在這文章里, 標(biāo)準(zhǔn)為選擇現(xiàn)代 學(xué)習(xí)技術(shù)被商談并且它被建議四teaching/learning 活動(dòng)也許形成 為選擇的依據(jù)與一定數(shù)量的類型結(jié)合概念性表示法。最重要的方面 為設(shè)計(jì)師是比賽在學(xué)習(xí)任務(wù)和它的能力由這個(gè)學(xué)習(xí)者提出或操作之 間使用一個(gè)減少的信息范圍技術(shù)。
第十五個(gè)世紀(jì)歐洲‘ 知道‘, 那天空由閉合的同 心水晶球形做成, 轉(zhuǎn)動(dòng)在中央地球附近和運(yùn)載星和行星?！?知識(shí)‘ 構(gòu)造一切他們做了和想法, 因?yàn)樗v他們真相。然后伽利略的望遠(yuǎn) 鏡改變了真相。(室息, 1986 年, p.9)過(guò)去三年我們看 主要變化在信息技術(shù)上。與最最近的計(jì)算機(jī)的出現(xiàn)譬如下臺(tái)工作站 , 我們被出席與使能詞, 數(shù)字, 視覺(jué), 聲音, 字典, 分類詞詞典, 和外部事件, 經(jīng)常同時(shí), 被控制, 操作和代表對(duì)用戶在形式品種和 并且對(duì)其它用戶連接入網(wǎng)絡(luò)的一個(gè)黑匣子。在這, 重大發(fā)展并且發(fā) 生在概念化研究入對(duì)媒介的用途在教育和訓(xùn)練。這是形成這文章依 據(jù)的這個(gè)關(guān)系; 這次討論將被劃分成三個(gè)扼要元素技術(shù), 教育設(shè)計(jì) , 和有些方式跨接文化和選擇現(xiàn)代媒介。
我們居住在想法和操作可能簡(jiǎn)單地達(dá)到與工具譬如計(jì)算機(jī) 和電腦控制的機(jī)器人的世界, 挑戰(zhàn)為教育設(shè)計(jì)師將認(rèn)可可能性和使 用這個(gè)學(xué)習(xí)者能操作想法, 概念和甚而物理技能被教的技術(shù)。在過(guò) 去媒介被選擇為學(xué)會(huì)的, 算法經(jīng)常聚焦在屬性的簡(jiǎn)單證明, 行動(dòng)對(duì) 寂靜, 顏色對(duì)黑和白色, 射出對(duì)不透明, 等(參見(jiàn)例如 , Kemp, 1977 年& Romiszowski, 1981) 。與今天的老于世故學(xué)會(huì) 技術(shù), 這些相當(dāng)簡(jiǎn)單構(gòu)想不再是充分的。選擇經(jīng)常是在一個(gè)媒介之 內(nèi)而不是在媒介形式品種之間。分類詭計(jì)難使用什么時(shí)候你正在看 形式的組合在這一個(gè)教訓(xùn)介紹之內(nèi)。達(dá)到對(duì)信息技術(shù)的比較好的用 途教育設(shè)計(jì)師比技術(shù)的可能性的過(guò)分單純的掌握需要更多。
運(yùn)動(dòng)往系統(tǒng)和技術(shù)的更多綜合化提供 一個(gè)有趣的環(huán)境為設(shè)計(jì)師。它正在變得較不必要得知不同的硬件系 統(tǒng)變化當(dāng)他們開(kāi)始采取共同用戶接口和使用一兩個(gè)格式為交付。通 過(guò)一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的例子, 新驅(qū)動(dòng)器可得到與最新的Macintosh 計(jì)算機(jī)可 能讀和寫(xiě)蘋(píng)果電腦公司II, Macintosh 和IBM, 到處密度格式 - 一驅(qū)動(dòng)適合所有! 如此概念化任何東西用狹窄硬件術(shù)語(yǔ)不 會(huì)演講概念學(xué)會(huì)和這項(xiàng)任務(wù)的認(rèn)知要求。
這種 方法由必要的設(shè)備的可及性總限制, 但技術(shù)的這樣一個(gè)有限的構(gòu)想 不應(yīng)該是驅(qū)動(dòng)力為開(kāi)發(fā)教育節(jié)目為下十年。硬件的費(fèi)用正在減少, 并且數(shù)字的元素要求形成一臺(tái)有用的工作站并且下降。
工作站概念, 增 長(zhǎng)與文字處理軟件和微型計(jì)算機(jī)出現(xiàn), 多數(shù)根據(jù), 使能概念的介紹 和操作用方式早先只可能與媒介形式或復(fù)雜計(jì)算機(jī)系統(tǒng)的組合。想 法的操作和介紹的這力量沒(méi)未被注意由這樣個(gè)擁護(hù)者至于對(duì)技術(shù)的 使用在教學(xué)數(shù)學(xué)想法(Kaput, 1986 年; Papert, 1980; 豌豆 , 1987) 。首要在這些熱心者之中是Seymour Papert, 引起有些興 趣的挑戰(zhàn)為教育家與他的書(shū) Mindstorms 剛好 超過(guò)八年前。因?yàn)槟切┑谝粋€(gè)挑戰(zhàn), 技術(shù), 使能想法的操作和世代 , 并且顯現(xiàn)出。四到五年前Macintosh 爆炸這個(gè)場(chǎng)面和假設(shè)用戶與 一個(gè)圖表接口作為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這名用戶比是可得到的在電腦主機(jī)或根據(jù) 有些個(gè)人計(jì)算機(jī)能夠然后視覺(jué)上和比較直覺(jué)地操作概念記憶操作系 統(tǒng)。
這些強(qiáng)有力的工具供應(yīng)使概念比較完全地被了解和比較高 效率地學(xué)會(huì)。了解商標(biāo)積分結(jié)石可能導(dǎo)致復(fù)雜數(shù)學(xué)想法在直覺(jué)上下 文很好在這名學(xué)生進(jìn)步對(duì)正式可使用想法的水平之前。處理攝影表 示法并且使這個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)師提出復(fù)雜概念以是seductively 簡(jiǎn)單對(duì)這個(gè) 學(xué)習(xí)者的形式。形狀可能由操作舒展和變形" 老鼠" 附有" 把柄" 這個(gè)圖。最新的圖表繪圖工具用途正切線" 處置" 改變曲度和創(chuàng)造 復(fù)雜光滑圖。
技術(shù), 和特殊信息技術(shù), 是于他們能容易地集成組分品種 入一個(gè)設(shè)備的點(diǎn)。隨著小型系統(tǒng)的力量的增加有并且預(yù)言技術(shù)和對(duì) 應(yīng)的減少比較偉大的綜合化在當(dāng)前被考慮的分開(kāi) hardware/communications 技術(shù)的其它趨向。Nicholas Negroponte, 麻省理工學(xué)院媒介實(shí)驗(yàn)室的主任, 描述這個(gè)情況作為 重疊的圈子系列。使用圖1, 他表明對(duì)高級(jí)主管在通信產(chǎn)業(yè)他們的戰(zhàn) 略計(jì)劃為將來(lái)應(yīng)該考慮到技術(shù)匯合并且他們的產(chǎn)品愈來(lái)愈變得互換 性和‘ playable ‘ 在這一個(gè)電腦為主的系統(tǒng)。
圖1: 聚合技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)(Negroponte, 在 Brand, 1988)
Negroponte 的構(gòu)想帶領(lǐng)的一個(gè)優(yōu)秀例子是 epitomised 雖則新發(fā)展在個(gè)人計(jì)算機(jī)里, 譬如Steve 工作的下臺(tái) 計(jì)算機(jī), 一定數(shù)量的信息存儲(chǔ)設(shè)備, 相當(dāng)逐字地, 被結(jié)合入一個(gè)黑 匣子。這些發(fā)展可能證明boon 對(duì)這個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)師更多感覺(jué)可能被使用在 學(xué)習(xí)互作用在這個(gè)學(xué)習(xí)者和技術(shù)之間。然而, 他們同時(shí)提高教育設(shè) 計(jì)挑戰(zhàn)關(guān)于互作用應(yīng)該被開(kāi)發(fā)的方式。在技術(shù)和硬件的研究中, 學(xué) 會(huì)由硬件沒(méi)提高只有的學(xué)生, 其它因素, 特別是這個(gè)設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)習(xí)材料 使用技術(shù), 是比較重要的(克拉克, 1983 年, Johnson 等, 1988 年 ; Salomon, 1979) 。
在70 年代和80 年代其間, 許多作者寫(xiě)過(guò)關(guān)于技術(shù)和過(guò)程 方法給課程設(shè)計(jì)(Reiser, 1987 年; Percival 和 Ellington, 1988) 。一個(gè)最近總結(jié), Percival 和Ellington (1988) 概述這種方法的改變的主要關(guān)心和:
當(dāng)技術(shù)看似使能被賦予個(gè)性的學(xué)會(huì), 有一個(gè)增長(zhǎng)的趨向往 小組基于活動(dòng)使用技術(shù)。Percival & Ellington (1988) 主張上述 趨向被交織在使能組合的認(rèn)知的模仿和比賽并且其它元素在學(xué)會(huì)。 電腦控制的機(jī)器人的建筑可能是一鍛煉在小組合作盡量創(chuàng)造性解決 問(wèn)題。課程材料根據(jù)技術(shù)和過(guò)程方法經(jīng)常包括可能被使用象教育戰(zhàn) 略為小組或個(gè)體的活動(dòng)。事業(yè)教育材料 要求工作者 ... (Steele, 1988) 被設(shè)計(jì)被使用在兩個(gè)教育戰(zhàn)略。單 獨(dú)通入工作站只被要求為單獨(dú)診斷。
| Australian Journal of Educational Technology 1989, 5(2), 132-160. | AJET 5 |
John G Hedberg
University of New South Wales
In this paper, the criteria for selecting modern learning technologies are discussed and it is suggested that four teaching/learning activities might form the basis for selection combined with a number of types of conceptual representations. The most important aspects for a designer are the match between learning task and its ability to be presented or manipulated by the learner using a decreasing range of information technologies.
Fifteenth century Europeans ‘knew‘, that the sky was made of closed concentric crystal spheres, rotating around a central earth and carrying the stars and planets. That ‘knowledge‘ structured everything they did and thought, because it told them the truth. Then Galileo‘s telescope changed the truth. (Burke, 1986, p.9)
Over the past three years we have seen major changes in the information technologies. With the advent of the most recent computers such as the NeXT workstation, we are presented with a black box which enables words, numbers, visuals, sounds, dictionaries, thesauri, and external events to be controlled, manipulated and represented to the user in a variety of forms, often simultaneously, and also to other users linked into a network. Over this period, significant developments have also occurred in conceptualising research into the use of media in education and training. It is this relationship which forms the basis of this paper; the discussion will be divided into three main elements-technology, instructional design, and some ways of bridging the cultures and selecting modern media.
We live in a world where ideas and manipulations can be achieved simply with tools such as computers and computer-controlled robots, the challenge for instructional designers is to recognise the possibilities and employ technologies through which the learner can manipulate the ideas, concepts and even physical skills being taught. In the past where media have been selected for learning, the algorithms often focussed upon the simple identification of attributes, motion versus still, colour versus black and white, projected versus opaque, etc (see for example, Kemp, 1977 & Romiszowski, 1981). With the sophistication of todays learning technologies, these rather simple conceptions are no longer adequate. The choices are most often within one medium rather than between a variety of media forms. The classification schemes are difficult to use when you are looking at combinations of forms within the one lesson presentation. To achieve better use of information technologies the instructional designer needs more than a simplistic grasp of the possibilities of the technology.
Technologies of many types have been available to the designer since the first blackboard was used to demonstrate a concept visually in ways that were not possible with speech alone. Over the years teachers were provided with resources and hardware that enabled greater experiences to be included in the instructional process. With individual presentation technologies becoming more accessible on a mass basis, individual students have access to these tools in the classroom and at home.
The movement towards more integration of systems and technologies has provided an interesting environment for designers. It is becoming less necessary to learn about the diversity of different hardware systems as they start to adopt common user-interfaces and employ one or two formats for delivery. By way of a simple example, the new disk drives available with the latest Macintosh computers can read and write Apple II, Macintosh and IBM, high and low density formats - one drive suits all! Thus conceptualising anything in narrow hardware terms will not address the concepts to be learned and cognitive requirements of the task.
The use of the term technology has been often confused in the literature. Historically educational technology was technology equated with technology-as-hardware. This has referred to the audiovisual media or the communications technologies of print, audio, video and film. In the classroom, this has been ‘showing a videotape‘ on a videotape recorder or ‘playing an audiotape‘ on a audiocassette recorder. Many designers still view the term educational technology in this machine-based context.
This approach has always been limited by the availability of the necessary equipment, but such a limited conception of technology should not be the driving force for developing instructional programs for the next decade. The cost of hardware is decreasing, and the number of elements required to form a useful workstation is also declining.
The workstation concept, which has grown with the advent of the word processor and the microcomputer, on which most are based, has enabled the presentation and manipulation of concepts in ways previously only possible with combination of media forms or more sophisticated computer systems. This power of manipulation and presentation of ideas has not gone unnoticed by such proponents for the use of technology in the teaching of mathematical ideas (Kaput, 1986; Papert, 1980; Pea, 1987). Foremost among these enthusiasts has been Seymour Papert, who generated some interesting challenges for educators with his book Mindstorms just over eight years ago. Since those first challenges, the technologies, which enable the manipulation and generation of ideas, have also developed. Four to five years ago the Macintosh burst onto the scene and provided the user with a graphic interface as a standard. The user was then able to manipulate concepts visually and more intuitively than had been available on mainframes or under the mnemonic operating systems of some personal computers.
The provision of these powerful tools has enabled concepts to be understood more completely and learned more efficiently. Understanding the integral calculus of LOGO can lead to complex mathematical ideas in an intuitive context well before the student has progressed to levels of formal operational thought. Dealing with pictorial representations has also enabled the designer to present complex concepts in forms that are seductively simple to the learner. Shapes can be stretched and distorted by manipulating a "mouse" attached to "handles" of the figure. The latest graphics drawing tools use tangential line "handles" to change curvature and create complex smooth figures.
Technologies, and particularly information technologies, are at a point where they can easily integrate a variety of components into one device. With increasing power of small systems there are also other trends which predict a greater integration of technologies and a corresponding reduction in the currently considered separate hardware/communications technologies. Nicholas Negroponte, Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab, has described the situation as a series of overlapping circles. Using figure 1, he indicated to senior executives in the communications industries that their strategic planning for the future should take into account the convergence of technologies and that their products would increasingly become interchangeable and ‘playable‘ on the one computer-based system.
Figure 1: Converging technology industries (Negroponte, in Brand, 1988)
An excellent example of where Negroponte‘s conception would lead is epitomised though recent developments in personal computers, such as Steve Job‘s next computer, where a number of information storage devices are combined, quite literally, into one black box. These developments can prove a boon to the designer in that more senses can be employed in the learning interaction between the learner and the technology. However, at the same time they raise instructional design challenges about the way the interaction should be developed. In studies of technology-as-hardware, student learning has not been enhanced by the hardware alone, other factors, in particular the design of the learning materials using the technology, have been more important (Clark, 1983, Johnson et al, 1988; Salomon, 1979).
There has been a growing movement which has focused upon the technology-as-process approach. The most quoted examples have been in military andindustrial settings. Training personnel have adopted this approach to delivering complete instructional experiences. This intensive approach often tried to produce a curriculum which could be self-contained and work without the need for an expert instructor. In the highly-focused training environment this approach is sensible; outcomes and experiences can be clearly defined, untrained instructors can present a good course, and the criteria for successful performance can be clearly stated. In the school classroom, this approach has been masked by curriculum movements. The approach has produced curriculum materials which have been only as effective as the instructional design and media selection skills of the material developers (See, Clark, 1983; Bangert-Downs, Kulik & Kulik, 1985; Roblyer et al, 1988 for meta-analyses and reviews of studies).
During the 1970s and 1980s, numerous authors have written about the technology-as-process approach to curriculum design (Reiser, 1987; Percival and Ellington, 1988). In a recent summary, Percival and Ellington (1988) outline the changing major concerns of the approach as:
While technology appears to enable more individualised learning, there is a growing trend towards group-based activities using the technology. Percival & Ellington (1988) claim that the above trends are interwoven in simulations and games which enable the combination of cognitive and other elements in learning. Construction of computer-controlled robots can be an exercise in group co-operation as much as creative problem solving. Curriculum materials based on the technology-as-process approach often include activities which can be employed as instructional strategies for group or individuals. The career education materials Ask the Workers... (Steele, 1988) were designed to be used in both instructional strategies. Individual access to a workstation was only required for individual diagnosis.
Within this context, any technology might be described as a mediator between the three human components of the interaction; the subject matter/ content expert, the instructional designer and the learner. Technology, on its own, is inanimate and lifeless; the human manipulation of the interaction creates the power of the technology for learning. The link between the original expert and the learner can be considered to be mediated through the attributes of the technology employed and the skills of the instructional designer (who incidentally may also be the teacher or instructor). The content organisation and the attributes of the technology the designer employs to present the ideas will help or hinder the learner‘s comprehension of them (Salomon, (1979). Learners, in turn, have their own individual understanding or conceptual sets which they apply to the presented materials to achieve mastery of the knowledge and information presented. Engelbart (1988) illustrated the concept, when he described the attributes of a hypermedia (note 1), environment (Figure 2), which augments human capabilities. His thesis is that most human capabilities are composites; any "example capability" can be thought of as a combination of the human-system and the tool-system capabilities. This process is possible, given the human skills and knowledge, to employ these systems. It is this last skill-the knowledge to employ-which is a major variable in technology adoption.
Figure 2: Extending the capabilities of the individual through technology (Engelbart, 1988)
In order to demonstrate how the instructional designer and the learner can use appropriate technology to improve skills, conceptual understanding and the process of communication of ideas, it becomes important to examine the current conceptions of how technology might be employed and what skills are required of both instructor and learner.
Although computers have become relatively commonplace in the workforce and in everyday living, there still exists a comparatively large number of individuals for whom computer interaction consists of waiting while the teller completes the transaction at the computer terminal, or perhaps, watching the prices being added on the cash register while the checkout operator ‘waves‘ the articles over the barcode reader. Those who can access their money via the electronic barking ‘black box‘ are moving into more sophisticated levels of technology use.
Many of those coming to terms with technology in higher education are representative of these groups. Greater emphasis is being placed on learner involvement in learning, and demands are being made for a broader knowledge base. Thus learners are being compelled to venture into areas which were once the realms of specialists. For example, work has been undertaken with interactive videodiscs (note 2) where students can explore databases of realistic situations in the security of the classroom, and the technology enables them to become involved and make decisions. These decisions can be about key issues, such as, chemical experimentation or future employment. This interaction can occur without fear of failure (Scriven and Adams (1988): Ambron & Hooper, 1988).
Word processing and literature searching are two common examples of increasing technology use as an extension of human capabilities. Traditionally, assignments were handwritten or an author employed a typist to create a respectable assignment presentation. The proliferation of word processors has changed that. Assignments must now be at least typewritten, preferably word processed, spellchecked and, in some instances, be presented with integrated illustrations and graphics laid out using a page layout program. Hard copies are not always required either. Some instructors request assignments to be submitted on disk, or in the case of distance education, assignments can be downloaded via a modem or placed on a bulletin board.
In the area of literature searching, the contents of the school or institution‘s library sufficed or, if not, a researcher made an appointment with the "on-line search" specialist librarian to conduct a (rather costly) literature search. The advent of databases on CD-ROM (note 3) has enabled a "do it yourself" approach. This easy and cheaper alternative is encouraging academia to incorporate a more comprehensive review of the literature in areas which were once the kingdom of the textbook. Realistically though, not everyone employs technology in achieving a goal and many teachers, while using a technology at a basic functional level, do not think in terms of its potential to assist human thought and concept development. (Office for Technology Assessment, 1988; Roblyer, et al, 1988).
From the work at the MIT media lab and the growing awareness of integrating technologies such as CD-ROM, CD-I (note 4), and DV-I (note 5), there are predictions that, not only will the future classroom be well equipped, but these systems will also allow home use at reasonable cost. The move over the next few years will be to publish and present knowledge in these technologies (see for example, Bitter, 1988; Hativa, 1986, Hedberg, 1989).
Information technology-based, teaching materials are often confined to the role of a sophisticated presentation devices. However, with existing applications software, there is the opportunity for the student to use applications software packages for knowledge generation as well as knowledge presentation. (See for example, Hedberg, 1988a).
Unfortunately the provision of sophisticated technology has often taken for granted the human capabilities in using them. Many writers have described the complexities of the human-computer interface which can create "technostress" - the problems associated with living in a world where technology dictates the speed and style with which tasks are done (Brod, 1984). For example, Shneiderman, (1982,1987) describes the problem as it applies to the computer-user:
Frustration and anxiety are a part of the daily life for many users of computerised information systems. They struggle to learn command language or menu selection systems that are supposed to help them to do their job. Some people encounter such serious cases of computer shock, terminal terror, or network neurosis that they avoid using computerised systems. These electronic-age maladies are growing more common; but help is on the way!...the diverse use of computers in homes, offices, factories, hospitals, electric power control centers, hotels, banks, and so on is stimulating widespread interest in human factors issues. Human engineering, which is seen as the paint put on the end of a project, is now understood to be the steel frame on which the structure is built (Shneiderman, p. v, 1987).
While new and exciting aspects of information technology and its use are constantly being brought to the attention of the higher education community, the human-technology interface seems to have attracted attention in education only in recent years (e.g. Barrett and Hedberg, 1987; Shneiderman, 1987). This issue becomes more important when considered in the light of the problems faced by teachers as learners as they attempt to understand and use the technology as a tool. In summarising the state of technology adoption by teachers, the Office of Technology Assessment (1988) found that interactive technologies take more time and effort to learn than many other curricular innovations, and their use made teaching a bit tougher, at first. The choice of an appropriate technology for learning might focus on these issues, if more general use is to be made of the technology by teachers.
A study carried out by McNamara (1988) is typical of a number of studies of teachers working in technology-based contexts. She gathered data working with teachers as students in a self-instructional computer environment. Teachers (with differing levels of computing experience) were asked to complete a set of tasks requiring the acquisition of information from a database on CD-ROM. She identified three areas of technology problems, which hindered the learning progress: Computer-based (procedural, operational) problems, application package (program) problems and human related (attitudes, expectations) problems.
Several participants had never used a computer before. Not only was the idea of a data storage on a small disc unfamiliar to them, so too was the means of accessing the disc. Some of the most prohibiting factors were the necessity of knowing specific identifying words, the need to press specific keys for the generation of particular information, and the methods of correcting errors in typing or input. At a deeper level, several participants were willing to accept the first instance of information which appeared on the screen, without checking for details or the appropriateness of the response. They firmly believed that the computer could not err - (even if the error was in human input), and therefore the information must be correct. Beside the need for keyboard skills, which created a barrier to effective use of the technology, many participants concentrated more upon following correct procedures, rather than the information being presented. Optimistic assumptions about teachers‘ ability to use technology frequently cause problems with the instructional strategies in which the technology is employed.
A related problem has been that some current application software appears to the novice user to have been written by those "in the know". Although most applications programs incorporate "help" mechanisms (approximately twenty-two screens of help were found in one database program), these resources are beyond the grasp of the novice user or one unfamiliar with the "language" of how to get to, and be able to read the "Help" file.
The most important catchcry of the computer-based education enthusiasts has been learner control. However, while there are numerous studies indicating its importance for motivation and efficient learning, its actual implementation in courseware is often only lip service. Learners, to take control over their learning experience with technology, still need to understand how the software they are using works and where they stand in their performance so that they can make informed decisions about where to venture next. The current enthusiasm for Hypercard (note 6) as a medium for exploration is based on the ability of the keen learner to choose a path and enjoy the options. At any moment the student can review where they have been and jump directly to a particular screen (through the "recent" review function); this degree of flexibility and graphic summary of progress has either not been possible before in courseware or simply too difficult to include. While its impact has not been fully explored, the opportunity for a "hyperview" of their learning sequence does enable greater control of what and how some things can be learned. An extensive summary of the hypermedia options becoming available has been provided by Ambron and Hooper (1988), and this challenges the developers of computer-based software to conceive of different formulations of instructional sequences in place of the routine drill and practice, tutorial, simulation, and problem solving strategies of the past.
A brief examination of some of the assumptions regular users of the technology make, highlights some of the issues which must be faced by designers of materials using information technology in education (Hedberg & McNamara, 1989). While perhaps a minor consideration, even the placement of the power switch on the computer can be a deterrent to those unfamiliar with the equipment. When using software programs, the differences between expert and novice users become even more pronounced. Most obvious has been the time taken to complete tasks which increases as the response required by software becomes more obtuse and less inherently conceptual (Hedberg & McNamara, 1985). With regard to differences in learning styles and personality approaches to learning, those who like to know what‘s happening each step of t
聯(lián)系客服
