An integrated framework for CBI screen design and layout PDF

Preview

Summary

Compukn in Human Bchauior, Vol. 5, pp. 155-165, ,989 0747.5632/89 $3.00 + .OO Printed in the U.S.A. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1989 Pergamon Press plc An Integrated Framework for CBI Screen Design and Layout Michael J. Hannafin Florida State University Simon Hooper The Pennsylvania State Unive...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

An integrated framework for CBI screen design and layout M. Hannafin Computers in Human Behavior

Cite this paper

Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Empirically-based guidelines for t he design of int eract ive mult imedia Michael Hannafin

Psychological foundat ions of inst ruct ional design for emerging comput er-based inst ruct ional t echno… Lloyd Rieber, Michael Hannafin, M. Hannafin Emerging t echnologies, ISD, and learning environment s: Crit ical perspect ives Michael Hannafin

Compukn in Human Bchauior, Vol. 5, pp. 155-165, Printed in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.

,989 Copyright

0747.5632/89 $3.00 + .OO 0 1989 Pergamon Press plc

An Integrated Framework for CBI Screen Design and Layout Michael J. Hannafin Florida

State University

Simon Hooper The Pennsylvania

Abstract-Screen that they represent

State

University zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVU

desi’n decisions are arguably zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJI among the most important made by CBI designers in tangible products of the lesson design and development processes. Yet,

the external,

many view screen design as largely intuitive and tend to underestimate decisions. In this paper, model for CBI

screen design is consideredfrom

the importance

an integrated perspective,

of screen design

based upon the ROPES

lesson design.

The proliferation of the microcomputer has led to widespread interest in computer screen design (e.g., Alessi & Trollip, 1985; Jenkins, 1982; Olson & Wilson, 1985; Snowberry, Parkinson, & Sisson, 1983; Sweeters, 1985). Researchers often agree that text is read more slowly (see Gould, Alfaro, Finn, Haupt, & Minuto, 1987), and that comprehension is lower (see Sekey & Tietz, 1982) when read from the computer screen than from print-based media. Consequently, much interest has focused on improving the quality of screen design to improve reading speed and comprehension, and hence the effectiveness and efficiency of learning from the computer (Hathaway, 1984). Improvements in screen design often focus on manipulating specific attributes of text, such as varying line length and experimenting with character size and font type (e.g., Hooper & Hannafin, 1986). Mayer (1984) referred to this as a behavioral approach to text design. The approach investigates the effect of manipulating text on how much is learned. This research tends to generate sweeping guidelines such as, “ Use shorter rather than longer lines of text,” and “ Separate lines

of text with blank

Screen (Kearsley,

design 1985).

space

guidelines Yet,

to increase

often

learning.”

emphasize

the extensive

research

visually

exciting

in visual

learning

and legible

(Dwyer,

displays

1978) as

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Michael J. Hannafin, Director CIDS, c/ o Department of Educational Research, 307 Stone Building, College of Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-3030. 155

156

Hannafin

and Hooper zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQ

well as text processing (Gillingham, 1988) has established conclusively that presentation stimuli have the potential to either aid or hamper learning. In many cases, designers vary screen variables and attributes that have little influence on learning. For example, merely providing dramatic color displays, incorporating graphics and animation, or requiring high-fidelity visual or aural images may have little effect on learning per se or may actually distract from intended learning. For effective learning, screen design decisions for CBI should reflect balance among learner attributes, content factors, and processing requirements of the learning task. Although the student may be more aroused by visually stimulating displays, and important details may be illuminated by improving legibility, such displays may also increase the processing burden on the learner and cause shallow processing of important lesson content. Technocentric screen design approaches, those emphasizing the computer’s capabilities over human processing limitations, often mislead and oversimplify. Such approaches provide little understanding of how screen design influences learning. Indeed, rather than increasing reading speed, the instructional designer may often wish to control reading and encourage deeper and more purposeful processing of lesson information. Instead of attempting to identify the elusive “ best” method of displaying text, designers may profit from approaches which examine how screen design influences the type of learning that takes place, and how such manipulations can be managed to optimize learning. For present purposes, screen design is defined as the purposeful organization of presentation stimuli in order to influence how students process information. Thus, virtually all visible aspects of CBI lessons, including the design and location of text, graphics, frame protocol, and various cosmetic amplification methods are considered relevant screen design factors (Hannafin & Peck, 1988). The purpose of this paper is to introduce a comprehensive framework for evaluating screen design decisions, and to present and illustrate the prescriptive potential of an integrated CBI design model in the selection and design of CBI presentation stimuli.

BUILDING A FRAMEWORK FOR SCREEN DESIGN DECISIONS: ISSUES, FOUNDATIONS, AND FUNCTIONS Rieber and Welliver (1989) noted that designers often apply old design methods to new technologies. For example, the motion picture industry began by applying still photography techniques to the movie camera: Action was staged in front of a motionless camera. Similarly, designers have attempted to apply print design techniques to the design of computer screens. While in some cases print design techniques may be appropriate for CBI, other effective methods are also available. Whereas print is essentially a unilateral medium, characterized by the flow of information from the text to the reader, the computer is bilateral. Student responses may alter the instructional sequence, cause important information to be repeated, and vary screen presentations. Researchers must, therefore, identify and incorporate screen design strategies that are relevant to CBI instead of simply adapting techniques associated with print-based media. Screen design is often intuitive. Despite recent advances toward a science of instruction, and published research regarding individual aspects of display, little

Screen design

157

zyxwvutsrqpo

systematic research has been directed toward screen design. Instead screen designer guidelines are based on “ common sense” but often lack empirical foundation. For example, guidelines that promote legibility (Watson, 1987) or caution against overcrowding (Kearsley, 1986) appear to be intuitively obvious. However, blind acceptance of clarity and spaciousness per se are often misleading. Hannafin and Phillips (1987) noted that image quality may be important when details must be presented, but techniques that intentionally obscure image quality, or increase the vividness of an image, may actually deepen processing. Further, a single detailed screen that helps to contrast critical differences between examples and nonexamples during a concept learning task may be more effective than several, spacious, screens that fail to illustrate important relational differences effectively. It is not adherence to superficial rules that will advance the science of screen design but greater attention to the relationships between task attributes and the processing capabilities of learners. Screen design, therefore, must be approached systematically based upon a more complete understanding of lesson-learner transactions. The framework for such decisions must include both the foundations and functions of design decisions.

What Are the Foundations of Screen Design? The principal foundations of screen design are psychological, instructional, and technological. Psydzological foundations provide the empirical undergirding of CBI lessons. From a cognitive perspective, the psychological foundations focus on the effects of screen organization on the student’s ability to perceive, organize, and integrate information. They emphasize the limitations and capacities of individuals to process information, to develop perceptions and attitudes, and to otherwise interpret and provide meaning to incoming stimuli. An example is the use of graphic illustrations in instruction. Although instructional software routinely incorporates graphics with text, research suggests that this practice often distracts from learning or results in unrelated processing which reduces learning efficiency. Combined text and graphics, and other multi-channel communication, should be avoided unless high redundancy exists between the information (Fleming & Levie, 1977). Instructional foundations are those that influence directly the nature and activities of the instructional solution. They rely on primary evidence about instructional problems versus more general assumptions about how learners process information. Such foundations include information derived during typical frontend analysis or needs assessment. The state of the learner (e.g., age, ability, prior knowledge, preferences, etc.), the learning task (e.g., objectives, instructional sequence, prerequisite skills, etc.), and the instructional setting (time constraints, training of professional personnel, etc.) are considered. Fundamentally different design decisions are expected for diverse instructional foundations. For example, screen design may be influenced by learner variables such as the ability and prior knowledge of the target population. Low-density text presentations, which contain principally the main ideas of a passage, may be an effective screen design technique for high ability students or students who are famil& O’Dell, 1988). Low-density text iar with the lesson content (Ross, Morrison, helps to cue students to important information and, consequently, may be effective for learning the main points of a text. However, low-density text may not pro-

Hannafin and Hooper

158

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQ

vide enough redundancy for students with little conceptual background to support encoding. Elaborated text may facilitate performance for higher cognitive goals such as skill learning (Reder, Charney, & Morgan, 1986). zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZY Technologicul foundations address the limitations of instructional technologies. The capabilities of technology dictate, to a large degree, the potential for variation in screen layout and text design. Presentation options may include a variety of aural (synthesized voice, digitized voice, sound effects, etc.), visual (computergenerated graphics displays, photographic slides, typed text, video, etc.), and tactile (keyboard, joystick, mouse, touch screen, etc.) options. In addition, technological capabilities dictate the types of control options possible during a given lesson. Some systems, for example, permit options such as the selection of lesson text for notetaking purposes; others do not. The potential variations, therefore, are limited initially by what is technologically possible. In a sense, each of the foundations emphasizes somewhat unique, yet interactive, concerns: Technological foundations essentially identify what could be; psychological foundations help to isolate what should be; and instructional foundations dictate what will be. In practice, however, it is the interactive nature of the three foundations that provides the basis for making screen design, as well as other lesson design, decisions. The missing link is the articulation of a logical framework for selecting or prescribing activities based upon the functional requirements of the lesson.

What Are the Functions of Screen Design? Perhaps

the most important

function

of screen design is to help the learnerfocus Effectively designed screens and consistent amplification conventions can promote shifts in learner attention (Hannafin & Peck, 1988; Steinberg, 1984). This is typically done to emphasize key words, amplify certain rules, and so on. The intent is to aid in detecting relevant lesson content by adopting conventions that draw proportionately more attention to the selected information than the remaining parts of the lesson. Effective screen design causes learners to develop and maintain interest in the lesson content and activities. It is imperative that CBI lessons “ invite” and even “ seduce” learners-to cause a willingness to invest effort. Part of the role of effective screen design, therefore, is to provide a sufficiently appealing environment that learners are inclined toward its use. Without the initial and sustained lure to the activities contained in the lesson, attention and motivation are likely to wane (Keller & Suzuki, 1988). Effective screen design should promote deep processing of important information. Ideally, once selected, lesson information should be organized and integrated uniquely within the individual schemata of various learners (Mayer, 1984). Though integration is largely idiosyncratic within individual learners, effectively designed screens should aid in organizing lesson content in a number of ways consistent with limitations in STM, depict content relationships evident within the lessons, and allow reasonable learner control of options that permit deepening of understanding. Effective screen design promotes engagement between the learner and lesson content. Engagement refers to the intentional processing of CBI lesson content (Hannafin, 1989). Typically, engagement is described in terms of quantity (e.g., frequency of interaction points) and quality (e.g., nature of processing activity) of attention on key aspects of the lesson.

Screen design

159

interaction. Engagement has important implications for screen design. Based upon screen design conventions (i.e., protocol), learners can be provided a variety of generative “ gateways” that permit individual manipulations of lesson content. Learners could, for example, receive (or generate) elaborations as requested, solicit clarifications, query the system for needed information, and so forth. In effect, screen designs should balance easily accessible learner-based “ tools,” with designerbased techniques, through which engagement can be heightened. Effectively designed screens facilitate lesson navigation. Various authors have described the importance of frame protocol in easing the processing burden of the learner (Burke, 1982; Heines, 1984; Soulier, 1988). In general, the systematic organization of CBI frames, and the orderly prescription of functions to various frame locations, are essential to establishing expectancies, thereby allowing learners to adapt to consistent conventions.

ROPES: A FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE SCREEN DESIGN DECISIONS Ultimately, the goal of screen and text design is to reconcile relevant foundations in ways that are consistent with the functions of screen design. In effect, screen design emphasizes purposeful manipulations of presentation stimuli based upon presumed relationships among learning task, individuals, and technology. Screen design is most effective when the processing requirements of a task are identified, strategies are prescribed accordingly, and the attributes of the medium are utilized to support the learning strategies (Hannafin & Rieber, 1989). To facilitate decision making for screen design, ROPES, a meta-model for instructional design, was developed (Hooper & Hannafin, 1988). ROPES represents the five functional requirements of instruction: Retrieving, Orienting, Presenting, Encoding, and Sequencing. Although the presentation phase appears particularly relevant to screen design, presentation decisions are ultimately manifested throughout the other phases in the model. In the following section, screen and text design is examined from a broader, more inclusive context than typically employed. Examples are provided which illustrate the effects of screen design on different aspects of the lesson. These examples are not intended as a comprehensive list of screen design guidelines. Instead they demonstrate how existing research can be adapted to generate empiricallybased guidelines.

Retrieving The psychological processes of retrieval are invoked to help answer a question, to recall structures from long-term memory to be encoded with new information, or to provide a framework within which new information can be subsumed. Consequently, much of the screen design activity to promote retrieval is intended to optimize integration of lesson content within existing schemata. Several factors influence the retrievability of lesson content, including depth of processing during initial encoding, the availability and potency of retrieval cues, and the meaningfulness of the initial learning.

zyxwvutsrqpo

160

Hannafin and Hooper

Provide options for students to create notes on the computer during instruction. zyxwvutsrqpon Modem computer systems allow the student to create notes on the computer during instruction. These notes may be automatically transferred into a word processing application where they may later be edited and printed. Peck and Wambaugh (1988) found that performance improved when students were able to select, annotate, and record electronic notes while completing CBI. In effect, providing learners with generative tools can increase both the amount and depth of processing of lesson information. Likewise, requiring “ compare and contrast” summaries should improve retrieval in that additional processing will be fostered and the corresponding number of retrieval paths will be increased. Screen protocols that allow students to personalize interpretations of lesson concepts by on-demand annotation, elaboration, or summarization should improve both the meaningfulness of the learning and the level of integration of new with existing knowledge.

Focus on image fidelity only when precise representation is critical to the learning task. Establish relationships between related information routinely. The effectiveness of a graphic representation is not defined solely by image fidelity. At times, high-fidelity presentation stimuli are essential. The representation may feature visuals for surgery simulations, such as the display of the intricate structure and components of the human heart, where image fidelity is critical. In other cases, the@nctional requirements for the images depicted are critical, but the zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihg literal fidelity of the presentation stimuli is not. In the design of an electronic circuit, for instance, functional accuracy is essential but literal fidelity often is relatively unimportant. The effectiveness of presentations is more often controlled by depicting precise relationships than by image fidelity. In general, transfer from training to real life increases when simulated cause-effect relationships are made explicit (Clark & Voogel, 1985). Consequently, designers should attempt to improve retrieval by depicting relationships between controlling stimuli and associated behaviors during instruction. Orienting Orienting activities are mediators, provided to the learner in advance of instructional segments, which influence how subsequent lesson information will be processed. Orienting activities are presumed to gain the learner’s at...