Computer Interfaces:
Inquiry and Implications
By
Warren Buckleitner and Noel Estabrook
CEP 916 Dr. McCloed Dr. Byers
Michigan State University
Draft 2
May 1994
INTRODUCTION
When Johann Gutenberg (1397?-1468) and his colleagues
launched modern day mass printing in Germany, they facilitated the availability
of printed materials for the masses, along with a new kind of problem. The common people could not read the
materials (Leuherman 1981). Today, printing technology has evolved so that the
dominance of print as a medium of communication and instruction has elevated
the issue of literacy into one of the major concerns of modern day education.
Mass produced textbooks, for example, have become an integral part of today's
mass education.
Some say the impact of microcomputer technology on
civilization is second only to Gutenberg's development of moveable type. While this may be the case, the impact
of computers on education has been slow and is still not fully realized.
Unprecedented advances in microelectronics have reduced the size and cost,
while increasing the power of, computing technology, and have made
microcomputers affordable in classroom and home environments. Like the printing press, the new
technology seems to be ready for
the masses before the masses are ready for the technology.
Confusing menus, command lines and directions that may
mean nothing to the novice computer user seem to be common. It often seems as if those programming
software imagine a group of people much like themselves making use of their
technology. In the past ten years,
the number of computer interfaces has multiplied. For instance, in 1981, just
18% of schools reported as having computers. By 1991, 98% had computers. Yesterday's ringing cash register today
employs touch-pad input such as those seen in every McDonald's restaurant. Industrial presses are computer
controlled, and in the cockpits of modern jets, digital terminals have replaced
analog dials. As more and more humans learn and work via computers, interface
issues become more critical. Software designers who understand the mental
models of those who will use their products are more likely to be
successful.
In education, this problem can be even worse. It has been reported that 30% of all
teachers are estimated to have had less than 8 hours of training in the use of
computers and software (Dickinson, 1992).
Furthermore, the time needed for proper training in the use of technology
is quite often simply not there.
It seems clear then, that there is a need for software
and technology that is "transparent". That is, programs which are easily understood by those not
familiar with "bytes", "RAM" and "SCSI
drives". Software designs
must allow for individual differences and experimentation. We feel that the
easier and more accessible technology is, the more it will be utilized by those
in education, including teachers, administrators, counselors and students.
It is the aim of this paper to explore this issue from
two perspectives: the end user and the existing body of software. In Part 1, we will examine the computer
technology from the user's perspective.
To do this, we have exposed two computer novices, an adult and a child
to the same software program, a Macintosh text-graphics package called Easy
Color Paint (MECC 1992) and carefully recorded their
reactions to different components of the computer interface[1]. While
both subjects had limited computer experience before, this was the first time
with this particular package. From this, we were able to make some
generalizations about strengths and weaknesses of this computer interfaces and
the kinds of design features that facilitate smooth use of computer
technology.
In Part 2, we attempt to learn more about whether the
needs of the user are met by the kinds of currently available software to gauge the "state of the
industry." These two
perspectives: what is desired and what
currently exists make up the theme of
this paper and hopefully will provide some insight to improve the area of computer interfaces of the future.
How People Interact With Computers: A Look at the
Literature
We first attempt to examine some of the processes
involved in learning the use of a novel software package. We argue that the
growing importance of microcomputers as knowledge systems as well as creative
tools necessitates research on cognitive processes related to the learning of
new software. While much of the instruction in the use of software is provided
in formal settings such as schools and colleges, such traditional sources of
training may not be adequate to meet the challenges of rapid innovations and
changes in software (Shrager & Klahr, 1983).
As a result of this, it seems that the instruction
provided in formal settings needs to be built upon as technology is upgraded
and changed. Consequently, users
of computer technology find that they have frequent occasions where they engage
in self-instruction, often with the help of manuals, on-line help, user groups,
friends and vendor's toll-free numbers.
We will first examine how two individuals with low to
moderate computer experience engage a new piece of software and construct
meaning out of their interaction with it in an environment supported by on-line
help, manuals, and an expert. We believe this type of research is an important
contribution to the study of user compatibility.
The majority of the literature related to computers
and cognition is related to instruction in subject areas or concepts related to
subject areas (Papert, 1980; Rubin, 1983; Suppes, 1966; Burton & Brown,
1982). There is also a sizable body of literature which critically examines the
epistemological assumptions of various forms of computer mediated instruction
(Sardello, 1983; Winograd & Flores, 1986).
In developing this project we were primarily
interested in literature associated with the problems in learning to use new
computer software. In concentrating on this, we sought to draw a distinction
between the meta-cognitive aspects of how people learn, and the actual learning
of the software's content. We were encouraged to find that some research has
been conducted along the lines of our interest--that is, how people learn to
use certain computer applications. However, this research was very limited. The
following is an outline of some of this work.
Wright (1983) notes that people working with a wide
variety of technologies have been generally found to assume that "there
are quicker ways of finding out [information] than by reading the
documentation." She finds that people prefer to "play with the
instrument itself", or to ask "someone who knows" if the task
proves to be entirely unfamiliar (p. 12). She also reports that studies of the
use of manuals by novices indicate that the majority prefer to leaf through a
document as opposed to using contents lists or index. In addition she finds
that "many of the people who turn to a manual will be looking for answers
to questions about what to do, rather than seeking an understanding of why they
should do it" (p. 13).
Wright argues that readers of manuals actively
organize "past experience" and bring this experience to bear by
generating "expectancies"(p. 13). She cautions that readers sometimes
draw "inferences from the text which are not intended" (p. 13) by the
authors of the manuals and urges more research to explore the problems which
arise "when the reader, having carried out what was believed to be
procedure, finds that something unexpected happens" (p. 15).
Moll (1987) considers the contribution of
psychologically oriented research to software design. He indicates a growing
trend of doing research which focuses on the construction of "mental
models". Moll's paper cites
over twenty-five researchers who have published work on various aspects of
mental models. The term "mental models" in computer related work has
sometimes been explained as "operative images" (Moll, p. 404). Mental
models have also been viewed as "psychological structures which regulate the working
activity" through "predictions and expectations" (p. 404-5).
They are viewed as "incomplete, inconsistent, unstable in time,
oversimplified, and often rife with superstition" (p. 405). In essence,
the mental model can be thought of as some already developed "schema" which a learner brings
to a learning situation.
"In general, they need not be technically
accurate (and usually are not) but they must be functional" (p. 405).
Computer related skills may be represented as "problem space" models (Douglas & Moran,
1983). From this point of view, the "acting person", or learner,
"must have a certain knowledge from which he may derive predictions
regarding his analysis, valuation, and problem solving. A computer user needs
knowledge of the possible states of the system, an understanding of the goals which
the system can help him attain, and the respective necessary operations"
(p. 405). As they work towards
their goals, users
derive hypothesis based on their mental models with
respect to the solution of their
problems..or unsuccessfully attempt operations... without having
analyzed the conditions of their current situation (p. 405).
Waern (1987) argues that an important attribute of
computer systems is their capacity
to facilitate "learners' exploratory creation of [their] own models"
(p. 273). She suggests five mental models which may come into play in using a
computer system. These are (1) models used for planning; (2) models used for
observation and interpretation;
(3) models use for problem solving; (4) models used for communication
and (5) models for creativity. The following is a brief outline of these
models.
Mental Models Used for Planning
If participants are asked to think aloud, their plans
as well as actions can be noted. Waern suggests that we note the type of
planning performed. Statements which indicate planning may include "The
easiest way must be to...So let me start..." (Waern, p. 287). These
statements refer to "procedures to perform the task."
Mental Models Used for Observation and
Interpretation
Waern argues that "there are two important
ingredients in learning: observing the situation and the outcomes from actions,
and interpreting the effects of actions" (p. 281). Mental models will determine what is
seen and not seen. A novice user may overlook certain messages if he/she can
not fit them into a mental model. And "when something unexpected happens
the model will determine how the user interprets the results" (p. 282). In
such circumstances, the user may give up or work towards a new model which "can embrace" the unexpected
event. So "without a mental model, important events may not be noticed,
and if noticed, their importance may not be appreciated" (p. 282). Waern gives the following example of an of a research
subject whose task is to reorganize text:
"Interesting that they move. Here, they are very
close, the columns, and then you find that they move to the right." (p.
288)
This is an example of a learner making an observation
without attempting interpretation. Waern's study finds that, generally,
learners do not have models for observation. In many cases her subjects were
content to note, "Hmmm... is that why they move? ...Well, I'll figure that
out later" (p. 288). In many
instances "subjects are so eager to continue their work that they do not
stop for reflecting" (p. 288). As a result, interpretations are not always
performed. This observation is confirmed by Mantel, Haskell (1983).
Mental Models Used for Problem Solving
Models for problem solving are associated with a task
performance. The subject is engaged in searching for a method to perform a
task. There is therefore a goal (the accomplished task) and an initial
situation (the current situation as perceived by the user). According to
Shrager and Klahr (1983), the learner actively constructs and tests hypotheses
about how the program works. A learner may learn by designing "play"
activities (Shrager and Klahr, p. 227). This means setting up a "complex
action goal" and then trying to attain the goal "by use of existing
knowledge."
Waern's subjects had difficulties developing an
adequate model. Development of a model was often hindered by forgetfulness of
previous observations, for example
"What did I do last time, when everything jumped
so easily? I took away a word, and everything moved one step to the left. I'll
move the cursor in any case. What did I do? I moved the row so easily."
(p. 289).
Mental Models Used for Communication
Models may also be used in communicating concepts.
After undergoing the learning experience, Waern (1987) asked her subjects to
describe their experience of using
the software in terms of advice to a novice. One subject referred to an experience with a word processor
by saying, "it is important to remember that it really works like a
typewriter" (p. 290). Another
subject said,
"It's different from a typewriter because you
can't just type over on a typewriter; you have to rub out first. And you can
move lines sideways, and you can make empty lines and move lines downwards, and
all kinds of splendid things you can't do on a typewriter." (p. 290).
Mental Models Used for Creativity
Waern views creativity as emerging out of
generalizations and conflicts. Creativity through generalization occurs when
"ideas which are relevant in a particular context are applied to another
context" (Waern, p. 285). Conceptual conflict arises if a model does not
result in an anticipated outcome. Such conflict triggers conceptual activity which may result in
breakthroughs in the development of efficient ways of handling tasks.
Waern gives useful examples of conceptual conflict. A
novice subject working on a piece of software is reported as saying, "It's
quite awkward this--I get furious. Now it jumps out again--it doesn't do as it
should!" (p. 290). Waern found that, under pressure of time, learners
generally failed to develop creative models.
We found this literature useful in conceptualizing our
study of learners in computer contexts involving specific software. The broad
range of approaches cited helped us in developing an understanding of learning
new software in an environment supported by manuals, an expert and on-line
help. On the basis of these readings we were able to generate some questions to
guide our research.
Our study sought to examine the manner in which three
learners approached an unfamiliar piece of software. Given the widespread use
of computer technology, from pre-school to college levels, we were interested
in exploring how learners drawn from the cross-section of the educational
spectrum (and therefore across ages) would engage the task of learning a new
piece of software. We decided to vary the educational level of the three
participants and in so doing obtain an age variation as well. The participants
worked with a common piece of software on similar equipment.
In considering the outcomes of the study, we were
interested in the learning strategies used by each of our participants. We also
wanted to compare the learning strategies adopted by the three learners in the
hope of finding areas which might prove to be worthy of further examination in
the development of computer interfacing. Our search of the literature had
failed to discover research on comparative differences between computer users
of different ages and different educational levels. Other researchers have
focused on specific educational levels, e.g.. Papert (1980), who looked at
elementary school children.
Drawing on the literature outlined above, we defined a
learning strategy as made up of two components: 1) the use of mental models in
learning new software and 2) the use of resources such as manuals, on-line HELP
and experts. We then went on to formulate two research questions for our study.
These are:
-What uses of mental models can be inferred from the
observation of three non-expert learners engaged in learning a novel text/graphics
software;
-What resources are used by the informants to support
their learning?
A Case Study: Behaviors of Two First-Time Software
Users
We begin by looking at the ways in which two
participants of varying age use the same software package. The first is a pre-school learner as
referred to as Alex (Case A), and
the second is a college learner
referred to as Sandra (Case B).
The only criterea for their selection was that they (1) were willing to
take the time to participate in our study, and (2) they had no prior experience
with our software. Our rationale
for selecting two learners of different ages was to explore (compare and
contrast) interface issues from two distinct developmental perspectives.
In the course of this study, we administered a pre-
and post-observation questionnaire (Appendix A). This was done for several reasons, which are listed below.
Regarding the learners before the observations, we
wanted to know:
1. If the
expertise of the participants suitable for our research (neither novice nor
expert).
2. How
the participants viewed computers and technology (hostile, friendly,
comfortable, etc.).
3. How
the participants view both themselves as learners and learning.
4. How the participants think they will learn the
particular software presented to them.
It should be noted that these questions (as is also
true of the post-observation questionnaire) were not formally asked of the
pre-school learner for reasons of comprehension. However, the
pre-schooler's attitudes and proficiencies were still discernible.
The post-observation questionnaire was designed to
concentrate more specifically on the software package used. As a result, our focus was narrowed to
look at areas 2-4 above and any possible changes, with more attention paid to
#4. As a result, we were primarily
interested in knowing:
1. As with the pre-observation questionnaire, how the participants viewed computers and
technology (hostile, friendly, comfortable, etc.) after their experience.
2. How
the participants view both themselves as learners and learning after having
learned using this software.
3. How
the participants' actual learning compares with how they thought they would
learn. Also, how do they now view
effective learning in this type of context?
Case A
"Alex"
is a 4.9 year old Caucasian male student attending a preschool program in
Ypsilanti, Michigan. He was recruited after
discussions with the pre-school teachers about children who were likely to
include computer use in their activities and who would be cooperative. We initially identified one child based
on these general criteria.
However,
after our preliminary observation, we realized that an extended study of Alex
in conditions where he was isolated from his peers was not feasible. After the first observation, Alex was
not willing to cooperate in the milieu which we had chosen. We therefore changed our approach and
decided to observe Alex as part of a larger group of pre-school children
working on the same software. This
re conceptualization proved to be fruitful and proved to be an important
learning experience for us.
Alex
is comfortable using computers in general; more specifically, he demonstrated
familiarity with the mouse operation and other basic computer functions such as
saving and printing work and accessing other software programs. Besides his
experience using computers almost daily at the pre-school, Alex also has a
computer at home which is used primarily by his parents. While he has had experience with other
software packages, including another pre-school-level paint package (KidPix by
Broderbund Software) , this was his first experience with the software used in
this project, Easy Color Paint
program.
We attempted to administer a formal pre- and
post-observation questionnaire. However, we immediately found it necessary to
modify our use of these tools to take into account the age and comprehension
level of our subject. Through more informal discussions with Alex over the
course of the interviews, we were able to assess that he perceived himself as
being competent in the use of computers.
Case B
"Sandra" is a 19-year-old female Hispanic
undergraduate student from the East Lansing area. She was recruited from an office where one of the
researchers works and seemed interested in participating when asked.
Sandra told us that she used a computer every day at
work for word processing tasks.
She informed us that she had only used one art-based program in the past
(Print Shop), but on an extremely limited basis. She did know how to use a mouse, but also stated that she
had practically no experience with either the type of computer or software that
we were going to observe her using.
In her self-report, she told us that she felt she was a 4 (on a scale of
1 to 10) in regards to her proficiency in using computers.
Sandra's view of computers and technology seemed quite
positive. She informed us that she
usually liked to use computers.
She did indicate that when she didn't understand a particular task, she
didn't especially like using them.
When asked if she would use a computer more if she could, she said,
"yes, definitely". She
also felt that a computer could be used to help learning, "if you know how
[to use one".
As a learner, Sandra seemed to see herself in a rather
positive light. She informed us
that she definitely liked to learn new things. When asked how she knew she had learned something, she
replied, "[when] you are able to do it, [when] you remember how you do
it". She indicated to us that
she felt she learned best by practicing a task and doing it herself. She stated that resorting to resources
such as manuals would be a last resort.
When asked how she would learn aspects of this
particular piece of software, she indicated that she would learn it by
"going through it". She
thought she would learn it best by just doing tasks repeatedly and would use
extra sources of help only if all else failed.
Her self-assessment seems confirmed by her
answers to other questions on the pre-observation questionnaire. It was revealed that she uses computers
on a regular basis at her part-time job with the university. She indicated they were used primarily
for word processing and spreadsheet applications. She also indicated she had very little experience with
graphics-based software.
The Research Setting
The main part of this research involved the
observation of the participants learning the software over several
sessions. The software we chose
was Easy Color Paint (ECP) 2.0 by MECC (1991) which was installed on a
Macintosh LC in each case. This is
a full feature drawing program designed for use by children or adults. It includes a range of basic art tools,
e.g., brush shapes, shading, lines, geometric shapes, and cutting and
pasting. The program employs
standard Macintosh pull-down menus.
Text can easily be added to a picture in a variety of fonts (type
styles), sizes and colors. The
program includes 24 pictures to color and on-line help. Products can also be saved or
printed.
By the third observation, we wanted the participants
to have learned how to use some or all (depending upon age) of the following
functions:
-Drawing line(s) of differing thicknesses.
-Clearing a screen of all drawing/ writing.
-Fill in background/foreground colors.
-Use the on-line help function.
-Save screens of work to a storage device.
-Change colors and create different patterns.
-Undo mistakes.
-Erase
-"Drag" an object to another part of the
screen.
-Magnifying a portion of the screen in order to fill
in fine details.
-Type text of differing sizes on the screen.
-Draw different types of "frames" around
objects.
-Create different geometric shapes.
-Fill in spaces using "gradients" (colors
that go from dark to light and vice versa).
In addition, the participants were given several
different sources of aid in case they encountered problems (again, these varied
depending upon the ages of the learners).
There was an on-line help function, by which the learner could find
answers to problems within the program itself, a user's manual (not used with the
pre-school learner), and an expert in the use of the software (represented by
the each of the respective researchers).
The Rationale
We used a case study approach for this particular
project. As Glenda Bissex
says, "case studies...enable
us to see individuals as individuals" (p. 10). In addition, there are some comparisons that can be drawn
even among a few cases. Bissex
continues, "when several individuals are compared, common traits as well
as differences become apparent" (p. 10). She also states that this method may perhaps "mean
nothing to a scientist" (p. 10),
but can in fact have implications in the study of the humanities.
According to Moll (1987) the most commonly used
techniques in the study of "conscious cognition" in computer contexts
employ interviews, questionnaires, "thinking aloud" and video-taping.
The disadvantage of "thinking aloud" is with "subjects who are less practiced in formulating
their thoughts" and who may "verbalize a small amount of their
thought processes" (p. 407). Other participants may verbalize that they
have carried out actions which they have not in effect carried out (p. 407). As
a result, Moll argues for the use of more than one method for collecting data.
In our study, we monitored the participant's verbalizations as well as their
actions using audio and video tape.
Our study followed five basic steps:
1. Pre-observation evaluation
2. Observation #1
3. Observation #2
4. Observation #3
5. Post-observation evaluation
Each observation lasted between 45 minutes and 1 hour.
In the first observation, the participants were
allowed to explore the software in any manner they wished. They could ask any questions or consult
any resources they wished. This
session was designed to allow them to explore the software. They were told that they would
eventually need to reproduce some functions of the software and to experiment
with this in mind.
The participants were given
some specific instructions during the second observation (which was done 7 to
10 days after the first observation).
In the initial stages of this
session, the participants were encouraged to re-familiarize themselves
with the software and do any further exploration they wished. They were then given various specific
tasks to do. Following is a sample[2]:
"Draw a straight line
splitting the screen in half.""Draw a diamond."
"Write 'hello' in big
yellow letters." Also during the second observation, the participants were
informed that they would be required to fulfill specific tasks as well as
drawing a "free-form" picture during the last session. By the end of the second observation,
the participants would have used all of the tools necessary to complete the
third observation.
The third observation was designed to see how many of
the tools were understood and used.
The participants were given specific tasks similar to the above in order
to complete a pre-formed picture. They
were then encouraged to draw any picture they wished using at least five of the
previously learned tools (this task was not required of the pre-school
learner).
During these observations, careful note was taken of
the exact steps, tools and procedures the participants took. Also, anecdotal evidence (comments, questions, etc.) was noted.
Results
Due to the different natures of the two learners
studied, the results will be reported in two different sections.
Again, due to the dissimilar ages of the learners, data was gathered
differently in each case. One can
imagine the difficulty in asking a 4-year-old to tell "how proficient [they]
are at using computers"!
As a result, the data gathered on Alex (et al) does
not include some of the quantitative data reported from the observations of the
two older learners. This is due in
part to issues such as time on task and attention span. In this section, we
feel it is best to treat each group as a distinct case.
Case A
Since
part of the design of Easy Color Paint employed text, such as printed pull-down
menus and on-line help, these had limited meaning to Alex, since he had yet to
develop the level of reading ability used in this program.
He
would attempt to sound out and pronounce the command words before selecting
them, but often would not comprehend their meaning. This was illustrated by his
repeated use of the word "soiled" for "solid" from the
"Fatbits" menu. He would
point at the lines and say "these lines are soiled now after selecting the
"Solid" option.
Despite
this, Alex did demonstrate that he knew that text had function, for example,
"print" and "save."
He was also able to sound out some words, and was able to write his
name. In general, Alex did not
grasp the meaning of all the text used in Easy Color Paint. He was, however, able to discover the
appropriate functions of many of the individual menu items.
Our
initial attempts at asking Alex to tell us about his learning or thinking
processes were unsuccessful. For
example, when we asked him "how do you know when you've learned
something?", he responded by describing an art activity he had worked on
the previous day. If we asked him to give his rationale for selecting a
particular tool or color, his response was "because". We found that it was more
practical to measure his level of knowledge by having him teach us, or better
yet, teach another child. It was
only by talking about activities that were of immediate interest to Alex that
we could talk with any degree of detail.
Talking about an
abstract concept such as learning is difficult for a pre-schooler. The
pre-schoolers we observed would either indirectly answer our learning-related
question, or refer to something more meaningful; generally a current event or
concrete object. The following are
several examples:
Researcher:
How did you learn how to use computers?
Alex:
I have a computer at home
R.
How did you learn to use that one?
A.
I just did
R.
Do you think it helps you get smarter?
A.
Yes
R.
How?
A.
It just does.
R.
Do you know how to read
A. Nods his head yes
R.
Did the computer help you learn to read?
A. Nods "yes."
R. How?
A. Well I
can make letters.
Another child was asked about learning:
R. What are you learning when you do this?
C.
I like it when it does this (demonstrating and hopping with excitement).
R.
How do you know if you've learned something?
C. Because I know it.
A different child:
R. Show me what you can do with this program.
C. Do you know how you can make big dots? I can make
big dots -- you just have to keep pressing on this (mouse button). Watch...
see? (demonstrating). (The children seem proud to show off their new
abilities/discovery).
R. When you use this computer with the mouse, what are
you learning about?
C. I just learn things to do.
R. Do you think you learn something when you use the
computer?
C. I have
a cold. I'm almost better.
One consistent technique that we discovered among all
the pre-school learners we observed was the use of exploration. Alex in
particular demonstrated a strong tendency to find the extreme limits of the software.
Once he would find a feature, (e.g., filling a screen
completely with the color repeatedly), Alex would typically test it's extreme
boundary. One of his favorite discoveries occurred in our last observation
after he had typed his name on the screen. He then discovered the point size
feature by accident when the letter became very small. He quickly returned to
the same menu, this time picking the largest number on the very end of the
list. This made the letters of his name very large (nearly an inch tall). He
was very pleased with the result.
Over an 8 minute period in the second observation, we counted
over 50 different actions (mouse clicks, selection from tool bars, etc.). He had discovered every sub-menu by
going right down the menu bar. At
one point he went in and out of
three layers of menus into some advanced features. Over this period his picture changed 19 times.
It seemed that the pre-schoolers rarely asked an
"expert" adult for help.
Even when they did ask, it was after every other option had been
exhausted. The students would
often turn off the computer and start from scratch instead of asking for
assistance. This was in spite of the fact that we told the children that we were available.
Even when a child was confused or stuck and help was
offered, the request was ignored. Only one child during the three hours of
observation, Brandy, deliberately asked us for help; once when she was trying
to change colors and again a short time later when trying to draw. She was the only child to
actually say, "I need help."
We also noticed extensive use of creativity in these
children's learning of ECP. This
was expressed in a variety of pretending behaviors inspired by the accessible
features of ECP. In our first observation, Alex discovered the fill option and
painted the screen completely black.
He then found the eraser.
When we asked him to explain what he was doing, he said "I'm
painting the screen blank."
His creations were fun to watch develop.
- "Hey...that's no fair -- it's not a
hexagon" (when adding a shape).
- "I'm looking for different shapes. That's a square. That's a nonagon."
- "Now it's a green island -- I'm going to paint
a square -- it's a blanket. Now I
have a black sea."
-
"That'd be a pretty picture.
Look at my ...square; hey, now it's a ball. Now it's a blanket-- Now it's a ball again [as he rounds the
edges with the paint tool] for Santa.
I want to print."
In order to see how the pre-schoolers learned, we
found an effective technique was to observe some of the learners teach
others. This gave us insight into
how the children learned themselves.
During one session, Alex helped Brandy with ECP for a
period of about 3 minutes. This provided an interesting chance for us to see
Alex in the role of a teacher helping a novice acquire a new ability. It was in this context that we gained
the most insight of Alex's view of learning. He was not verbal in this role. He put his hand over hers
and guided the mouse, along with short explanations "go to this side, and
click on this.... do you see?"
He would end up completing the task himself, showing the girl some of the
possibilities.
Brandy, a three-year-old girl who was working with ECP
for the first time was asked directly to tell us about how she learned to use
the mouse, she replied "by watching him and him" pointing to Alex and
another boy standing nearby.
In order to get some feeling for his ability to
demonstrate his skills in a direct way,
our group had originally planned on using a structured built-in tutorial
task. However, in light of our newly found knowledge about pre-school learners,
we realized that this would have little meaning to Alex.
Instead,
we asked him to draw a picture of
a man. After more than 15 minutes
of experimentation with other features, we still didn't have our
"man." Finally, we
called him over and asked him one more time: "can you draw a man with the
red crayon?" (The "red crayon" referred to here is actually the
"pencil" tool used with "red" picked from the color
palette). In less than 30 seconds, using the "red crayon", he quickly
sketched a stick figure with eyes,
mouth, and a cartoon-style speech balloon containing the word "ga"
(like a baby would say).
He then typed his name on his own, the numerals 1-10,
and adjusted the size of the font.
We then asked him to add a green Christmas tree. He did so with no problem. Alex left no
doubt that he had mastered at least the basic functions of ECP and could
demonstrate this knowledge in a non-spontaneous manner.
Case
B
Observations
In
learning this software, Sandra had several options when considering what
actions to take. In using the
program, she could access the on-screen menu, which requires no manipulation
outside of simply clicking on the "tool", or the pull-down menu,
which contains more complex functions and procedures. In the first session, her use of on-screen tools dominated.
As
requested tasks became more sophisticated, and as Sandra discovered the need
for further exploration of the program, the use of the pull-down menus (even
for use of the simpler tools) became more prevalent. In addition to these avenues of exploration, there
were three other sources of help that the participant could go to if she was
unsure of how to proceed. There
was a user's manual, an on-line help menu and an expert readily available at all
three sessions. A summary of her use of these various strategies appears below
(Table 1).
The
above data show that only 11% of the observed interactions with the software
were involved with consulting formal help resources in the first session. In the second observation, during which
she was given specific tasks for the first time, this increased to 20%. During the third observation, in which
she was given a mixture of more specific instructions and self-directed
activity, she resorted to the formal resources of help 25% of the time. This
also shows that the respective percentages with regards to
"experimental" methods (i.e. picking tools and using them without
accessing any external help) are 89% for the first observation, 80% for the
second, and 75% for the third.
REPORT OF ACTIVITIES BY TIME
|
|
EXPLORATION |
MANUAL |
EXPERT |
ON-LINE HELP |
|
Session
1 |
89% |
1% |
9% |
1% |
|
Session
2 |
80% |
1% |
16% |
3% |
|
Session
3 |
75% |
3% |
19% |
3% |
TABLE
1
First
Session
In
the first observation, Sandra was asked to learn to do "as many things as
possible". Her first actions
were to test as many of the on-screen tools as possible. She appeared to readily grasp the
function of the "pencil" and "magnifying" (which magnifies
a portion of the screen) tools, as well as the "hand" (which moves
the whole screen) and several tools which allow for the drawing of different
geometric shapes. One exception
seemed to be in regards to the "magnifying" tool. In a subsequent section, she appeared
to have either forgotten how to use the tool, or else showed that she had not
really understood the tool's use in the first place.
The
most interesting event occurred when she attempted to "clear" the
screen early in the session. She
signaled her intention of doing this by saying, "I am going to erase the
screen now". She first
attempted to do this by choosing the "eraser" tool from the on-screen
menu and began erasing the screen.
When the expert asked her if she thought there was a faster way of
erasing the screen, she agreed that there should be.
She
eventually went to the on-line help for assistance but could not locate the
correct menu to assist her. After
this, she returned to the "eraser" and tried the previous method
again. Upon coming to the
conclusion that this wouldn't work, she consulted the owner's manual and looked
up "Erase" in the index.
She
did find a method of clearing the screen which required several steps but
accomplished what she wanted to do.
In the process, she picked a pull-down menu which has a "Clear
Screen" option clearly displayed but appeared not to pay attention to
it. She muttered "I want to
erase the whole thing" several times during this process.
Later
on in the session, she once again wanted to clear the entire screen. Instead of choosing to use her previous
strategy, she went directly to the pull-down menu and chose the "Clear
Screen" option. She appeared
surprised but made no comments indicating that she realized what had happened
(such as, "oh, that's how you do it").
She
also began learning how to fill in colors using the "bucket"
tool. Although she succeeded in
getting the tool to work correctly on several occasions, it is still clear that
she did not really understand how it works, as toward the end of the session
she stated, "I'm still trying to figure out how this works". She also attempted to use the
"text" tool (which appears as an "A" in the on-screen
menu). After several tries, she
did successfully use the tool.
Second
Session
During
the second session, she said she was going to "goof around" for a
while. She first went to the on-screen
menu and tried to use familiar tools ("hand", "pencil",
"geometric shapes").
After this initial experimentation, she once again attempted to clear
the screen and failed to do so.
She eventually went to a pull-down menu and chose the "undo"
command (which simply cancels the last operation performed). In doing so, she had to view (and
actually high-light in the process) the "Clear Screen" option. When asked why she chose
"undo" instead of "Clear Screen", she said she didn't
"want to lose the whole screen". After several more tries, she did try the "Clear
Screen" option.
It
was at this time that we began giving her more specific tasks. She was asked to make several very thin
lines. She used the
"pencil" tool to draw them, but the settings were set so that a
rather thick line was drawn. She
randomly picked pull-down menus in order to make the line thinner, and
eventually asked the expert how to do it.
She
was also asked to move an object on the screen. She immediately went to the "hand" option to move
it. When asked if she thought
there might be another way to do it, she indicated she was "not
sure". When asked to explore the possibility, she tried all options
(including on-line help and the manual), but finally gave up on the
attempt. During this time, she
indicated that "on-line doesn't really help".
She
showed that she had not retained knowledge of the "text" and
"bucket" tools, either.
She was able to use them after some experimentation, however. It was
during the latter part of the session where she began correctly using the
"Clear Screen" command.
Not only did she begin going to it when she wanted to clear the screen,
but she started expressing that she wanted to "clear the screen"
instead of "erasing" it.
The
last task she was asked to do was
a "gradient fill".
This was a very difficult task requiring several steps using both
on-screen and pull-down menus. She
discovered one of the proper steps, but had the expert take her through the
entire process.
Third
Session
This
session consisted of two parts.
Sandra was first asked to do specific tasks to construct a particular
picture. She was then allowed to
create a picture of her own during the second part.
She
used many of the previous tools mentioned without hesitation
("pencil", "bucket", "magnifying",
"text"). However, she
still seemed uncertain as to exactly how the "bucket" tool
worked. When asked why she had to
use the "bucket" three different times in order to fill in the entire area, she responded,
"maybe that's just how the pictures are".
She
also had to move an object using the "lasso" tool instead of the
"hand" tool. After
trying to use this tool for a few moments, she went right to the manual and was
successful in using the "lasso". When asked to do another "gradient fill", she was
still unsure and had to be led through the process by the expert. Sandra once again showed mastery of the
"Clear Screen" concept, as she used it often and without hesitation. She also referred to
"clearing" as the opposed to "erasing" the screen.
When
asked to create her own picture, she used the simple on-screen tools that she
had first learned ("line", "pencil",
"eraser"). She did use
the "lasso" tool again, this time without hesitation or
problems. The one problem she did
have was with the "bucket" tool. She was wary of using it for fear of filling in the whole
screen with the chosen color. Her
fears were justified as she did succeed in filling in the entire screen. After failing to discover what the
problem was, she chose to "undo" the previous "bucket"
command and announced, "there, I guess I'm done".
Post-Observation
Questionnaire
As
noted earlier, we wanted to find out several things from the post-evaluation
interview. The first was to see if
there was any change in how Sandra viewed technology. When asked if she thought this experience had changed how
she felt about computers, she answered with an emphatic "no!" She also indicated that she couldn't
see any use for her using this or similar software in the future.
Next,
we wanted to see how she viewed herself as a learner after this
experience. She indicated that she
felt she did learn something from this software. This consisted of mostly concrete operations as shown by her
statement that she had become familiarized with "tools, functions and
patterns". When asked
how she knew she had learned something, she re-stated her previous definition
that she was able to recall it and she "didn't have to look things up as much".
When
she was asked if she viewed learning any differently after her experience, she
initially stated that she hadn't.
However, before the next question was asked, she said, "well, yes,
I do". She then went on to
explain that she had never realized the importance of practice and repetition
involved in learning a task before.
She noted the importance of doing a task "over and over".
The
last thing we wanted to know was how Sandra felt the learning process had actually compared with her
pre-observation expectations. She
stated that she had gone about learning the software "pretty much" as
she had thought she would, but felt she had consulted the expert more than she
would have expected. She also
stated that she felt she would probably go about learning similar software in a
similar manner in the future. When
questioned on how she might teach someone else this same software, she said she
would "have them get on the software...and have them do it
themselves".
Conclusions from Part 1
In
evaluating our results, there were several questions that we wanted to
answer. First, taking the mental
model approach suggested by writers such as Moll, Waern and Wright, we wished
to learn what mental models, or pre-existing mental constructs, our learners
had in approaching an unfamiliar piece of software. Secondly, we wanted to know what resources the learners
would use in exploring and expanding these models. Finally, we wished to see if any similarities or differences
could be seen between the learners in the three chosen age groups.