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

The increasing use of kinetic typography in presentations and classrooms, enabled by advancements in digital technology, necessitates an investigation into its learning benefits. While kinetic typography's potential to enhance learning through attention-grabbing visuals is acknowledged, its inappropriate use can lead to cognitive overload. This paper aims to address the lack of theoretical discussion surrounding kinetic typography's pedagogical implications, providing a framework for its effective and principled application in instruction. The study examines the properties of oral and written language – conceptualized as orality and literacy respectively – to understand how kinetic typography, with its blend of both, impacts learning. Kinetic typography, while a form of text, shares properties with both written and oral language, offering a unique opportunity to explore learning through a multimedia lens.

Existing research indicates kinetic typography can improve text comprehension and readability, enhance expressiveness, and maintain learner attention. Studies exploring Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) highlight the potential to increase reading speed by presenting text serially. However, overuse of kinetic elements can cause fatigue and cognitive overload, negatively impacting learning. While studies show the advantages and disadvantages of kinetic typography, a theoretical framework explaining *why* these effects occur is lacking.

This paper employs a theoretical approach, analyzing kinetic typography through the lens of Ong's orality-literacy framework. This framework is selected because kinetic typography, while fundamentally 'text', shares aspects of both written and spoken communication. The authors differentiate Ong's concept of literacy from other broader definitions focusing on reading and writing abilities, highlighting the unique perspective Ong's framework provides on the influence of written language on thought and culture. The paper compares and contrasts the characteristics of orality (communication, comprehension, synchronous, empathetic, additive) and literacy (recording, representation, asynchronous, rational, concise), providing a table summarizing these properties. The authors also address the evolution of these concepts into technology-based orality and literacy, arguing that kinetic typography doesn't fit within the secondary orality/literacy framework, but rather within the traditional orality/literacy framework, even though it's a product of technology.

The paper argues that the key learning benefit of kinetic typography stems from its ability to facilitate a shared cognitive process between instructor and learner. The sequential presentation of text in kinetic typography mirrors the logical flow of oral language, allowing learners to follow the instructor's thought process and understand the reasoning behind concepts. This 'sharing of the cognitive process' is crucial for logical comprehension, which is often essential for effective learning in educational settings. The authors contrast this with intuitive understanding, which is immediate and not readily explained sequentially. They highlight that while static text provides the product of cognitive achievement, kinetic typography offers the process, making it a more effective tool for conveying complex concepts. The paper also emphasizes that the effectiveness of kinetic typography hinges on careful consideration of the logical flow and sequence of the content. Improper use can lead to cognitive overload and distraction. The authors explain that orality (in kinetic typography) involves shared understanding and simultaneous communication, whereas literacy involves recording and representation for later recall. The best application of kinetic typography is when the learning objective necessitates shared participation in a logical thought process.

The findings suggest that the value of kinetic typography lies not in its movement, but in its ability to create a shared understanding through sequential presentation and emphasize key aspects. The authors discuss how attention-grabbing is not simply a matter of movement but of contrast; if most elements are kinetic, static ones stand out more. Overuse of kinetic effects hinders learning. Effective design must consider the sequential presentation of information, emphasizing the logical flow of concepts to reduce cognitive load and enhance comprehension. They suggest that the design of kinetic typography in digital learning should focus on enhancing interactivity and learner control. Providing static visual representation in digital learning can lead to cognitive overload and disorientation, highlighting the value of sequential presentation inherent in kinetic typography when used carefully.

This paper provides a theoretical framework for understanding the learning implications of kinetic typography, emphasizing the importance of shared cognitive processes facilitated through sequential text presentation. Future research should focus on developing prescriptive strategies for optimal kinetic typography use in educational settings, through experimental studies.

The study is limited by its theoretical nature; it lacks empirical data. Future research should involve experimental studies to validate the proposed framework and its implications for instructional design.