Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 55–82 | Cite as

From Research to Practice and Back: The Animation Tutor Project

  • Stephen K. Reed
Research Into Practice


The Animation TutorTM is a curriculum project that uses software to supplement instruction in courses such as intermediate algebra. Its purpose is to ground mathematical reasoning in concrete experiences through the use of interactive animation and the virtual manipulation of objects. This article summarizes how the project has progressed from research to practice and back. The first section shows how research helped implement six instructional objectives: emphasize interactivity with reflection, integrate multiple representations, reduce cognitive load, facilitate transfer, replace ineffective static images with animated images, and provide domain-specific knowledge. The last section illustrates the reciprocal nature of research and practice by describing how formative evaluations of the Animation TutorTM program led to laboratory studies aimed at improving instructional materials and student strategies.


action animation mathematical reasoning technology tutor 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackerman, P. L., and Cianciolo, A. T. (2000). Cognitive, perceptual-speed, and psychomotor determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition. J. Exp. Psychol.: Appl. 6: 259–290.Google Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Comp. Educ. 33: 131–152.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, S. M., and Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy of far transfer. Psychol. Bull. 128: 612–637.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, N. R., and Siegler, R. S. (1993). Metrics and mappings: A framework for understanding real-world quantitative estimation. Psychol. Rev. 100: 511–534.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, Z. (1995). Analogical transfer: From schematic pictures to problem solving. Memory Cogn. 23: 255–269.Google Scholar
  6. Cobb, P. (1999). Individual and collective mathematical development: The case of statistical data analysis. Math. Think. Learn. 1: 5–43.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In Lagemann, L., and Shulman, L. (eds.), Issues in education research, Josey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  8. De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., and Janssens, D. (2002). The effects of different problem presentations and formulations on the illusion of linearity in secondary school students. Math. Think. Learn. 4: 65–89.Google Scholar
  9. Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? J. Learn. Sci. 13: 105–114.Google Scholar
  10. diSessa, A. A., and Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. J. Learn. Sci. 13: 77–103.Google Scholar
  11. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. J. Learn. Sci. 11: 105–121.Google Scholar
  12. Gick, M., and Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cogn. Psychol. 15: 1–38.Google Scholar
  13. Goldenberg, E. P. (1988). Mathematics, metaphors, and human factors: Mathematical, technical, and pedagogical challenges in the educational use of graphical representation of functions. J. Math. Behav. 7: 135–173.Google Scholar
  14. Goldstone, R. L., and Sakamota, Y. (2002). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cogn. Psychol. 46: 414–466.Google Scholar
  15. Greer, B. (1993). The mathematical modeling perspective on wor(l)d problems. J. Math. Behav. 12: 239–250.Google Scholar
  16. Greer, B., Hoffman, B., and Reed, S. K. (2002). Animation Tutor: Dimensional thinking. [Computer software]. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Greeno, J. G., Smith, D. R., and Moore, J. L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In Detterman, D. K., and Sternberg, R. J. (eds.), Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition, and Instruction, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 99–167.Google Scholar
  18. Hoffman, B., and Reed, S. K. (2001). Animation Tutor: Personal finance. [Computer software]. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Hogan, T. P., and Brezinski, K. L. (2003). Quantitative estimation: One, two, or three abilities? Math. Think. Learn. 5: 259–280.Google Scholar
  20. Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Designing reseach-based instruction for story problems. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 15: 267–296.Google Scholar
  21. Koedinger, K. R., and Tabachneck, H. J. (1994). Two strategies are better than one: Multiple strategy use in word problem solving. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  22. Larkin, J. H., and Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11: 65–99.Google Scholar
  23. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  24. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics, National Council of the Teacher of Mathematics, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  25. Pedone, R., Hummel, J. E., and Holyoak, K. J. (2001). The use of diagrams in analogical problem solving. Memory Cogn. 19: 214–221.Google Scholar
  26. Project 2061. (2000). Algebra for all—Not with today’s textbooks, says AAAS (Retrieved April 16, 2002, from American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  27. Reed, S. K. (1984). Estimating answers to algebra word problems. J. Exper. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 10: 778–790.Google Scholar
  28. Reed, S. K. (1985). Effect of computer graphics on improving estimates to algebra word problems. J. Educ. Psychol. 77: 285–298.Google Scholar
  29. Reed, S. K. (1987). A structure-mapping model for word problems. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Memory Cogn. 13: 124–139.Google Scholar
  30. Reed, S. K. (1993). A schema-based theory of transfer. In Detterman, D. K., and Sternberg, R. J. (eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, Cognition, and Instruction, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 39–67.Google Scholar
  31. Reed, S. K. (1999). Word Problems: Research and Curriculum Reform, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  32. Reed, S. K., Cooke, J., and Jazo, L. (2002). Building complex solutions from simple solutions in the Animation Tutor: Task Completion. Math. Think. Learn. 4: 315–336.Google Scholar
  33. Reed, S. K., and Evans, A. C. (1987). Learning functional relations: A theoretical and instructional analysis. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 116: 106–118.Google Scholar
  34. Reed, S. K., and Hoffman, B. (2004). Use of temporal and spatial information in estimating event completion time. Memory Cogn. 32: 271–282.Google Scholar
  35. Reed, S. K., and Jazo, L. (2002). Using multiple representations to improve conceptions of average speed. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 27: 147–166.Google Scholar
  36. Reed, S. K., Hoffman, B., and Phares, S. (2001). Animation Tutor: Catch up. [Computer software]. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Reed, S. K., Hoffman, B., and Short, D. (2002). Animation Tutor: Population growth. [Computer software]. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  38. Reed, S. K., and Phares, S. (2003). Animation Tutor: Task completion. [Computer software]. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  39. Reed, S. K., Phares, S., and Sale, J. (2003). Animation Tutor: Leaky tanks. [Computer software]. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  40. Reed, S. K., and Saavedra, N. C. (1986). A comparison of computation, discovery, and graph procedures for improving students’ conception of average speed. Cogn. Instruct. 3: 31–62.Google Scholar
  41. Reed, S. K., Sale, J., and Phares, S. (2000). Animation Tutor: Average speed. [Computer software]. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  42. Rieber, L. P. (1990). Animation in computer-based instruction. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 38: 77–86.Google Scholar
  43. Roth, W.-M., and Bowen, G. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. J. Res. Math. Educ. 32: 159–194.Google Scholar
  44. Stump, S. L. (2001). High school precalculus students’ understanding of slope as measure. School Sci. Math. 10: 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn. Instruct. 4: 295–312.Google Scholar
  46. Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., and Broekkamp, H. (2001). Teaching science problem solving: An overview of experimental work. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 38: 442–468.Google Scholar
  47. Tyner, K., Reed, S. K., and Phares, S. (2000). Animation Tutor: Chemical kinetics. [Computer software]. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  48. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., and Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? Int. J. Hum.-Comp. Stud. 57: 1–16.Google Scholar
  49. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., and de Corte, E. (Eds.). (2000). Making Sense of Word Problems, Swets & Zeitlinger, Heereweg, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.San Diego State UniversitySan Diego
  2. 2.CRMSESan Diego

Personalised recommendations