Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Instruction use was studied for participants learning to troubleshoot a simulated electrical circuit. Two types of instructions were provided for training tasks: Principles describing rules and generalities of the domain, and procedural instructions describing how to complete the task in a stepwise manner. Two groups of participants received either detailed (n = 23) or general (n = 24) procedural instructions and it was hypothesized that the participants who received detailed procedural instructions would ignore the principles and rely exclusively on the procedural instructions, while the participants who received general procedural instructions would find the incentive to consult the principles while completing the tasks. These predictions were supported and the pattern of instruction use indicated that when completing tasks learners tend to be goal-oriented and rely on the information that provides them with enough information to complete the task.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

D. C.

(2001). Technical Communication in the Global Community (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bibby

P. A.

Payne

S. J.

(1993). Internalization and the use specificity of device knowledge. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 25-56.

Carroll

J. M.

(1990). The Nurnberg funnel: Designing minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Catrambone

(1990). Specific versus general procedures in instructions. Human-Computer Interaction, 5(1), 49-93.

Catrambone

(1995). Following instructions: Effects of principles and examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(3), 227-244.

Catrambone

(2011). Task analysis by problem solving (TAPS): Uncovering expert knowledge to develop high-quality instructional materials and training. Paper presented at the Learning and Technology Symposium, Columbus, GA.

Duff

S. C.

Barnard

P. J.

(August 1990). Influencing behavior via device representation: Decreasing performance by increasing instruction. Paper presented at the Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT ’90.

Farkas

D. K.

(1999). The logical and rhetorical construction of procedural discourse. Technical Communication, 46(1), 42-54.

Ganier

(2004). Factors affecting the processing of procedural instructions: Implications for document design. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(1), 15-26.

10.

Karreman

Ummelen

Steehouder

(2005). Procedural and declarative information in user instructions: What we do and don’t know about these information types. IEEE International Professional Communcation Conference Proceedings, 328-333.

11.

Lannon

J. M.

(2008). Technical Communication. New York: Pearson-Longman.

12.

Rettig

(1991). Nobody reads documentation. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 19-24.

13.

Schriver

K. A.

(1997). Dynamics in document design. Canada: John Wiley & Sons.

14.

Simutech. (2009). Troubleshooting Electrical Circuits (Version 4). Ottawa, ON: Simutech Multimedial Inc.

15.

Szlichcinski

K. P.

(1979). Telling people how things work. Applied Ergonomics, 10(1), 2-8.

16.

Wright

Creighton

Threlfall

S. M.

(1982). Some factors determining when instructions will be read. Ergonomics, 25(3), 225-237.

Instruction Use Depends on the Level of Details

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References