A grounded theory approach to modelling learnability of hypermedia authoring tools

Interacting with Computers

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 547-574

  Elliott, G J ^a   Jones, E ^b   Barker, P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLAMORGAN   (United Kingdom)

^b CARDIFF METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c TEESSIDE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Authoring tools; Grounded theory; Hypermedia; Learnability

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; DATA REDUCTION; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; LEARNING SYSTEMS;

GROUNDED THEORY (GT);

HYPERMEDIA SYSTEMS;

EID: 0036811786     PISSN: 09535438     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0953-5438(02)00021-8     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Allwood C. Learning and using text-editors and other application, Cognitive Ergonomics: Understanding, Learning and Designing Human-Computer Interaction. 1990;Academic Press, London.
2. Ausubel D. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. 1968;Holt Reinhart and Winston, New York.
3. Bandura A. Social Learning Theory. 1971;General Learning Press, New York.
4. Barnard P., Wilson M., Maclean A. The elicitation of system knowledge by picture probes, Proceedings of CHI '86 Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston. 1986.
5. Bigge M. Learning Theories for Teachers. 1982;Harper and Row, New York.
6. Blumer M. Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. Social Review. 27:1979;651-677.
7. Briggs P. What we know and what we need to know: the user model versus the user's model in human-computer interaction. Behaviour and Information Technology. 7:(4):1988;431-442.
8. Bruner J. The ontogenesis of speech acts. Journal of Child Language. 2:1975;1-19.
9. Bruner J., Anglin J. Beyond the Information Given: Studies in the Psychology of Knowing. 1974;Norton, New York.
10. Buckingham Shum S., McKnight C. International Journal of Human Computer Studies. 47:(1):1997.
11. Card S., Moran T., Newell A. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. 1983;Hillsdale, NJ LEA.
12. Carroll J. The Nurnberg Funnel. 1990;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
13. Carroll J. Reconstructing minimalism. Carroll J., (Ed.), Minimalism Beyond the Nurnberg Funnel. 1998;1-18 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
14. Carroll J. Making Use. 2000;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
15. Carroll J., Campbell R. Softening up hard science: reply to Newell and Card. Human Computer Interaction. 2:1986;227-249.
16. Carroll J., Campbell R. Artifacts as psychological theories: the case of human-computer interaction. Behaviour and Information Technology. 8:1989;247-256.
17. Carroll J., Kellog W. artifact as theory-nexus: hermeneutics meet theory-based design, Proceedings of ACM CHI'89 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1989;ACM, New York. pp. 7-14.
18. Davis S., Wiedenbeck S. The effect of interaction style and training method on end user learning of software packages. Interacting with Computers. 11:1998;147-172.
19. Davis F., Bagozzi P., Warshaw P. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science. 35:(8):1989;982-1003.
20. Dey I. Qualitative Data Analysis. 1993;Routledge, London.
21. Dix A., Finlay J., Abowd G., Beale R. Human-Computer Interaction. 1998;Prentice Hall, Europe.
22. Eason K. Towards the experimental study of usability. Behaviour and Information Technology. 3:(2):1984;133-143.
23. Eason K., Damordaran L. The needs of the commercial user. Coombs M., Alty J., Computer Skills and the User Interface. 1981;Academic Press, London.
24. Elliott, G., 1999. Towards Diagrammatic Hypermedia Authoring: Cognition and Usability Issues in Higher Education. PhD Thesis, Open University.
25. Elliott G.J., Jones E., Barker P., 1996. Authoring semantic hypermedia: A concept mapping approach, Boston, USA. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA '96, Boston, USA. 1996.
26. Elliott G., Jones E., Barker P. Supporting the paradigm shift: hypermedia construction with concept maps - the easy way forward. Innovations in Education and Training International. 34:(4):1997;294-298.
27. Faulkner C. The Essence of Human-Computer Interaction. 1998;Prentice Hall, London.
28. Freeman H., Ryan S. Webmapper: a Tool for Planning, Structuring and Delivering Courseware on the Internet. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA'97 - World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Calgary, Canada. 97:1997;372-377.
29. Gagne R. The Conditions of Learning. 1977;Holt Rhinehart and Winston, New York.
30. Garzotto F., Matera M. A systematic method for hypermedia usability evaluation. The New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia. 3:1997.
31. Gilmore D. Visibility: a dimensional analysis. Diaper D., Hammond N., People and Computers VI. 1991;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
32. Glaser B., Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. 1967;Aldine Publishing Co. Chicago, IL.
33. Gray W., Salzman M. Damaged Merchandise? A Review of Experiments That Compare Usability Evaluation Methods. Human-Computer Interaction. 13:1998;209-242.
34. Green T. Cognitive dimensions of notations. Sutcliffe A., Macaulay L., People and Computers V. 1989;443-460 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
35. Haig B. Grounded theory as scientific method. Nieman A., Philosophy of Education Year Book. 1995.
36. Jackson S., Stratford S., Krajcik J., Soloway E. A learner-centred tool for students building models. Communications of the ACM. 39:(4):1996;48-49.
37. Jonassen D. Computers in the Classroom. 1996;Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
38. Jones S. The analysis of depth interviews. Walker R., Applied Qualitative Research. 1985;Gower, London.
39. Jordan P., Draper S., MacFarlane K., McNulty S. Guessability, learnability and experienced user performance. Diaper D., Hammond N., People and Computers VI. 1991;237-248 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
40. Kato T. What 'uestion-asking protocols' can say about the user interface. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 25:1986;659-673.
41. Kellog W. Conceptual consistency in the user interface: effects on user performance. Bullinger H., Shackel B., Proceedings of the Second IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT '87. 1987;389-394. Stuttgart, Germany.
42. Kozma R. Constructing knowledge with learning tool. Kommers P., Jonassen D., Mayes T., Cognitive Tools for Learning. 1992;23-32 Springer, Berlin.
43. Laurillard D. Second ed. Rethinking University Teaching. 1993;Routledge, London.
44. Lindsay P., Norman D. Human Information Processing: An Introduction to Psychology. 1977;Academic Press, New York.
45. Maas S. Why systems transparency? Green T., Payne S., Van de Veer G., The Psychology of Computer Use. 1983;Academic Press, London.
46. Molnar K., Kletke M. The impacts on the user performance and satisfaction of a voice-based front-end interface for a standard software tool. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 45:1996;287-303.
47. Napier H., Lane D., Batsell R. Impact of a restricted natural language interface on ease of learning and production. Communications of the ACM. 32:(10):1989;1190-1197.
48. Newell A., Card S. The Prospects for Psychological Science in Human-Computer Interaction. Human-Computer Interaction. 1:1985;209-242.
49. Nielsen J. Hypertext and Hypermedia. 1990;Academic Press, London.
50. Nielsen J. Usability Engineering. 1993;Academic Press, London.
51. Nielsen, J., 1994. Using discount usability engineering to penetrate the intimidation barrier. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.J. (Eds.), Cost-Justifying Usability, Chapter 11, 270-273, Academic Press.
52. O'Donnell P., Scobie G., Baxter I. The use of focus groups as an evaluation technique in HCI. Diaper D., Hammond N., People and Computers VI. 1991;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
53. Preece J. Human-Computer Interaction. 1994;Addison-Wesley, Harlow, England.
54. Richards T., Richards L. The NUD.IST qualitative data analysis system. Qualitative Sociology. 1991;14.
55. Richards T., Richards L. Using hierarchical categories in qualitative data analysis. Kelle U., Computers and Qualitative Methodology. 1994;Sage, Beverley Hill, CA.
56. Roberts T., Moran T. The evaluation of text editors: methodology and empirical results. Communications of the ACM. 26:(4):1983;265-283.
57. Sasse, A., 1997. Eliciting and Describing Users' Models of Computer Systems. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.
58. Seely Brown J. From cognitive to social ergonomics and beyond. Norman D., Draper S., User Centred Systems Design. 1986;Lawrence Erlbaum, London.
59. Shackel B. Ergonomics in design for usability. Harrison M., Monk A., Proceedings of the British Computer Society Human-Computer Interaction Specialist Group. 1986;44-64.
60. Shneiderman B. Designing the User Interface. 1998;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
61. Skinner B. The Behaviour of Organisms. 1938;Appleton, New York.
62. Slavin R. Educational Psychology: Theory into Practice. 1991;Prentice Hall, NJ.
63. Smith P. Towards a practical measure of hypertext usability. Interacting with Computers. 8:(4):1996;365-381.
64. Strauss A., Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Data. 1990;Sage, London.
65. Sutcliffe A. Human-Computer Interface Design. 1995;MacMillan, Basingstoke.
66. Tullis T. Optimising the usability of computer-generated displays, Proceedings of the British Computer Society Human-Computer Interaction Specialist Group. 1986;. pp. 604-614.
67. Von Glasenfeld E. Radical constructivism. Watzlawick P., The Invented Reality. 1984;Harvard University, Cambridge MA.
68. Vygotskii L. Thought and Language. 1962;Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
69. Wharton C., Bradford J., Jeffries R., Franzke M. 1992. Applying cognitive walkthroughs to more complex user intefaces: Experiences, issues, and recommendations, Proceedings of the ACM CHI '92 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1992;ACM, New York. pp. 381-388.
70. Whiteside J., Jones S., Levy P., Wixon D. 1985. User performance with command, menu, and iconic interfaces, Proceedings of CHI '85, San Francisco. 1985;. pp. 185-191.
71. Wilson M., Barnard P., MacLean A. 1990. An investigation of the learning of a computer system, Cognitive Ergonomics: Understanding, Learning and Designing Human-Computer Interaction. 1990;Academic Press, London. pp. 151-172.