You are here:

Are Pretty Interfaces Worth the Time? The Effects of User Interface Types on Web-Based Instruction Article

, Texas Tech University, United States ; , The University of Memphis, United States

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 20, Number 1, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of three different interface types on Web-based instruction: a text-based interface, a graphical interface and a metaphorical interface. In order to determine differences among three interface groups, we compared learning performance, cognitive load, usability, and appeal with various data from 41 undergraduate students in the mid-South. Results indicated there was no difference among the groups in terms of learning performance, cognitive load, and usability; however, a metaphorical interface increased learners' attention. Based on the results, implications for instructional designers are presented.

Citation

Cheon, J. & Grant, M.M. (2009). Are Pretty Interfaces Worth the Time? The Effects of User Interface Types on Web-Based Instruction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(1), 5-33. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 24, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction Curriculum Development Group. (2004). Curricula for human-computer interaction. Retrieved November, 24, 2006 from http://sigchi.org/cdg/index.html
  2. Anderson, R. A. (2006). Exploring the art and technology of web design. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.
  3. Beriswill, J. E. (1998). Analysis-based message design: Rethinking screen design guidelines. Proceedings of the 20th National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 29-37.
  4. Cates, W. M. (1996). Towards a taxonomy of metaphorical graphical user interfaces: Demands and implementations. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 18th National Communications and Technology, 101-110.
  5. Chalmers, P. A. (2003). The role of cognitive theory in human-computer interface. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(5), 593-607.
  6. Chang, D., Dooley, L., & Tuovinen, J. E. (2001, July). Gestalt theory in visual screen design – A new look at an old subject. Paper presented at the 7th World Conference on Computers in Education, Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV8Chang.pdf
  7. Chang, D., & Tuovinen, J. E. (2004). The meeting of Gestalt and cognitive load theories in instructional screen design. Proceedings of ICEIS 2004 at the 6th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, 5, 53-58.
  8. Ciavarelli, A. (2003). Assessing the quality of online instruction: Integrating instructional quality and web usability assessments. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED480084)
  9. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  10. Clark, R. C, Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2005). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  11. Goldfarb, I., & Kondratova, I. (2004, August). Visual for educational
  12. Grabinger, R. (1989). The effect of CRT screen design on learning and time. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 2(4), 51-66.
  13. Haag, B. B., & Snetsigner, W. (1993). Aesthetics and screen design: An integration of principles. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association, 92-97. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_ Storage_01/ 0000000b/80/26/9e/f4.pdf
  14. Hallahan, K. (2001). Improving public relations web sites through usability research. Public Relation Review, 27, 223-239.
  15. Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989). An integrated framework for CBI screen design and layout. Computers in Human Behavior, 5(3), 155-165.
  16. Hron, A. (1998). Metaphors as didactic means for multimedia learning environments. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(1), 21-28.
  17. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. ETR&D, 53(3), 83-93.
  18. Khentout, C., Harous, S., Douidi, L., & Djoudi, M. (2006). Learning and navigation assistance in a hypermedia. International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(3), 265-276.
  19. Lang, J. (2003, July). Role of metaphor in multimedia curriculum design for preservice teacher professional learning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved July 13, 2006 from
  20. Lee, S. H. (1999). Usability testing for developing effective interactive multimedia software: Concepts, dimensions, and procedures. Educational Technology & Society, 2(2), 1-13.
  21. Lee, S., & Boling, E. (1999). Screen design guidelines for motivation in interactive multimedia instruction: A survey and framework for designers. Educational Technology, 39, 19-26. Lohr, L. L. (2003). Creating graphics for learning and performance: Lessons in Visual Literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
  22. Lyons, C. J. (2001). Essential design for web professionals. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice-Hall. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
  23. Metros, S. E., & Hedberg, J. G. (2002). More than just a pretty (inter) face: The role of the graphical user interface in engaging elearners. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 191-205.
  24. Moreno, R. (2001). Cognitive and motivational consequences of adapting an agent metaphor in multimedia learning: Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Proceedings of WebNet 2001 at the world conference on the WWW and Internet. Retrieved November, 20, 2006 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/27/97/17.pdf Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. ETR&D, 53(3), 35-45.
  25. Najjar, L. J. (1998). Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. Human Factors, 40(2), 311-323.
  26. Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.
  27. Norman, D. (1998). The design of everyday things. New York, NY. Doubleday.
  28. Ohl, T. M., & Cates, W. M. (1997). Applying metaphorical interface design principles to the World Wide Web. Educational Technology, 37(6), 25-38.
  29. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. ETR&D, 53(3), 25-34.
  30. Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737-743. Parizotto-Ribeiro, R., & Hammond, N. (2005, July). Does aesthetics affect the users’ perceptions of VLEs? Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Amsterdam, Denmark. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from http://www.informatics.sussex .ac.uk/users/gr20/aied05/finalVersion/RParizotto.pdf
  31. Parizotto-Ribeiro, R., Hammond, N., Mansano, J., & Cziulik, C. (2004). Aesthetics and perceived usability of VLEs: preliminary results. Proceedings of HCI 2004, 217-221.
  32. Parush, A., Shwarts, Y, Shtub, A., & Chandra, M.J. (2005). The impact of visual layout factors on performance in Web pages: A cross-language study. Human Factors, 47(1), 141-157.
  33. Pearrow, M. (2007). Web usability handbook: The second edition. Boston, MA: Charles River Media.
  34. Plass, J. L. (1998). Design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign language multimedia software approach. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 40-53.
  35. Rieber, L.P. (1994). Computers, graphics, & Learning. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Salden, R. J. C. M., Paas, F., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Broers, N. J. (2004). Mental effort and performance as determinants for the dynamic selection of learning tasks in air traffic control training. Instructional Science, 32, 153-172.
  36. Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2005). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  37. Sing, C. C., & Der-thanq, V. (2004). A review on usability evaluation methods for instructional multimedia: An analytical framework. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3). 229-238.
  38. Stoney, J., & Wild, M. (1998). Motivation and interface design: Maximizing learning opportunities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 40-50.
  39. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.
  40. Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. Retrieved November 19, 2006 from http://www.sloan-C.org/publications/books/interactions.pdf Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.
  41. Sweller, J., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
  42. Szabo, M., & Kanuka, H. (1998). Effects of violating screen design principles of balance, unity and focus on recall learning, study time and completion rates. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 23-42.
  43. Tollett, J., Williams, R., & Rohr, D. (2002). Robin Williams web design workshop. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.
  44. Tuovinen, J. E., & Paas, F. (2004). Exploring multidimensional approaches to the efficiency of instructional conditions. Instructional Science, 31, 133-152.
  45. Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. ETR&D, 53(3), 5-13.
  46. Van Veenendaal, E. (1998, November). Questionnaire based usability testing. Proceedings of European Software Quality Week, Brussels. Vogt, C.
  47. Williams, R., & Tollett, J. (2006). The non-designer's web book: An easy guide to creating, designing, and posting your own web site (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.
  48. Zhu, E. (1999). Hypermedia interface design: The effects of number of links and granularity of nodes. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(3), 331-358.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.