Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Explanatory Animations in the Classroom

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Education ((BRIEFSEDUCAT))

  • 206 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter 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. These design principles involve the dynamics of duration, synchronicity, focus and simplicity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, L. (2011). A defence of constructionism: Philosophy as conceptual engineering. Metaphilosophy, 42(3), 282–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel, I., & Papert, S. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, B., & Cripps Clark, J. (2018). Create to critique—Explanatory animation as conceptual consolidation. Teaching Science, 64(1), 26–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.), New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (1996). Animation as a distractor to learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23(1), 53–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183(4124), 482–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutter, B. (2001). Instruction at heart: Activity-theoretical studies of learning and development in coronary clinical work. Karlskrona, SE: Blekinge Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Vic: ACER press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. (2003). The encyclopedia of animation techniques (2nd ed.). Edison, NJ: Chartwell Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaille, J. A. (Ed.). (1998). Guidelines for the evaluation of instructional technology resources. Modesto, CA: Stanislaus County Office of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mackay, QLD, Australia

    Brendan Jacobs

Authors
  1. Brendan Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brendan Jacobs .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jacobs, B. (2020). Methodology and the Explanatory Animation Framework (EAF). In: Explanatory Animations in the Classroom. SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3525-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3525-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-3524-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-3525-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation