[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Structural and conceptual user interfaces and their impact on learning

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of structural and conceptual user interfaces on learning among High School students. Structural interfaces are interfaces which present the learner with the structure of knowledge, while conceptual interfaces present its concepts and main ideas. We hypothesized that interlaced interfaces, which include structural and conceptual elements, would be more effective for learning than any one of the interfaces by themselves.

One hundred twenty one subjects participated in the experiment. Each was given one of six interface formations of a computerized learning environment: a linear browsing interface (control group); a dynamic table of contents (structural interface); a menu-type interface (conceptual); a link-type interface (conceptual); and the interlacing of a structural interface with each of the conceptual interfaces. Each subject responded to two kinds of questions: information-location (superficial processing), and comprehension (deep processing). In this study we found that: a. the interlaced interface table of contents + the menu-type interface was more effective than the menu type interface by itself. However, no difference was found between the formations using the link-type interface. b. no interaction was found between the interface formation and the depth of processing. The conclusion resulting from this study is that the interlacing of interfaces by itself does not contribute to learning; however the interlacing of specific, compatible interfaces can not only make navigation easier (superficial processing), but also enhance deep understanding of content (deep processing).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Blustein, J., & Staveley, M. S. (2001). Methods of generating and evaluating hypertext. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology, 35, 299–335. ARIST.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chiou, S. K. (2002). Use of hierarchical hyper concept map in web-based courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(4), 335–353. doi:10.2190/MTUR-9BJQ-FE33-QM0A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., & Rada, R. (1996). Interacting with hypertext: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Human-Computer Interaction, 11(2), 125–156. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1102_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. M., Lee, H. M., & Chen, Y. H. (2004). Personalized e-learning system using item response theory. Computers & Education, 44(3), 237–255. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.01.006.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, C., & Lin, H. (1998). The effect of navigation map types and cognitive styles on learners' performance in a computer-networked hypertext learning system. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7, 151–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T., & Van der Hulst, A. (2002). The effects of graphical overviews on knowledge acquisition in hypertext. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 219–231. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00229.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control and style. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 322–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, Vol. 11, page 137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leader, L. F., & Klein, J. D. (1996). The effects of search tool type and cognitive style on performance during hypermedia database searches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 5–15. doi:10.1007/BF02300537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. J. (1999). Structural versus conceptual maps as learning tools in hypertext. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(1), 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). E-Research: Ethics, security, design and control in psychological research on the internet. The Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 161–176. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israeli Open University. (1996). Social psychology. Tel-Aviv: Open U press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, B. A., & Felder, R. M. (2002). Index of learning styles, Available from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html, accessed 20April, 2009.

  • Unz, D. C., & Hesse, F. W. (1999). The use of hypertext for learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(3), 279–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zumbach, J. (2006). Cognitive overhead in hypertext learning reexamined: overcoming the myths. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(4), 411–432.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Head Grad Program in ICT & Ed, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, 52900, Ramat-Gan, Israel

    David Passig

  2. Researcher in the MM Lab at the School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

    Liav Nadler

Authors
  1. David Passig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liav Nadler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Passig.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Passig, D., Nadler, L. Structural and conceptual user interfaces and their impact on learning. Educ Inf Technol 15, 51–66 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-009-9096-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-009-9096-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation