The effect of type and amount of instruction on the problem solving behavior of novice Macintosh users were examined. Forty-eight naive users participated in one of four conditions; no instruction, self-paced written instruction on either basic mouse skills, or on basic mouse and file manipulation skills, or animated instruction on basic mouse and file manipulation skills. Subjects then completed mouse tasks, file manipulation tasks, and transfer tasks. Results indicated that the Macintosh is not a “walk-up-and-use” computer as the no instruction condition was slower and less successful at completing the tasks than all other conditions. The mouse skills condition completed more tasks, and were somewhat faster at completing the file manipulation and transfer tasks than the no instruction condition. Comparison of the animated condition and the equivalent written condition indicated no advantage for animation, and both conditions showed high levels of transfer. Analysis of individual tasks showed some evidence of the problem solving heuristic of label-following for the no instruction and mouse skills conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HutchinsE. L.HollanJ. D., and NormanD. A., Direct Manipulation Interfaces, in User Centered System Design, NormanD. A. and DraperS. W. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 87–124, 1986.
2.
JacobR. J. K., Direct Manipulation in the Intelligent Interface, in Intelligent Interfaces: Theory, Research and Design, HancockP. A. and ChignellM. H. (eds.), Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, 1989.
3.
ZieglerJ. E. and FahnrichK.-P., Direct Manipulation, in Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, HelanderM. (ed.), Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, pp. 123–133, 1988.
4.
FrohlichD. M., The History and Future of Direct Manipulation, Behaviour & Information Technology, 12, pp. 315–329, 1993.
5.
KaratJ.FowlerR., and GravelleM., Evaluating User Interface Complexity, in Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT '87, BullingerH.-J. and ShackelB. (eds.), Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 489–495, 1987.
6.
ShneidermanB. and MargonoS., A Study of File Manipulation by Novices Using Commands vs. Direct Manipulation, Proceedings of 26th Annual Technical Symposium of the Washington D.C. Chapter of the ACM, National Bureau of Standards, Gathersburg, Maryland, 1987.
7.
EbertsR. E. and BittiandaK. P., Preferred Mental Models for Direct Manipulation and Command-based Interfaces, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, pp. 769–785, 1993.
8.
CarrollJ. M. and MazurS. A., LisaLearning, IEEE Computer, 19, pp. 35–49, 1986.
9.
DyckJ. L. and GeeN. R., Transfer of Learning from DOS to FINDER for Novice Users, paper presented at the annual Southeastern Psychological Association Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 1991.
10.
NielsenJ., A User Interface Case Study of the Macintosh, in Cognitive Engineering in the Design of Human-Computer Interaction and Expert Systems, SalvendyG. (ed.), Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 241–248, 1987.
11.
RieberL. P., Animation in Computer-based Instruction, Educational Technology Research and Development, 38, pp. 77–86, 1990.
12.
BaekY. K. and LayneB. H., Color, Graphics, and Animation in a Computer-assisted Learning Tutorial Lesson, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15, pp. 131–135, 1988.
13.
HativaN. and ReingoldA., Effects of Audiovisual Stimuli on Learning through Microcomputer-based Class Presentation, Instructional Science, 16, pp. 287–306, 1987.
14.
MayerR. E. and AndersonR. B., The Instructive Animation: Helping Students Build Connections between Words and Pictures in Multimedia Learning, Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, pp. 444–452, 1992.
15.
RieberL. P., Using Computer Animated Graphics in Science Instruction with Children, Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, pp. 135–140, 1990.
16.
ThompsonS. V. and RidingR. J., The Effect of Animated Diagrams on the Understanding of a Mathematical Demonstration in 11- to 14-year-old Pupils, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, pp. 93–98, 1990.
17.
AvonsS. E.BeveridgeM. C.HickmanA. T., and HitchG. J., Teaching Journey Graphs with Microcomputer Animation, Human Learning, 2, pp. 93–105, 1983.
18.
KinzerC. K.SherwoodR. D., and LoofbourrowM. C., Simulation Software vs. Expository Text: A Comparison of Retention Across Two Instructional Tools, Reading Research and Instruction, 28, pp. 41–49, 1989.
19.
PalmiterS.ElkertonJ., and BaggettP., Animated Demonstrations vs. Written Instructions for Learning Procedural Tasks: A Preliminary Investigation, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, pp. 687–701, 1991.
20.
PalmiterS., The Effectiveness of Animated Demonstrations for Computer-based Tasks: A Summary, Model and Future Research, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 4, pp. 71–89, 1993.
21.
PalmiterS. and ElkertonJ., Animated Demonstrations for Learning Procedural Computer-based Tasks, Human-Computer Interaction, 8, pp. 193–216, 1993.
22.
RieberL. P.BoyceM. J., and AssadC., The Effects of Computer Animation on Adult Learning and Retrieval Tasks, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17, pp. 46–52, 1990.
23.
PaivioA., Mental Imagery in Associative Learning and Memory, Psychological Review, 76, pp. 241–263, 1969.
24.
CarrollJ. M.Smith-KerkerP. L.FordJ. R., and Mazur-RimetzS. A., The Minimal Manual, Human-Computer Interaction, 3, pp. 123–153, 1987–88.
25.
PoisonP. G. and LewisC. H., Theory-based Design for Easily Learned Interfaces, technical report no. 88-16, Institute of Cognitive Science, Boulder, Colorado, 1989.
26.
MuncherL., The Acquisition of Spreadsheet Skills, unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1988.
27.
PoisonP. G.MuncherE., and EngelbeckG. E., A Test of a Common Elements Theory of Transfer, in Proceedings CHI'86 Human Factors in Computer Systems, ManteiM. and OrbetonP. (eds.), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, pp. 78–83, 1986.
28.
EngelbeckG. E., Exceptions to Generalizations: Implications for Formal Models of Human-Computer Interaction, unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1986.
29.
KotovskyK. and FallsideD., Representation and Transfer in Problem Solving, in Complex Information Processing: The Impact of Herbert A. Simon, KlahrD. and KotovskyK. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 69–108, 1989.
30.
BriggsP., What We Know and What We Need to Know: The User Model versus the User's Model in Human-Computer Interaction, Behaviour & Information Technology, 7, pp. 431–442, 1988.
31.
HowesA. and PayneS. J., Display-based Competence: Towards User Models for Menu-driven Interfaces, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33, pp. 637–655, 1990.
32.
LarkinJ. H., Display-based Problem Solving, in Complex Information Processing: The Impact of Herbert A. Simon, KlahrD. and KotovskyK. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 319–341, 1989.
33.
PayneS. J., Display-based Action at the User Interface, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35, pp. 275–289, 1991.
