Learnable Interfaces – Leveraging Navigation by Design Kari Gunvaldson Swanson A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University Of Washington 2012 Reading Committee: John Bransford, Chair Stephen Kerr Virginia Berninger Program Authorized to Offer Degree: College of Education ©Copyright 2012 Kari Gunvaldson Swanson In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctoral degree at the University of Washington, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of the dissertation is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Signature Date 1 June 2012 University of Washington ABSTRACT Learnable Interfaces - Leveraging Navigation by Design Kari Gunvaldson Swanson Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor John D. Bransford Shauna C. Larson University Professor and Prof. of Education, College of Education Complex productivity applications that integrate tasks in the workplace are becoming more common. Usability typically focuses on short-term, immediate measures of task performance. This study incorporates a long-term goal of more durable learning, focusing on implicit learning (spontaneous, unplanned, usually unconscious learning as a result of other activities). It looks at how the design of complex applications can facilitate such incidental learning of both the application and the task domain when a conceptual model of the task domain is intentionally embedded. This can lead to more productive communication lower development and training costs, and improved task performance. The study targets the navigation interface as a gateway to exposing structural knowledge about the task domain as well as the organization of the application. Schema theory and cognitive load are discussed. The study used an application developed to design and manage lessons in large training programs. The application reflected an explicit conceptual model of Instructional Systems Design (ISD). The experiment was conducted over the internet and exposed a range of users to application tasks using one of three. navigation interfaces. These menus reflected the underlying model to different degrees; content pages were the same. The pre-test assessed participants' understanding of the embedded model as a baseline. A series of typical application tasks ensured exposure to concepts. Performance and subjective data were collected to assist interpretation of results. The test, a multiple choice version of concept map assessment, was then repeated to show changes in model alignment. Despite very brief contact time, the study confirmed that application interaction led to learning and greater alignment with the embedded model on all three measures: relationships, sequence, and vocabulary. Interaction was influenced by the cognitive load of high perceived difficulty and unfamiliarity and by the dominance of time spent on content pages over navigation time. Trends indicate a preference for constant menu visibility, familiarity, and simplicity (low informational density). Performance and learning for treatments reflecting the embedded model faired better than the standard Windows menu which shows only the application organization, not the embedded model. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express deep appreciation for the patience and endurance of her family and committee members, without whom this dissertation could never have been completed. Erik Swanson contributed all his free time for two years to help program the online application. Beyond that he offered untold hours of patient discussion, mathematical expertise, and a keen review eye. Son Per-Olaf drew the wonderful 3D map menu images (using favorite Seattle and game structures!), offered a wise perspective on landmark use, and made himself available for difficult and time-consuming testing. From Afghanistan son Nils offered a trip to Disney World as a reward for completion and kept checking on progress. My sons, brother Erik, and sister Adele tried hard to find participants for me. Friends encouraged me, expected me to finish when I doubted – so how could I disappoint them all? An article by Dr. Kerr planted a seed many years ago that led to this topic of navigation. Dr. Bransford’s extensive and clear writing provided much of the guidance and focus I needed. Dr. Efthiamiadis introduced me to an unexpectedly exciting way of thinking about information and was there to respark my enthusiasm when I was ready to give up. A special thank you goes to Drs. Berninger and Zumbrunnen who both stepped up to ensure completion after the untimely loss of two committee members. Special recognition is due to former advisors Dr. Donald Mizakawa and Dr. William Winn for their years of encouragement and guidance and especially their ready willingness to share their curiosity and broad knowledge without limit. They were truly amazing. __________________ Mervyn Archdall, a Dublin pastor of the 1700s, said of his own work: "I have left that inaccurate which could not be exact, and that imperfect which cannot be completed." i TABLE OF CONTENTS 0LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... 141V 1LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................... 142VII 2INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1431 3Motivation............................................................................................................. 1441 4Questions & Scope............................................................................................... 1458 5Research Hypotheses ........................................................................................ 14611 6Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................... 14712 7Glossary Support .......................................................................................... 14814 8LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................. 14915 9Schema Theory .................................................................................................. 15016 10Incidental/Implicit Learning................................................................................. 15124 11Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) ............................................................................. 15227 12Navigation .......................................................................................................... 15332 13Eliciting and Evaluating Conceptual Models....................................................... 15437 14METHOD ...................................................................................................................... 15541 15Participants ........................................................................................................ 15641 16Design................................................................................................................ 15743 17Instructional Experience................................................................................ 15845 18Analytical Experience.................................................................................... 15946 19Structural Alignment Criteria ......................................................................... 16046 20Vocabulary Alignment Criteria ...................................................................... 16147 21Performance Data......................................................................................... 16247 22Time Data........................................................................................................... 16348 23Task Difficulty..................................................................................................... 16448 24Navigation Data.................................................................................................. 16549 25Task Set Data .................................................................................................... 16649 26Subjective Usability ............................................................................................ 16749 27Software Description .......................................................................................... 16849 ii 28Navigation Interfaces.......................................................................................... 16952 29Embedded ISD Model ........................................................................................ 17060 30Materials............................................................................................................. 17162 31Background Questionnaire ........................................................................... 17263 32Knowledge Pre-Test and Post-Test .............................................................. 17364 33Online Task Instructions & Aids .................................................................... 17469 34Task Navigation Log Files............................................................................. 17571 35Usability Survey ............................................................................................ 17672 36Comment Files.............................................................................................