Structure Processing of Web-Based Menus

Abstract

Grounded in cognitive load theory, levels of processing theory, modes of learning research, and the facets of working memory (WM) framework, the primary goal of this investigation was to seek empirical evidence for a structure processing mechanism in WM that facilitates the coordination of associations made into coherent structures and the role this mechanism might play in performance and retention. This goal was motivated by a gap in the understanding of mental model production and encoding processes in WM. To carry out this goal, two usability studies were conducted to investigate retention, error, and time performance of Web-based menus created with structured or unstructured design. Relationships between these measures and coordination ability in WM, as well as storage and supervision ability, were also assessed. In Study 1, which tested simple Web-based menus, correlations of .28, −.56, and −.54 were detected between coordination (CC) and retention scores, CC and errors, and CC and time; in Study 2, which tested commercial Web-based menus, correlations of .46, −.45, and −.25 were detected. For Studies 1 and 2, differences in favor of structured design for retention, error, and time performance were highly significant (p < .001).

Notes

¹In this article, the term conceptual model is used to describe static representations stored in long-term memory (LTM), whereas the term mental model is used to describe all types of mental representations, including static models and those created dynamically in WM from information extracted from the environment and LTM (see Brewer, 1987; Cañas & Antolí, 1998).

²Second-level menu items for X₁, X₂, X₃, X₄ were selected from a 48-word stimulus pool of 3- to 6-letter words of which 45 were common nouns and 3 were adjectives. There were 39 one-syllable words, 8 two-syllable words, and 1 three-syllable word chosen to protect from the word-length effect, where five-syllable words of the same frequency are reported to be more difficult to remember than one-syllable words (Baddeley, Thomson, & Buchanan, 1975). Words were selected from The Teacher's Word Book of 30,000 Words (Thorndike & Lorge, 1944) and Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English (Leech, Rayson, & Wilson, 2001). Except for the X₂ menu, menu items were screened for strong semantic associations using the Edinburgh Associative Thesaurus (Kiss et al., 1973), as well as salience (i.e., menu items with strong emotional attachments such as “war” or “love”).

FIGURE 1 Structured and unstructured simple Web-based menu treatments used in Study 1.

³Verbal coordination (VS) scores were calculated as hits minus a correction for errors using the formula H – E/(n/c), where R = total hits, E = errors/false alarms, n = number of total screens per trial, and c = number of correct matches per trial.

⁴The WMC DOS-based software was used to control for typing skill (see Oberauer et al. 2000). Here, participants typed as fast and as accurately as they could 40 characters presented one at a time.

⁵Variance analyses were conducted for the WM tasks, RS, E, and T, to detect possible confounds due to order and carryover effects for the Latin Square groupings used in Phases 1 and 2. No findings here were noteworthy. Surprisingly, visual spatial ability, assessed using the paper-folding test, although frequently correlated with computer ability (e.g., Waller, 2000), did not show any significant relationships with RS, E, or T. Nevertheless, it was strongly correlated with SC (r = .67, p < .001).

⁶Gestalt theorists have pointed out that learning is perhaps better when learners are able to see the overall structure of a problem to discover the relationship between elements. This type of learning involves productive thinking (i.e., insight-based reasoning), which is theorized to contain at the core of the process a type of “reorganization” or “restructuring” information (Wertheimer, 1959).