You are here:

A cognitive load approach to metaphorical interface design: Reconsidering theoretical frameworks
PROCEEDINGS

, , The University of Memphis, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-64-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper presents theoretical foundations to investigate in what ways a metaphorical interface in Web-based instruction affects learning in terms of cognitive load. The previous study by the authors revealed there were no significant differences among three interface types. To ground a follow-up study, new theoretical frameworks of metaphorical interface and cognitive load are presented followed by implications for the future study. This paper explores systematic uses of a metaphorical interface and relationships between the functions of metaphorical interfaces and cognitive load types. In addition, the implications for the future study are proposed.

Citation

Cheon, J. & Grant, M. (2008). A cognitive load approach to metaphorical interface design: Reconsidering theoretical frameworks. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2008--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1054-1059). Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 12, 2024 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction Curriculum Development Group. (2004). Curricula for humancomputer interaction. Retrieved November, 24, 2006 from http://sigchi.org/cdg/index.html
  2. Allbritton, D.W. (1995). When metaphors function as schemas: Some cognitive effects of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and symbolic activity, 10(1), 33-46.
  3. Barr, P., Biddle, R. & Noble, J. (2002). A taxonomy of user interface metaphors, in Proceedings of SIGCHI-NZ Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction (CHINZ 2002), Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved October, 15, 2007 from http://www.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/~chikken/research/papers/chinz2002/barr_chinz2002.pdf
  4. Berkley, J., & Cates, W.M. (1996). Building coping skills on a firm foundation: Using a metaphorical interface to deliver stress management instruction. Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1996 national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 15, 71-79.
  5. 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, 101110.
  6. Cates, W.M. (2002). Systematic selection and implementation of graphical user interface metaphors. Computers& Education, 38, 385-397.
  7. Cates, W.M., & Berkley, J. (2000). What price metaphor? Calculating metaphorical interfaces’ return-on-investment. Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 2000 national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 22, 59-70.
  8. Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  9. Goldfarb, I., & Kondratova, I. (2004, August). Visual interface design tool for educational courseware. Paper presented at the International Association of Science and Technology (IASTED) International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education (CATE). Hawaii, USA. Retrieved November 10, 2006 from http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/iit-publicationsiti/docs/NRC-47155.pdf
  10. Haag, B.B., & Snetsigner, W. (1993). Aesthetics and screen design: An integration of principles. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of
  11. Hannafin, M.J., & Hooper, S. (1989). An integrated framework for CBI screen design and layout. Computers in Human Behavior, 5(3), 155-165.
  12. Hron, A. (1998). Metaphors as didactic means for multimedia learning environments. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(1), 21-28.
  13. Hsu, Y.C. (2005). The long-term effects of integral versus composite metaphors on experts’ and novices’ search behaviors. Interacting with Computers, 17(4), 367-394.
  14. Hsu, Y.C., & Boling, E. (2007). An approach for designing composite metaphors for user interfaces. Behavior& Information Technology, 26(3), 209-220.
  15. Hsu, Y.C., & Schwen, T.M. (2003). The effects of structural cues from multiple metaphors on computer users’ information search performance. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 58(1), 39-55.
  16. Hudson, W. (2000). Why metaphor is a double-edged sword. Interactions, 7(3), 11-15.
  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. Lackoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  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 http://www.atea.edu.au/Conf2003Papers.htm
  20. Lohr, L.L. (2003). Creating graphics for learning and performance: Lessons in Visual Literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
  21. Marcus, A. (2002). Metaphors and user interface in 21st century, Interactions, 9(2), 7-10
  22. 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.
  23. Myers, B.A. (1993). Why are Human-Computer Interfaces Difficult to Design and Implement?, Technical Report, Report No. CMU-CS-93-183, Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
  24. Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.
  25. Ohl, T.M., & Cates, W.M. (1997). Applying metaphorical interface design principles to the WorldWide Web. Educational Technology, 37(6), 25-38.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. Pearrow, M. (2007). Web usability handbook: The second edition. Boston, MA: Charles River Media.
  31. Plass, J.L. (1998). Design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign language multimedia software approach. Language Learning& Technology, 2(1), 40-53.
  32. 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.
  33. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.
  34. Sweller, J., & Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
  35. 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.
  36. Tuovinen, J.E., & Paas, F. (2004). Exploring multidimensional approaches to the efficiency of instructional conditions. Instructional Science, 31, 133-152.
  37. 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.
  38. Vogt, C. (2001). The design elements in developing effective learning and instructional web-sites. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(4), 40-47.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References