Learner preferences for varying screen densities using realistic stimulus materials with single and multiple designs

Learner preferences for varying screen density levels were examined using multiple screen designs (high external validity) and single screen designs (high internal validity). When viewing multiple screens for each design in Study 1, subjects indicated the highest preference for medium-density screens while tending to select higher-density over lower density screens in individual comparisons. When viewing only the first screen of each density level in Study 2, subjects again expressed preferences for higher-density over lower-density designs. Suggestions are provided concerning the use of realistic and nonrealistic content for the stimulus materials as well as implications of using externally and internally valid screen designs for future research on computer-based instruction screen design.

[1]  Alfred Bork,et al.  Personal computers for education , 1985 .

[2]  K. Laurence Weldon,et al.  Statistics: _ A conceptual approach , 1986 .

[3]  George E. Mason,et al.  Computer-Chunked and Traditional Text. , 1983 .

[4]  Gary R. Morrison,et al.  Obtaining more out of less text in CBI: Effects of varied text density levels as a function of learner characteristics and control strategy , 1988 .

[5]  J. Senders,et al.  Eye Movements and Psychological Processes , 1976 .

[6]  Paul T. Sindelar,et al.  The Effects of Segmenting Written Discourse on the Reading Comprehension of Low- and High-Performance Readers. , 1983 .

[7]  John L Coffey,et al.  A Comparison of Vertical and Horizontal Arrangements of Alpha-Numeric Material—Experiment I1 , 1961 .

[8]  Sidney L Smith.  User-System Interface Design for Computer-Based Information Systems, , 1982 .

[9]  D Burns,et al.  A dual-task analysis of detection accuracy for the case of high target-distractor similarity: Further evidence for independent processing , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  Ronald P. Carver,et al.  Effect of a "chunked" typography on reading rate and comprehension. , 1970 .

[11]  A. Bork.  Learning with personal computers , 1986 .

[12]  Gary R. Morrison,et al.  In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications, and learner control , 1989 .

[13]  W. Hays,et al.  Statistics (3rd ed.). , 1982 .

[14]  Simon Hooper,et al.  Variables affecting the legibility of computer generated text , 1986 .

[15]  Stanley R. Trollip,et al.  Computer-Based Instruction: Methods and Development , 1985 .

[16]  R. Scott Grabinger.  CRT Text Design: Psychological Attributes Underlying the Evaluation of Models of CRT Text Displays. , 1984 .

[17]  Jesse M. Heines,et al.  Screen design strategies for computer-assisted instruction , 1984 .

[18]  Charles K. Stallard,et al.  Computers for Education: On What Basis Do We Proceed?. , 1987 .

[19]  T S Tullis,et al.  The Formatting of Alphanumeric Displays: A Review and Analysis , 1983, Human factors.

[20]  Thomas G. Sticht,et al.  Understanding Readers and Their Uses of Texts , 1985 .

[21]  Gary R. Morrison,et al.  Text density level as a design variable in instructional displays , 1988 .

[22]  T. Faiola,et al.  Designing a visual factors-based screen display interface: the new role of the graphic technologist , 1988 .