The Effect of Personality-Aware Computer-Human Interfaces on Learning

Traditional software used for student-centered learning typically provides for a uniform user interface through which the student can interact with the software, and through which the information is delivered in a uniformly identical fashion to all users without regard to their learning style. This research classifies personality types of computer science undergraduate students using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; relates these types of personalities to defined learning preferences; and tests if a given user interface designed for a given learning preference enhances learning. The general approach of this study is as follows: given a set of user interfaces designed to fit personality types, provide a given user interface to participants with the matching personality type. In the control group, provide participants with a randomly chosen user interface. Observe the performance of all participants in a post-test. Additionally, observe if the test group had an enhanced learning experience. Quantitative results indicate that personality-aware user interfaces have a significant effect on learning. Qualitative results show that in most cases, users preferred user interfaces designed for their own personality type. Preliminary results show that for introverted intuitive persons and extraverted intuitive persons, the effect of a personality-aware human-computer interface on learning is significant.

[1]  Gary M. Kern,et al.  Interactive Videodisc Instruction: The Influence of Personality on Learning , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[2]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Comments on learning: Schemata and memory representation , 1976 .

[3]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The Structure of Human Memory , 1976 .

[4]  Peter A. Tucker,et al.  Primary Memory , 1965, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[5]  Richard C. Atkinson,et al.  Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control Processes , 1968, Psychology of Learning and Motivation.

[6]  S. Turkle,et al.  Epistemological Pluralism and the Revaluation of the Concrete. , 1992 .

[7]  Martha E. Crosby,et al.  From multimedia instruction to multimedia evaluation , 1995 .

[8]  D. D. Wheeler,et al.  The Myers-Briggs Personality Type and Its Relationship to Computer Programming , 1994 .

[9]  I. B. Myers.  Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator , 1985 .

[10]  E. Tulving,et al.  Episodic and semantic memory , 1972 .

[11]  C. G. Jung.  Psychological Types , 2000 .

[12]  M. Carlyn,et al.  An assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type indicator. , 1977, Journal of personality assessment.

[13]  Tom Carey,et al.  ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction , 1992 .

[14]  Richard J. Shavelson,et al.  Comparison of Content Structure and Cognitive Structure in High School Students' Learning of Probability. , 1975 .

[15]  R. Atkinson,et al.  The control of short-term memory. , 1971, Scientific American.

[16]  R. Shavelson.  Methods for examining representations of A subject-matter structure in a student's memory , 1974 .

[17]  D. Norman,et al.  On the role of active memory processes in perception and cognition , 1975 .

[18]  John Beidler,et al.  Data Structures and Algorithms , 1996, Wiley Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Engineering.

[19]  Nancy Green,et al.  Natural language in computer human-interaction: a CHI 99 special interest group , 2000, SGCH.

[20]  D. Norman,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW PRIMARY MEMORY1 , 1965 .

[21]  Wayne Citrin,et al.  Testing effectiveness of algorithm animation , 1996, Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages.

[22]  John K. DiTiberio,et al.  Introduction to type in college , 1993 .

[23]  Matthew Turk,et al.  Perceptual user interfaces , 2000 .

[24]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computer personalities be human personalities? , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[25]  J. Houston,et al.  Measurement of verbal relatedness: an idiographic approach. , 1963, Psychological review.

[26]  D. Broadbent.  Perception and communication , 1958 .