Effects of sign characteristics and training methods on safety sign training effectiveness

This study investigated whether or not training methods affected the effectiveness of symbol training and if there were any relationships between sign symbol characteristics and training effectiveness. Altogether, 26 Mainland China industrial safety signs were used and 60 participants were randomly assigned into four equal-sized groups of control, paired-associate learning, recall training and recognition training. The result was that participants from all the training groups showed significantly greater improvement in comprehension performance than those in the control group, indicating that the training methods improved comprehension of the meaning of safety signs. Participants from the recall training group performed better in the post-training test than those from other training groups. It seems that the recall task elicited a deeper level of learning than the recognition task and that questioning and feedback had a positive effect on training effectiveness. The results also showed that sign characteristics had no significant influence on training effectiveness. It was concluded that recall training is more effective in enhancing comprehension of industrial safety signs than paired-associate learning or recognition training. The findings of this study provide a basis for useful guidelines for designing symbol-training programmes and for designing more user-friendly safety signs. Statement of Relevance: The present study shows that recall training was more effective in improving comprehension of industrial safety signs than paired-associate learning or recognition training and cognitive sign features did not influence training effectiveness. They provide a basis for useful guidelines for designing symbol-training programmes and for designing more user-friendly safety signs.

[1]  Martin B. Curry,et al.  Exploring the effects of icon characteristics on user performance: the role of icon concreteness, complexity, and distinctiveness. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[2]  J. Sweller,et al.  Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes , 1995 .

[3]  Martin B. Curry,et al.  Icon Identification in Context: The Changing Role of Icon Characteristics With User Experience , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[4]  David Shinar,et al.  Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study , 2003, Ergonomics.

[5]  P Cairney,et al.  Communication effectiveness of symbolic safety signs with different user groups. , 1982, Applied ergonomics.

[6]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability , 2009 .

[7]  A. Bandura Social cognitive theory of self-regulation☆ , 1991 .

[8]  Ravindra S. Goonetilleke,et al.  Effects of training and representational characteristics in icon design , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[9]  Michael Luntley,et al.  Training and Learning , 2008 .

[10]  An-Hsiang Wang,et al.  Effects of hazardous material symbol labeling and training on comprehension according to three types of educational specialization , 2003 .

[11]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Comprehension of Pictorial Symbols: Effects of Context and Test Method , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[12]  P. Chandler,et al.  When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction , 2003 .

[13]  Mary F Lesch,et al.  A comparison of two training methods for improving warning symbol comprehension. , 2008, Applied ergonomics.

[14]  M. Tomasello,et al.  The development of the ability to recognize the meaning of iconic signs. , 2008, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[15]  W. Buxton Human-Computer Interaction , 1988, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[16]  Annie W. Y. Ng,et al.  Investigation of guessability of industrial safety signs: Effects of prospective-user factors and cognitive sign features , 2010 .

[17]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Enhancing Comprehension and Retention of Safety-Related Pictorials , 1994 .

[18]  Robert W. Bailey,et al.  Human Performance Engineering: Designing High Quality Professional User Interfaces for Computer Products, Applications and Systems , 1996 .

[19]  Tisha L. N. Emerson,et al.  Comparing Student Achievement across Experimental and Lecture-Oriented Sections of a Principles of , 2004 .

[20]  T. J. Smith The ergonomics of learning: educational design and learning performance , 2007, Ergonomics.

[21]  Arthur D. Fisk,et al.  Designing for Older Adults: Principles and Creative Human Factors Approaches , 2004 .

[22]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[23]  Patrick W. Jordan,et al.  An Introduction to Usability , 1998 .

[24]  R. Luftig Variables influencing the learnability of individual signs and sign lexicons: A review of the literature , 1983 .

[25]  M. Wogalter,et al.  Comprehension and retention of safety pictorials , 1997 .

[26]  J. C. Wofford,et al.  Effects of feedback on cognitive processing and choice of decision style. , 1990 .

[27]  Donovan A. McFarlane,et al.  Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels , 2006 .

[28]  R. Wade Allen,et al.  A Simulator Evaluation of Age Effects on Symbol Sign Recognition , 1980 .

[29]  David A.J. Simmonds Training and learning , 2008 .

[30]  W. Becker QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ON TEACHING METHODS IN TERTIARY EDUCATION , 2003 .

[31]  Douglas Griffith,et al.  International Road Signs: Interpretability and Training Techniques , 1977 .

[32]  Anil Mital,et al.  Study of symbols coding in airway facilities , 2000 .

[33]  Maohua Zhong,et al.  Industrial accidents: Challenges for China’s economic and social development , 2005 .

[34]  Richard W. Pew,et al.  Evaluating Pictographic Symbols: An Automotive Application , 1978 .

[35]  Sharon K Tindall-Ford,et al.  When two sensory modes are better than one , 1997 .

[36]  Sallie E. Gordon,et al.  Systematic training program design : maximizing effectiveness and minimizing liability , 1994 .

[37]  Mary F Lesch,et al.  Comprehension and memory for warning symbols: age-related differences and impact of training. , 2003, Journal of safety research.

[38]  Rungtai Lin,et al.  A study of visual features for icon design , 1994 .

[39]  Martin B. Curry,et al.  Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[40]  Michael S. Wogalter,et al.  Comprehension and Memory , 1999 .

[41]  Alan H. S. Chan,et al.  Effect of display factors on Chinese reading times, comprehension scores and preferences , 2005, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[42]  Marie-Pierre Bruyas,et al.  Ergonomic guidelines for the design of pictorial information , 1998 .