pp. 15– 30). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Weiner, B. (1991). Metaphors in motivation and attribution. American Psychologist, 46(9), 921–930. Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 193–203). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Wright, S. (2010). Understanding creativity in early childhood. London, UK: SAGE. Zittoun, T., Gillespie, A., Cornish, F., & Psaltis, C. (2007). The metaphor of the triangle in theories of human development. Human Development, 50(4), 208–229. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.1159/000103361. Zhao, F., Schnotz, W., Wagner, I., & Gaschler, R. (2019). Texts and pictures serve different functions in conjoint mental model construction and adaptation. Memory & Cognition, 1–14. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00962-0.

Chapter 3

Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF)

3.1 Introduction to the Research Methodology The research methodology from the Storyboard project is introduced using an analogy from some of the elements of filmmaking. The idea of a filmmaking analogy was inspired by Clarke (2008) who noted that for the qualitative researcher, data isn’t simply collected (as if it is scattered on the ground, waiting to be scooped up), but rather composed and captured like a filmmaker who consciously and deliberately points a camera as a generative process, knowing where to look. Constructionism is like the title of a film. A title is supposed to embody what a film is about, but it is often a mere starting point as no single word or phrase can truly capture the entirety of a film. Likewise, constructionism provided a rationale for making artefacts but is insufficient to tell the whole story. Action research is like the genre of the film as a broad category for this research, with practitioner action research further defining some of the practices involved. The dual stimulation method can be likened to the role of a location manager who decides when and where to shoot the film. In this sense, the dual stimulation method, although broad in terms of possibilities, became highly specific once the explanatory animation creation task was established. The case study as a research method is like the role of a casting agent who enlists people to participant in a film through their direct involvement. Each of the eight children in the Storyboard project constituted a separate case and yet these eight cases were subsequently combined like scenes in a film. CHAT is like the behind-the-scenes work of the film editor, seemingly invisible and technical yet having the ability to completely transform the final product throughout each stage of the process. As an umbrella methodology, CHAT was sufficiently inclusive as a way to conceptualise every part of the research, especially when used as an application of the ZPD. The director was each of the eight children, and my role was like that of an executive producer. The final component in this metaphor is the script. The children started their animations with little or no prior knowledge, but their voice-over scripts © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 B. Jacobs, Explanatory Animations in the Classroom, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3525-3_3

39

40

3 Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF)

soon appeared and continued to evolve throughout the project. The evolution of these voice-over scripts was a major component of the data analysis and results. The Reverse engineering Explanatory Animation Learning Method (REALM) outlined in Chap. 4 is the heart of this book as it encapsulates the theoretical and pedagogical unity involved in the explanatory animation creation process. This chapter is a necessary foundation for the REALM because it outlines animation pedagogy in terms of some design guidelines known as the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF).

3.2 Methods—Explanatory Case Study This research project was titled Storyboard because I had already theorised that the content and order of the animation scenes would embody the learning. The animation platform that the Grade 5 and 6 students used was Microsoft PowerPoint because it was readily available and the students were already familiar with it. Additionally, the layout and design of the PowerPoint software itself were clearly influenced by the storyboard (Fleurke, 2011). The particular technique that was used, however, was initially unfamiliar to all of the participants. The various steps involved are described below: 1. Each student created their own PowerPoint file. A crucial part of the file management process was that each student saved their work with a different date-based file name each week. The simple practice of saving multiple versions of each student’s work was vital as, without this, there would not have been a data trail documenting all of their work. 2. Each student inserted combinations of auto shapes to construct their imagery and then created an identical copy of each slide (i.e. animation frame) by using the ‘Insert/Duplicate slide’ command. Each successive frame was then manipulated by slightly moving the shapes and then this process was repeated. 3. When the slides were completed the various animation frames were exported from PowerPoint using the command ‘Save as/PNG Portable Network Graphics Format (*.png)’. PowerPoint automatically named each frame using sequential numbers. 4. Another PowerPoint slide (within the same file) contained the child’s written explanation for the narration, which we called the voice-over script. 5. Each child read their voice-over script (i.e. narration) into a portable voicerecorder. These audio files were saved in the MP3 format. 6. The final step involved importing all the images into video editing software (we used Adobe Premiere Pro) and then synchronising these with the audio of the narration.

3.3 Data Sources

41

3.3 Data Sources Twelve data sources were generated throughout the study that centred on the various roles that the children and I played in the co-construction of the animation artefacts. The students each produced three videos: (1) a prior knowledge video at the start of the project, (2) an explanatory animation at the end of the project, and a (3) directors’ commentary about their animation to conclude the project. I kept daily reflections in my (4) reflexive journal and assessed the students after each session on a (5) conceptual consolidation rubric. I also wrote a (6) researcher reflection on each student each week and created (7) lesson plans for each session. Attendance was documented on an (8) attendance roll and the students and I also made video recordings of our (9) debriefing session at the end of the project. Component parts of the children’s animations included their various (10) imagery files (i.e. PowerPoint files) and a (11) voice-over script that evolved during each session until it was eventually recorded as an audio file for narration purposes. The students also made audio recordings at the end of each session about their progress and plans as (12) weekly reflections that were later transcribed for closer analysis. Figure 3.1 illustrates the various relationships between the data sources and whether the co-construction of the animation artefacts was primarily reflective (e.g. directors’ commentaries) or constructive (e.g. imagery) in nature.

3.4 Data Analysis The final analysis of each child’s progress required me to draw on all relevant data sources to identify instances of conceptual change for each child. It soon became apparent that two of these sources were particularly useful to identify conceptual changes: (1) The children’s voice-over scripts. (2) My researcher reflections (in weekly reviews) about the same topics. These two sources were also evident in the ZPD. The ZPD is usually understood as a context for development rather than a framework for analysis but this approach is not without precedent. As Sutter (2001) noted, there is a strong connection between the ZPD and Vygotsky and Sakharov’s dual stimulation method: The concept of the zone of proximal development goes together with the concept of the method of double stimulation. That means that when your analysis focuses on ZPD, the relation between people is highlighted, and the instrument and sign used in the interaction are put into the background. But of course they are there, because people influence each other through artefact mediation, and through the method of double stimulation. In the second case, when your account focuses on the method of double stimulation, the instruments and the signs are in the forefront, and the interactions between people are in the background. But each time, the ZPD and the method of double stimulation go together. They are, as I see it, twin concepts in Vygotsky’s cultural-historical psychology (p. 18, original emphasis).

42

3 Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF)

Fig. 3.1 Venn diagram of the 12 data sources © Brendan Jacobs

The ZPD provided the frame of reference that identified what each party understood about the topic. Changing the topic changed the frame of reference so this further affirmed how each child’s topic constituted a different case for analysis. The grounds for comparison (i.e. rationale for contrasting the children’s voice-over scripts with my researcher reflections) involved the notion that storyboards are semiotic tools for cross-modal cognition. ‘Cross-modal cognition’ is a term used by Jacobs, Wright and Reynolds (2017) to describe the ways in which learners in a multimodal environment are ‘simultaneously working with different modalities such as images and words as different aspects of the same conceptual task’ (p. 4). Researchers in the fields of cognitive science and neuroscience often investigate how different parts of the brain function during various tasks or activities. The design of such tasks may revolve around ‘divergent’ or ‘convergent’ thinking as noted by Beaty, Benedek, Silvia and Schacter (2016): One of the most widely used assessments of domain-general creative cognition is the alternate uses divergent thinking task. In contrast to convergent thinking tasks, which involve discovering a single solution to a creative problem (e.g. insight), divergent thinking involves

3.4 Data Analysis

43

generating several possible solutions to an open-ended problem, such as inventing creative uses for common objects (p. 88).

Neurological data was not part of the data analysis for the Storyboard project which is why the focus was on each child’s progress and activity throughout the multifaceted explanatory animation creation task. For example, unlike the creation of a song where the writer could literally get stuck on a particular lyric, the explanatory animation author can seamlessly transition into different aspects of the task if necessary. This reality is extremely useful in classroom settings because children can often manage these transitions themselves as practical examples of transmediation at work. Accordingly, these practices share elements of a ‘divergent task’ where several solutions are generated, yet retain the dynamics of a ‘convergent task’ as decisions are made about the various elements, namely choice of metaphor, colour, spatial positioning, voice-over script, and so on. Importantly, the co-construction of knowledge (as evidenced through the evolving digital artefacts) also surfaced my understanding of the topic. This provided a logical context for analysis as I would not have been able to make any judgements about each child’s work without reference to my own understanding (Leite, Mendoza, & Borsese, 2007).

3.5 Directors’ Commentaries as a Genre of Research Data The concept of a directors’ commentary is well-known in entertainment contexts where a director records a commentary as an audio option on a DVD or Blu-ray disc. This mirrors the same basic utility that was adopted for the Storyboard project where an additional, alternate audio track was merged with the primary video artefact (i.e. completed explanatory animation). Commentaries of any sort are reflexive and thus provide insights into the author’s reasoning but a survey of the literature would suggest that the use of directors’ commentaries, as a genre of research data, is unique to the Storyboard project. The directors’ commentaries not only occasioned student reflections, but they encouraged children to construct conceptual artefacts. As the children were recording reflections on a weekly basis, it was the directors’ commentaries that required them to reflect on the project as a whole, and thus, their entire conceptual journey. Directors’ commentaries provided a window into their own learning and encouraged metacognition in tangible ways as the children’s voices could be heard discussing their pedagogical decision-making processes and aesthetic choices. Some further technical comments about directors’ commentaries might be useful here as an introduction to this genre. (Note that the apostrophe is at the end for directors’ commentaries as a category but after director when referring to a specific director’s commentary). My initial assumption was that the duration of a directors’ commentary would be identical to that of the original videos. This came from the existing practice found on some commercial movies released on DVD or Blu-ray. In

44

3 Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF)

such cases, the video content is the same as that in the original film and an alternative audio track is enabled to replace the original audio track. By substituting the audio track and leaving the video track unchanged, the video file is only included once on the disc (instead of twice) thus saving space. As the Storyboard project didn’t use the DVD or Blu-ray medium, I was not restricted to this format issue and I was, therefore, free to include an entirely new video file. I have concluded that the duration of the final director’s commentary should be appropriate for the content, regardless of the duration of the original video footage. The following two guidelines might prove useful for other researchers: 1. Directors’ commentaries might be longer than the original explanatory animation, so the video footage can be repeated, or slowed down. 2. Sometimes it is appropriate to alter the original animation footage, to enhance a point being made in a director’s commentary. Such alterations might be as simple as using highlighting devices such as arrows.

3.6 Animation as Design The animation industry has truly come of age where the initial novelty of the medium has transitioned into the mainstream through the continued success of animated feature films and the enduring appeal of animated TV shows. The depth of field and realism possible in modern films has even caused classic animated films from the past to be remade to utilise these new technologies. In spite of these advances, however, ‘the quality of the sequence is more important than the quality of the images’ (Taylor, 2003, p. 7). It is the quality of the sequences that has led to the mainstream appeal of successful animations. Such animations are worlds apart from the practices described in the Storyboard project for two important reasons. The children’s animations were explanatory rather than for entertainment, and the children were authors rather than viewers. The commonality, however, is that the animation medium starts with a blank canvas which means that every element of each image and sequence must be carefully considered. Explanatory animation design principles are essentially a discussion of pedagogy as the countless decisions that the young animators made were intrinsically pedagogical.

3.6.1 Animation Design Principles It is worth asking, ‘What is animation pedagogy?’ The citation read aloud at my PhD graduation ceremony at the University of Melbourne in 2015 stated that: Brendan Jacobs investigated the conceptual consolidation of primary school children through their creation of explanatory animations. His research advanced our understanding of animation pedagogy and demonstrated how the children’s mental models, as depicted through their

3.6 Animation as Design

45

animation key frames and storyboards, functioned as both flexible models and diagnostic tools.

This citation used animation terminology such as ‘key frames’ and ‘storyboards’ to describe pedagogical issues, namely, ‘mental models’ and ‘diagnostic tools’. Most explanatory animations are made by professional animators who are guided by educators who wish to explain topics using this medium. During my Master of Education thesis titled Animating Best Practice, I found that the person who learns the most from an explanatory animation is actually the author, as they must consider every image and word because they start with a blank canvas. The current disconnect involves the underlying assumption that students are animation viewers rather than authors. Lowe (2001) proposed some animation design guidelines (pp. 6–7) which I have paraphrased as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Analyse the dynamic situation and its events Select the graphic entities, relationships and properties Determine main events Devise a presentation sequence Construct a temporal structure Cue the critical information

Extant animation design guidelines such as those proposed by Lowe (2001) were not directly applicable to the children in the Storyboard project. This was because the development of the children’s storyboards centred on understanding the relationships between the relevant variables as the pinnacle of conceptual understanding, rather than a prerequisite to it. Such a position is in contrast to Lowe’s guidelines that have implicit stage-gates that would become roadblocks for children who have yet to understand their topics. For example, Lowe’s second guideline, ‘Select the graphic entities, relationships and properties’ (2001, p. 6) requires a deep and consolidated understanding of the subject matter. Mayer’s (2001) explanatory animation design guidelines are perhaps the most well-known guiding principles at the present time. Mayer’s seven principles of multimedia learning were expanded to 12 principles in his 2nd edition in 2009 and there appears to be no end to the actual number of principles that could be developed. For example, the voice principle states that, ‘People learn better when the narration in multimedia lessons is spoken in a friendly human voice rather than a machine voice’ (p. 268). While this new principle was validated through empirical testing, I believe that the explanatory power of Mayer’s theory was best expressed in his original (2001) articulation. The new voice principle could have been logically implied from the original coherence principle that aims to eliminate distractions. Mayer has been careful to stress that viewers of animation must construct their own mental representations of the material that they are viewing. Although the viewer of animation might appear to be passively watching, Mayer insisted that learning can only occur through mental engagement with the words and pictures. This emphasis on constructing mental images, however, should not be equated with constructionism as Mayer’s experiments were measuring participants’ retention and transfer when

46

3 Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF)

viewing professionally made animations rather than participants building artefacts of any kind. It is here that the current study deviates sharply from Mayer’s established principles as the participants in the Storyboard project were engaged in dialogue with me throughout the project to negotiate meaning. This dialogic approach is consistent with Prain and Tytler’s (2013) finding that when students generate their own representations, teacher and student negotiation of meaning is ‘evident in verbal, visual, mathematical and gestural representations’ (p. 11). Such negotiations of meaning characteristically focus on issues such as those discussed in Lowe’s (2001) guidelines for creating educational animations. There are some fundamental differences between the principles of Mayer (2001) and the guidelines of Lowe (2001). Mayer focuses on the relationship between modes along with some spatial–temporal principles surrounding these; Lowe focuses more on events, sequences and structures. Lowe’s guidelines focus on practical applications to assist and guide the animation author through the actual stages of animation creation. Mayer’s principles function as a reference tool for making decisions about particular design elements of animation. An important assumption that both Mayer and Lowe make is that the animation authors already understand their subject matter. Yet the Storyboard project sought to explore whether the process of making explanatory animations itself causes the authors to refine and deepen their own understanding of their subject matter. The constructionist principles articulated by Seymour Papert and his MIT colleagues in Constructionism (Harel & Papert, 1991) have not been fully realised. Constructionism advocates for student-centred learning experiences which further suggests that students should be authors rather than viewers of explanatory animations. This is in contrast to Mayer’s categories for learning which are ‘retention’ and ‘transfer’. Perhaps a mining analogy is useful here. It’s not just that previous animation studies were looking in a different place (i.e. viewers rather than authors), they were looking for a different thing (i.e. retention and transfer rather than conceptual consolidation).

3.7 The Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF) The EAF consists of four design guidelines that were developed to guide and focus the children’s progress throughout the Storyboard project (Jacobs & Robin, 2016). The EAF was concise enough for the children to follow, but also iterative and reflexive because the EAF evolved during the creation process rather than being predetermined. The practical nature of this framework is reinforced through the fact that verbs begin each rule to describe a process that requires a series of actions and decisions. The essence of the EAF is stated in Table 3.1: The EAF appears to be quite general but this is the key to its inherent utility. Whenever a child was preoccupied with adding artistic but irrelevant details, he or she was guided to ‘keep it simple’. Likewise, deviations into interesting but ultimately

3.7 The Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF)

47

Table 3.1 The Explanatory Animation Framework © Brendan Jacobs Elements

Rules

Duration

Keep the duration as short as possible (generally less than 2 min but preferably around 1 min)

Synchronicity

Synchronise video (i.e. imagery) to the audio track as the narration will determine the actual duration of the animation

Focus

a. Avoid distractions b. Maintain balance c. Minimise variables

Simplicity

Keep the scope and sequence simple

tangential subject matter were also discouraged through either the duration guideline or the focus guideline to minimise variables. The EAF will now be expounded with additional details pertaining to both the method and rationale for creating explanatory animations in the classroom.

3.8 EAF—Duration The duration guidelines for explanatory animation creation were primarily for the benefit of the viewer in recognition of the limitations of cognitive capacity (Simon, 1974). Cognitive capacity is often referenced to limits on human memory proposed by Miller (1956) and Baddeley’s (1999) working memory theory but it is also a consideration of cognitive load theory (Chandler & Sweller, 1991; Sweller, 1999). Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) have argued that the inquiry approach is confined by the limits of working memory: The onus should surely be on those who support inquiry-based instruction to explain how such a procedure circumvents the well-known limits of working memory when dealing with novel information (p. 77).

Because of the inquiry-based nature of the study, where children could choose their own topics, it was hoped that the limits of working (short-term) memory would be circumvented. The children were not receivers of information but authors of their own animations—their own knowledge construction. As these children were reflecting on and representing their ideas by creating images and writing voice-over scripts, the demands on their working memories were not excessive. In other words, the children had ample opportunities to represent their work via various multimodal options so the demands on working memory were deliberately mitigated. Whenever I presented a child with new ideas or vocabulary (e.g. scientific concepts, animation procedures), these words were written on a separate ‘dumping ground’ slide within their PowerPoint file to further avoid placing excessive demands on working memory. The tangibility of the children’s ideas developed outside of

48

3 Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF)

their short-term memories as these ideas were deliberately and carefully documented within their storyboards. Although this duration guideline recommends brevity, children in the current study were never encouraged to condense an animation beyond what should be included as relevant to the topic, as that would also place excessive demands on the cognitive load of the viewer. Instead, the participants were encouraged to refine their topics knowing that other tangents could become the subject of another animation at some other time, beyond the scope of their current work.

3.8.1 EAF—Synchronicity The eight participants worked on their imagery and voice-over text concurrently and then synchronised these elements in their final animation. Accurate synchronisation has been a requirement for multimedia best practice for many years (Vaille, 1998). Mayer refers to this as the temporal contiguity principle (Mayer, 2001, 2009). Viewers expect imagery and audio to be in sync so failure to ensure good synchronisation is an unwanted distraction (Vaille, 1998). Voice recording was a component of all of the animations in the Storyboard project, as the children were required to explain their topics. There are three basic methods of synchronising audio and video: 1. Pre-synced (synchronising video to audio) 2. Post-synced (synchronising audio to video) 3. Interactive (synchronising either way rather than committing to pre-synced or post-synced) In the Storyboard project, we pre-synched as the voice-over script was recorded first and then the imagery was made to fit (i.e. sync) with it. Pre-syncing emphasised the voice-over script. This created a linear presentation and guided the children to devise the most appropriate sequence of information. Pre-syncing also ensured that the voice-over script was read with a relaxed, even delivery style rather than having to hurry through the voice-over script to keep up with the imagery. Pre-syncing also served the purpose of prioritising the voice-over scripts as the heart of the explanations. In some instances, the voice-over scripts were amended during the recording process, as some phrases didn’t sound as smooth as we had envisioned when they were transmediated from text to speech.

3.8.2 EAF—Focus The following three focus guidelines are nuanced variations on the same idea of maintaining clarity. These three variations are necessary because they address the structure, genre and content of an explanatory animation.

3.8 EAF—Duration

49

(a) Avoid distractions This may appear to be a common sense and obvious guideline, yet movement can become a novelty for a new animator and they may need to be reminded that any unnecessary movement is detrimental to the viewer’s ability to focus on the learning content (Rieber, 1996). Mayer (2001; 2009) refers to this as the coherence principle. (b) Maintain balance A useful analogy for balance is a complex machine that is functioning properly such as a car. It is only when a car breaks down that attention is drawn to the faulty component (Callon, 1992; Latour, 1992). Hence, a well-conceived animation should also be viewed as a cohesive whole. Films provide a closer analogy for balance as a good film does not distract the viewer to focus on the process of filmmaking by using excessive scene transitions or camera panning, zooming and so on. The relevance of these analogies for the current study is that the basic principles of visual literacy (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006) were important for me to understand as the researcher. Yet such principles were beyond the immediate scope of this project in terms of the extent to which these issues might be communicated to the children. As such, the word focus was sufficient to guide the children with regard to technical issues, such as distractions and balance. (c) Minimise variables Identifying relevant variables is a basic pedagogical consideration for effective teaching. In the Storyboard project, minimising variables was not a technical consideration but a specific issue pertaining to content knowledge for each of the children. A musical example of minimising variables is illustrating the difference between the rhythmic feels of straight and swing by keeping all of the other variables constant (such as instrumentation, tempo, key signature and notes) and only changing the rhythm so that the rhythmic variable is the only point of difference. This emphasis on reducing variables in the children’s animations could also be likened to schematic diagrams where only essential information is provided. The issue of minimising variables also extended to the careful use of metaphors to assist with each explanation. When a metaphor is used, it needs to be explained and critiqued. Unless there is an explanation, the irrelevant parts of the metaphor might be inferred as being part of the comparison (Mason, 1994). This would result in the introduction of additional variables and this would actually detract from the animation.

3.8.3 EAF—Simplicity Einstein is widely quoted as saying, ‘Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.’ If a topic is too complicated for a full explanation, it is better to use a partial rather than simplistic explanation. A partial explanation can be extended with

50

3 Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF)

additional information but a simplistic explanation must eventually be replaced to obtain further learning. A simplistic explanation is therefore unsuitable as a permanent structure for conceptual development. Simplicity is beneficial for both the level of detail in the subject matter and the choice of representations used to depict the key elements. This issue is also informed by research into perception (Marr, 1982) where the necessity for representing spatial relations raised the issue of how much can safely be left implicit. There are also some important and relevant findings from research into explanatory models. Bonini’s paradox involves the idea that the explanatory power of a model is enhanced through the omission of certain elements. Applying Bonini’s paradox to the EAF would also suggest that simplicity would render the animations more effectively than excessive detail. Ockham’s razor suggests that amongst competing hypotheses, the simplest one should be chosen, as it requires the fewest assumptions. Ockham’s razor is also relevant to the EAF but Floridi (2011) has taken the quest for parsimony even further by formulating the ‘principle of economy’ (p. 301) as one of the six principles of constructionism. Floridi described Ockham’s razor as a post-production revision tool, but the principle of economy is also relevant as a ‘predesign planning norm’ (2011, p. 301). The principle of economy seeks to achieve an intrinsic alignment between explanatory models and their component parts. This alignment might exist seamlessly within the structure of the explanatory model or become explicit through reflexive enhancements such as a directors’ commentary. The four animation design guidelines presented in the EAF were used as decisionmaking tools to keep the children focused on the explanatory purpose of their work. They were presented as praxis because the theory behind each rule had immediate and practical implications for the animation artefacts. The EAF tool helped shape each animation into its final form. As my theoretical interest was also in the numerous decisions that the children made throughout the design process, I also incorporated the use of directors’ commentaries to help capture these decisions.

3.9 Applying the EAF The best example from the Storyboard project of how the EAF principles can direct (and redirect) progress is ‘Neil’ (Jacobs & Usher, 2018). Neil was a Grade 6 boy who chose to investigate satellites. (Neil’s animation can be viewed at https://www. brendanpauljacobs.com/satellitesreview.html). In his prior knowledge video, Neil stated that ‘My topic is satellites and I really don’t know much about them except they’re used for transmitting signals to devices around us, say, for cable TV, or, umm, GPSs and, so, yeah. That’s all I know about them’. Neil began his animation cautiously and often checked with me to see that he was doing the right thing as noted in my research reflection at the time: Neil seemed to be very concerned that he complied with my guidelines as he often asked; “Can I do this?” I have since reassured Neil that he is free to follow his own path as it is his learning and decision-making processes in which I am most interested.

3.9 Applying the EAF

51

This cautionary approach changed dramatically after the first session once Neil understood that he didn’t need my approval. He immediately grasped the concept of the iterative PowerPoint animation technique for ‘Insert duplicate slide’. I had a constant struggle with Neil from this point forward to get him to complete a key frame before proceeding to create the movement sequences. Otherwise, Neil would end up double handling all of his imagery as each correction or improvement would have to be implemented multiple times. Satellites seemed to be a great topic for animation as the visual and spatial possibilities of showing the Earth as a globe appeared to be obvious. The next logical step for Neil was to move beyond what satellites do so that he could investigate how satellites work. As with many of the children in the study, asking the right questions was an important part of guiding their progress. The question that moved Neil into the ZPD was, ‘How many satellites are needed to transmit a signal around the world?’ My reason for posing this question to Neil was that I wanted him to understand that satellite signals travel in straight lines. The noted science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke answered his own hypothetical question about this issue in 1945 [several years before satellites were even invented] stating that ‘three satellite stations would ensure complete coverage of the globe’ (p. 306). Based on this insight, it was logical to proceed with the planetary, Earth imagery as shown in Fig. 3.2. Neil introduced his space imagery with an octagon metaphor to illustrate his statement that ‘satellites can only send transmissions in straight lines but the Earth is round’. Animating the satellite transmission lines smoothly proved to be impractical in PowerPoint because it wasn’t possible to make tiny, incremental changes between each frame. Any disruption to the position of the lines was unacceptable so we got around this by drawing a completed transmission signal (i.e. red line) and then

Fig. 3.2 Screenshot of a satellite signal © Brendan Jacobs

52

3 Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF)

erasing small parts of the line in Adobe Photoshop. Each change was then ‘Saved as’ a new file and then these files were played in reverse order to show the transmission signal moving and expanding. Although Fig. 3.2 was an actual screenshot, it also provided the source material for all of the preceding animation frames using this reverse engineering approach. Neil began a tangent about satellite protocols during Session 8: So today I did a bit of research and I found out that a satellite, say one company’s satellite, can’t send a transmission to a different company’s satellite ’cause they need to have, umm, the same program (or something like that) to get it to where it needs to go. I’m going to make a, some more slides that, I’m going to put in a new coloured satellite. And I’m going to have one of my satellites send a signal to it and then it comes up with a red cross on the new satellite and it sends it back.

I encouraged Neil to abandon this issue because I considered this to be additional information that would make his animation too long. I likened the compatibility issue to different cell phones using different networks and how the differences probably relate to settings, configurations and company or country protocols rather than true functionality. Neil agreed to abandon the compatibility issue but this discussion proved to be useful to help determine what was essential information for this topic. Having described and depicted the satellite transmission signal path, one final issue related to what actually happens when a signal is received and then transmitted to another satellite. Neil addressed this explicitly in his voice-over script stating that ‘Inside a satellite is a transponder which changes the frequency and amplifies the signal before sending it on’. When we learned that ‘transponder’ was a portmanteau (i.e. a merging of two words), the visual potential for morphing transmitter and responder together was obvious. Figure 3.3 shows the two words as they start to merge. This simple device was very helpful because it would have been extremely difficult to show how the signal’s frequency is changed inside the transponder. The actual sequence was: Fig. 3.3 Screenshot of a satellite signal © Brendan Jacobs

3.9 Applying the EAF

53

TRANSMITTER RESPONDER TRANSMITTERESPONDER TRANSMITTEESPONDER TRANSMITTESPONDER TRANSMITESPONDER TRANSMITSPONDER TRANSMISPONDER TRANSMIPONDER TRANSMPONDER TRANSPONDER The need to be able to visualise the invisible satellite signals provided additional opportunities for us to discuss the properties of these transmissions. Neil’s early attempts at representing a satellite signal involved moving brackets [)))))] which resembled a ripple on a pond. I suggested that he use a lengthening line [____] to show that the signals are constant rather than intermittent. Neil was agreeable but somewhat annoyed that he would need to recreate some of his imagery. Neil clearly enjoyed the animation process. I often wondered if he was more interested in creating movement than learning about his topic. I asked Neil to elaborate on his learning during the debriefing session on the last day of the project: Brendan: How do you think you learnt compared to if you did something that wasn’t on a computer, like if you were making posters or writing a normal sort of assignment? Do you think you would have learnt as much or do you think it was…do you think this was a, a better or worse way to go about it? Neil: I think like a visual presentation like on a computer, you can just explain it more and it’s more entertaining and more like…you, you have a lot more ways to go about it where…whether…if you do it on like a poster or a piece of paper, I think your choices would be much, much more limited in how you’d want to do it or set it out.

Neil’s enthusiasm often turned into frustration as he rarely heeded my advice to get his imagery correct before creating movement through the ‘Insert duplicate slide’ process. At one stage, Neil thought that he had finished but there were issues with his imagery that we still had to resolve. His summary at this time was that, ‘Today I actually found out that I haven’t finished, according to Brendan, which I’m not happy with’. The particular issue related to the background colour of outer space. Neil was using white rather than black and he had also applied a shadow. Figure 3.4 is a discarded screenshot from a complete series of 89 frames. Neil was annoyed about having to redo this, but, once completed, he could see that his animation was more realistic using black for outer space. During the last session, there was still work to be done so Neil demonstrated his own sense of agency by delegated these finishing touches to me: ‘I’ve instructed Brendan and told him what I need to be done and he’s going to be helping me finish it which is really good’. I asked Neil how he felt about the issue of co-authorship during the group’s debriefing session: Brendan: How did you feel about me working on your work? Do you think it took away from it being yours as much or were you just happy that you had help?

54

3 Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF)

Fig. 3.4 Discarded animation imagery © Brendan Jacobs

Neil: Well, I think I really appreciate that Brendan could help me and I just, it just felt like it took away a bit of the pressure and I don’t feel that…as if it…my project was being taken away by me. I still think, Brendan helped out a lot but I still did a lot, umm, with it. And he just helped me and just guided me as well and yeah and I really appreciate that.

Neil developed a deep understanding of everything he presented in his animation. There were, however, some issues that we left out to make the topic more manageable such as the geosynchronous orbit that keeps each satellite in position. If Neil was to start another animation now he would be much more efficient as he understands the importance of building appropriate imagery in key frames before attempting to animate it. The interactions between Neil and myself alternated between specific content related to satellites, pedagogical decisions about the animation sequences, and technical animation matters. All three areas were interrelated but it was the co-construction of knowledge through the ZPD which characterised our interactions. Changing or refining a topic affects the EAF principles of duration and simplicity and it is significant to note that half of the Storyboard participants changed or refined their topics during the project. The best example of how important it is to choose a manageable topic is from ‘Molly’ (Jacobs & Cripps Clark, 2018). Molly was a Grade 6 girl who decided to investigate chemical reactions. (Molly’s animation can be viewed at https://www.brendanpauljacobs.com/chemicalreview.html). Working with Molly involved the co-construction of a series of metaphors which led to an eventual change of topic (i.e. ‘Molecular naming conventions’) as we came to see that the original topic ‘Chemical reactions’ was too large to be covered within a single animation. Molly first considered changing the topic to ‘Chemical bonds’, but this would also have been too big as there are several subcategories such as covalent, ionic, and so on. When we first encountered Lewis-style dot diagrams, we thought we could come up with a novel way to represent chemical bonds. These dot diagrams seemed to

3.9 Applying the EAF

55

Fig. 3.5 Screenshot of the discarded jigsaw metaphor © Brendan Jacobs

offer much promise due to their visual simplicity. It turned out that these diagrams don’t reduce the complexity of chemical bonds so we decided to experiment with some other ideas. Molly was very patient and willing to change, so we considered using a jigsaw metaphor. Figure 3.5 shows jigsaw pieces with a defined number of ‘male’ or ‘female’ parts to represent molecules according to their valency. Within days of making the jigsaw, I became concerned that this metaphor might ultimately be misleading, in which case we would need something else. ‘I suspect that my incomplete recollection of the periodic table from high school chemistry left me equating valency to positive and negative numbers. I’m now fairly sure that this isn’t the case, so the jigsaw puzzle imagery from last week is not the best representation for this concept’ (Researcher reflection). When I suggested that positive and negative might not be appropriate terminology, Molly was very gracious saying, ‘I realised that you can’t do positive and negative for my presentation because there’s no such thing in chemical language about positive and negative’ (Student reflection). Further reflection about the validity of negative and positive caused me to wrestle with the issue of whether I could really support Molly with her topic as noted in my reflexive journal. I read a statement in the International handbook of research on conceptual change (2008) that made me question my ability to be of real assistance to her. “Instructional approaches compound the problem when they present the tenants of the atomic molecular theory as a set of facts rather than as an explanatory model” (Wiser & Smith, 2008, p. 220).

When the topic evolved into ‘Molecular naming conventions’, the previous metaphors were abandoned as they were no longer relevant. These discarded metaphors, however, had served a valuable purpose for Molly’s learning as they provided a context for us to articulate the components involved in her topic and to discuss how these might fit together as a model. This approach was consistent with the notion that ‘chemistry as a discipline is dominated by the use of models and modelling’ (Coll & Taylor, 2002, p. 175). Ultimately, a topic change was in order and, having found Hill’s rule, we were finally confident that we had a topic that could be adequately covered. Our goal was to simplify the topic without being simplistic. To assist with model development, I introduced Molly to Hill’s rule (developed by Edwin Hill in 1900) for naming molecular bonds. This consisted of the following three sequential guidelines that Molly was able to include as a summary at the end of her animation stating: 1. carbon first, 2. hydrogen second, and 3. the rest are in alphabetical order.

56

3 Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF)

The animation task for Molly then became a process of reverse engineering, where she could devise the most effective way to explain Hill’s three guidelines. Molly introduced her animation by stating that, ‘Atoms are the building blocks of matter’. The notion of atoms combining and bonding into molecules was then handled without reference to electrons or valency. The main consideration was now about achieving visual clarity. Molly’s decision to use the names and corresponding abbreviations for the elements, rather than attempting to represent them graphically, also made her task more manageable. Molly’s story demonstrated several guidelines from the EAF including duration, focus and simplicity. The reference to ‘reverse engineering’ ended up becoming a much bigger theme in my understanding of this research as I continued to reflect on various aspects through writing and presenting. These findings are presented in Chap. 4. Insights from the Reverse engineering Explanatory Animation Learning Method (REALM).

References Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press. Beaty, R. E., Benedek, M., Silvia, P. J., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(2), 87–95. Callon, M. (1992). The dynamics of techno-economic networks. In R. Cooms, P, Saviotti, & V. Walsh (Eds.), Technological change and company strategies (pp. 77–102). London, UK: Academic Press. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. Clarke, A. C. (1945, October). Extra-terrestrial relays—Can rocket stations give worldwide radio coverage? Wireless World, 305–308. Retrieved from https://lakdiva.org/clarke/1945ww/ 1945ww_oct_305-308.html Clarke, D. (2008). EDUC90167 —Tutorial class: Introduction to research methods. Parkville, VIC: The University of Melbourne. Coll, R., & Taylor, N. (2002). Mental models in chemistry: Senior chemistry students’ mental models of chemical bonding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 3(2), 175–184. https://doi. org/10.1039/B2RP90014A. Fleurke, N. (2011). Imaging the storyboard: On networks, concepts and communication. International Journal of the Image, 1(3), 155–162. Floridi, L. (2011). A defence of constructionism: Philosophy as conceptual engineering. Metaphilosophy, 42(3), 282–304. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Jacobs, B., & Cripps Clark, J. (2018). Create to critique—Explanatory animation as conceptual consolidation. Teaching Science, 64(1), 26–36. Jacobs, B., & Robin, B. (2016). Animating best practice. Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 263–283. https://dx.do.org/10.1177/1746847716662554. Jacobs, B., & Usher, A. (2018). Proximity as a window into the zone of proximal development. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 9(1), 2856–2863. https://doi.org/10.20533/ licej.2040.2589.2018.0376. Jacobs, B., Wright, S., & Reynolds, N. (2017). Reevaluating the concrete—Explanatory animation creation as a digital catalyst for cross-modal cognition. Mind, Culture and Activity, 24(4), 297– 310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1294181.

References

57

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? Sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology / Building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Leite, L., Mendoza, J., & Borsese, A. (2007). Teachers’ and prospective teachers’ explanations of liquid-state phenomena: A comparative study involving three European countries. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 349–374. Lowe, R. (2001). Beyond "eye-candy": Improving learning with animation. Apple University Consortium. Retrieved from https://auc.uow.edu.au/conf/conf01/downloads/AUC2001_Lowe. pdf. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman. Mason, L. (1994). Analogy, metaconceptual awareness and conceptual change: A classroom study. Educational Studies, 20(2), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569940200209. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 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. Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2013). Representing and learning in science. In R. Tytler, V. Prain, P. Hubber, & B. Waldrip (Eds.), Constructing representations to learn in science (pp. 1–14). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Rieber, L. P. (1996). Animation as a distractor to learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23(1), 53–57. Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183(4124), 482–488. Sutter, B. (2001). Instruction at heart: Activity-theoretical studies of learning and development in coronary clinical work. Karlskrona, SE: Blekinge Institute of Technology. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Vic: ACER press. Taylor, R. (2003). The encyclopedia of animation techniques (2nd ed.). Edison, NJ: Chartwell Books. Vaille, J. A. (Ed.). (1998). Guidelines for the evaluation of instructional technology resources. Modesto, CA: Stanislaus County Office of Education. Wiser, M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: When should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced? In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 205–239). New York, NY: Routledge.

Chapter 4

Insights from the Reverse Engineering Explanatory Animation Learning Method (REALM)

The REALM is a reconceptualisation of the animation principles and theoretical frameworks presented in the earlier chapters. It is not a summary but another way of understanding the unity between the animation artefacts and the concepts that the children were trying to explain. Reverse engineering involves working backwards from a finished artefact to understand how the artefact was constructed. Interestingly, it is not the explanatory animation that is reverse engineered but the concept itself. The evolving explanatory animation documents and embodies the learning, even at the initial storyboarding phase. There is no need to reverse engineer this as both the author (i.e. student) and helper (i.e. teacher or researcher) will have firsthand, intimate knowledge of animation as they co-constructed it together in a mutual zone of proximal development. The most important part of the REALM is that the children became teachers to enhance their own learning. Vygotsky (1994) posed an interesting question about the relationship between instruction and learning as follows: Does the process of internal development of concepts follow the teaching/learning process, like a shadow follows the object which casts it, never coinciding, but reproducing and repeating its movements exactly, or is it rather an immeasurably more complicated process and subtle relationship which can only be explored by special investigation? (p. 355).

It seems likely that Vygotsky saw this relationship as ‘an immeasurably more complicated process’ (1994, p. 355) than the causal effect implied by the shadow metaphor. Perhaps the key to this question is the ‘subtle relationship which can only be explored by special investigation’ (1994, p. 355). It would appear that the explanatory animation creation process is a special investigation. Because of the digital nature of this process, Vygotsky could not even have imagined the possibilities of this practice. My argument is that the explanatory animation artefact evolves in direct proportion to the reverse engineering of the concept. The shadow metaphor is apt here as the shadow and the object may twist and turn, or even pause at the same time, but the unity between the two is unmistakable. Throughout this process there is a clear unity between theory and method, and, in a unique way, theory has become method. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 B. Jacobs, Explanatory Animations in the Classroom, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3525-3_4

59

60

4 Insights from the Reverse Engineering …

4.1 Theory as Method How can one describe an explanatory animation without reference to the actual topic that comprises the subject matter? Likewise, how can one look at the conceptual ideas represented in animation without reference to the animation itself? The REALM title came about in preparation for the 2018 Australian Association of Research in Education conference in Sydney but Jacobs and Cripps Clark (2018) had published the underlying principles earlier that year in the journal Teaching Science. The article was titled Create to critique—Explanatory animation creation as conceptual consolidation which reported some research where Australian primary school students made explanatory animations for the sake of their own learning during the Storyboard project. The REALM could also be described as a theory of learning based on empirical evidence. The theory itself is as follows: 1. Initial research for a conceptual topic begins by first identifying, and then using, correct terminology. 2. An eventual outcome of investigating correct terminology is the identification of relevant components. 3. The pinnacle of conceptual consolidation involves understanding the dynamic relationships that exist between the different components. 4. Conceptual consolidation itself must be understood on a case-by-case basis because, regardless of any similarities, every concept is different (Jacobs & Cripps Clark, 2018, p. 34). The theory emerged from the following rubric which was used as a weekly checklist for the animation students in the Storyboard project. What was significant and unexpected was that the progress for all students occurred in the exact same order as the rubric shown in Table 4.1. Although the order in which the students progressed through the rubric was from top to bottom, this sequence occurred several times as a cycle. This pattern is best described as a synopsis as it was clearly evident in the data and is also consistent with Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of development having spiral properties where progress occurred ‘through the same point at each revolution, while advancing to a higher level’ (p. 56). For example, making progress with correct terminology led to the students Table 4.1 A rubric for conceptual consolidation © Brendan Jacobs Uses correct terminology

With assistance

Simplified terminology

Some correct terminology

Actual terminology

Identifies relevant components

Not apparent

With assistance

Basic understanding

Deep understanding

Identifies relationships between components

Not apparent

With assistance

Basic understanding

Deep understanding

4.1 Theory as Method

61

gaining a clearer understanding of the various components involved as they were seeking to name them correctly. This led to a better understanding of the relationships between the components which often required additional terminology and so the pattern continued using the same cycle. Curriculum spirals are often attributed to Bruner (1960), but this spiral was not using Bruner’s idea of looking at the same topic periodically throughout the school years, but rather, sustained focus on the same topic during a project leading to conceptual consolidation in discrete stages. The best example from the Storyboard project of identifying the relationships between components described in Table 4.1 is ‘Ingrid’ (Jacobs, Wright, & Reynolds, 2017). Ingrid was a Year 6 girl who chose to investigate stringed instruments. (Ingrid’s animation can be viewed at https://www.brendanpauljacobs.com/stringedreview. html). When Ingrid first proposed her topic, I believed that the frequency (F) of a vibrating string was simply the mass (M) of that string multiplied by its tension (T) equating to F = TM, further dependent on the length of the string. During subsequent research, I discovered that the formula for measuring frequency was more complex, as shown in Fig. 4.1. Prior to seeing Ingrid at the next session, I reflected that this formula was beyond what most Year 6 children cover in their mathematics curriculum. As such, it was decided to give her the formula (rather than have her work it out for herself). This was based on the premise that, in certain situations, the answer to a question is secondary to deep engagement with the question. It was anticipated that Ingrid would experiment and play with this formula, especially if she chose to animate the variables in real-time with synchronised audio. Having the formula constantly on the screen meant that Ingrid was never required to memorise the formula. During a discussion about how to animate the formula, I suggested showing and then replacing the T (tension), M (mass), and L (length) symbols with vibrating string imagery to illustrate how these variables affect the frequency, using changing audio, in real-time. Ingrid rejected this suggestion, as it would have resulted in three strings being visible on the screen simultaneously. She decided to have a single string more prominently displayed on the screen and then to colour code each variable in turn. Ingrid experimented with various instruments in the Music room during the animation sessions. I helped her dismantle an upright piano during one session so she could play around with it and see the relative string lengths. This clearly influenced Ingrid’s depiction of the strings of varying length that were arranged vertically to resemble an upright piano as shown in Fig. 4.2. Loose strings were harder to draw, but we knew that the vibrations couldn’t possibly be in real-time or else there would have been more than 1,000 vibrations every second and we were limited to 25 frames per second. Hence, our mutual interest in these animation design issues was simultaneously conceptual and pedagogical. Fig. 4.1 Frequency formula for a vibrating string © Brendan Jacobs

62

4 Insights from the Reverse Engineering …

Fig. 4.2 Strings of varying lengths represented as piano strings © Brendan Jacobs

Wright (2011) has noted how the function of drawing for children can extend beyond aesthetics and communication to include both provisional and generative elements. In this way, drawing can surface what they ‘already know, what they are grappling with and what they are motivated to explore further’ (pp. 171–172). The opening scene in Ingrid’s animation shows that she understood the commonality of vibrating strings, independent of which instrument they might belong to, as shown in Fig. 4.3, which had the accompanying narration, ‘Stringed instruments such as piano and guitar have multiple strings but the science behind the pitch of the notes is the same for each string’. Fig. 4.3 Opening screenshot from ‘Stringed instruments’ animation © Brendan Jacobs

4.1 Theory as Method

63

Ingrid’s voice-over script was careful and deliberate in terms of how she presented her terminology as she stated that, ‘The pitch of a musical note is measured by its frequency which is the number of vibrations per second’. Immediately after recording these words, Ingrid commented (in her weekly reflection) that, ‘I also wanted to put in the words pitch and frequency, but in two different places depending on whether I wanted to focus on the musical side of it or the scientific side’. It is significant that Ingrid identified pitch and frequency as being different expressions and measures of the same variable as she contextualised each term depending on the musical or scientific emphasis of the explanation. During the debriefing session, our proximity as collaborative partners surfaced the idea that directors’ commentaries might be generative and not merely descriptive. To conclude her director’s commentary, Ingrid said, ‘The formula itself is quite complicated but once you understand it and you’ve read over it a few times it’s actually quite simple’. I asked Ingrid if she thought that she understood the formula, and she said that she did. Further questioning centred on what the square root symbol meant (by pointing at the symbol without naming it), but Ingrid did not know the name of the symbol. When Ingrid was told the name of the symbol, she claimed to have heard of it, but could not remember what it meant. She could offer no answer when asked if she knew the square root of 25. Ingrid then proceeded to record a concluding sentence for her commentary in a more cautious and measured tone: ‘I realised it was a complicated formula but the variables are quite easy to understand’. The interaction described above led to the articulation of the final finding from the Storyboard project. Finding 7: Directors’ commentaries can be generative and not merely descriptive. Whether through drawing or animation, there is a close unity between imagery and language. Wright (2010) suggests that ‘because the child’s dialogue is intimately linked to his/her graphic action, it is similar in some ways to the dialogue found in film—it is highly succinct’ (p. 19). Ingrid demonstrated a consolidated understanding of frequency as she correctly identified the variables of tension, length, and mass, and the relationships between these variables. The fact that she hadn’t been introduced to the square root symbol in her regular classroom prior to this didn’t diminish her understanding of how the three variables affect the frequency of strings on instruments. Ingrid’s partial understanding of the formula was a mathematical issue that went above and beyond the requirements of conceptual consolidation for her particular topic. In summary, Ingrid engaged with the mediating tool of a complex frequency formula to create her animation. I further mediated her understanding by making suggestions, but Ingrid did not simply adapt my suggestions; rather, she modified and applied her own understandings, selecting the ‘Object’ subcategories of image (prominence of a single string) and colour (coding of variables) to visually display her semiotic meaning-making (Wright, 2010, 2011, 2014). Together, Ingrid and I co-constructed conceptual and pedagogical learning (e.g. stringed instruments; pitch/vibration frequency variables; string length, mass, and tension), which Ingrid ultimately ‘owned’ in her final voice-over script.

64

4 Insights from the Reverse Engineering …

The various elements within Ingrid’s animation can be clearly mapped to the rubric in Table 4.1. It could reasonably be inferred that the progress pattern evidenced in Table 4.1 (i.e. terminology first, components second, relationships third) might also be an intrinsic part of the explanatory animation creation process itself. This is because an explanatory animation can only be constructed when the various components have been articulated and designed. It is this unity between the task and the learning which eventually led me to reconceptualise explanatory animation creation as digital pedagogy which is the main idea behind the REALM.

4.2 Animation as Digital Pedagogy The following imaginary description of observers looking in on the Storyboard project is presented to bring the explanatory animation creation task back into focus. It is imaginary in the sense that there were no observers but completely factual in terms of what is being described. Through the window we could see eight children, each working on their own computer. They were spread out across the room as they were all working on individual projects having chosen different topics for their explanatory animations. The teacher was also the researcher but he behaved more like a teacher, partly because he actually was their teacher each week for Performing Arts sessions and he’d known the children for many years. His interactions with the children involved discussions and a critique of the imagery and words that they were using to explain topics for which they claimed no prior expertise. Towards the end of the session, each child began recording their own voice as a reflection about their progress and plans.

My claim here is that the evolving animations on each child’s screen were a representation of the conceptual learning that was occurring in the mind of each child. It is often assumed that, as teachers, we do not have access to our students’ mental models. However, the multimodal nature of the animation creation task helps to make such thinking visible and available for further critique as privileged insight into the students’ thinking. This resonates with what Vygotsky (1962) described as ‘tapping the child’s thinking’ (p. 52) and is also in keeping with the RCA approach described in Chap. 2 where the critique of representations is linked to learning scientific concepts. Teachers should view representational work by students, including verbal accounts of the topic, as a valuable window into students’ thinking and evidence of learning. This assessment can be diagnostic, formative or summative (Waldrip & Prain, 2013, p. 27).

The flexibility of the digital environment, where representational ideas could be tried and literally ‘undone’ with the click of a mouse, was reminiscent of children playing and tinkering with models. Clement (2008) has identified a gap at the core of conceptual change theory as ‘we do not have an adequate cognitive model of the basic cognitive change process; we do not have a good understanding of how flexible models are constructed’ (p. 417). This is an important issue because the notion of a model being ‘flexible’ is consistent with the constructionist view of learning

4.2 Animation as Digital Pedagogy

65

where meaning is constructed, and also ‘deconstructed’, by the learner. Experienced teachers know that new knowledge tends not to be instantly consolidated by students. Vygotsky (1987) considered this to be his most important insight into the process of conceptual consolidation when he stated that a concept ‘develops’ (p. 170) in the mind of the learner. Hence, conceptual growth must be studied over time and understood within the abstract-concrete continuum (Davydov, 1990; Dewey, 1910/1997; Jacobs, Wright, & Reynolds, 2017; Wilensky, 1991), where novel ideas become increasingly concrete throughout the process of understanding. At this point, it would be helpful to consider ‘How does the REALM fit with contemporary models of instruction?’ It is important to note that the REALM does not prescribe how instruction is to occur or any particular order of instruction. Rather, it is a multifaceted learning task where the learner can segue between the various component tasks as required. A three-stage framework for learning scientific concepts is detailed Loxley, Dawes, Nicholls, and Dore (2018) where the introduction of the correct terminology is deliberately left until the second ‘re-describing’ stage after an initial ‘exploration’ stage. The REALM is consistent with the three-stage approach as ‘using correct terminology’ is an indicator of when conceptual consolidation has begun to occur rather than an imperative to introduce such terminology prematurely. The unfolding nature of conceptual consolidation begs the question, ‘How do you know when a person’s understanding of a topic has been consolidated?’ I propose that the answer to this lies with a person’s ability to paraphrase. Experience teachers often paraphrase their explanations to present different perspectives on the same information to make the same point from another angle. This is because they have a consolidated understanding of their topic so that they can look at it in different ways and personalise or contextualise the essential elements in meaningful and relevant ways. As children develop, they too learn how to paraphrase their understanding of concepts. Bruner (1966) saw early childhood as a critical period when the opportunity to paraphrase verbally with adults was a determining factor in successful learning in later life. The best example from the Storyboard project of paraphrasing is from ‘Magnus’ (Jacobs, 2018). Magnus was a Grade 5 boy who chose to investigate electromagnetic fields. (Magnus’ animation can be viewed at https:// www.brendanpauljacobs.com/electromagneticreview.html). The paraphrase did not become evident until towards the end when Magnus came to see the similarities between electrical motors and generators. During the initial selection process for this project, Magnus proposed that his topic would be Magnetism. When I gave Magnus the plain language statement and consent form to take home to his parents just prior to commencing the first Storyboard session, he said that Magnetic fields was a more accurate name for his topic. This subtle change revealed a shift in his thinking from what magnets are to a focus on what magnets do. During the first session, Magnus stated in his prior knowledge video that all he knew about magnetic fields was that they are ‘invisible but powerful’. Magnus also knew that metal was important, but he had yet to clearly articulate whether metal was a cause or effect of a magnetic field when he said that, ‘Magnetic fields are normally caused by metal, not always but normally’. My initial researcher reflection after this

66

4 Insights from the Reverse Engineering …

session was that ‘I have no additional knowledge about magnetic fields myself other than what I learnt in school’. What I remembered from high school about magnetic fields was: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Opposites attract Like charges repel Some metals can become magnetised when exposed to magnets Magnets can lose their strength over time and if incorrectly stored.

Finding suitable visualisations was a key issue in the early stages of Magnus’ animation. I remember playing with magnets and iron filings when I was in high school, so I asked Magnus if he had ever worked with iron filings to observe how they move when placed within a magnetic field. He replied that he had never tried this. Magnus incorporated this idea into his animation, commenting in his student reflection that ‘I now know that iron filings can be pulled in by a magnet with an invisible field called, magnetic field’. By the fourth session, it was becoming increasingly apparent that we had to introduce some new ideas, as Magnus would make superficial changes each week such as changing the background colour of his slides. Figure 4.4 is a screenshot from the fourth session with three iron filings depicted around a magnet. The iron filings imagery in Fig. 4.4 was the first time Magnus had introduced lines to shows the direction of a magnetic field. The ubiquitous nature of lines to depict forces is such that ‘there is no absolute “right” or “wrong” convention to describe Fig. 4.4 Screenshot of iron filings © Brendan Jacobs

4.2 Animation as Digital Pedagogy

67

force’ (Tytler, Prain, Hubber, & Waldrip, 2013, p. 36). Figure 4.4 was not a standalone static diagram but, rather, an extract from a series of frames. Watching Magnus’ series of frames clearly showed the direction of the magnetic field as the iron filings moved progressively closer towards the magnet in the middle, thus making the lines redundant. As Magnus’ learning path evolved, I felt that his animation would require some understanding of electricity if we were going to explain how magnets actually work. Magnus’ voice-over script stated that ‘There are also electromagnetic fields which are magnets affected by other types of metals such as an electric guitar you can barely here [sic.] the electricity’. Magnus thought that it was electricity rather than sound energy that you hear from an electric guitar, but this was a tangent to the conceptual issue at hand. Beaty (1995) has noted that understanding electricity can be very challenging for young students as electrical phenomena can vary dramatically depending on the materials involved. Beaty suggests that children’s misconceptions about electricity are often the result of simplistic explanations offered to children through many of the textbooks that teachers rely upon. I was acutely aware of my own limitations in this area and had decided prior to the current study that simplistic explanations were to be avoided in preference to refining a topic so that the learning could become more specialised and, therefore, manageable. It was at this point that we discussed changing the topic. The amended topic Electromagnetic fields could then focus on what an electromagnetic field is rather than how it works. Paradoxically, by adding the prefix electro we could avoid having to explain electricity. Magnus seemed to immediately grasp the key point that electromagnetic fields can be turned on and off. This new focus on how electromagnetic fields differ from magnetic fields made the explanation more manageable and became a turning point for Magnus as he could then relate this new concept to a pre-existing one (i.e. the functionality of switches). Ironically, we expanded the number of variables within the animation by refining the topic, as the variables of ‘on’ and ‘off’ didn’t apply to magnetic fields. Defining the scope of Magnus’ animation was an issue up until the very end of the project. Throughout various discussions, we had agreed to avoid using cross-sectional imagery but in the end, I believed that this would have resulted in a superficial treatment of the topic. Figure 4.5 shows Magnus’ rotating fan without using crosssectional imagery as this sequence offered no explanation as to the inner workings of the motor. Magnus was very pleased with his animation of the fan sequence and concluded in his student reflection that his work was over, ‘Today I made a fan which is a really good visual effect as an electric motor and I have finished’. My researcher reflection was that, ‘The fan is very effective at showing the rotation of an electric motor but I still think that we need to go inside the motor if we are to show the similarities between electric motors and generators’. Magnus’ animation was far from finished as the cross-sectional imagery still had to be designed. Figure 4.6 is a screenshot from the completed explanatory animation which shows an electric motor with a battery providing the power to turn a wheel.

68

4 Insights from the Reverse Engineering …

Fig. 4.5 Screenshot of fan imagery © Brendan Jacobs

Fig. 4.6 Screenshot of electric motor imagery © Brendan Jacobs

Retaining the same screen position for the common components between motors and generators visually reinforced the point that electric motors and generators operate using the same principle (i.e. that mechanical energy can be used to create electrical energy and vice-versa). There are two substitutions between the imagery files in Figs. 4.6 and 4.7: 1. The battery is replaced with a light globe. This is to show that a battery provides energy in contrast to a light globe, which requires energy. 2. The wheel attached to the bottom of the axle that was turned by the electrical energy is now turned by the mechanical energy (i.e. wind or water). Using on-screen text for wind and water avoided the need to animate flowing water or blowing wind as the movement of the wheel was sufficient to show that it was wind or water causing the rotation. My researcher reflection at this time was that the new terminology enabled Magnus’ conceptual consolidation to continue, ‘now

4.2 Animation as Digital Pedagogy

69

Fig. 4.7 Screenshot of an electric motor used as a generator © Brendan Jacobs

that mechanical energy and electrical energy (electricity) have become part of his voice-over script’. The connection between electric motors and generators became explicit when Magnus stated in his final voice-over script that, ‘A generator is like an electric motor used the other way where mechanical energy is converted to electrical energy’. ‘Used the other way’ was the result of our discussion about the need to be very careful with the voice-over script. We avoided the phrase ‘in reverse’ during the comparison between electric motors and generators as the commonality is about the order and organisation of the components and not the direction of the rotating shaft. Reverse has a directional, literal meaning when talking about motors and gears. Discussions such as these helped Magnus to fine-tune his pedagogical awareness, as shown in his concluding remark in the following extract from the group debriefing session: Brendan: How did you see the directors’ commentaries? What did, what you think they were? Magnus: I thought they were just were…I thought they were just…what… Brendan: Like a recap? Magnus: Yeah. Like that. Ingrid: Just for an idea of what the director of the animation was thinking while making the animation. Brendan: And why do you think, why do you think I might care about such things? Magnus: For umm, reference, for later on to see how kids learn.

Magnus’ understanding of electromagnetic fields was focused around functionality, independent of whether the electromagnetic field required electrical energy or generated it. During the fourth session I used an electric guitar to demonstrate that an electromagnetic field can be created using magnets. My most recent reflections on Magnus’ work is that the hallmark of electromagnetic fields is not the ability to be switched on and off, but the ability to change one type of energy into another. A passive guitar pickup in an electric guitar, much like a microphone, creates electricity but it doesn’t require electricity [Active pickups and microphones require power sources as they have built-in preamps]. It is the mechanical energy involved in playing the guitar strings, or singing into a microphone, that creates the electrical current. This

70

4 Insights from the Reverse Engineering …

ongoing reflection is characteristic of the explanatory animation creation task. The scope of Magnus’ animation content was deliberately simplified as there were many other issues that we didn’t cover such as polarity, phasing, and AC/DC current.

4.3 Variant Graphics: High Tech, Low Tech and No Tech This section looks at a nuanced definition of animation as ‘variant graphics’ (Jacobs, 2007). Animation is variously defined as a succession of moving images or the illusion of movement through a succession of static images, but there is some ambiguity when looking for a universal definition of animation. Burn and Parker (2003) have emphasised movement as the key attribute of animation with their term ‘kineikonic mode’ (p. 59). Burn and Parker made the word kineikonic by combining the Greek words for move and image to define a genre that is distinct from the many tangents of the cinematic tradition. Gibson (1979) made a similar distinction but preferred the terms progressive picture for film and video and arrested picture for photography, as he believed that the term motion picture implies that motion has been added to a still picture. Hubscher-Younger and Narayanan (2008) have also emphasised movement within animations by defining animations as ‘dynamic representations’ (p. 237) in contrast to static representation such as still images. All of these definitions imply that images must move rather than simply vary. Possibly, a more inclusive term for educational purposes is ‘variant graphics’ (Jacobs, 2007) where various images are viewed in succession. The word graphics is more closely associated with animation than picture or image because films are also moving images. The reason for using the word variant (i.e. changing) rather than moving is to create a definition that can also include slideshows and even storyboards. In a slideshow, there can be movement within a frame or a complete change from one frame to another. Variant covers both scenarios. Variant graphics retain the functionality of all of these other definitions without limitation or contradiction. Table 4.2 matches three levels of digital technology in the context of explanatory animation creation with examples. It could be argued that the ‘No tech’ category would still require some technology such as a pencil which is why the heading is ‘Digital technology level’. It is also Table 4.2 High tech, Low tech and No tech

Digital technology level

Example

High tech

Stand-alone video files (i.e. completed animations) Director’s commentaries

Low tech

Digital storyboards (e.g. PowerPoint file)

No tech

Posters Hand-drawn animations

4.3 Variant Graphics: High Tech, Low Tech and No Tech

71

worth noting that artefacts can be upgraded to use a higher form of technology. For example, a hand-drawn animation could be scanned (i.e. digitised) to move from no tech to low tech. Likewise, a digital storyboard can be extended (if necessary) and rendered to become a completed animation (i.e. high tech).

4.4 Assessment as Learning Assessment is a particularly important consideration when implementing projectbased learning due to the extended time which students are given. Assessment practices are commonly understood through the distinctions of assessment of, as, and for learning. These three dynamics were in play throughout the animation sessions in the following ways. • Assessment of learning (primarily for parents). The completed animations and corresponding directors’ commentaries informed summative assessments at the end of the project. • Assessment as learning (primarily for students). The students critiqued their own work as ongoing formative assessments throughout the project to guide their workflow. • Assessment for learning (primarily for teachers). Assessment for learning is best described as assessment for teaching as this brings the teacher’s efforts into focus. The co-construction of knowledge with each of the students embodied ongoing formative assessments throughout the project. A crucial part of assessment is evidence. The abundance of data generated by each student throughout the project was available in various modes such as imagery and words, as demonstrated by the children’s multifaceted activity in relation to seven distinct roles that they segued between researcher, graphic artist, scriptwriter, narrator, animator, video editor, and pedagogical decision-maker. The children saw their task as creating animations but, from my perspective, it was as if their real task was to document their learning because all of their multifaceted work was actually assessment data. Due to the digital nature of the animation medium, this work was available to document the chronology of their conceptual development. Most educators would like to work in settings where summative testing is less dominant to reduce the stress involved with making direct comparisons between students and across schools, institutions and countries. Summative testing is often reported as a measure of achievement but it is more commonly used as a measure of failure, particularly when it is used as a rationale to reduce funding or choose one school over another. It is, however, unrealistic to think that summative testing won’t exist for two reasons: 1. Summative testing is easy to implement and quantitative data is easy to compare. 2. There is a valid place for summative testing due to the cyclical nature of education.

72

4 Insights from the Reverse Engineering …

A common response to falling academic standards is to ‘go back to the basics’. However, Wright (2014) has noted some irony here as ‘depriving children of “nonacademic” subjects, such as art, and focusing instead on “academic” subjects, we are underestimating children “intellectually”’ (Wright, 2014, p. 518). Perhaps a more realistic path towards reducing the reliance on summative testing will come from a more sophisticated, yet practical, understanding of formative assessment. If Vygotsky and Sakharov’s dual stimulation method teaches us anything, it is that the hallmark of setting assessment tasks should be design and that the hallmark of learning should be progress rather than achievement.

4.5 Explanatory Animations in the Classroom This section is very practical and is aimed more specifically at classroom teachers although researchers will still find relevance here as explanatory animations is an area that is clearly open to further investigation. The first point here is that incomplete animations can still be beneficial for all parties involved. An insightful perspective about the affordances of storyboards was found by Mitchell, de Lange and Moletsane (2011) through their work with women in Rwanda to make short documentaries about gender inequality. They found that the group discussions surrounding the creation of storyboards were so fruitful (and time-consuming), that they didn’t end up continuing with the filming stage. In this instance, where a final film was never made, ‘the storyboard became the product’ (Mitchell, de Lange, & Moletsane, 2011, p. 224) which led them to conclude that most of the learning occurs during the storyboarding process, regardless of whether the storyboard is actually used to generate a final video artefact. As most of the learning is embodied in the planning stage, this approach can still be used when time is limited and it is not possible to complete a finished video or animation. A storyboard has the potential to capture and embody learning and for this reason, it could be classified as a tool. Vygotsky’s notion of tool use was intrinsic to his understanding of mediated action, as a tool only becomes such when it is used. As Dron (2012) has argued, ‘a tool separated from its use is meaningless: a stick lying in a forest is just a stick’ (p. 25). Our modern classrooms are equipped with all sorts of technology. Innovation is often just a matter of finding innovative ways to use technology already at our disposal. Is the explanatory animation creation task too hard? Making explanatory animations is not for everyone, but subsequent application of the methodology included in this book has caused me to reflect on this practice more widely to include ten distinct subcategories. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Individual storyboard Individual animation Individual director’s commentary Group animation

4.5 Explanatory Animations in the Classroom

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

73

Individual director’s commentary on a group animation Multiple choice digital story Linear nonfiction slideshow Linear nonfiction slideshow with director’s commentary Stop motion Stop motion with director’s commentary

These ten varieties will now be discussed in turn.

4.5.1 Individual Storyboard A key part of the methodology described in Chap. 3 involved the idea that the storyboard for an explanatory animation eventually becomes the animation as the storyboard contains the imagery and order for each scene. In those cases, the storyboard is eventually superseded when the imagery is rendered into a stand-alone video file. The ‘Individual storyboard’ category, however, is not referring to the above-mentioned storyboards but to situations where time is limited, and it is unrealistic to expect a completed animation to be constructed. For example, shortly after completing my research I was doing some relief teaching in a middle school in Texas where I was asked to teach science for two days. With only two lessons for each class, we used our time in the following way: Lesson 1. • • • •

View some completed animations as an introduction. Learn how to use the ‘Insert duplicate slide technique’ in PowerPoint. Give some thought to choosing a topic. Start a PowerPoint file. Lesson 2.

• Continue working on the storyboard. • Commence a voice-over script as a separate slide for the narration. • Consider suitable metaphors and analogies.

4.5.2 Individual Animation The vast majority of this book is about individual animations so very little needs to be reiterated here. Remember to think of this practice as a great opportunity for co-construction so be ready to give technical or pedagogical assistance wherever it may be required.

74

4 Insights from the Reverse Engineering …

4.5.3 Individual Director’s Commentary Recording a director’s commentary can be done individually by the director as the name suggests. Having worked with many children since the Storyboard project, I have found that these reflections often require assistance in the form of a discussion before recording the commentary. Although children become pedagogical decisionmakers throughout the explanatory animation creation process, it is unrealistic to expect them to have the same vocabulary about pedagogy and learning that you will have as a professional educator. If in doubt, let the child record their own director’s commentary and see how they go.

4.5.4 Group Animation Many explanatory animations tend to have four, five or six scenes. A collaborative group animation can be made when students take responsibility for individual scenes which are then combined into a completed animation. In such cases, the teacher (or researcher) functions as an executive producer. As an additional option, each student can further extend their participation by recording their own director’s commentary about their learning and contribution throughout the project.

4.5.5 Individual Director’s Commentary on a Group Animation In the above-mentioned group animation scenario, a logical finishing touch is to invite each student to record their own commentary about the completed animation. This has the benefit of helping each child to take ownership of their work and to surface multiple perspectives on the same artefact. Ideally, the student will not just detail their own contribution but, rather, present their own understanding of how the development of the animation reflected the conceptual understanding involved throughout the construction process.

4.5.6 Multiple Choice Digital Story Using the ‘variant graphics’ definition of animation, a multiple choice digital story could also be considered part of the animation genre. Regardless of this classification, I have helped whole classes of children to construct multiple choice digital stories and the children have found this to be very rewarding. (The following link will allow

4.5 Explanatory Animations in the Classroom

75

you to download an example of this genre so you can interact with the story https:// www.brendanpauljacobs.com/hollow.pptx). The steps involved are as follows: 1. Show The Hollow Stone story as an example to help children see where the activity is heading. This idea is based on the Choose Your Own Adventure series of books so any of these books could also be used to demonstrate the meaning of ‘non-linear’. 2. Divide a whiteboard into a 6 × 4 table or similar to create as many frames (i.e. pages) as required for the size of your class. 3. Number each frame from 1 in the top left corner to 24 in the bottom right corner. 4. Brainstorm a story with multiple endings using arrows to show how different choices lead to different frames. 5. Encourage children to volunteer to create the graphics and text for their part of the story. The example of The Hollow Stone was created by Grade 3 students using Kid Pix and PowerPoint software where each student had their own computer in a lab. I have also done the same project with Grade 1 students when there was only one computer. In this instance, the brainstorming part was the same but the students drew their imagery by hand and then scanned their work which I then inserted into PowerPoint. The text was co-constructed where I acted as a scribe and editor for the children’s ideas. 6. Links need to be created for each slide. Choices have multiple links but pages that simply proceed to the next slide have instructions such as ‘Click here to continue’. 7. Every slide which contains an ending should have an additional link that enables the user to ‘Click here to start again’. This activity has also been successfully implemented with pre-service teachers as an assessment task for a digital technologies class. The pre-service teachers were instructed to make the entire story by themselves. A single piece of paper (instead of a whiteboard) was subdivided into a table with six columns and four rows to function as a storyboard with arrows showing the linkages. The rationale for this assessment task was that they would then be confident to implement the activity in a classroom.

4.5.7 Linear Nonfiction Slideshow My use of nonfiction slideshows came about through teaching Social Studies (including American history) to Year 4 students in Texas. As an Australian, my knowledge of the content was scarce, but the idea of the project was that I would model the learning process using technology with which the children were already familiar. I would have used PowerPoint but this was not installed on the children’s computers so we used ‘Google Slides’. The topic was the project was the American Revolutionary War and the children were instructed to choose ten battles that occurred during the war. Each child was required to make 11 slides, one for each battle and also the main menu which linked

76

4 Insights from the Reverse Engineering …

the 10 battles but in three different orders. The left-hand column was a sub-menu where each battle was listed chronologically titled ‘Chronological order’. This quantitative ordering was the easiest to determine as the dates were readily available to be sorted from earliest to latest. The middle column was titled ‘Casualties’ which also included fatalities. This was harder to determine because the students need to be consistent with how they ranked both injuries and fatalities. Most students opted to use fatalities as the main number and then augmented this with detail about injuries. The issue was further complicated by the tendency for the students to prioritise American losses over British losses which was understandable in this context. The stark reality of war was unavoidable here as this was part of the Social Studies curriculum. I believe that the opportunity for informal discussion was very helpful as we addressed these issues respectfully as historical facts. The final column was qualitative and was titled ‘Importance’. This was the most difficult order to determine and we talked about the meaning of importance. Was the ‘shot that rang out across the world’ the most important as it started the war or was the final battle at Yorktown the most important. Some children chose Saratoga as this was a major turning point and others chose the Battle of Long Island due to the sheer size of the conflict. During these sessions, I was literally working at the back of the room as that was where the connection was for my laptop to interface with the interactive whiteboard at the front of the class. This worked out well because the children could see my own slideshow evolving on the screen but they were not interested in copying it as they were too engaged in their own work and reasoning. The best parts of this whole process were the informal discussions that the children had with each other where they tried to persuade one another with the rationale behind their ordering. Since this experience, I have also used this activity at the university level with preservice teachers as an assessment task for a digital technologies class. The emphasis was on the linking involved so each pre-service teacher chose their own topic. The only rules were as follows: 1. Create 11 slides in total; 1 main menu and 10 content slides. 2. The left-had column must be quantitative, the right-hand column must be qualitative, and the middle column can be either. This activity worked very well as the pre-service teachers enjoyed presenting their work to the class when they had finished. Examples of topics included ‘Healthy foods’, ‘Alfred Hitchcock films’ and ‘NBA teams’.

4.5.8 Linear Nonfiction Slideshow with Director’s Commentary The careful thinking that goes into a linear nonfiction slideshow can be captured using a director’s commentary. The duration of such commentary is open-ended as

4.5 Explanatory Animations in the Classroom

77

the slideshow is guided by the author as they work their way through it. The steps involved in creating the director’s commentary are as follows: 1. Ensure that the student understands that they only need to show each of their ten slides once and that it is acceptable to leave some slides out if the student only wants to focus on their favourite slides. 2. In a quiet space (or with a headset and microphone), the student will open screen capture software (such as Camtasia) or use a web-based alternative. Recent versions of PowerPoint also have a screen capture feature. 3. The student then talks their way through the slideshow explaining the key choices that they made about the order of the content. 4. To improve the quality of the commentary, video editing software can be used to tidy up the recording by removing any mistakes or wasted time.

4.5.9 Stop Motion Stop motion is the illusion of movement created by playing a succession of photographs. It is often conducted using clay models which is known as claymation. Stop motion was not part of the Storyboard project as my interest was in purely digital forms of animation without the use of photography. It is, however, included in this list as it is increasingly common in classroom settings. I have conducted stop motion activities in the classroom and found that groupings of three are effective where one student controls the computer by clicking on the mouse for each frame, another student manipulates the objects, and a third student acts a director to oversee the progress. A cardboard box can be used as a simple set where the top and two adjacent sides are removed. The remaining sides and base can then be painted and decorated. A lamp can be very useful to light the set. An effective use of lighting for a unit on ‘Outer space’ involved painting the set black and making many small pin holes. Putting the lamp behind the set created the effect of a multitude of distant stars. You will need a webcam for each group. Many laptops have a built-in camera but the best results are achieved when a camera is on a tripod to avoid unwanted camera movements. This is why smartphones and tablets are not recommended. A smartphone or tablet could be secured with a tripod or other stand but a small screen is not ideal for groupwork. Stop Motion Pro is widely used as the software of choice but there are also a variety of free software options such as Monkey Jam (https:// monkeyjam.org/) with similar functionality. A variation on the stop motion genre is known as slowmation where the frame rate is usually only two frames per second. Notable examples of this practice where pre-service teachers make explanatory animations for the sake of their own learning can be found at https://slowmation.com and https://digiexplanations.com. Slowmation has also been used in early childhood settings where the animations are co-constructed as a collaboration between the children and the educator.

78

4 Insights from the Reverse Engineering …

4.5.10 Stop Motion with Director’s Commentary In the above-mentioned stop motion animation scenario, having each student record their own director’s commentary would be beneficial to capture their pedagogical reasoning. It might be worth referring to these simply as ‘commentaries’ in case the student who is the designated director feels that they are the only one who has the right to create a director’s commentary. The focus should be on the learning involved to avoid children saying unnecessary information about how they were simply ‘doing the mouse clicks’ or ‘moving things around’.

4.6 Restatement of Findings These findings were originally stated throughout the various chapters occasioned by the various animations that surfaced these insights. When restated together, further comment is required by way of a conclusion. The first four findings are nuanced perspectives on assessment. Findings 5 and 6 are about the importance of metaphors as both starting points and continued scaffolding for the construction of animation imagery. Finding 7 is about directors’ commentaries. 1. The explanatory animation creation process itself is a diagnostic tool as it surfaces the animation author’s evolving conceptual understanding. 2. Proximity within a mutual ZPD gives the researcher/teacher firsthand insights into conceptual learning. 3. Misconceptions can become apparent through any modality as the explanatory animation creation task is intrinsically multimodal. 4. The digital nature of the explanatory animation creation task documents and preserves examples of conceptual learning. 5. Metaphors can be generative for both imagery and narration. 6. Metaphors should be critiqued to avoid unintended inferences. 7. Directors’ commentaries can be generative and not merely descriptive. A theme that is apparent throughout all of these seven findings is that the technology and the learning are fully integrated. This is because the explanatory animation creation task is both technological and pedagogical. Education and schooling have a long tradition of embracing technology, but often to use new technology to do the same old things with these new tools. If we truly embrace the semiotic affordances of multimodality, we should also embrace the various mediums which support these modes, and more importantly, seize opportunities to create new multimodal artefacts. The dual stimulation method can also provide powerful opportunities for learning using digital technologies. Sannino (2014) has described dual stimulation as both a method and a principle with the principle being a ‘path to volitional action’ (p. 1). Other commentaries on Vygotsky’s work such as Engeström (2011) and Valsiner (1988) point to a further expansion of dual stimulation to give ‘freedom to participants

4.6 Restatement of Findings

79

to construct the task itself, not only the means to solve it’(Sannino, 2014, p. 6). The explanatory task, which is ubiquitous in schools of all descriptions, could then be likened to the first stimulus of the dual stimulation method. Creating a whole range of second stimuli based on the affordances of both technology and multimodality could then enrich the learning process in ways that were not previously possible.

References Beaty, W. (1995). Why is electricity so hard to understand? [Webpage]. Retrieved from https:// amasci.com/miscon/whyhard2.html Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burn, A., & Parker, D. (2003). Tiger’s big plan: Multimodality and the moving image. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 56–72). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Clement, J. (2008). The role of explanatory models in teaching for conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 417–452). New York, NY: Routledge. Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in structuring of school curricula. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Dewey, J. (1910/1997). How we think. New York, NY: Dover Publications. Dron, J. (2012). The pedagogical-technological divide and the elephant in the room. International Journal on E-Learning, 11(1), 23–38. Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory and Psychology, 21(5), 598–628. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hubscher-Younger, T., & Narayanan, N. H. (2008). Turning the tables: Investigating characteristics and efficacy of student-authored animations and multimedia representations. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation (pp. 235–259). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Jacobs, B. (2007). Animating best practice [master’s thesis]. Clayton, VIC: Monash University. Retrieved from https://www.brendanpauljacobs.com/abpindex.html Jacobs, B. (2018, September). In search of the multimodal thesis. In Eighth Annual Conference of the United States Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Association (USETDA). Denver, CO. Retrieved from https://www.brendanpauljacobs.com/Jacobs 2018.pdf. Jacobs, B., & Cripps Clark, J. (2018). Create to critique—Explanatory animation as conceptual consolidation. Teaching Science, 64(1), 26–36. Jacobs, B., Wright, S., & Reynolds, N. (2017). Reevaluating the concrete—Explanatory animation creation as a digital catalyst for cross-modal cognition. Mind, Culture and Activity, 24(4), 297– 310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1294181. Loxley, P., Dawes, L., Nicholls, L., & Dore, B. (2018). Teaching primary science: Promoting enjoyment and developing understanding (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Mitchell, C., de Lange, N., & Moletsane, R. (2011). Before the cameras roll: Drawing storyboards to address gendered poverty. In L. Theron, C. Mitchell, A. Smith, & J. Stuart (Eds.), Picturing research: Drawing as visual methodology (pp. 219–231). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Sannino, A. (2014). The emergence of transformative agency and double stimulation: Activity-based studies in the Vygotskian tradition. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction(0), 1–27. Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.). (2013). A representation construction approach. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Valsiner, J. (1988). Developmental psychology in the Soviet Union. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

80

4 Insights from the Reverse Engineering …

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1987). Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1. R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), New York, NY: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. (1994). The development of academic concepts in school aged children. In R. Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 355–370). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Waldrip, B., & Prain, V. (2013). Teachers’ initial response to a representational focus. In R. Tytler, V. Prain, P. Hubber, & B. Waldrip (Eds.), Constructing representations to learn in science (pp. 15– 30). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 193–203). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Wright, S. (2010). Understanding creativity in early childhood: Meaning-making and children’s drawings. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Wright, S. (2011). Meaning, mediation and mythology. In D. Faulkner & E. Coates (Eds.), Exploring children’s creative narratives (pp. 157–176). London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wright, S. (2014). The art of voice: The voice of art—Understanding children’s graphic-narrativeenactive communication. In D. Machin (Ed.), Handbook of visual communication (pp. 517–537). Berlin, DE: De Gruyter Mouton.