MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162087543 · doi:10.1187/cbe.07-01-0002

The Value of Animations in Biology Teaching: A Study of Long-Term Memory Retention

2007· article· en· W2162087543 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCBE—Life Sciences Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsAnimationLegendGraphicsComputer scienceNarrativeTerm (time)Value (mathematics)MultimediaSubject (documents)Economic shortageComputer graphics (images)World Wide WebArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous work has established that a narrated animation is more effective at communicating a complex biological process (signal transduction) than the equivalent graphic with figure legend. To my knowledge, no study has been done in any subject area on the effectiveness of animations versus graphics in the long-term retention of information, a primary and critical issue in studies of teaching and learning. In this study, involving 393 student responses, three different animations and two graphics-one with and one lacking a legend-were used to determine the long-term retention of information. The results show that students retain more information 21 d after viewing an animation without narration compared with an equivalent graphic whether or not that graphic had a legend. Students' comments provide additional insight into the value of animations in the pedagogical process, and suggestions for future work are proposed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.403 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it