What drives the learning benefits of moving text? A theoretical discussion for learning implications of kinetic typography

With the development of digital technology and presentation software programs that make it easy to create and share moving text, slideware (i.e., presentation tools such as Microsoft PowerPoint and Apple Keynote) incorporating kinetic typography is increasingly used in presentations and in classroom settings (Venema & Lodge, 2013).

Kinetic typography refers to technology that incorporates moving text, which is deemed to effectively deliver messages by engaging an audience's attention (Forlizzi et al., 2003; Potter, 1984). Thus, compared to static typography, kinetic typography has been found to have significant potential for learning (Jin, 2009; Lee, 2010). Nonetheless, inappropriate and excessive use of kinetic typography can impede learning by causing fatigue and cognitive overload through too much visual stimulus (Heines, 1984; Kidwai et al., 2004; Lee, 2010). Therefore, to increase its learning-related benefits, kinetic text must be designed carefully in consideration of its pedagogic potential (Jin, 2009). Despite the extensive use of kinetic typography, it is difficult to find a theoretical discussion on the advantages and pedagogical implications of kinetic typography. Because of this lack of research, kinetic typography is often produced and used arbitrarily and instinctively without any valid principles or guidelines.

Kinetic typography's contribution to learning may be considered in terms of the properties of oral language and written text, which are the fundamental media in teaching and learning. Historically, instruction has been mediated by oral language for communication and comprehension and by written language for recording and representation. Both oral and written languages have heavily influenced human thinking and behavior and have developed their own distinctive cultures. As it is primarily a form of text, kinetic typography has the properties of written language, but it differs from static typography. Moreover, although it is not purely oral language, kinetic typography can be presented sequentially like oral language and thereby has certain properties that allow a sender and a receiver to share the process of communication simultaneously. Meanwhile, oral language and written language are accompanied by a variety of non-verbal elements that serve the primary purposes of both oral and written language. These additional elements, which attract learners' attention and engagement, can trigger cognitive activities for better understanding. Kinetic typography technology also incorporates these roles of non-verbal elements.

In this context, this paper intends to theoretically examine and discuss the learning implications of kinetic typography beyond attracting learners' attention through moving text. To explore what generates learning benefits, we examine the properties of oral language and written language, which are conceptualized as orality and literacy, respectively (Ong, 1982; Lee, 2015), and both of which are fundamental to learning and instruction.

The paper reviews the concept, evolution, and educational studies of kinetic typography alongside the theoretical framework of orality and literacy.

Concept and types: Typography encompasses design and arrangement of textual elements (typeface, size, spacing, layout, color). Historical experiments with dynamic-looking but static arrangements (e.g., Apollinaire’s calligrammes) and serial presentation methods like Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) preceded true motion. With digital media, kinetic typography emerged in films, television, advertising, and presentations, variously termed moving/dynamic/temporal/liquid typography (Ishizaki, 1996; Jun, 2000; Mueller, 1998).

Studies on learning: Research indicates kinetic typography can enhance expressiveness, convey emotion, and improve comprehension via transformations in size, shape, color, timing, and motion (Chung, 2008; Ston et al., 2003; Ford et al., 1997). RSVP can increase reading rates and readability by trading space for time, reducing eye movements and possibly cognitive load, though its effectiveness depends on parameters like chunk size, duration, pauses, and speed (Potter, 1984, 2018; deBruijn & Spence, 2000; Rahman & Muter, 1999; Matin & Boff, 1988; Matin et al., 1993). Kinetic transformations that make auditory qualities of language visible can aid learning intonation and stress and strengthen vocabulary comprehension (Lim, 2018; Lau & Chu, 2015). Adaptive kinetic emphasis can guide attention and support user needs in interfaces (Ishizaki, 1996; Lee & Park, 2012; Jin, 2013).

Potential drawbacks: Overuse or inappropriate motion can cause fatigue, split attention, cognitive overload, and reduced readability/learning (Heines, 1984; Kidwai et al., 2004; Lee, 2010; Park et al., 2015). Effects of chronological presentation vary by situation and strategy (Mills & Weldon, 1987), and RSVP is not always superior to conventional formats (deBruijn & Spence, 2000). Cognitive load theory cautions against overwhelming visual working memory, especially when complex graphics and on-screen text are combined without integration (Kalyuga, 2000; Park et al., 2015).

Orality and literacy framework: Drawing on Ong (1982) and Lee (2015), the paper reviews orality (communication/comprehension; synchronous, time-dependent, redundant, additive, empathetic, participatory, situational/contextual) and literacy (record/representation; asynchronous, space-dependent, succinct, concise, objective, rational, abstract/decontextualized, fixed). Oral communication includes non-verbal cues and simultaneous interaction; written communication relies on punctuation, grammar, and editing technologies, shaping cognitive styles and social practices. The authors distinguish technology-driven secondary orality/literacy (broadcast speech, SMS) from kinetic typography, arguing kinetic affects representation mode without altering fundamental language rules; thus, the original orality–literacy framework is most appropriate for analyzing learning implications.

• The critical learning benefit of kinetic typography derives not from motion per se but from enabling a shared cognitive process between instructor and learner via sequential, time-based presentation that mirrors properties of orality. This supports learners in following the logical flow of content and understanding the process behind concepts, not just the final product.
• Sequential kinetic presentation can scaffold logical comprehension (serial, linear understanding) more effectively than static, all-at-once displays; it helps reveal the order and rationale in constructing ideas (e.g., stepwise diagram construction) similar to following an oral lecture or chalkboard demonstration.
• Kinetic typography also enhances attention and expressiveness, making tone, emphasis, and affect more salient; however, its benefits are contingent on careful design aligned with content semantics and logical structure.
• Overuse or poorly aligned motion increases cognitive load, risks split attention and disorientation, and can impair readability and learning; effectiveness depends on parameters such as amount of information, speed, timing, and pauses (as shown in RSVP literature).
• Design implication: Use kinetic typography to make critical content distinctive, present logical flow sequentially, reduce split attention by aligning motion with the structure of ideas, and provide learner control over pacing and interaction. Static text remains preferable for recording/overview and when simultaneous access to the whole structure is needed.

The paper addresses the core question—what drives the learning benefits of kinetic typography—by reframing motion’s role through the orality–literacy lens. Kinetic typography’s educational value arises when it functions like orality: synchronously staging information in time to allow learners to co-experience the instructor’s reasoning steps. This shared, sequential process supports logical comprehension, which many academic tasks require. In contrast, static text primarily delivers the finished cognitive product, offering less visibility into the generative sequence of ideas.

This perspective aligns with cognitive load considerations: time-based sequencing can distribute processing, highlight dependencies between steps, and reduce split attention when motion is synchronized with conceptual structure. Conversely, decorative or excessive motion competes for visual working memory and undermines comprehension. Therefore, the instructional relevance of kinetic typography lies in its ability to scaffold serial logic, emphasize salient elements at the right time, and adapt to learner needs through controllability. The framework clarifies when to use kinetic (to share process, emphasize sequence, convey tone) versus static text (to record, provide overviews, and enable spatial browsing), guiding principled design rather than ad hoc animation.

Using the orality–literacy framework, the paper argues that the main pedagogical value of kinetic typography is not inherent motion but its capacity to share the cognitive process through sequential presentation, akin to orality. Designers should emphasize distinctiveness of critical content and intentionally depict logical flow and overall structure in interfaces. To reduce cognitive load and support effective interaction, kinetic elements must be aligned with the serial logic of the learning context and offer learner control over pacing. Future work should empirically develop and test prescriptive strategies for optimal use of kinetic typography and consider complementary theoretical perspectives (e.g., viewing kinetic typography through the lens of image/visual grammar) to deepen its pedagogical application.

The study is a theoretical discussion without empirical data collection or analysis; data sharing is not applicable. It does not present experimental tests of proposed design implications and acknowledges the need for future experimental research to formulate and validate prescriptive strategies. The analysis is framed within the orality–literacy perspective and suggests that adding an image-based theoretical lens could further enrich understanding.