Language
Learning & Technology 
Vol. 2, No. 1, July 1998, pp. 35-45
DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF THE USER INTERFACE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE MULTIMEDIA
SOFTWARE: A COGNITIVE APPROACH
PDF
version
Jan
L. Plass
University of New Mexico
ABSTRACT
This paper is concerned with
criteria for the design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign language
multimedia software. A hybrid model is proposed that combines a cognitive
and software engineering approaches. Based on this proposed contextualized
model of interface design, domain-specific evaluation criteria are developed
to describe how well the user interface is able to support the cognitive processes
involved in the development of linguistic and pragmatic skills and competencies
in SLA. The application of these criteria is demonstrated using the multimedia
software CyberBuch/Ciberteca.
INTRODUCTION
The growing number of instructional
multimedia software applications for SLA and the large variety of features
and components of these programs generate a need for methods to evaluate systematically
these materials. This paper is concerned with the design and evaluation of
one of the most prominent components of a software product-- the user interface.
Defined in very general terms as the part of an application in charge of communication
with the learner, the user interface conveys the functionality of a computer
application to the user, and translates the user's input into a machine-specific
format (see Figure 1). Despite this key function of
facilitating human-computer interaction, issues in the design of the user interface
are often neglected in the development of instructional software. The approaches
and criteria used by developers as a basis for interface design are often based
more on intuition and experience than on theory-based models. While in many
cases this may result in user interfaces of a high usability, it makes the
development of systematic evaluation criteria for such systems difficult.
Attempts to define generally applicable
design and evaluation criteria for multimedia software have resulted in a number
of different approaches (Park & Hannafin, 1993; Ravden & Johnson, 1989).
However, despite their comprehensive list of criteria these approaches are
not specific enough to be usable for a particular subject matter area such
as SLA. It is argued in this paper that evaluation criteria need to be developed
based on domain specific learning processes and activities and on the cognitive
processes that these activities involve. Using this approach, a taxonomy of
SLA software features would be based on the underlying pedagogy or principles
of adult education (andragogy) and activities and instructional methods of
language learning and would address how well the individual components of the
software are able to facilitate them.
In order to develop evaluation
criteria for the user interface of foreign language multimedia software, I
will first briefly review existing approaches to interface design and identify
the specifics of multimedia applications for SLA. I will then propose a model
for user interface design based on a cognitive approach and will apply this
model to the CyberBuch/Ciberteca software (Chun & Plass,
1995, 1997b, 1998). From this proposed interface design model, I will derive
evaluation criteria for the user interface of FL multimedia software with specific
emphasis on reading instruction.
APPROACHES AND MODELS OF INTERFACE DESIGN
Using a definition of the user
interface as the communication channel between the user and the functional
elements of the computer (Furnes & Barfield, 1995; Marchionini, 1991; Waterworth,
1992), human-computer interaction can be seen as a system with three components:
a computer/application, an interface, and a human user subsystems (see Figure
1).
The function of the interface
subsystem is to assign user input to internal representations of the application
and internal representations of the application to output that is comprehensible
to the user. The type of input and output modes employed by the interface subsystem
determines the type of the interface. For example a text-based system uses
only the written verbal communication mode, whereas a direct manipulation system
allows the user to manipulate objects and use visual, verbal, and auditory
representations of the system state.
-35-
Figure 1. Definition of user interface
The design process of a user interface
involves the development of a conceptual model of the application and its functionality
by the designer, which is then implemented as the user interface, often using
one or many metaphors. Users have to interpret the interface and build their
own mental model of its functionality (see Figure 2).
The user interface developed by
the designer of the application is influenced by the particular functionality
of the software, which in turn is determined by the system's inherent structure.
In some cases, this structure can influence the design of the user interface.
For example, the text-based command-line interface of the DOS operating system
contains design features that are influenced by the internal structure of the
computer. The user has to learn a certain syntax of commands, parameters, and
options that are closer to the machine code of a microprocessor than to natural
language. This approach could be characterized as Computer/Application-centered
design (Norman, 1990). The decision of how to implement the functionality conceptualized
by the developer was based more on how the computer processes and stores information
than on how the human user processes and stores it. This results in the requirement
for the user to memorize procedural information that is irrelevant to the actual
learning task but which is necessary for communication with the computer.
In contrast to Computer/Application-centered
design, a User-centered design takes human factors into account. Here
the human-computer interaction is designed with a focus on how humans process
and store information. The goal is to allow the user to focus on the task at
hand and reduce the amount of overhead knowledge required to communicate effectively
with the computer. This approach requires extensive testing of the interface
with actual users to study their behavior when using the software. Failure
to conduct usability testing leads to the implementation of features that are
solely based on the designer's preferences and intuition, which often results
in inconsistent features that don't fit into the user's mental model of the
application and its functionality. This approach could be characterized as
Designer-centered. Therefore, the first question in developing evaluation
criteria would be: Is the design user-centered? (Norman, 1990). In order to
answer this question, we need to take a closer look at current design approaches
for the development of the user interface.
-36-
Figure 2. Design model for the user interface
In a more theory-based review
of the current user interface design practice, Wallace and Anderson (1993)
distinguish between four different types of approaches to user interface design:
In the craft approach,
the design is based on the skill and experience of the interface designer or
human factors expert to suit the particular circumstances (Dayton, 1991; Laurel,
1990; Norman, 1987; Rubinstein & Hersh, 1984; Wroblewski, 1991). The goal
of the design is to find the most appropriate features, based mainly on practical
and economical considerations and the subjective judgment of the instructional
designer rather than on a global dominating theory. The advocates of this approach
view interface design as a craft, and put little emphasis on general principles
underlying successful design. They argue that projects are so unique that the
development of a structured methodology for interface design is impossible.
The enhanced software engineering
approach incorporates human factors, such as user characteristics and task
analysis, into traditional structured software engineering models exemplified
by the waterfall model or the Jackson model (Damodaran, Ip, & Beck, 1988;
Shneiderman, 1993; Sutcliffe, 1988, 1989; Waterworth, 1992; Winograd, 1992).
The main focus of this pragmatic approach is on usability and the desire to
serve the user effectively (Shneiderman, 1993).
The technologist approach focuses
on providing software tools for interface design, aimed at automating and quantifying
the design process (Buxton & Lamb, 1983: Cockton, 1988; Wasserman, 1985).
Advocates of this approach stress the importance of rapid prototyping to identify
user requirements, but do not regard the human-computer interaction expert
as an important member of the design team. The design process is based on user
interface management systems and the idea that good interfaces can be extracted
from the user (Wallace & Anderson, 1993).
The cognitive approach applies
psychological knowledge, such as theories of information processing and problem
solving to interface design (Barnard, 1991; Card, Moran, & Newell, 1983;
Gardiner & Christie, 1991; Kieras & Polson, 1985; Landauer, 1991).
This approach is characterized by an attempt to measure the user's performance
time and memory load for a given task, to identify prerequisite and acquired
knowledge for a task, and to describe the user's mental models and mental processes
for performing a task. The cognitive approach is the most theoretical approach
to interface design, but it is often criticized for being too far removed from
the practical needs of the interface designer.
-37-
Recognizing the weakness of an
approach that is entirely context-free, a contextualized approach emerged that
takes the specific content and procedures of a domain into consideration (Carroll,
1991; Dayton, 1991). Since the cognitive approach is the only one that puts
both the user and the learning task in the center of the design process, it
seems to be the most appropriate basis for the development of evaluation criteria
In summary, while there exist
a number of different approaches and models of user interface design, only
a few of them focus primarily on the learning process and the user. The existing
approaches are either pragmatic and not firmly rooted in the theory of learning,
or too complicated to be useful for practitioners of interface design. Moreover,
no approach has been found that is specific to SLA and the instructional strategies
and methods that are relevant to this field. In the next section, I will therefore
summarize the specific considerations of foreign language software, and then
integrate them into a cognitive approach to interface that is both theory-driven
and pragmatic.
A COGNITIVE APPROACH TO INTERFACE
DESIGN FOR FL MULTIMEDIA SOFTWARE
A Cognitive Approach appears
to be the most appropriate basis both for the design and for the evaluation
of user interfaces for SLA software since it incorporates both the user and
the learning task into the design. In this section, I will describe some domain-specific
issues of SLA, discuss the cognitive processes involved in SLA-related activities,
and then propose a model for the design and evaluation of the user interface
for these applications.
Specifics of FL Multimedia Software
Software for SLA can be designed
in a variety of forms and styles and delivered in a variety of different ways,
including CD-ROM-based or WWW-based instruction. What these different materials
have in common is their goal of developing and improving linguistic and pragmatic
skills and competencies (see Table 1).
Table 1.
SLA Competencies / Skills and Learner Activities
| Competencies/Skills |
Examples
of Learner Activities |
| Listening |
Listen to passages (e.g.,
authentic conversations, news reports, literary texts) |
| Speaking |
Record spontaneous speech;
do intonation analysis and practice (Chun, 1998), use speech recognition
tools (Ehsani & Knodt, 1998; Eskenazi, 1998; Price & Rypa, 1998) |
| Reading |
Macro level: view visual advance
organizers, read background information (Chun & Plass, 1996b); Micro
level: look up multimedia annotations for vocabulary (Chun & Plass, 1996a) |
| Writing |
Composition exercises, including
peer-review, editing, and rewriting |
| Communicative |
Real-time chat, e-mail exchange,
discussion lists (Warschauer, 1997), use of speech recognition-based dialog
systems (Luperfoy, 1998) |
| Sociolinguistic |
Task-based, problem-solving,
and role-playing activities that address sociolinguistic differences between
native and target languages, and that could involve real-time chat, e-mail
exchange, discussion lists (Chun, 1994) |
| Strategic |
Task-based, problem-solving,
and role-playing activities that require learners to achieve specific goals
(e.g., persuading, self-correcting, negotiating a desired outcome); these
could involve real-time chat, e-mail exchange, and discussion lists |
To achieve these objectives, a
variety of instructional activities are implemented that are supported by various
tools and features of the program. The user interface of FL multimedia software
has to facilitate the development of the particular linguistic and pragmatic
skills and competencies that the software application addresses. The user interface
design has to support the cognitive processes involved in these skills and
competencies. Table 2 shows a list of cognitive processes generally involved
in learning.
Table 2.
Cognitive Processes Involved in Learning
1. Select instructional activity
that supports cognitive processes of competence or skill to be developed.
Based on a needs assessment, learner
analysis, task and content analyses, and determination of goals and objectives,
the design of instructional materials will include the selection of instructional
methods with a number of activities to be performed by the learners. For second
language instruction, the goal is the development of some or all of the linguistic
and pragmatic competencies listed in Table 1, which
is accomplished by selecting the appropriate instructional activities.
-39-
The type of activity selected
will depend on the instructor's general instructional philosophy and on the
specific circumstances and needs of the learners, but it is mainly determined
by the objectives of the instruction and is, therefore, domain-dependent. For
instance, science classes may include problem solving activities, whereas language
classes might prefer communicative activities. These activities should support
the cognitive processes involved in the specific competency or skill. For example,
in the case of reading comprehension, the cognitive process of activating prior
knowledge could be supported by the instructional activity of using an advance
organizer. The process of building a text base from a text and organizing information
in short-term memory could be supported by providing annotations for vocabulary
items. It should be mentioned at this point that the selection of instructional
methods and activities is also a basis for the selection of the delivery medium
of the instruction (Clark & Sugrue, in press). This does not necessarily
imply that the delivery medium has to be a software application.
2. Select attributes of feature.
After selecting the instructional
activities to be implemented, the attributes of the interface features can
be determined. Attributes in this context are properties of the design feature
that have relevance for the effectiveness of the instruction. They include
the functionality and visual appearance of both the feature and the application
as a whole. These attributes can be derived from cognitive and educational
psychology regarding human memory, attention, interest, motivation, processing
of information, individual differences, and construction of mental models.
In the case of reading comprehension,
the use of an advance organizer to support the process of activating prior
knowledge would require attributes of this feature such as adaptability to
different levels of prior knowledge, and ease of comprehension for learners
with low prior knowledge. The use of annotations for vocabulary items to aid
organizing information in short-term memory would require easy access to different
types of annotations in different presentation modes, avoiding distraction
from the reading process if the annotations are not needed, and avoiding covering
the text when the annotation is displayed. Furthermore, the selection of the
attributes of the design feature has to take the interaction of the different
features of the application into consideration.
3. Select design feature.
Based on the selected instructional
activity and the attributes of the design feature chosen, the interface designer
now selects the actual feature and the form of its implementation. At this
point, only the feature and its attributes have been selected and usually several
different possibilities exist for the actual implementation. Interface designers
and graphic designers can implement the feature based on their approach and
on such constraints as cost. In the case of the above examples, the advance
organizer was implemented as a preview movie with a voice-over that could be
selected before the story was read. Four types of annotations were implemented:
definitions in L1, translations in L2, and pictures and video visualizing the
word. In addition, the pronunciation of the word was given using a sound file.
The actual implementation is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Example of annotations
for vocabulary items in the project Ciberteca
-40-
The proposed approach to interface
design puts the user, the content, and the instructional activity in the center
of the design process. It incorporates theories from cognitive psychology but
it is domain-specific enough to be practical. This model is not inherently
prescriptive, and can be used to derive guidelines for a particular project.
In this sense, it incorporates ideas from both the craft and the cognitive
approaches. Furthermore, this approach is based on instructional systems design
models (Anglin, 1995; Smith & Ragan, 1993) that correspond to the structured
software engineering models from the enhanced software engineering approach.
Finally, it allows for the use of CASE (computer-assisted software engineering)
tools and the rapid prototyping method from the technologist approach. As a
hybrid of the cognitive and pragmatic approaches, this model combines the theoretical
foundation of cognitive psychology with the pragmatic methods of software engineering
models. Finally, it allows for a more user-centered design by incorporating
domain-specific considerations of cognitive processes to be performed by the
learner.
In summary, the proposed model
is contextualized, based on a cognitive approach, and still pragmatic enough
to be practically applicable. In addition, it provides a good basis for the
development of evaluation criteria, which are discussed in the following section.
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE USER
INTERFACE OF FL MULTIMEDIA SOFTWARE
We will now return to the original
question regarding the evaluation of the user interface in FL multimedia software:
"Is the design user-centered?" Based on the model proposed in the
previous section, this question can be specified further by incorporating the
new definition and function of the user interface. We can now ask two questions:
(1) "What are the functions of the interface elements?" and (2) "How
well does the user interface support the cognitive processes involved in SLA?"
This approach to the evaluation
of the user interface is domain-specific and can only be used with a specific
field in mind. For second language acquisition, the cognitive processes can
be derived from the linguistic and pragmatic competencies and skills described
earlier (see Table 1).
The process of developing domain-specific
evaluation criteria for a particular software application would thus involve
the following steps:
For the assessment of the level
of support for these processes one would identify the interface features supporting
them and as well as the quality of the implementation. This includes an assessment
of how well an interface feature supports individual learner differences, such
as different cognitive or learning styles. This approach can accommodate new
activities and instructional strategies and methods since it does not attempt
to compile a comprehensive list of all activities known, but rather assesses
whatever activities were implemented by the designers of the software. A sample
evaluation form is outlined in Table 3.
Table 3
is given as an example only and is not meant to be a comprehensive list of
cognitive processes or activities. Its objective is to demonstrate the approach
described in this section. Each of the criteria is rated for its overall level
of support, as well as for the support of individual learner differences. Similar
criteria can be developed for other competencies and skills. This is, however,
outside the scope of this paper. A comprehensive evaluation of a software application
needs to include a number of additional sections that provide the reviewer's
information, a general program description, instructional goals and objectives,
the target language, the overall instructional approach or philosophy, the
intended target audience, the required level of proficiency in the foreign
language, technical aspects of the software, and other information specific
to that particular software.
-41-
Table 3.
Sample Evaluation Form for Reading Comprehension
The proposed approach results
in evaluation criteria for software that are domain-specific and that explicitly
address the level of support for individual differences in each cognitive process.
In addition, this approach provides an adaptive evaluation method that can
accommodate existing and future instructional methods and activities. An implementation
of such an adaptive evaluation system could be done using an adaptive hypertext
that modifies the list of criteria for each application, based on the activities
implemented in a particular program.
CONCLUSIONS
In the preceding sections I gave
an overview of existing models and approaches to user interface design and
discussed their main focus and strengths. The main problem with these approaches
lies in the fact that they are either very pragmatic and not based on underlying
theories, or that they are theory-driven but too complex to be used in the
design process. In order to derive an approach specifically targeted for SLA
software, I first reviewed the linguistic and pragmatic competencies that are
addressed in FL instruction and then described a new hybrid approach to interface
design for FL multimedia software.
This approach combines the theoretical
basis of a cognitive approach with the pragmatic methods of software engineering
approaches. First and foremost, it is based on the competencies and skills
to be developed and the cognitive processes underlying them. Second, it incorporates
rapid prototyping, or the use of CASE tools. It is argued that a contextualized
cognitive approach to interface design can lead to a more domain-specific support
of cognitive processes involved in the acquisition of FL competencies and skills,
and will result in a more user-centered design of the user interface. In addition,
it will allow for the development of an adaptive domain-specific set of evaluation
criteria based on this level of support. I applied the proposed model to the
design of software for reading comprehension and for developing evaluation
criteria for such software. It goes without saying that empirical research
is needed to test the model's effectiveness.
While the model for the design
and evaluation of the user interface proposed in this paper was demonstrated
in its application to SLA, it has the potential to provide a general framework
for the development of user-centered instructional software and for the development
of domain-specific evaluation criteria in other disciplines.
NOTE
This paper is based on a paper
presented at the Invitational Symposium on Assessing & Advancing Technology
Options in Language Learning (AATOLL) at the National Foreign Language Research
Center of the University of Hawai'i in February 1998 in Honolulu, HI.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jan
L. Plass is an Assistant Professor in the Organizational Learning and Instructional
Technologies Program at the University of New Mexico. His research interests
include learning with multimedia, especially L2 vocabulary acquisition and
reading comprehension, interface design and constructivist learning in networked
environments.
E-mail: jan@unm.edu
-42-
REFERENCES
Anglin, G. J. (Ed.). (1991). Instructional
technology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited,
Inc.
Barnard, P. (1991). Bridging between
basic theories and the artifacts of human-computer interaction. In J. M. Carroll
(Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology of the human-computer interface
(pp. 103-127). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Buxton, W., & Lamb, M. R.
(1983). Towards a comprehensive user interface management system. Computer
Graphics, 17, 35-42.
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., &
Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Carroll, J. M. (1991). The Kittie
House Manifesto. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology
of the human-computer interface (pp. 1-16). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer
networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System,
22(1), 17-31.
Chun, D. M. (1998). Signal
analysis software for teaching discourse intonation. Paper presented at
the Invitational Symposium: Assessing & Advancing Technology Options in
Language Learning (AATOLL). University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language
Research Center, Honolulu, HI.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L.
(1995). Project CyberBuch: A hypermedia approach to computer-assisted language
learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 4(1), 95-116.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L.
(1996a). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The
Modern Language Journal, 80, 183-198.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L.
(1996b). Facilitating reading comprehension with multimedia. System,
24(4), 503-519.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L.
(1997a). Research on text comprehension with multimedia. Language Learning
& Technology, 1(1), 60-81. Retrieved August 8, 1997 from the
World Wide Web: http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vol1num1/chun_plass/default.html.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L.
(1997b). CyberBuch. [Computer Program, Macintosh]. New York: St. Martin's
Press.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L.
(1998). Ciberteca: Una Carta a Dios. [Computer Program, Macintosh, Windows
95/NT]. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Clark, R. E., & Sugrue, B.
(in press). Media selection for training. In S. Tobias & D. Fletcher (Eds.),
APA handbook on training. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cockton, G. (1988). Generative
transition networks: A new communications control abstraction. In D. M. Jones
& R. Winder (Eds.), People and computers IV (pp. 509-525). Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Damodaran, L., Ip, K., & Beck,
M. (1988). Integrating human factor principles into structured design methodology:
A case study in the U.K. civil service. In H. J. Bullinger (Ed.), Information
technology for organisational systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dayton, T. (1991). Cultivated
eclecticism as the normative approach to design. In J. Karat (Ed.), Taking
software design seriously (pp. 21-44). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Ehsani, R., & Knodt, E. (1998).
Speech recognition in computer aided language learning. Paper presented
at the Invitational Symposium: Assessing & Advancing Technology Options
in Language Learning (AATOLL). University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language
Research Center, Honolulu, HI.
Eskenazi, M. (1998). Issues
in the use of speech recognition for foreign language tutors. Paper presented
at the Invitational Symposium: Assessing & Advancing Technology Options
in Language Learning (AATOLL). University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language
Research Center, Honolulu, HI.
-43-
Furnes, T. A., & Barfield,
W. (Eds.). (1995). Virtual environments and advanced interface design.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Gardiner, M. M., & Christie,
B. (Eds.). (1991). Applying cognitive psychology to user-interface design.
Chichster, New York: John Wiley.
Kieras, D. E., & Polson, P.
G. (1985). An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. International
Journal for Man-Machine Studies, 22, 365-394.
Landauer, T. K. (1991). Let's
get real: A position paper on the role of cognitive psychology in the design
of humanly useful and usable systems. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing
interaction: Psychology of the human-computer interface (pp. 60-73). Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Laurel, B. (Ed.). (1990). The
art of human-computer interface design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., &
Cary, R. N. (1987). On empirical functions of pictures in prose. In D. H. Willows,
& H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration, Vol. 1,
pp. 51-85. New York: Springer.
Luperfoy, S. (1998). Tutoring
versus training in spoken dialogue instructional systems. Paper presented
at the Invitational Symposium on Assessing & Advancing Technology Options
in Language Learning (AATOLL). University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language
Research Center, Honolulu, HI.
Marchionini, G. (1991). Psychological
dimensions of user-computer interfaces. Syracuse University. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 337 203)
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia
learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist,
32(1), 1-19.
Norman, D. (1990). The design
of everyday things. New York: Doubleday Currency.
Norman, D. A. (1987). Design principles
for human-computer interfaces. In R. M. Baeker & W. A. S. Buxton (Eds.),
Readings in human-computer interaction: A multidisciplinary approach
(pp. 492-501). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.
Park, I., & Hannafin, M. J.
(1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 63-85.
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer,
R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences
in a second language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90(1), 25-36.
Price, P., & Rypa, M. (1998).
Speech technology for language education. Paper presented at the Invitational
Symposium: Assessing & Advancing Technology Options in Language Learning
(AATOLL). University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Research Center,
Honolulu, HI.
Ravden, S. J., & Johnson,
G. I. (1989). Evaluating usability of human-computer interfaces: A practical
method. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.
Rubinstein, R., & Hersh, H.
(1984). The human factor: Designing computer systems for people. San
Francisco: Digital Press.
Shneiderman, B. (1993). Designing
the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction
(2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T.
J. (1993). Instructional design. New York: Merrill.
Sutcliffe, A. (1988). Some experiences
in integrating specification of human-computer interaction with a structured
system development method. In D. M. Jones, & R. Winder (Eds.), People
and computers IV (pp. 146-160). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sutcliffe, A. (1989). Task analysis,
systems analysis and design: Symbiosis or synthesis. Interacting with Computers,
1, 6-12.
van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W.
(1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Wallace, M. D., & Anderson,
T. J. (1993). Approaches to interface design. Interacting with Computers,
5(3), 259-278.
-44-
Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1997).
Virtual connections: Online activities & projects for networking language
learners (Technical Report #8). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.
Wasserman, A. I. (1985). Extending
state transition diagrams for the specification of human-computer interaction.
IEEE Trans Software Engineering, 11, 699-713.
Waterworth, J. A. (1992). Multimedia
interaction with computers: Human factors issues. Chichester, England:
Ellis Horwood.
Winograd, T. (Ed.). (1992). Bringing
design to software. Reading, MA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.
Wroblewski, D. A. (1991). The
construction of human-computer interfaces considered as a craft. In J. Karat
(Ed.), Taking software design seriously (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, MA: Academic
Press.
-45-