ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
advertisementadvertisement
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Volume 49, Issue 5, November 1998, Pages 651-674
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Purchase PDF (426 K)

 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1006/ijhc.1998.0207    How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)
Copyright © 1998 Academic Press. All rights reserved.

Regular Article

Making the most of ecological interface design: the role of self-explanation

DIANNE E. HOWIEa and KIM J. VICENTEb, f1

Centre for Applied Cognitive Science, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, 5 King's College Road, Toronto, Ont., Canada, M5S 3G8f2 Cognitive Engineering Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, 5 King's College Road, Toronto, Ont., Canada, M5S 3G8, f3

Received 12 June 1997; 
accepted 22 June 1998. ;
Available online 8 April 2002.

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Abstract

Ecological interface design (EID) is a candidate framework for designing interfaces for complex sociotechnical systems. Interfaces based on EID have been shown to lead to better performance than traditional interfaces, but not all participants benefit equally. Thus, it is important to identify ways of raising the performance of all participants using an EID interface. The purpose of this article is to determine whether encouraging participants to engage in self-explanations (i.e. reasoning aloud) can help them “make the most” of EID. An experiment was conducted using DURESS II, an interactive, thermal-hydraulic process control microworld with an interface designed according to the principles of EID. During this one-month study, participants controlled DURESS II under normal and fault conditions on a quasi-daily basis. Two experimental groups occasionally watched a replay of their own performance immediately after completing a trial, while the control group did not. In addition, the self-explanation (SE) group was instructed to explain aloud the reasons for their control actions while watching the replay. The replay group simple watched their trials again with no verbal explanation. The SE participants were divided into “good” and “poor” groups according to several performance criteria. An analysis of the protocols produced during self-explanation revealed that “good” SE participants showed more signs of self-explanation in their protocols than did the “poor” SE participants. There were no substantial differences between the SE, replay and control groups for normal trials. However, the SE participants did have the best overall performance on fault trials, suggesting that self-explanation can help operators make the most of EID.

f1 Author to whom correspondence should be sent.

f2 dhowie@oise.utoronto.ca

f3 benifica@mie.utoronto.ca


 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.