ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Digital Library logoTake a look at the new version of this page: [ beta version ]. Tell us what you think.
Learning performance and attitudes as a function of the reading grade level of a computer-presented tutorial
Full text PdfPdf (441 KB)
Source Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
Proceedings of the 1982 conference on Human factors in computing systems table of contents
Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States
Pages: 239 - 244  
Year of Publication: 1982
Authors
Sponsors
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
NBS : National Bureau of Standards
ACM Wash. DC Chap. : ACM Washington DC Chapter
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 5,   Downloads (12 Months): 14,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/800049.801787
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine the most appropriate level of language sophistication, or “readability” of the text of a computer-presented tutorial. The tutorial teaches first-time users how to operate a display terminal. The effects of readability on performance and attitudes of adults with different levels of reading ability were examined.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Al-Awar, J. Chapanis, A., & Ford, W.R. Tutorials for the first-time user. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 1981, PC-24, 30-37.
 
2
Feldman, M.E. The effects of learning by programed and text format at three levels of difficulty. Dissertation Abstracts, 1964, 25(2A), 1933.
 
3
Hansell, J.S. Readability, syntactic transformations, and generative semantics. Journal of Reading, 1976, 19, 557-562.
 
4
Kincaid, J.P. and Delionbach, L.J. Validation of the Automated Readability Index: A followup. Human Factors, 1973, 15, 17-20.
 
5
Kincaid, J.P., Fishburne, R.P., Rogers, R.L., and Chissom, B.S. Derïvation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75. Millington, Tennessee: Naval Air Station, Memphis, 1975.
 
6
Klare, G.R. The measurement of readability. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1963.
 
7
Klare, G.R. Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 1974-1975, 10, 62-102.
 
8
Klare, G.R. A second look at the validity of readability formulas. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1976, 8, 129-152.
 
9
Smith, W.L. The controlled instrument procedure for studying the effect of syntactic sophistication on reading: A second study. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1972-1073, 5, 242-251.
 
10
Zoltan, E. and Chapanis, A. What do professional persons think about computers? Behaviour and Information Technology, in press.


Collaborative Colleagues:
Joan M. Roemer: colleagues
Alphonse Chapanis: colleagues