Digital Library > Journals > JILR > Volume 20, Issue 1 >

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

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. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/25210.

OpenURL Link

Journal Information

Journal of Interactive Learning Research
ISSN 1093-023X
Volume 20, Issue 1, January 2009
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) Chesapeake, VA

More Information on JILR

Table of Contents

Authors

Jongpil Cheon, Texas Tech University, USA; Michael M. Grant, The University of Memphis, USA

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.

Keywords

Tags

cognition elearning human_computer_interaction instructional_materials interaction navigation webbased_instruction

Comments & Discussion

Comment on the paper above. You must be registered to participate. Registration is free.

Better Visual Design needed before testing
Posted by Nancy Wood Jun 27, 2009 1:02 PM
Internal validity of the research is questionable because the interfaces pictured in the article lack coherent unity and contain several visual gaffes that obstruct the instructional message. The jumble of visuals and lack of a clear visual hierarchy do not adhere to effective visual design practices based on Gestalt theory and other psychological theories of pre-attentive perception and perceptual organization of images. While these details may not negatively impact learning, they confound research attempts at measuring the effects of the visualizations and nullify attempts to generalize conclusions. In this sense, the authors’ conclusion that “pretty” graphics do not influence learning is apposite because their graphics are more decorative than instructional.
A solution may be to have the visualizations themselves validated by graphic design specialists, during the formative phase of the development.

BTW- Popular metaphors used in education to explain the brain include a computer, a filing cabinet, an orchestra, a tree, or even the internet.
See
Daugman, J.G. (1993). Brain metaphor and brain theory. In Computational neuroscience. Cambridge, MA.: MIT press. Retrieved May 6, 2009 from www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jgd1000/metaphors.pdf.
and
Gunkel, (n.d.) Metaphors for the brain. In Neuroscience for kids. Retrieved May 6, 2009 from http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/metaphor.html
Critique of the interfaces from a graphic design perspective
Posted by Nancy Wood Jun 27, 2009 1:21 PM
In reply to Nancy Wood
The “metaphorical” interface is actually an abstract profile of a human head collaged onto an incongruent photo-realistic texture representing the human brain. A true visual metaphor of the brain would compare it to a similar system that learners already understand, to help them assimilate the new knowledge into their existing knowledge.

Also on the “metaphorical” interface, the profile face’s nose points out of the frame on the left side, acting as an arrow to direct the viewers’ attention away from the content. Shapes that point, like the profiled nose, should direct the viewer into the frame and to pertinent areas, not out of the frame. Human faces are especially compelling and will cause the viewer to look in the direction of their gaze. See texts on the Gestalt principle of Continuation to direct the viewer’s eye around the composition.

The “graphical” design interface contains groups of clip art images that are all about equal size and emphasis, placed adjacent to text fields and arrows that point in different directions. A better organization would be to place the sensors all in a human figure, to allow the viewer to chunk them.
The jumble of visuals and lack of a clear visual hierarchy, make the visual message confusing. An arrow labeled “Behavior” points from a clip art image of the brain labeled “Rehearsal/Chunking” back toward the clip art images of eye, ear, nose, hand and mouth that are labeled “Sensory Input”. Does the short term memory affect the behavior of the sensory registers?

The quiz version of this interface, shown on page 17, needs an underlying grid structure to create unity and decrease cognitive load.

The text portion of the graphical interface (p.19) breaks conventions of modular relationships and alignment ( Lynch & Horton, 2001; Meggs, 1992) The callout box in the center should be aligned left like the rest of the text.