Objective: The purpose of these experiments was to examine the effects of user characteristics on learning from scrolling interfaces. Background: Although scrolling Web pages are now common, few studies have explored the effects of scrolling on understanding the content that is being conveyed. Method: This set of studies investigated whether presenting text in two particular formats has an effect on comprehension for readers who differ in working memory capacity. Results: Results from both studies indicated that a scrolling format reduced understanding of complex topics from Web pages, especially for readers who were lower in working memory capacity. Conclusion: These findings show that the way text is presented can interact with learner abilities to affect learning outcomes. Application: These results have implications for both educational technology and human interfaces that present information using displays that can vary in size and construction.
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G.J. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). New York: Academic Press.
2.
Bernard, M.L., Baker, J.R., & Fernandez, M. ( 2002). Paging vs. scrolling: Looking for the best way to present search results. Usability News, 4. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://www.surl.org/usabilitynews/41/paging.asp
3.
ClickTale. (2006). Unfolding the fold. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://blog.clicktale.com/2006/12/23/unfolding-the-fold/
4.
Conway, A.R.A., & Engle, R.W. ( 1994). Working memory and retrieval: A resource-dependent inhibition model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 354-373.
5.
Conway, A.R.A., Kane, M.J., Bunting, M.F., Hambrick, D.Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R.W. ( 2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769-786.
6.
Conway, A.R.A., Kane, M.J., & Engle, R.W. ( 2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence . Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 547-552.
7.
Duchnicky, R.L., & Kolers, P.A. ( 1983). Readability of text scrolled on visual display terminals as a function of window size. Human Factors, 25, 683-692.
8.
Gernsbacher, M.A., Varner, K.R., & Faust, M.E. ( 1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430-445.
9.
Kintsch, E. ( 1990). Macroprocesses and microprocesses in the development of summarization skill. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 161-195.
10.
Lorch, R.F., Jr., & Lorch, E.P. ( 1996). Effects of organizational signals on free recall of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 38-48.
11.
Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. ( 2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning . Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52.
12.
Monk, A.F., Walsh, P., & Dix, A.J. ( 1988). A comparison of hyper-text, scrolling and folding as mechanisms for program browsing. In D. M. Jones & R. Winder (Eds.), People and Computers IV: Proceedings of the fourth conference of the British Computer Society (pp. 421-435). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. ( 2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1-4.
14.
Piolat, A., Roussey, J.Y., & Thunin, O. ( 1997). Effects of screen presentation on text reading and revising . International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 565-589.
15.
Sanchez, C.A., & Wiley, J. ( 2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344-355.
16.
Spool, J., Scanlon, T., Schroeder, W., Snyder, C., & DeAngelo, T. ( 1999). Web site usability: A designer’s guide. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.
17.
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. ( 1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176-192.
18.
Turner, M.L., & Engle, R.W. ( 1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127-154.
19.
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R.P., Schrock, J.C., & Engle, R.W. ( 2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498-505.
20.
van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Kirschner, P.A., & Kester, L. ( 2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5-13.
21.
van Nimwegen, C., Pouw, M., & van Oostendorp, H. (1999). The influence of structure and reading-manipulation on usability of hypertexts. Interacting With Computers, 12, 7-21.
22.
Wiley, J. ( 2001). Supporting understanding through task and browser design . In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1136-1143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Wiley, J., Sanchez, C.A., & Moher, T. ( 2005). Research in instructional technology. In J. M. Royer (Ed.), The impact of the cognitive revolution on educational psychology (pp. 231-248). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
