Instructionally Sound Interface Design
1 like88 views
The document reviews literature on interface design principles for e-learning, emphasizing the importance of combining sound instructional strategies with technological features. It discusses how different cognitive theories inform interface design to enhance learning, noting the need for balance between learner and program control. Best practices are provided for effective memory storage and instructional design in computer-based training.
Instructionally Sound Interface Design
- 1. Interface Design 1 RUNNING HEAD: INTERFACE DESIGN AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRINCIPLES Applying sound instructional principles to computer-based training interface design: A review of the literature and best practices By: Alexandra Steiner In partial fulfillment of the requirements for ISD 610 Dr. Davidson-Shivers Spring 2004
- 2. Interface Design 2 The birth of the internet, which has been called by some the “great equalizer” in society, has been the driving force behind many of the educational advances that are now being witnessed. The field of business has seen a proliferation of educational dot-coms that have sprouted up over the last few years in hopes of revolutionizing education and organizational training. Electronic learning, or e-Learning as it is widely known, has been a major product of this proliferation and it has seen many iterations of itself. From computer-based training (CBT) which has been around for over three decades to the latest in virtual classroom and distance learning developments, e-learning has become the promised land for many educational and business organizations. What Is E-Learning? E-learning is the effective learning process created by combining digitally delivered content with (learning) support services. (Waller and Wilson, 2001). Clark and Mayer (2003) have defined e-learning as instruction delivered on a computer by way of CD-Rom, intranet, or Internet. As is evident by this definition, the major difference between traditional instruction and e-learning is how the content is delivered. Regular instructional content has been designed and developed for traditional print or classroom presentation, whereas e-learning has opened the doors for a myriad of learning opportunities that allow anyone to learn at anytime from anywhere. Educational Goals of E-learning E-learning content can fulfill two types of educational goals: to inform and to perform (Clark and Mayer, 2003). Lessons that present a knowledge base or are used to create awareness on a particular subject matter are identified as e-learning that informs.
- 3. Interface Design 3 Lessons that present content in order to establish or improve a level of performance, or that are used to build skills are classified as e-learning that focuses on performance. Empirical Basis for Discussing Interface Design Evidence has shown that many who undertake development of e-learning are often distracted by the technological possibilities, as a result, flashy graphics or sound bites take precedence over sound instructional principles. A large amount of research has been conducted over what developers must keep in mind when developing instruction for non-traditional delivery methods (Sweller, 1994; Sweller and Chandler, 1994; Mayer, 1999; Mayer and Gallini, 1990). Much of this research has shown that there are no significant differences between methods of delivery (i.e. classroom, CD-Rom, paper) when the instructional methods used were the same. This supports the notion that delivery methods are not the driving force to sound instruction, but rather the instructional strategies that one employs as a developer. And while the actual delivery medium may not play a direct role in learning, it is undeniable that each medium brings about their own challenges and opportunities for designers and developers of curriculum. What Do We Mean by Interface? In fact, many of the principles that must be considered affect how the lesson interface is designed. The learning interface includes layout of material, positioning of graphics in relation to text. In computer-based training it also includes navigation schemas, and programming issues like the amount of control the learner will have to “jump around” the lesson and the use of instructional agents. For example, when creating self-paced lessons, it is important to make decisions about design aspects such as the amount of learner control that will be provided, as well as the navigational options that
- 4. Interface Design 4 will be included within the lesson. All of these elements make up what is known as the learning interface. Cognitive Basis for Interface Design The basis for many of the considerations related to designing a learning interface can be traced back to tested theories of how people learn. Many cognitive theories hold that there is a finite amount of memory space that individuals must make use of when learning something new. One such example is the Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) which looks both at how information is processed within individuals and how that is affected by how the information is structured (Paas, Renkl, and Sweller, 2003). Cognitive Load Theory states that there are three categories of cognitive load: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane. One type, intrinsic cognitive load, occurs outside of the control of the instructional designer, the other two are affected by how the information is presented and what practice activities are made available to the learners. Extraneous cognitive load has a negative impact on how well individuals are able to effectively store the new information, while germane cognitive load helps to enhance a learning experience. A parallel between germane cognitive load and instructional strategies can be made insofar as each helps to enhance storage and retention of instructional material. Another related example is that of information processing theory which looks at how much information can be realistically stored and retrieved within the brain. This theory uses the computer as a model for human learning. Like a computer, the brain performs operations using a limited amount of processing capacity (Atkinson & Schiffrin, 1968). Information processing theorists approach learning primarily through a study of memory. (Miller,1956). Thus, processing information involves the following steps:
- 5. Interface Design 5 encoding of new information; storing the information permanently, also known as storage and retention; and retrieval of the stored information. Using the information processing theory as the underlying principle, several methods of teaching have evolved which have the optimal processing of information at their core. In order for an individual to be able to store the information that is being presented to them in long-term memory, their cognitive system must be appropriately managed and maximized (Clark and Mayer, 2003). Paivio (1986) in his dual-coding theory states: "Human cognition is unique in that it has become specialized for dealing simultaneously with language and with nonverbal objects and events. Moreover, the language system is peculiar in that it deals directly with linguistic input and output (in the form of speech or writing) while at the same time serving a symbolic function with respect to nonverbal objects, events, and behaviors. Any representational theory must accommodate this dual functionality." (p 53). The theory assumes that there are two cognitive channels, one specialized for the representation and processing of nonverbal information, such as images, and the other specialized for dealing with language. The eyes and ears tend to be the two main channels for information entering the brain. The eyes are responsible for visual processing, while the ears focus on phonetic processing. Elements of a lesson, such as text and pictures must be processed though the eyes, while narration and audio clips are processed through the ears. By making use of both channels and not overloading one in particular with too many elements, a designer can maximize memory storage (Lambert and McCombs, 1998).
- 6. Interface Design 6 Several studies (Mayer, Heiser, and Lonn, 2001; Moreno and Mayer, 2002) have shown how to maximize both channels through appropriate interface design. By combining audio narrations with either graphics or text learning is improved, while using narration, text, and graphics in combination with each other actually hinders learning. Thus the principle of redundancy, as Clark and Mayer (2003) coin it, is limited to making effective use of both the auditory and visual processing channels for memory. Other good examples of efficient use of both channels include displaying worked-out examples along with a narration of the steps, using video clips that use both the audio and visual channels, as well as integrating graphics with related text that keeps the learner from having to jump back and forth between text and graphic or figures. Best Practices in Interface Design Based on the research Sweller and Cooper, 1985; Cooper and Sweller, 1987; Kalyuga, Chandler, and Sweller, 1999; Mousavi, Lou, and Sweller, 1995), several lessons or “tips” can be derived for efficiently and effectively harnessing the power of memory storage. They are the following: • Select important information to present, avoid presenting any “nice-to-know” or trivia within a lesson. • Integrate auditory and visual sensory information with existing knowledge within the learner through repeat exercises or rehearsal. • Avoid overtaxing either the auditory or visual channels by making use of both. • Avoid irrelevant visuals, background music, or sounds. • Use succinct methods of writing when presenting new information.
- 7. Interface Design 7 • Include practice exercises and worked-out examples to aid in rehearsal of information. Responsive Interfaces More than just offering an efficient way to process information, learning interfaces must also present learners with diverse opportunities to enhance their learning. This proves to be a challenge sometimes as often there isn’t the opportunity for an instructor to gauge a learner’s progress or concerns through the lesson. In order to rise above the level of a mere presentation, instructional interfaces must be able to communicate with the learner. As Allen (2003) puts it, “…e-learning needs to listen to learners and respond to what it hears”. One way that learning interfaces can be designed to listen is through personalized feedback. Allowing learners opportunity to practice and providing them with guided feedback makes e-learning more powerful than mere paper- based instruction. Programs can be created that present the learner with more or less practice questions based on their response history. Even the most basic interfaces can provide the learner with detailed feedback as to why their selection is correct or incorrect. Learner Versus Program Control Another way that e-learning interfaces can respond to learners’ individual differences or preferences in a larger scale is by employing elements that allow learners greater control over their learning. The question of how much control a learner should have over how they undertake a lesson is one with which many developers struggle (Clark and Mayer, 2003). There are several marked differences between program and learner control. Learner-controlled lessons have certain characteristics. These lessons allow students to do the following:
- 8. Interface Design 8 • Select and visit topics from a list in any order they wish. • Bypass certain lesson elements (such as practice exercises) or topics. • Control the pace at which they complete the lesson. Conversely, program control allows very little choice for the learners. Students are usually “lock-stepped” through the lesson, meaning they must visit each of the topics in the sequential order presented in order to successfully complete the lesson. Additionally, no elements, such as practice exercises, may be bypassed and the lesson may be timed. Research results are mixed with regard to which classification of control is best for learning. The fact is that most learners do not make sound instructional decisions. Research shows that two types of learners do not tend to excel with learner-controlled lessons: learners with little prior knowledge and those that tend to have poor metacognitive skills. A study conducted by Young (1996) showed that learners with low metacognitive skills learn less overall when they undertake lessons that are learner- controlled. It appears that the lack of awareness about how their mind works, makes these learners less likely to make good instructional decisions while completing a lesson. There is no denying the fact though, that learners like having control over their lessons. This phenomenon can be partially attributed to individuals’ experience with the Internet. Individuals have free reign for the most part as to how they find information on the World Wide Web. It is no surprise then that they seek the same benefits and features from their e-learning experience. So what is a designer to do? Experts (Clark and Mayer, 2003; Lee and Lee, 1991) feel it depends on the expected educational outcome. Lessons that are more educational than informatory, whose educational goal is to inform and directly relate to a need for gain of knowledge, should have more program control
- 9. Interface Design 9 features built into them in order to ensure the information has been transferred to the learner. As the individual progresses through the lesson levels, more learner control can then be incorporated once initial learning has taken place (Lee and Lee, 1991). Another area were developers can incorporate learner control is in the interface’s navigational schema. Forward and back buttons, along with a help or glossary section, can provide the learner with a certain sense of control. These features allow learners to pace themselves and ensure comprehension before moving on to the next required topic, yet still ensures that the learner must visit all sections provided. Another area where learner control can be incorporated is in the practice elements. By creating a tracking feature into the interface learners can make a choice of whether or not to continue with practice exercises based on their level of performance. Based on all of the research, Clark and Mayer (2003) have suggested several guidelines for best use of learner control features within e-learning: • Incorporate learner control features for learners with higher levels of prior knowledge or increased metacognitive skills • Make important instructional events the default navigation option in order to ensure learners see them • Create a tailoring effect based on the performance exhibited by the learner • Provide guided tours and mouseovers to store additional information without making learners leave a page Conclusion
- 10. Interface Design 10 Technology and education have become ever more intertwined. This is a trend that will continue into the distant future, with each pushing the bounds of the other. E- learning provides instructional design professionals with many opportunities to explore these bounds and to create interactive, engaging, and effective learning environments. Research and experience has shown that e-learning in all of its forms can succeed so long as sound instructional principles are considered and applied to interface design.
- 11. Interface Design 11 Waller, V. and Wilson, J. (2001). A definition for e-learning. http://www.elearningprofessional.com/articles/default.asp?PageID=561 e- Learning Professional Atkinson, R.C.& Schriffin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K.W. Spence and J.T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195). New York: Academic Press. Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97. Gagné, Robert M. and Medsker, Karen L. (1996). The Conditions of Learning Training Applications. Florida: Harcourt Brace & Company. Clark, J. M. & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149-170. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations. New York: Oxford University Press. Paas, F., Renkl, A., and Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), pp. 1-4. Sweller, J. and Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn? Cognition and Instruction, 12, pp. 185-233. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312. Mayer, R.E. (1999). Research-based principles for the design of instructional messages: The case of multimedia explanations. Document Design, 1, 7-20. Mayer, R.E. and Gallini, J. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, pp. 715-726. Mousavi, S., Lou, R., and Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 310-334.
- 12. Interface Design 12 Moreno, R. and Mayer, R.E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368. Mayer, R.E. and Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing system in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320. Mayer, R.E., Heiser, J., and Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198. Moreno, R. and Mayer, R.E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 151-163. Young, J.D. (1996). The effect of self-regulated learning strategies on performance in learner controlled computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44, 17-27. Clark, R.C. and Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. . Lambert, N.M. and McCombs, B.L. (1998). How students learn. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Allen, M. (2003) Learner-interface design: Recognizing learner gestures. The E-Learning Developer’s Journal. Lee, S. and Lee, Y.H.K. (1991). Effects of learner-control versus program control strategies on computer-aided learning of chemistry problems: For acquisition or review? Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 491-498. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 93, 579- 588. Steinber, E.R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977-1988. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 6(4), 117-121.