Specific Versus General Procedures in Instructions

A good deal of research in cognitive psychology has demonstrated that, although learners can solve problems that are just like the ones they have been trained on, they often have great difficulty solving new types of problems. People also have difficulty trying to understand instructions or training materials that try to teach a procedure at a level that is general enough to apply to many different kinds of cases. These two findings lead to a quandary for people designing instructions for procedural tasks such as operating computer software: Instructions should be written with a good deal of specificity so that new users can understand and use them right away, but at the same time the user will have great difficulty generalizing what they have learned to novel cases. Experiment 1 seems to echo this quandary. Computer novices, in this study, were able to follow specific instructions for using a word processor more easily than general instructions. However, they had great difficulty generalizing the specific instructions to novel tasks. Experiment 2 demonstrates that when specific instructions are rewritten to help users form a more general procedure, novices can easily do new tasks and still maintain their initial quality of performance. A production rule formalism is used to represent the knowledge users obtain from instructions and to explore the conditions under which these productions can be generalized. Experiment 2 suggests that this knowledge can be used to improve the generalizability of instructions.

[1]  David E. Kieras,et al.  The Acquisition of Procedures from Text: A Production-System Analysis of Transfer of Training. Technical Report No. 16. , 1985 .

[2]  John R. Anderson The Architecture of Cognition , 1983 .

[3]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Learning subgoals and methods for solving probability problems , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[4]  David E. Kieras,et al.  The Acquisition and Performance of Text-Editing Skill: A Cognitive Complexity Analysis , 1990, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[5]  Daniel B. Felker,et al.  Training Authors of Informative Documents , 1985 .

[6]  David E. Kieras,et al.  A quantitative model of the learning and performance of text editing knowledge , 1985, CHI '85.

[7]  David E. Kieras,et al.  The Role of a Mental Model in Learning to Operate a Device. , 1984 .

[8]  Franz Schmalhofer,et al.  MENTAL MODEL AND PROCEDURAL ELEMENTS APPROACHES AS GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING WORD PROCESSING INSTRUCTIONS , 1987 .

[9]  P. G. Polson,et al.  Transfer between menu systems , 1988, CHI '88.

[10]  Lawrence T. Frase,et al.  Intuitions, Algorithms, and a Science of Text Design , 1985 .

[11]  John R. Anderson,et al.  A Keystroke Analysis of Learning and Transfer in Text Editing , 1987, SGCH.

[12]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Usefulness of analogous solutions for solving algebra word problems. , 1985 .

[13]  Elliot Soloway,et al.  Goal and plan knowledge representations: from stories to text editors and programs , 1987 .

[14]  J. LeFevre,et al.  Do Written Instructions Need Examples , 1986 .

[15]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Learning to use word processors: problems and prospects , 1983, TOIS.

[16]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Memory connections between thematically similar episodes. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[17]  W. Kintsch Learning From Text , 1986, Knowing, Learning, and Instruction.

[18]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Skill Acquisition: Compilation of Weak-Method Problem Solutions. , 1987 .

[19]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Understanding Written Instructions: The Role of an Explanatory Schema , 1984 .

[20]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Models of Competence in Solving Physics Problems , 1980, Cogn. Sci..