Professional Documents
Culture Documents
theoretical frameworks
Jongpil Cheon
Instructional Design and Technology
University of Memphis
United States
jpcheon@memphis.edu
Michael M. Grant
Instructional Design and Technology
University of Memphis
United States
mgrant2@memphis.edu
Introduction
Metaphorical interface
In this proposal, the metaphorical interface can be classified into two different
types depending on the way
metaphors are employed: (a) a thematic and (b) an immersive metaphorical
interface. A thematic metaphorical
interface uses a metaphorical theme that does not exactly reflect the contents,
but the theme is familiar with learners,
such as a book or a folder on the computer screen. On the other hand, an immersive
metaphorical interface builds an
authentic environment that reflects learning contents with structural cues or
organizational hints.
2000)
� Metaphors should consider learner�s age and culture (Hudson, 2000; Ohl, & Cates,
1997)
The theories and research mentioned in the previous section argued that
interactions with metaphorical
interfaces could either enhance or impede learning. Effectiveness of interfaces
has been measured by three
perspectives: learning performance, cognitive load and usability (Cheon & Grant,
in press). However, few studies
have examined the effectiveness of a metaphorical interface. Hsu and Schwen (2003)
found that searching
performance was better with a composite metaphorical interface. In addition, a
subsequent study showed that a
metaphor-rich interface facilitated experts� searching better than novices�
searching (Hsu, 2005). This finding
opposes Cates�s (2002) argument that a metaphor helps particularly novice users.
On the other hand, Cates and
Berkley (2000) found no significant differences in terms of the effectiveness of
instruction between a metaphorical
design and an equivalent thematic version. In addition to learning performance
metaphorical interface�s effects on
cognitive load should be considered.
Proponents of cognitive load theory argued that working memory is limited (Sweller
& Chandler, 1994).
Cognitive load theory strives to capture the learner�s focus by preventing the
learner�s capacity from overloading
(Vogt, 2001). Cognitive load theory distinguishes three types of cognitive load:
(a) intrinsic cognitive load affected
by the intrinsic nature of the learning tasks themselves; (b) extraneous cognitive
load affected by the manner in
which the tasks are presented; and (c) germane cognitive load that is the amount
of cognitive resources that learners
willingly invest in schema construction and automation (Sweller & van Merrienboer,
1998). The three types of
cognitive load are additive, and both extraneous and germane load are under the
direct control of instructional
designers (Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbers & Van Gerven, 2003). Therefore, the primary
implication for instruction is to
decrease extraneous cognitive load and to increase germane cognitive load within
the limits of available processing
capacity (van Merrienboer & Ayres, 2005). If the limits of human cognitive
capacity are ignored, a Web-based
instructional unit can actually interfere with learning even though it has many
multimedia resources (Clark &
Mayer, 2003).
Cognitive load research has focused on two variables: learner performance and
learner mental effort. High
learning efficiency occurs when learner performance is higher than learner mental
effort (Tuovinen & Paas, 2004).
Efficiency metrics have been used to quantify the efficiency of an instructional
product (e.g., Kalyuga & Sweller,
2005; Paas, Tuovinen, van Merrienboer & Darabi, 2005; Paas & van Merrienboer,
1993). For example, Paas and van
Merrienboer (1993) suggested that instructional condition efficiency could be
measured by a standardized z-score
for mental effort and a z-score for performance. In Kalyuga and Sweller�s study to
examine the efficiency of an
adaptive learning system, the mental effort rating of tasks was combined with the
performance scores of the same
tasks to provide a cognitive efficiency indicator.
Cheon and Grant (in press) conducted an interface study with three different types
of interfaces. The
findings showed that there were no differences among the groups in terms of mental
efforts and time to completion.
In addition to the two variables, a learning efficiency score was compared.
Although a graphical interface had the
highest efficiency score, there was no significant difference. The study failed to
demonstrate the superiority of both
graphical interface and metaphorical interfaces to a text-based interface except
in appeal.
Future research
The next step is a systematic inquiry into the effects of a metaphorical interface
on cognitive load through
implementing a theory-based metaphorical interface, developing logical data
collection methods, and conducting
thorough data analysis.
Research questions
The main question of the future study is derived from Cates�s (2002) question that
is how to determine if a
metaphorical interface interacts in ways that contribute to the effectiveness of
learning. The theoretical frameworks
for cognitive load led to cognitivist ways of measuring effectiveness of
metaphorical interfaces. However, the
operationalization of mental effort from previous studies has not been clear. For
example, mental effort could be
attributed to germane cognitive load because users use their mental effort to
build their own mental model. Or, the
measure of mental effort seems to indicate intrinsic cognitive load, because
researchers asked participants only to
rate the difficulty of the instruction.
The relationship between usability and extraneous cognitive load should also be
considered. An interface
with higher usability could have a higher possibility of producing lower
extraneous cognitive load. Interface design
may also have the added responsibility of being useful to both novice and expert
users without alienating either.
Therefore, it is important to gauge users� germane and extraneous cognitive load
to investigate a
metaphorical interface�s roles with research questions: (a) Does a metaphorical
interface affect learners� cognitive
load types? (b) Are there any differences in germane or extraneous cognitive load
with metaphorical and graphical
interface? (c) What are the effects of a metaphorical interface on novice and
experts?
Possible methodologies
The research methods could be built from the theoretical frameworks and
suggestions from the previous
study. For example, a more realistic metaphorical interface within a concrete
domain, such as Biology or
Architecture, needs to be implemented following the design guidelines of
metaphorical interfaces. Also, developing
both a graphical interface and a metaphorical interface with the same learning
contents would offer an opportunity to
compare the effectiveness of different types of interfaces. In addition, a larger
sample would enhance the credibility
of the findings of the future study.
The most important data source is isolating the different types of cognitive load.
Few studies developed
practical methods to gauge germane and extraneous cognitive load and the
definition of mental effort remains
ambiguous. Although extraneous cognitive load could be measured by usability test
items, it would be challenging
to measure users� germane cognitive load. So, we are considering ways to
incorporate prior knowledge with mental
effort to produce a standardize score to represent intrinsic cognitive load with
the remainder attributed to germane
cognitive load.
Summary
References
Barr, P., Biddle, R. & Noble, J. (2002). A taxonomy of user interface metaphors,
in Proceedings of SIGCHI-NZ Symposium on
Computer-Human Interaction (CHINZ 2002), Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved October,
15, 2007 from
http://www.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/~chikken/research/papers/chinz2002/barr_chinz2002.pdf
Berkley, J., & Cates, W. M. (1996). Building coping skills on a firm foundation:
Using a metaphorical interface to deliver stress
management instruction. Proceedings of selected research and development
presentations at the 1996 national convention of the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 15, 71-79.
110.
Cates, W. M. (2002). Systematic selection and implementation of graphical user
interface metaphors. Computers & Education,
38, 385-397.
Cates, W.M., & Berkley, J. (2000). What price metaphor? Calculating metaphorical
interfaces� return-on-investment.
607.
Cheon, J., & Grant, M. M. (in press). Are pretty interfaces worth the time? The
effects of user interface types on Web-based
instruction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction.
San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Goldfarb, I., & Kondratova, I. (2004, August). Visual interface design tool for
educational courseware. Paper presented at the
Haag, B. B., & Snetsigner, W. (1993). Aesthetics and screen design: An integration
of principles. Proceedings of the 25th Annual
Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association, 92-97. Retrieved June
30, 2006 from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/26/9e/f4
.pdf
Hsu, Y. C., & Boling, E. (2007). An approach for designing composite metaphors for
user interfaces. Behavior & Information
Metros, S. E., & Hedberg, J. G. (2002). More than just a pretty (inter) face: The
role of the graphical user interface in engaging
elearners. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 191-205.
Myers, B. A. (1993). Why are Human-Computer Interfaces Difficult to Design and
Implement?, Technical Report, Report No.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive
load measurement as a means to advance
cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. A.
(2005). A motivational perspective on the
relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing learner involvement in
instruction. ETR&D, 53(3), 25-34.
Parizotto-Ribeiro, R., & Hammond, N. (2005, July). Does aesthetics affect the
users� perceptions of VLEs? Paper presented at the
12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Amsterdam,
Denmark. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from
http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/gr20/aied05/finalVersion/RParizotto.pdf
Pearrow, M. (2007). Web usability handbook: The second edition. Boston, MA:
Charles River Media.
Sing, C. C., & Der-thanq, V. (2004). A review on usability evaluation methods for
instructional multimedia: An analytical
framework. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3). 229-238.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn.
Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.
Szabo, M., & Kanuka, H. (1998). Effects of violating screen design principles of
balance, unity and focus on recall learning,
study time and completion rates. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 23-42.
van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory
and its design implications for e-learning.
ETR&D, 53(3), 5-13.