Quiet interfaces that help students think

ABSTRACT

As technical as we have become, modern computing has not permeated many important areas of our lives, including mathematics education which still involves pencil and paper. In the present study, twenty high school geometry students varying in ability from low to high participated in a comparative assessment of math problem solving using existing pencil and paper work practice (PP), and three different interfaces: an Anoto-based digital stylus and paper interface (DP), pen tablet interface (PT), and graphical tablet interface (GT). Cognitive Load Theory correctly predicted that as interfaces departed more from familiar work practice (GT > PT > DP), students would experience greater cognitive load such that performance would deteriorate in speed, attentional focus, meta-cognitive control, correctness of problem solutions, and memory. In addition, low-performing students experienced elevated cognitive load, with the more challenging interfaces (GT, PT) disrupting their performance disproportionately more than higher performers. The present results indicate that Cognitive Load Theory provides a coherent and powerful basis for predicting the rank ordering of users' performance by type of interface. In the future, new interfaces for areas like education and mobile computing could benefit from designs that minimize users' load so performance is more adequately supported.

REFERENCES

• 1: G. D. Abowd, Classroom 2000: an experiment with the instrumentation of a living educational environment, IBM Systems Journal, v.38 n.4, p.508-530, Dec. 1999
• 2: Richard J. Anderson , Crystal Hoyer , Steven A. Wolfman , Ruth Anderson, A study of digital ink in lecture presentation, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.567-574, April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria [doi>10.1145/985692.985764]
• 3: Anoto technology, http://www.anoto.com/
• 4: Lisa Anthony , Jie Yang , Kenneth R. Koedinger, Evaluation of multimodal input for entering mathematical equations on the computer, CHI '05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, April 02-07, 2005, Portland, OR, USA [doi>10.1145/1056808.1056872]
• 5: Bach, D. Math gaps grows for minority students: Difference in WASL scores shows significant jump at seventh grade, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Nov. 14, 2005.
• 6: Baddeley, A. Working Memory, Oxford University Press, NY, 1986.
• 7: Philip R. Cohen , David R. McGee, Tangible multimodal interfaces for safety-critical applications, Communications of the ACM, v.47 n.1, January 2004 [doi>10.1145/962081.962103]
• 8: Haas, C. Does the medium make a difference? Two studies of writing with pen and paper and with computers, Human Computer Interaction, 1989, vol. 4, pp. 149--169.
• 9: James A. Landay , Brad A. Myers, Sketching Interfaces: Toward More Human Interface Design, Computer, v.34 n.3, p.56-64, March 2001
• 10: Joseph J. LaViola, Jr. , Robert C. Zeleznik, MathPad²: a system for the creation and exploration of mathematical sketches, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.23 n.3, August 2004
• 11: Leapfrog, (http://www.leapfrog.com), 2006.
• 12: Chunyuan Liao , François Guimbretière , Ken Hinckley, PapierCraft: a command system for interactive paper, Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, October 23-26, 2005, Seattle, WA, USA [doi>10.1145/1095034.1095074]
• 13: Marriott, M. Blacks turn to internet highway, and digital divide starts to close, New York Times, March 31, 2006.
• 14: Mousavi, S., Low, R. and Sweller, J. Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1995, vol. 87, no. 2, 319--334.
• 15: Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H. and van Gerven, P. Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory, Educational Psychologist, 2003, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 63--71.
• 16: Elin Rønby Pedersen , Kim McCall , Thomas P. Moran , Frank G. Halasz, Tivoli: an electronic whiteboard for informal workgroup meetings, Proceedings of the INTERCHI '93 conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.391-398, May 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
• 17: Réjean Plamondon , Sargur N. Srihari, On-Line and Off-Line Handwriting Recognition: A Comprehensive Survey, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, v.22 n.1, p.63-84, January 2000 [doi>10.1109/34.824821]
• 18: Smithies, S., Novins, K. and Arvo, J. Equation entry and editing via handwriting and gesture recognition, Behavior and Information Technology, 2001, vol. 20, pp. 53--67.
• 19: van Merrienboer, J. and Sweller, J. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions, Educational Psychology Review, 2005, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 147--177.
• 20: Winne, P. H. and Perry, N. E. Measuring self-regulated learning. In Handbook of Self-Regulation (ed. by M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner), Academic Press, Orlando FL., 2000, pp. 531--566.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: User-centered design

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Evaluation/methodology; Prototyping; Interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms, direct manipulation); Input devices and strategies (e.g., mouse, touchscreen)

Keywords:
e-learning and education, handheld and mobile, input and interaction technologies, pen-based interfaces, performance metrics, universal (or disability access)