W

Phillip E. GraceEME 7939Spring 2001

Screen-By-Screen Vs. Page-Based Screen Designs in Web-Based Training

Phillip E. GraceEME 7939Spring 2001

Their Effects on Learner Satisfaction & Performance

W

W

Like any medium of instruction, the Web offers advantages and disadvantages to both instructional designers and potential learners alike.

It is, of course, the task of the instructional designer of WBT programs to maximize these advantages, while attempting to minimize the disadvantages in order to provide the learner with the optimal learning experience.

W

Screen design is a critical element in Web page and computer-based instructional design, in general, and in WBT design, in particular.

It is an integral component of a program’s interface - “the door between the student and the instruction”

W

Since the screen is the central point of the interaction between student and program and because interface design choices determine the success or failure of instruction, screen design is a major focus of the overarching process of interface design.

It follows, then, that WBT designers, as well as other computer-based instructional designers, need to follow “best practices” in Web page design and human factors design.

W

No consensus has yet developed regarding the most effective and/or desirable characteristics of WBT.

This is an unfortunate situation, given that WBT is currently proliferating at an incredible rate.

W

Horton (2000) alludes to the dearth of research-based WBT design principles in his recent book, Designing Web-Based Training, when he writes:

My sisters and brothers in the academic community are welcome to read this book, but no one should expect a scholarly work crammed with footnotes and hesitant generalizations. This book is for practitioners who cannot wait for all the research to be done and need advice now.

W

While scrolling is a ubiquitous characteristic of the vast majority of pages currently populating the Web, it is problematic for WBT designers.

Although scrolling can provide several advantages, it also presents several disadvantages that can interfere with the learning process.

Recognizing the necessity and/or desirability of scrolling Web pages in certain circumstances, Alessi and Trollip (2001) nevertheless recommend designing alternatives to scrolling whenever possible.

W

The current literature on scrolling does not adequately address, and may even confound the question of whether or not scrolling is an effective and/or desirable WBT design characteristic.

WBT designers need to know which has greater instructional implications for WBT, a non-scrollable screen-by-screen design or a page-based design that requires scrolling.

The Problem

W

The Purpose of this Study

To examine the effects of the two page design options for WBT mentioned above (page-based and screen-by-screen) on both learner performance and satisfaction.

It is expected that the findings of this study will demonstrate that a non-scrolling, screen-by-screen WBT design is superior to a page-based design that necessitates scrolling.

W

Because learners’ individual experience with computers and the Web could well confound a comparison of the two screen designs, learners’ level of computer proficiency and level of Web experience will be controlled for.

W

Hypotheses/Research Questions

1. Is there a significant difference in performance between learners using a page-based WBT and those using a screen-by-screen WBT design?

2. Is there a significant difference in satisfaction between learners using of a page-based WBT and those using a screen-by-screen WBT design?

W

• Essentially, the “classic” Web page

• Usually requires scrolling - at least vertically - to gain access to all available content and program features

• A single scroll bar appears along the right-hand side of the WBT program window for vertical scrolling and/or along the bottom for scrolling horizontally

Definitions: Page-based WBT screen design.

W

Page-Based Design

PageUp

PageDown

Paging:

Scrolling:

W

Definitions: Screen-by-Screen WBT screen design.

• A “fixed” screen display in the sense that the user does not have to scroll, either horizontally or vertically, to see the entire content of the page

• All features and navigation options are always visible and accessible from within the screen area

• only the instructional content changes as the user moves through an instructional program.

W

Screen-by-Screen Design

W

The great majority of discussion about WBT screen design is derived from the literature on the overarching area of CBI interface design, as well as that concerning Web page design.

This is reasonable because:

1) WBT, being a genre of CBI, shares many of the same characteristics and, thus, design concerns with other types of CBI

2) WBT programs are constructed as Web pages for delivery over the Web

W

WBT, however, unlike more traditional CBI, presents some singular design concerns that revolve around the use of the Web as a delivery medium:

• screen real estate

• disparities in end-user equipment capabilities

• high levels of user-control over the Web browser

• non-standardized operating environment parameters

• computer processing resources

• bandwidth limitations

W

Relevant Issues

• Effective Computer-based Instruction (CBI)

• The Learning and Media Debate

• Instructional Design: Virtues and Flaws

• Interface/Program Usability Design

• Motivation (esp. Satisfaction)

• Instructional Text and Reading

W

Relevant Issues (cont.)

• Cognitive Aspects of Electronic Text Processing

• Spatial Orientation

• Chunking as a memory aid

• Scrolling vs. Paging Studies

• WBT Learner Characteristics

W

The Study: Research Design:

Experimental, following a factorial design to explore the relationships between designated variables in the two treatment conditions (page-based WBT design and screen-by-screen WBT design)

W

The Study: Participants

Target population:mental health professionals and paraprofessionals throughout the state of Florida who have had little or no training in the GAF, but who currently or will eventually utilize the GAF as an assessment tool in their job

Sample population:population of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in the social work, rehabilitation counseling, and psychology programs at a major public university in the Southeastern United States

W

The Study: Measures

Independent variable:WBT screen design, with two levels: page-based and screen-by-screen

Dependent variables:• learner performance • learner satisfaction.

W

The Study: Instrumentation

• The GAF tutorial

• The computer experience survey

• The performance worksheet

• The learner satisfaction survey

W

The Study: Data Collection Procedures

1. Set up “computer lab”

2. Administer “Computer Experience Survey”

3. Match, then randomly assign to the two conditions

4. Participants complete GAF tutorial and complete“Performance Worksheet”

5. Complete “Satisfaction Survey”

W

The Study: Data Analysis

1. Descriptive statistics

2. MANOVA: to determine whether the page-based and screen-by-screen treatment groups differ on the two dependent variables of learner performance and learner satisfaction:

WBT screen design (IV) 1) Learner performance (DV1)

a) Page-based (Tx1) 2) Learner satisfaction (DV2 b) Screen-by-screen (Tx2)