Easy first steps and their implication to the use of a mouse-based and a script-based strategy.

The present study evaluated the convention to design training environments by giving access to easy strategies first and progressing to more difficult and efficient strategies thereafter. An experiment was conducted focusing on training in a simplified editing task. This task could be performed with an easy (mouse-based) strategy as well as with a more efficient (script-based) strategy. Two learning environments were compared, based on the order of the introduction of the following 2 strategies to participants: an easy-first program and a difficult-first program. The results highlight 2 interesting patterns. First, initial training in an easy strategy impaired the acquisition of a more efficient strategy. Second, learning the easy strategy first reduced between-subjects variability. It helped poor performers but resulted in a lower proportion of high-level performers.

[1]  Maria Bannert,et al.  The effects of training wheels and self-learning materials in software training , 2008, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[2]  E Yechiam,et al.  On the potential value and limitations of emphasis change and other exploration-enhancing training methods. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[3]  Albert E. Bartz,et al.  Computer and Software Use in Teaching the Beginning Statistics Course , 2001 .

[4]  Harold W. Thimbleby,et al.  Permissive user interfaces , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[5]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  Dynamic mental models in learning science : The importance of constructing derivational linkages among models , 1999 .

[6]  B. Chiswick.  Hebrew language usage: Determinants and effects on earnings among immigrants in Israel , 1998, Journal of population economics.

[7]  R. Bjork,et al.  The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  Flavia Jolliffe,et al.  Statistical software usage by student and consultant statisticians in the UK - A comparative study , 1997 .

[9]  U. Gneezy.  Probability Judgements in Multi-Stage Problems : Experimental Evidence of Systematic Biases , 1996 .

[10]  John F. Larish,et al.  Training for attentional control in dual task settings: A comparison of young and old adults , 1995 .

[11]  H. Rachlin.  The Value of Temporal Patterns in Behavior , 1995 .

[12]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  An approach to the design of a skill adaptive interface , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[13]  B. Goettl.  Part-Task Training of Complex Tasks: Utility of Backward Transfer , 1995 .

[14]  B. Chiswick,et al.  The Endogeneity between Language and Earnings: International Analyses , 1995, Journal of Labor Economics.

[15]  Lorne Olfman,et al.  Visualization Ability as a Predictor of User Learning Success , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[16]  R. Herrnstein,et al.  Utility maximization and melioration: Internalities in individual choice , 1993 .

[17]  Paul E. Spector,et al.  SAS Programming for Researchers and Social Scientists , 1993 .

[18]  N. Sanders,et al.  Journal of behavioral decision making: "The need for contextual and technical knowledge in judgmental forecasting", 5 (1992) 39-52 , 1992 .

[19]  Vernol Battiste,et al.  Field Test of Video Game Trainer , 1992 .

[20]  Daniel Gopher,et al.  The Transfer of Skill from a Computer Game Trainer to Actual Flight , 1992 .

[21]  Wendy E. Mackay,et al.  Patterns of sharing customizable software , 1990, CSCW '90.

[22]  P. Ackerman.  A correlational analysis of skill specificity: Learning, abilities, and individual differences. , 1990 .

[23]  Dennis H. Holding,et al.  Backward versus Forward Chaining in the Acquisition of a Keyboard Skill , 1990 .

[24]  T. Carr,et al.  Automaticity in skill acquisition: Mechanisms for reducing interference in concurrent performance. , 1989 .

[25]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  An approach to training based upon principled task decomposition , 1989 .

[26]  D. Gopher,et al.  Practice under changing priorities: An approach to the training of complex skills☆ , 1989 .

[27]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction , 1988 .

[28]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Resource allocation decision making in an uncertain environment , 1987 .

[29]  P. Ackerman.  Individual differences in skill learning: An integration of psychometric and information processing perspectives. , 1987 .

[30]  M. Nissen,et al.  Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  John R. Frederiksen,et al.  A Componential Approach to Training Reading Skills , 1985 .

[32]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Training High-Performance Skills: Fallacies and Guidelines , 1985 .

[33]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Prompting, feedback and error correction in the design of a scenario machine , 1985, CHI '85.

[34]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Effects of Experience on Learning, Using, and Evaluating a Text Editor , 1984 .

[35]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Blocking Learner Error States in a Training-Wheels System , 1984 .

[36]  John R. Frederiksen,et al.  A Componential Approach to Training Reading Skills. Final Report. , 1983 .

[37]  B. M. Staw.  The Escalation of Commitment To a Course of Action , 1981 .

[38]  M. Seligman,et al.  Human Helplessness: Theory and Applications , 1980 .

[39]  R. F. Sarmiento,et al.  Liberal Grading Improves Evaluations But Not Performance. , 1979 .

[40]  J. A. Lewis-Beck.  Locus of Control, Task Expectancies, and Children’s Performance following Failure , 1978 .

[41]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[42]  Morton B. Brown,et al.  Robust Tests for the Equality of Variances , 1974 .

[43]  Maya Bar-Hillel,et al.  On the subjective probability of compound events , 1973 .

[44]  W. R. Buckland,et al.  Contributions to Probability and Statistics , 1960 .

[45]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. , 1999 .

[46]  D. Gopher,et al.  Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. , 1999 .

[47]  Stephanie M. Doane,et al.  Cognitive Constraints on Computer Problem-Solving Skills , 1997 .

[48]  Phillip L. Ackerman,et al.  Determinants of Learning and Performance in an Associative Memory/Substitution Task: Task Constraints, Individual Differences, Volition, and Motivation. , 1994 .

[49]  L. Proteau.  Chapter 4 On The Specificity of Learning and the Role of Visual Information for Movement Control , 1992 .

[50]  Guy Lories,et al.  Confidence Level and Feeling of Knowing in Question Answering - the Weight of Inferential Processes , 1992 .

[51]  R. Snow.  Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. , 1989 .

[52]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Learning and individual differences: Advances in theory and research. , 1989 .

[53]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  Designing Computer Games to Help Physics Students Understand Newton's Laws of Motion , 1984 .

[54]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: I , 1977 .