Reading Online Text: A Comparison of Four White Space Layouts

by Barbara Chaparro, J. Ryan Baker, A. Dawn Shaikh,
Spring Hull, & Laurie Brady

Summary: In this study, reading performance with four white space layouts was compared. Margins surrounding the text and leading (space between lines) were manipulated to generate the four white space conditions. Results show that the use of margins affected both reading speed and comprehension in that participants read the Margin text slower, but comprehended more than the No Margin text. Participants were also generally more satisfied with the text with margins. Leading was not shown to impact reading performance but did influence overall user preference. 

Research investigating the proper amount of “white space” on a web page has produced mixed results (Chaparro & Bernard, 2001; Spool, 1997). The latest recommendation by the National Cancer Institute (2003) is to limit the amount of white space on pages that are used for scanning and searching. Few recommendations, however, are provided for the amount of white space for online text passages such as short stories, news articles, or online novels.

To examine the effects of white space on reading performance, this study compared four white space layouts that manipulated margins and leading. A margin was defined as the white space surrounding the text passage on the left, right, top, and bottom. For purposes of this study, margins on a web page were manipulated such that 10 mm of white space surrounded the text (Margin) or 2 mm of white space surrounded the text (No Margin). Leading was defined as the vertical distance from the baseline of one line of text to the baseline of the next line (i.e., space between lines of text). This space was manipulated to have 5 mm between lines (Optimal) or 4 mm between lines (Sub-Optimal). Participants read online text passages from each of the four possible white space layout combinations: (1) Margins & Optimal Leading; (2) Margins & Sub-Optimal Leading; (3) No  Margins & Optimal Leading; and (4) No Margins & Sub-Optimal Leading. Figures 1 through 4 (below) show examples of each of the four white space conditions.

Figure 1. Margins, Optimal Leading

Figure 2. Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading

Figure 3. No Margins, Optimal Leading

Figure 4. No Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading

Participants

Twenty college students (10 male, 10 female) with normal or corrected vision participated in the study and received compensation of $25. One female participant was unable to complete more than half of the study and was eliminated from the analysis. Eighty-nine percent of the participants reported visiting web sites daily and 10.5% reported visiting web sites only a few times per week. Primary online activities reported included e-mail, browsing, searching for information, and instant messaging. Eleven percent of the users reported reading online 24 – 40+ hours per week, 26% reported reading 7 – 24 hours per week, and 63% reported reading 0 – 6 hours per week.

Materials

Text passages used in this study were chosen from SAT and ACT practice examinations and contained approximately 800 words each (M = 802.00, SD=59.68). The passages were presented in a graphical format to incorporate the white space layout features discussed above. Passages were randomly presented using a Visual Basic 6.0 program which captured reading time, and were presented on a Dell Inspiron 5100 Laptop with a 15” display running 1400 x 1050 screen resolution. Passages were also presented on two consecutive pages; users clicked on an arrow at the bottom of each page to advance to a subsequent page or return to a previous page. No scrolling was required. Users read the passages at a distance of approximately 50 cm.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to read two passages from one of the four conditions. In each condition, they spent approximately 20 minutes reading two documents. They were asked to read each document at their own pace. After reading each passage, the participant was given eight comprehension questions about the passage. Participants were permitted to go back to the passage to look up the answers to the questions, but were advised that they only had 5 minutes to do so. After reading both documents, the participants completed a questionnaire regarding their reading satisfaction. Participants then took a short break and then repeated the procedure for the other conditions. After all four conditions were completed participants were shown a sample page with images of the four conditions and asked to state their preference as to which layout they liked best. The order of the conditions and passages was counterbalanced across participants.

Results

Reading performance

Reading time was averaged across passages for each condition and converted to words per minute. Comprehension scores were computed as a sum score out of a total eight possible. A two-way within subjects ANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of margins for reading speed (F(1,17) = 3.61, p =.07), with passages in the No Margins condition read faster than those with Margins. There was no main effect for leading or interaction between margins and leading.

Examination of the comprehension scores also revealed a main effect of margins (F(1,17) = 8.34, p = .01). Comprehension of the Margins was higher than that of the No Margins. This indicates that while the participants read the Margin passages slower, they comprehended more than when reading the No Margin passages. There was no main effect for leading or interaction between margins and leading.

Table 1. Mean (SD) Reading Performance Across Conditions

Figure 5. Effect of Margins on Reading Speed and Comprehension.

Satisfaction

Results revealed a significant main effect of Margins on satisfaction. Users favored the Margin condition, reporting lower levels of physical fatigue during reading and greater satisfaction with the layout for the presentation of textbook, leisure, and news material. Results also showed a significant Margin x Leading interaction for questions related to satisfaction with the overall layout and perceived eyestrain. Post-hoc analysis showed that in both cases, the No Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading condition was significantly less satisfying and more strenuous.

Preference

Results from a Friedman X² test showed a significant preference for the Margins, Optimal Leading condition (X² (3, N = 18) = 8.80, p < .05). Post-hoc analysis showed this condition to be significantly preferred over the No Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading condition. Preference for each condition (percent of participants choosing each layout as their first choice) is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Preference of white space passages. M-OL= Margins - Optimal Leading; M-SL = Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading; NM-OL = No Margins, Optimal Leading; NM-SL = No Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading

Discussion

Results from this study showed that the manipulation of the Margin white space affected both reading speed and comprehension; participants read the Margin text slower, but comprehended more than the No Margin text. In general, the results favored the use of Margins. The manipulation of Leading did not seem to impact reading performance, but did result in lower satisfaction with the layout and perceived eyestrain when paired with No Margins. Forty-seven percent of participants chose the Margins, Optimal Leading layout as their favorite, while 50% of the participants chose the No Margins, Sub-Optimal Leading text as their least favorite. The second preferred combination was the No Margin, Optimal Leading condition. Interestingly, those that chose this condition as the best layout said that they liked the spacing between the lines and indicated the font looked larger and was easier to read. So, while leading did not affect reading performance, it did appear to influence user preference.

The use of white space for online reading is important as the number of people using online textbooks and materials continues to grow at a steady rate (“Another non-traditional option,” n.d.). Figure 5 shows an example of two websites offering short stories. As shown, each utilizes a different amount of white space. The top example is very typical of a selection from a short story site and uses very little margin. Based on the results of this study, it is possible that reader comprehension may be reduced for this passage. Designers should be aware of the potential influence of white space on reading performance. Future research needs to be done to examine the role of white space in online reading. While this study investigated the use of margins and leading, future studies could examine the impact of such variables in multi-column displays and with various line lengths.  

http://mbhs.bergtraum.k12.ny.us/cybereng/shorts/caskpoe.html

http://www.short-stories.co.uk/

Figure 5. Examples of white space used on two short story websites.

Acknowledgement: This study was funded by a grant from Microsoft Corporation.

References

Another non-traditional option: Is online learning right for you? (n.d.). Retrieved July 8, 2004 from the Greater Philadelphia Newspapers Web site: http://www.phillyburbs.com/educationguide/online.shtml.

Chaparro, B. and Bernard, M. (2001). Finding Information on the Web: Does the Amount of White Space Really Matter? Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Usability Professionals’ Association Conference. (also available at http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/
2W/whitespace.htm)

De Groote, S. L., & Dorsch, J. L. (2003). Measuring use patterns of online journals and databases. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 231-240.

National Cancer Institute (2003). Research-based web design and usability guidelines. Retrieved on January 28, 2004, from the National Cancer Institute’s Usability.gov Web site: http://www.usability.gov

Spool, J. M., Scanlon, T., Schroeder, W., Snyder, C., & DeAngelo, T. (1997). Web Site Usability: A Designer’s Guide, User Interface Engineering. North Andover MA.

Paper or Pixels: What are People Reading Online?

by A. Dawn Shaikh

Summary: This study evaluated the reading habits of Internet users across five document types - journal articles, news, newsletters, literature, and product information. Internet users completed an online survey indicating how likely they were to read a document online or on paper. Journal articles were primarily reported to be read in printed form, while documents such as online news, newsletters, and product reviews were reported to be read mainly online. Users reported that they tend not to use online sources for reading literature. Primary factors determining whether a document was printed or read online were size, importance, and intended purpose of document.

The number of libraries and websites now offering online access to textbooks, journals, news, and general information is steadily increasing. The number of learners using online textbooks and materials was expected to reach 2.2 million in 2003 (“Another non-traditional option,” n.d.). In April of 2003, 148 of the 150 top-selling newspapers in America were online (Berger, 2003). In addition, universities are offering up to ten times the number of online journals as print journals (De Groote & Dorsch, 2003). Web pages offering product information and reviews are in the millions when doing basic Google™ searches. Websites such as East of the Web (www.eastoftheweb.com) contain over 1500 short stories available for online reading. Declines in hosting and software costs have lead to an overabundance of online newsletters and e-zines as well (Marcus, 1997).

De Groote and Dorsch (2003) reported that many studies have found a preference among medical professionals for accessing documents online using online databases. Results from their survey of medical professionals’ online reading habits further indicated that many medical personnel either prefer to read the entire full-text journal online or print it to read. However, documents other than academic journals were not considered. Some medical professionals report spending an average of 4.4 hours per week reading journal articles (Saint et al., 2000). Many university libraries are reporting a decline in the usage of print journals and magazines as more readers access the full-text articles online (De Groote & Dorsch, 2001). Despite the apparent increase in online reading, many users report using personal printers to print online articles for reading (De Groote & Dorsch, 2001). Similar trends are happening in other professions. Rho and Gedeon (2000) reported that 96% of their participants (university researchers and research students) located articles using the web, and a majority of the participants preferred to only skim part of academic journal articles online and then print to read from paper; however, as few as 3% reported reading the entire article online.

Reasons for not reading articles online vary. Hornbæk and Frøkjær (2003) reported users found navigation difficult when using online documents, and they preferred the tangibility of paper documents. Other explanations included perceived slower reading speeds, lower comprehension, and increased fatigue. Torre, Wright, Wilson, Diener-West, and Bass (2003) found two main barriers to reading electronic publications among physicians: (1) inability to read anywhere and (2) preference for print media. De Groote and Dorsch (2003) reported the following reasons for using printed documents: better quality graphics; document portability; ability to highlight the article; original formatting retained; and more legible tables. Reasons for preferring online publications included: quicker and easier to locate; 24-hour access; lower cost; access from home/office, efficiency; and convenience.

This paper explores the online reading habits for five document types across a variety of participants. Reasons for reading online or on paper are also assessed.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were solicited by an email invitation to complete an online survey. The invitation was sent to a variety of e-mail lists including lists for hobbyists, the UTEST list (sponsored by Clemson University), and other professional listservs. Student participants were recruited through psychology classes for course credit. A total of 330 respondents (221 females, 109 males) completed the survey. Ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 73 years (M = 33).

Participants were from a variety of professions, including students (36.4%), technology (14.2%), education (12.1%), self-employed (5.2%), homemakers (4.8%), executive/managerial (4.2%), medical/dental (3.3%), and other professions (19.8%). The participants were also an educated group with 41.2% reporting a post graduate or higher level of education and 47% reporting at least some college or a four-year degree.

Over 49% of respondents reported reading online for 2-6 hours per week, while 13% reported reading online 7-14 hours per week, and almost 7% indicated they spend 15 hours or more per week reading online. A total of 61.8% of respondents described their comfort level as “very comfortable” when asked, “How comfortable are you locating information, such as an online document, using the Internet?”

Materials

A short survey was designed to collect information on online reading habits and demographics. The survey consisted of 19 questions and was delivered via the Internet. The survey questions were based on previous surveys as well as the results of pilot testing. Participants were asked to indicate their online reading habits for five document types: academic/journal articles, news articles, literature (short stories, textbooks, etc), newsletters or e-zines, and product information or reviews.

Procedure

Participants chose one of five options to indicate their reading habits for each document type: (1) read online only; (2) print document to read on paper only; (3) read online first, then print to read on paper again; (4) scan online first, then print to read on paper in more detail; and (5) do not use online sources for this document type. Participants were also asked to include all factors that determine whether they read a document online and on paper. Participants were asked if they preferred magazine subscriptions in paper, online, or both. Finally, demographic information was collected. The survey took approximately 10 minutes to complete.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the results of all responses for each document type. When reading academic/journal articles online, only 20.3% reported reading them online while 70.4% reported printing the document. Most respondents (47.9%) reported that they “scan online first, then print to read on paper in more detail.” The majority of respondents reported reading online news (68.2%) and newsletters (72.7%) exclusively online (Figure 1). Additionally, 64.8% of respondents indicated they preferred to read product information and reviews online rather than printing (29.4%). Online literature (such as textbooks and short stories) did not share this pattern. Over 56% of participants reported not reading literature online at all. Few participants across all document types indicated that they preferred to print the document to read on paper only. Participants still prefer to get journals and magazines in print form (66.1%) rather than online (13.6%). A few indicated they prefer to get subscriptions in both print and online form (20.3%).

Table 1. Users’ online reading habits based on document type.

Figure 1. Percentage of participants who read online for each document type.

Reader Comments

An analysis of the open-ended comments revealed major factors that influence the decision to print a document or to read it online. These have been summarized in Table 2.

Size. Interestingly, the major reason participants gave for deciding to read a document from print OR to read it online was the size of the document. Respondents repeatedly noted that long documents were printed while short documents (1-5 pages) were easier to read online.

Purpose of document. Respondents noted that the purpose and importance of the document was a determining factor. If the purpose was for research, presentations, or supporting a point, the respondents reported they preferred to print it. If the document was for entertainment they favored reading it online.

Ease of navigation. Ease of navigation was mentioned as a major factor in determining to read online; in that users were inclined to print the document if navigating within the document was difficult. They also indicated they would print if the navigation back to the document was challenging. Users also included too much scrolling as a downside to reading online.

Convenience. The convenience of reading online (including ease of locating document and time efficient) was a major reason to read online as well. Participants favored using online documents because they could read them anytime. Locating documents online was viewed as more time efficient since a trip to the library or bookstore was not necessary.

Quality of document. The quality of the document when rendered in online format was seen as a deterrent for reading online, as several participants noted that if the quality was poor they would seek out a printed version.

Complexity of document. Factors influencing the decision to read documents in print included the need to refer to the document at a later time and the complexity of the document. Participants noted a preference for reading complex documents on paper. Participants specifically noted the ability to highlight and make comments as a positive attribute of paper documents.

Portability. Portability of the document was mentioned as a benefit of printed material. In addition, several participants commented on the feel of paper in hand and the comfort attained by reading a paper document.

DISCUSSION

The results of this survey suggest that users of online material prefer to read text online rather than on paper. Guidelines such as the Research-Based Web Guidelines (2003), recently published by the National Cancer Institute, recommend that designers “provide an alternate form of all documents, resources, or files that can be printed in their entirety." They add that "many users prefer to read text from a paper copy of a document," and "they find this to be more convenient, and it allows them to make notes on the paper.”

Participants in this survey indicate that printing documents is based primarily on the type of document and the intended purpose of the document. Specifically, academic articles are reported to be most likely printed, especially if they are large in size and important to the reader. Many news related sites, such as cnn.com and bbc.com, offer printer-friendly versions. The respondents in this survey indicated they typically read this type of information online with only 24.2% utilizing print options. In the domain of academic/journal articles, results from this survey indicate there is a clear need for print versions of the online material. The majority of respondents used online sources to locate academic articles, but then 70.4% reported printing the document to read on paper. These results are similar to those found by Rho and Gedeon (2000). This preference indicates the need for additional research on what formats (e.g., pdf, html, etc.) are preferred by users.

Future research should be conducted on methods that would increase the likelihood and comfort level of participants reading online. As with previous studies, major reasons participants chose to read from print was the intended purpose for the document, the need to reference in the future, and the ability to highlight and comment on the paper. Users may not be comfortable storing documents in electronic formats for future reference. The ability to highlight and comment in paper documents is one that has few parallels in the digital arena. However, Adobe Acrobat features such as highlight and digital annotation do not seem to be widely used, and actual usage patterns of these and other features should be studied further.

Note: A poster based on this work will be presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's 48^th (2004) Annual Meeting

REFERENCES

Another non-traditional option: Is online learning right for you? (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2004 from the Greater Philadelphia Newspapers Web site: http://www.phillyburbs.com/educationguide/online.shtml.

Berger, S. (2003, April 16). Newspapers in the digital world. Retrieved on January 28, 2004, from Compu-KISS Web site: http://www.compukiss.com/populartopics/research_infohtm/
NewspapersintheDigitalWorld.htm

De Groote, S. L., & Dorsch, J. L. (2001). Online journals: Impact on print journal usage. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 89, 372-8.

De Groote, S. L., & Dorsch, J. L. (2003). Measuring use patterns of online journals and databases. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 231-240.

Hornbæk, K., & Frøkjær, E. (2003). Reading patterns and usability in visualizations of electronic documents. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 10(2), 119-149.

Marcus, J. (1997). Full text focus: E-Text is here to stay. Database, 20(6), 66-68.

National Cancer Institute (2003). Research-based web design and usability guidelines. Retrieved on January 28, 2004, from the National Cancer Institute’s Usability.gov Web site: http://www.usability.gov

Rho, Y., & Gedeon, T. D. (2000). Reading patterns and formats of academic articles on the web. SIGCHI Bulletin, 32(1), 67-71.

Saint, S. et al. (2000). Journal reading habits of internists. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 15, 881-884.

Torre, D., Wright, S., Wilson, R., Diener-West, M., & Bass, E. (2003). Family physicians’ interests in special features of electronic publications. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 337-340.

Online Banking: Why People Are Branching Out

By Michelle Bayles

Summary: Results from a questionnaire designed to query online banking behavior are reported. The most frequent activities reported were checking account balances and viewing or paying bills. Purchasing insurance, CDs, and applying for a loan or credit card were the most infrequent online activities. Respondents indicated that convenience and saving time were the biggest incentives to bank online. Quick access to information, clear feedback, and simple terminology were identified as the most important features of an online banking site. Implications for designers of online banking sites are discussed.

Technological advances in the banking industry have revolutionized how people manage their finances. In 1995, online banking was introduced to the public. This form of banking enables access to financial information via the Internet using personal computers, hand-held devices, kiosks, Web TVs, and cellular phones. Customers now have greater access to information, the ability to receive helpful updates and advice while reaping the benefits of convenience (Business Communications, 2000).

Banking web sites offer a variety of information and services including: opening an account; checking account balances; downloading statements; viewing or paying bills online; transferring funds between accounts; transferring funds to accounts outside the bank; purchasing CDs or securities; administering brokerage or retirement accounts (IRA, 401K, etc.); applying for a credit card; checking credit card balances; applying for a loan; checking loan status; and purchasing insurance (Business Communications, 2000).

Online financial activity has increased steadily as more and more Internet-capable households use Internet banking (Powell, 2001). The Pew Internet and American Life Project (2002) reported 37 million Americans banked online in 2002, a significant increase from 14 million in 2000. The current study reports survey results from a group of experienced online banking customers.

METHOD

Participants

Thirty-nine participants (20 Male, 19 Female), ages 18 – 60 volunteered for the study. On average, the participants reported using the internet 4 or more years.

Materials

A questionnaire was developed and administered to individuals who currently bank online. Frequency of online banking behaviors were assessed using a comprehensive list of transactional activities identified by Business Communications (2000). The same list of activities was used for categorizing behaviors typically conducted online or in person/telephone. Reasons for not conducting activities online and factors contributing to initial decision to bank online were also assessed. The last portion of the questionnaire addressed importance ratings of online banking design features. A list of design guidelines generated by Serco Usability Services (2000) along with general usability design guidelines were included (Tullis, 1995; Nielsen, 1996; Nielsen, 1999).

RESULTS

Tables 1 - 8 summarize the results of the questionnaire. The two most important reasons why respondents reportedly decided to bank online were convenience and saving time (Table 2). They also identified several activities that contributed to their decision; these included the ability to look up information on accounts and transfer funds between accounts. This was consistent with individuals reporting the most frequent activity conducted on a weekly basis was checking their account balances (Table 4).

The second most frequent activity conducted on a monthly basis was viewing or paying bills. Gomez (2002) reported similar findings that 66% of online bankers wanted to pay bills/track debits online. Based on reports by Gomez, multiple banks have reevaluated their bill payment strategies and eliminated online billing fees. For example, Bank of America no longer charges customers to utilize online bill payment services (Gomez, 2002). This new strategy was implemented to aid in customer retention. Individuals become highly invested when setting up the billing service; this typically results in increased switching costs and customer retention (Ramsaran, 2003). Sanjay Gupta, an e-commerce executive for Bank of America, reported their banking site received 60 million hits per month and had a 50% growth in online customers in 2003 (Ramsaran, 2003). Banks may be losing potential customers by charging for bill payment services. Several participants indicated a desire to use these services but were reluctant due to fees.

The most important design feature identified in this research was "quick access to information you are looking for" (Table 8). Given the high frequency of users wanting basic account information, it is recommended that account activity and balances should be immediately accessible after login. This recommendation is supported by Gomez (2002), who is recognized by the largest financial institutions in the United States for providing benchmarking information on Internet banking services.

Clear and simple terminology was rated as a very important design element for banking sites. Failure to achieve this can dissuade potential banking customers. A usability study of an online banking site by SURL found users to be confused by the term "Payee" (i.e., users wondered "Is that me or the company I am paying?"). As a result, it is recommended to use more meaningful terminology when setting up an individual or company. For example, “Account number for whom you are paying:” may be more meaningful than “Payee account”.

Results from this study showed that "feedback on acceptance or rejection of information", "indicating a function has been completed", and "identifying/fixing mistakes" were rated as very important design features for a banking site. Including these features may avoid confusion related to online forms in the transaction process. Other design recommendations for forms include clearly indicating required fields, placing legible error messages in a highly visible area, and providing feedback on how to proceed when completing a transaction (Diemen, 2000).

Several activities were reported to be preferred to be done in person (or over the telephone) rather than online (Table 6). These included opening an account, purchasing insurance, CDs or securities, administering brokerage or retirement accounts, and applying for a credit card or loan. The most important factors that contributed to conducting activities in person instead of online were preferences for dealing with people face-to-face, sites not offering enough information, perceived risk, and confusing terminology (Table 7). A number of banks have attempted to address these issues by implementing interactive capabilities such as secure chat and e-mail help (Ramsaran, 2003).

Table 1: Factors influencing participants choosing a bank

Table 2: Activities most important when deciding to bank online

Table 3: Importance rating for reasons why people decided to bank online

Table 4: Frequency of banking activities typically conducted online

Table 5: Banking activities NEVER conducted online

Table 6: Banking activities most likely to be conducted online and in person/telephone

Table 7: Reasons to conduct banking activities in person/telephone rather than online

Table 8: Importance ratings for online banking features (1 = very important, 6 = least important)

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the most frequent activities conducted online were checking account balances and viewing or paying bills. These features should be easily accessible upon login and include clear and simple terminology, feedback information, and ability to easily identify/fix mistakes. Site designers should also consider the following design recommendations for a more usable online banking site:

• Use simple terminology and include examples when setting up a Payee

• Provide direct access to frequently used accounts in the left navigation menu

• Present account activity and balances immediately after login

• Include interactive features when displaying account details such as secure chat and email help

• Clearly indicate required fields on forms

• Present legible error messages in a highly visible area

• Preset feedback on the steps necessary to complete a transaction

• Display company contact information in highly visible locations

REFERENCES

Business Communications Co. (2000). Online Banking. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://www.mindbranch.com/index.jsp

Diemen, D. (2000). Freedom from frustrating online forms. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://www.internet-usability.com/ReportDD.htm

Gomez (2002). Market research: Understanding Web banking usage by intention. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://www.gomez.com

Nielsen, J. (1996). Alertbox: Top ten mistakes in Web design. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://useit.com

Nielsen, J. (1999). Alertbox: Ten good deeds in Web design. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://useit.com

Pew Internet & American Life Project (2002). Pew Internet project data memo. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=77

Powell, T.D. (2001). e-Transactions: the impact of the internet on the financial sector. Information Management Journal 35(4) 26-29.

Ramsaran, C (2003). Online banking comes of age. Bank Systems and Technology. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://www.banktech.com

Serco Usability Services (2000). How to design on-line banking and insurance services: Usability Guidelines. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://www.usability.serco.com/index.html

Tullis, T.S., Boynton, J.L., & Hersh, H. (1995). Readability of fonts in the Windows environment. Proceedings of CHI’95, 127-128.

Preliminary Examination of Global Expectations of Users' Mental Models for E-Commerce Web Layouts

Michael Bernard & Ashwin Sheshadri

Summary: Preliminary results of an online global survey to investigate user expectations of standard e-commerce web objects are presented. The web objects included Back to Home, Advertisements, Internal Links, External Links, Shopping Cart, and Help. Participants were asked to position each object on a blank web page in the location where they would expect it to be found. Comparisons of the responses from users from four geographical areas worldwide show that, in general, participants had similar expectations on the location of the web objects. Implications for designers of international web sites are discussed.

According to NUA Internet Surveys, a greater percentage of websites are now being published outside of North America than within the United States and Canada. Yet, few studies have considered how differing cultures and pre-established conventions may affect user expectations for websites from different regions of the globe. To address this need, we sought to understand if different regional cultures and conventions do, in fact, help shape users’ layout expectations for typical e-commerce websites. Knowledge of users’ mental model for the characteristic location of objects on a website should aid in a site's accessibility and overall appeal.

Any expectations that users develop will depend to a large degree on their prior experiences. That is, users may apply previous web experience browsing local and multinational sites, as well as software analogous tools, to infer how typical web page objects are arranged. The two questions addressed in this study are: (1) "What are the current layout expectations for e-commerce websites?" and (2) "Are there any regional differences in the expectations of users for the location of web objects for a typical e-commerce web page?" Knowing these answers should help web developers configure web page objects in a layout that more closely conforms to regional expectations.

METHOD

Participants

A total of 258 participants (179 males, 79 females) were examined. Most (94%) of the participants were reported to be under the age of 55. The most common (26%) age-range was 26 to 30 years. Of the participants, 95% reported using the Internet for more than four years. A plurality of the participants (33%) used the Web 7 to 14 hours per week. They also reported using the Internet primarily for work/business (66%). Most of the participants reported to be either employed as a web designer (34%) or as a usability expert (21%). Only 16% of the participants were college students.

In order to determine if participants visited a specific website domain substantially more than other sites—which could bias them towards that particular design—they were also asked which websites they typically visited most. The results indicated that no one site was visited more to any substantial degree. The sites visited mostly ranged from news-related sites, such as CNN or BBC, to search engines. In fact, after excluding search engines, the most commonly visited website (bbc.com) was specified by only 8 participants as being their most visited site.

Procedure

Participants completed an online survey (http://www.webobject.org/) that examined their mental model for the location of certain web objects. After answering a demographics questionnaire, participants were presented with a depiction of a browser window that contained seven horizontal and six vertical grid squares. Participants were asked to move tiles that represented each of the selected objects where they expected them to be located on a typical e-commerce web page. The tiles could be placed horizontally or vertically. The tabulation was accomplished by simply adding the number of times participants selected each square for each web object and then dividing this number by the total number of times the particular tile was placed on the entire browser grid. The web object tiles represented were:

The tiles were also of different sizes, depending upon which web object they represented. This was to approximate their actual size on a web page. The advertisement banner occupied three squares, internal and external link web objects occupied two squares, and the Back to Home, Shopping Cart (Shopping Basket) and the Help links occupied one square. The participants were presented one tile per web object.

RESULTS

The percentage with which each grid was selected for each web object was categorized (see Table 1). Each shade represents a specific range of percentages for the number of times each square was selected as an expected location for a particular web object. Each color indicates the percentage of times a particular square was selected by participants.

Of the participants, 61% reported residing in USA and Canada (North America), 12% reported residing in the United Kingdom, Australia, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, and South Africa (Commonwealth) (Note: India and Canada are also commonwealth countries, but for this study will not grouped with Commonwealth countries), 17% reported residing Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, and Switzerland (Europe), and 8% reported residing in India for the majority of their life. Unfortunately, the current lack of participants from individual countries did not permit a separate layout expectation analysis for most geographical regions. This may limit the accuracy of the results for example, European regions, since there are significant cultural difference between these countries—such as France and Greece. In addition, several regions are not included in this study because of the lack of participants—such as the Middle East and the Far East. As the number of global participants increases in the future, a breakdown of the layout expectations for each respective country will be possible. Nevertheless, as seen in the figures below, the participants in all of the discussed regions had distinct mental models for the location of the examined web objects. 

Table 1. The darker the shade of blue, the greater percentage a particular square was selected.

As seen in Figure 1, participants from all regions expected the "Back to Homepage" link to be located at the top-left of an e-commerce web page.

North America	Europe
India	Commonwealth

Figure 1. Expected locations for the "Back to Homepage" link

As seen in Figure 2, participants from all regions generally expected banner ads to be located at the top of an e-commerce web page

North America	Europe
India	Commonwealth

Figure 2. Expected locations for banner advertisement links

As seen in Figure 3, participants from all regions generally expected links to internal web pages to be located at the left or right side of an e-commerce web page.

North America	Europe
India	Commonwealth

Figure 3. Expected locations for links to internal web pages

As seen in Figure 4, participants from all regions generally expected links that are external to a site to be located on either the left or right side of an e-commerce web page.

North America	Europe
India	Commonwealth

Figure 4. Expected locations for links external an e-commerce web page

As seen in Figure 5, participants from all regions generally expected the shopping cart (basket or trolley) link to be located in the upper-right corner of an e-commerce web page.

North America	Europe
India	Commonwealth

Figure 5. Expected locations for the shopping cart (basket) link

As seen in Figure 6, participants from all regions generally expected the “Help” link to be located in the upper-right corner of an e-commerce web page.

North America	Europe
India	Commonwealth

Figure 6. Expected locations for the “help” link

GENERAL FINDINGS

This study examined user expectations regarding the location of common e-commerce web objects. From these results, it is suggested that relatively common expectations have been formed for the locations of certain e-commerce web objects, which underscores the need to place them in their expected location. Participants from all geographical regions covered in this study generally expected the following:

These findings are consistent with previous surveys that examined user expectations regarding the location of typical web objects (e.g., Bernard, 2002, 2001, 2000). Moreover, of those who responded, 76% of the participants reported that their expectations for the locations of common e-commerce web objects is generally the same as where they would prefer the objects to be located, again supporting the argument that website layouts should attempt to conform to user expectations.

It is interesting that participants from all the geographical regions examined had similar expectations. It is therefore possible that the influence of multinational websites and cross-regional web browsing have significantly shaped the web page layout expectations of typical web users. Indeed, examining websites that non-U.S. participants reported as their most visited site revealed that 64% of these sites were designed for an international audience, 7% were international sites that were customized to their country, and 28% were websites that were chiefly intended for their specific regional audience. If this consistency holds true over time, then the need to construct web layouts for specific regions will be less important. However, with the exception of India, this preliminary study currently does not compare the expectations of users from individual countries. Thus, differences in expectations between countries may exist but are not apparent in this study. As more data is gathered, we will be able to present the web object location expectations for persons of other regions, including individual countries. We will also be able to increase the accuracy of the presently recorded regional expectations.

Note: To complete this online survey, visit http://www.webobject.org/ .

REFERENCES

Bernard. M. (2002). User Expectations for the Location of Common E-Commerce Web Objects Usability News, 4. 1. http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/web_object-ecom.htm

Bernard, M (2001). Developing schemas for the location of common web objects. Usability News 3.1. http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/web_object.htm

Bernard. M. L. (2000). Examining user expectations of the location of web objects. ITG Internetworking 3.3 [Online]. http://www.internettg.org/newsletter/dec00/article_bernard.html

NUA Internet Surveys (2004). http://www.nua.ie/surveys/

Comparing Data Input Methods on Handheld Computers

 By Gina M. Copas & Lynn Elders

Summary: Three data entry methods (external keyboard, internal keyboard, or Graffiti2™) were compared in terms of speed, accuracy and satisfaction. Results indicate that data entry was fastest on the external keyboard and slowest the Graffiti2® data entry method. Data entry was most accurate on the external keyboard for alpha-only and most accurate on the internal keyboard for numeric and alpha/numeric data. Participants generally reported greater satisfaction for the external keyboard than the other two methods.

Handheld computers (HHCs) are small, palm-sized portable, programmable, electronic devices that can store, retrieve, and process data. These devices have quickly become popular in many areas including K-12 education (Vincent, 2003; BayCHI, 2001) and medicine (Dean, 2004; Scheinfeld & Goldblum, 2003; McAlearney, Schweikhart, & Medow, 2004; Courtney, n.d.). Popular use, however, does not always equate with universal acceptance. In a qualitative study by McAlearney, Schweikhart, & Medow (2004), doctors reported frustration with data entry as a potential barrier to the adoption and use of HHCs. 

The purpose of this study was to compare three data entry methods (external keyboard, internal keyboard, or Graffiti2™) in terms of task speed, accuracy and user satisfaction. Participants used each method of data entry to enter sets of alpha-only, numeric-only or alpha-numeric data sets.

METHOD

Participants

Materials

Figure 1.  Zire^TM 71

The handheld computers (HHCs) tested in this study were all Zire™ 71’s (See Figure 1) provided by WSU’s College of Education. The HCCs measured 4.4 x 2.9 x 0.6 in and weighed 3.8 oz. The HHC screens had a 160x160 pixel and 320x320 color display and used a 126MHz TI OMAP 311 ARM processor. There were three data entry conditions: external keyboard, internal keyboard, & Graffiti2®. All participants were provided with a Palm Ultra-Thin™ external keyboard (See Figure 2). Keyboard dimensions (fully opened) measured 9.9 x 5.8 x0.5 inches. The keyboard used the QWERTY keyboard arrangement with other Palm™ specific function arrangement of input keys. Participants connected the keyboard to the Zire™ 71 with the Palm™ Universal Connector. Data was input in this method by typing the information on the external keyboard; however, the numeric keys on the keyboard are the top row and needed a function key pressed simultaneously as the numeric keys. All HHCs were equipped with an internal keyboard using the QWERTY arrangement of input keys. Data was input in this method by tapping on individual keys displayed on the HHC screen with a stylus. The HHCs were also equipped with the Graffiti2® software, which involves data input using a stylus in a manner of writing similar to pen and paper.

Figure 2. Palm Ultrathin™ external keyboard

Procedure

Investigators read instructions and demonstrated the data entry methods to the participants. Participants were given practice opportunities and were encouraged to play Giraffe, a HHC Graffiti2® practice game. A data entry sheet was provided to each participant containing both alpha and numeric data to be entered into Sheets To Go, the HHC version of Excel. The alpha and numeric data were organized into two columns with 20 entries of 6 characters each.  The entries for the alpha/numeric data were entered by the participants from the alpha and numeric columns by taking 3 characters from each column. Each participant entered the data in each of the data entry methods (see Figures 3 & 4). Conditions were counterbalanced to control for the practice effect. Participants recorded their own task start time and task end time. Finally, participants beamed their Sheets To Go files into the investigator HHC for data collection. Errors were counted if there were any discrepancies between original data provided and the data as input by the participants. 

At the end of each data entry condition, participants completed a satisfaction survey and then completed a final survey at the end of the study. The satisfaction survey was a series of Likert-type questions adapted from the Software Usability Survey (Brooke, 1986).

Figure 3. Data entry using External Keyboard

Figure 4. Data entry using Graffiti2™ with stylus

RESULTS

Speed and Accuracy

Participants completed the data entry tasks more quickly on the external keyboard than with the internal keyboard or Graffiti2® data entry method. In terms of accuracy, there was an interaction between the data entry method and the type of data being entered. Participants entered alpha-only data more accurately when using the external keyboard but were more accurate in the numeric-only condition with the internal keyboard. Similarly, in the alpha/numeric generation condition, participants performed best using the internal keyboard. Participants expressed dissatisfaction with having to simultaneously press a function key while pressing number keys to input numeric data. 

Table 1. Speed & Accuracy for HHC Data Entry Methods (Mean, SD)

Satisfaction

Overall, participants (77.8%) were most satisfied with the external keyboard data entry method. They reported it to be the easiest to use and felt the most confident entering data with it. Participants were least satisfied with the Graffiti2® data entry method, reporting it to be the most complex, most cumbersome and requiring the most practice.

Table 2. Participant Satisfaction with HHC Data Entry Method (Mean,SD)

DISCUSSION

Participants were asked to input alpha, numeric and alpha/numeric data from a provided data sheet into Palm Zire™ 71's. They were asked to input the data with each of the three data entry methods: external keyboard, internal keyboard, or Graffiti2®. Results indicated that data entry with the external keyboard was fastest for all data types and most accurate with alpha-only data. However, data entry was most accurate for the numeric and alpha/numeric data with the internal keyboard.

Not surprisingly, there was a bias for the more traditional, external keyboard both in terms of performance and satisfaction. It is quite possible that this bias might have been even greater had the participants not been required to press a function key while entering numeric data. However, not all users purchase external keyboards, and this comparison shows that the internal keyboard is generally favored over the Graffiti2® method.

These results are limited to the brand of HCC used in this study; to fully understand the impact of using different data entry methods available with HHC's, other brands and devices should be evaluated.

SPECIAL THANKS:  To the Advanced Research Methods Lab class Spring 2004 for their help and input in analyzing the data.

REFERENCES

BayCHI. (2001). Panel discussion on Handheld Computing in Education. Retrieved 6/8/04 from: http://www.baychi.org/bof/kids/20010913/

Brooke, J. (1986). SUS – A “quick and dirty” usability scale. Digital Equipment

Corporation. Retrieved 11/03/03 from http://www.cee.hw.ac.uk/ph/sus.html.

Courtney, T. (n.d.). Handheld computers in pediatric education. Retrieved 6/8/04 from: http://www.pdamd.com/vertical/features/Pediatric.xml.

Dean, L. (2004). Handhelds for patients. Retrieved 6/8/04 from http://www.doctorsgadgets.com/articles/handheldsforpatients.htm.

McAlearney, A.S., Schweikhart, S.B., & Medow, M.A. (2004). Doctors’ experience with handheld computers in clinical practice: A qualitative study. Retrieved 6/8/04 from: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;328/7449/1162.

PalmOne. (2004). Zire™ 71 & Palm Ultrathin™ Keyboard Specifications. Retrieved 2/24/04 from: http://www.palmone.com/us/products/handhelds/zire21/details.html

Scheinfeld, N.S. & Goldblum, O. (2003). Handheld computers in dermatology. Retrieved 1/20/04 from: http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic933.htm

Vincent, T. (2003). Planet 5^th. Retrieved 1/20/04 from: http://www.mpsomaha.org/willow/p5/index.html

The Role of Interactivity in Web-Based Educational Material

  By Laurie Brady

Summary: The effect of interactivity within an educational website was examined regarding learning outcomes, website satisfaction, and student time-on-task. The participants consisted of 72 seventh grade students from 5 classrooms. Each participant was randomly assigned to use one of three science websites with similar content but varying levels of interactivity. Results indicate that interactivity positively influenced learning outcomes, website satisfaction, and time-on-task.

Development of effective instructional web-resources is a growing concern for instructional designers and educators alike. Good design of these resources is critical since user interaction with a web-based learning environment is frequently a one-time event (Jones, 1994). In addition to utilizing usability guidelines, designers of instructional web-resources must also employ aspects of learning theory. A particular concern hinges on the role interactivity plays within educational web environments. While the majority of research indicates that interactivity positively influences learning (Milheim, 1995-96; Najjar, 1998; Ohl, 2001; Robertson, 1998; Shaffer & Hannafin, 1986; Sims, 1997; Stoney & Wild. 1998; Yacci, 2000) and satisfaction (Stocks & Freddolino, 2000; Teo et al., 2003; Zirkin & Sumler, 1995), relatively few studies have used websites in their experiments, and even fewer have used educational websites. Most conclusions have been made from experiments outside the realm of the World Wide Web, such as in the classroom or through other forms of multimedia (e.g., interactive video). It should not be assumed that the benefits of interactivity apply equally to all environments.

For the purposes of this study, interactivity shall refer to a form of cognitive engagement influenced by structural aspects of the medium (computer). Interactivity is influenced by the amount of control available to the user (Robertson, 1998; Borsook & Higginbotham-Wheat, 1991; Stoney & Wild, 1998) as well as the availability of features that encourage users to actively process information (Ritchie, 1996; Marzano, 1992; Thibodeau, 1997). According to the literature, increasing user-control should increase learning and user satisfaction. Similarly, increasing active processing should result in increased learning outcomes. It remains unclear, however, whether interactivity increases student time-on-task (Shaffer & Hannafin, 1986; Summers, 1990-91). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyze the role of interactivity within an educational website including its effect on learning outcomes, satisfaction, and time-on-task.

METHOD

Participants

Seventy-two middle school students (39 boys, 33 girls, mean age = 12.6) volunteered to participate in the study. All students were enrolled in the 7^th grade and attended a public school in a small town in Kansas (population approx. 6,000). Ethnic background of the participants consisted of 93% White, 4% Hispanic, and 3% Other. On average, students visited websites a few times per month at school and a few times per month outside of school. Each classroom of volunteers was entered in a drawing for a $25 gift certificate to a local store, and an additional $15 gift certificate was given to the student from each classroom who scored the highest on the post-test.

Materials

Three websites with varying levels of interactivity were developed using content and graphics from the “Inside a Cell” website, used with permission of the Genetic Science Learning Center at the University of Utah (http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu) (see Figures 1-3). 

Figure 1. Reactive Website. Users were required to simply press the space bar or click on the Next link to view each lesson page.

Figure 2. Coactive Website - The coactive interface allowed users to make more choices as to how to traverse the lesson. Users clicked on the links at the top of the page to view each portion of the lesson.

Figure 3. Proactive Website – Interactive Portion. Users were able to engage in an interactive activity for each portion of the lesson.

Procedure

All students were given a pre-test on the parts of a cell on the same day. Three matched groups were then created based on students’ pre-test scores. Each group was then randomly assigned to one of the three website conditions: reactive, coactive, and proactive.

The following week the students engaged in the second part of the study. A brief tutorial on how to navigate a website was given to each class via an overhead projector as well as the experiment directions. Each student was instructed to interact with the website until he or she felt ready to take a quiz over the content. Once students were finished viewing the website, they completed a satisfaction questionnaire, post-test, and background questionnaire.

RESULTS

Learning Outcomes

Previous research on interactivity has been dismissed for failing to take into account the degree to which interactive functions were utilized (Sundar et al., 2003). Therefore, usage data was analyzed to determine which students in the most interactive group viewed more than one-half of the eight interactive exercises presented. These students were used in the final analyses (see Table 1 for all means and standard deviations.)

The difference between pre- and post-test scores on the multiple-choice quiz was calculated for each participant. A one-way ANOVA was performed on these scores to test the effect of interactivity on learning using the matched groups. The results were significant, F(2, 39) = 3.32, p<.05. Post hoc analysis (Tukey HSD) revealed that students in the most interactive group (proactive) made significantly larger learning gains than those in the least interactive group (reactive).

Satisfaction

The satisfaction questionnaire item scores were totaled to generate an overall satisfaction rating for each participant. Results from a one-way ANOVA to test the effect of interactivity on satisfaction revealed that the most interactive website was preferred over the least interactive website.

Time-on-Task

Results of a one-way ANOVA to test the effect of interactivity on time-on-task also showed that students in the most interactive group (proactive) spent significantly more time-on-task than the students in the coactive and reactive groups. A one-way analysis of variance was also performed to test for the effect of interactivity on the number of web pages viewed. The results were not significant.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine the role interactivity plays within an educational website regarding learning outcomes, satisfaction, and student time-on-task. Students in the most interactive group (proactive) who viewed more than one-half of the interactive portions of the website were shown to make significantly larger learning gains, were more satisfied, and spent more time with the site than students in the least interactive group (reactive). Despite the differences found in time-on-task, no significant differences were found regarding the number of pages each participant viewed. Students in the most interactive group also spent longer viewing each page of the site than students in the other two groups.

One likely cause of decreased satisfaction with the least interactive website was the lack of control allowed to the user. The proactive and coactive websites both allowed users to control the order of presentation regarding the parts of an animal cell. The reactive website, on the other hand, forced the user to view the components in a pre-selected order. Research has shown that when users possess the skills necessary to handle proposed levels of learner control, outcomes tend to be positive (Stoney & Wild, 1998).

Results of this study indicate that interactivity is one factor to consider when creating or choosing educational web resources. While a computer cannot make a student learn, providing opportunities for interaction can increase learning effectiveness. Additional research is needed to better understand interactivity, including how to foster it and when its use is most beneficial. Understanding how the components of good instructional design work together can help to ensure the World Wide Web reaches its educational potential.

REFERENCES

Borsook, T. & Higginbotham-Wheat, N. (1991). Interactivity: What is it and what can it do for computer-based instruction? Educational Technology, 31(10), 11-17.

Ergobrowser™, Ergosoft Laboratories© 2001

Jones, M. (1994). Visuals for information access: a new philosophy for screen and interface design. In Imagery and visual literacy: Selected readings from the annual conference of the international visual literacy association, Tempe, 26, October 12-16, 264-272.

Marzano, R. (1992). A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning.  Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Milheim, W. (1995-96). Interactivity and computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24(3), 225-233.

Najjar, L. (1998). Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. Human Factors, 40(2), 311-323.

Ohl, T. (2001). An interaction-centric learning model. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(4), 311-332.

Ritchie, D. (1996). Using instructional design principles to amplify learning on the World Wide Web. Technology and Teacher Educational Annual, 7, 813-815.

Robertson, J. (1998). Paradise lost: Children, multimedia and the myth of interactivity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14(1), 31-39.

Shaffer, L. & Hannafin, M. (1986). The effects of progressive interactivity on learning from interactive video. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 34(2), 89-96.

Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art?. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157-180.

Stocks, J. & Freddolino, R. (2000). Enhancing computer-mediated teaching through interactivity: The second iteration of a World Wide Web-based graduate social work course. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4), 505-518.

Stoney, S. & Wild, M. (1998). Motivation and interface design: Maximizing learning opportunities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 40-50.

Summers, J. (1990-91). Effect of interactivity upon student achievement, completion intervals, and affective perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 19(1), 53-57.

Sundar, S., Kalyanaraman, S. & Brown, J. (2003). Explicating web site interactivity: Impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research, 30(1), 30-59.

Teo, H., Oh, L., Liu, C. & Wei, K. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 58(3), 281-305.

Thibodeau, P. (1997). Design standards for visual elements and interactivity for courseware. THE Journal, 24(7), 84-86.

Yacci, M. (2000). Interactivity demystified: A structural definition for distance education and intelligent computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 40(4), 5-16.

Zirkin, B. & Sumler , D.E. (1995). Interactive or non-interactive? That is the question!!! An annotated bibliography. Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 95-112.

Technology in the Classroom: Investigating the Effect on the Student-Teacher Interaction

By Candace Gilmore & Charles G. Halcomb

Summary: Recent studies have shown that use of technology in the classroom is increasing. This study investigates the effect of the changing role of instructor as this trend continues. Findings indicate that, in order for technological integration in the classroom to be successful, the instructor must retain a prominent role within the class format.

Over the last ten years the World Wide Web and related technologies have developed and dramatically expanded (Lavooy & Palmer 2003). As Internet use increases and innovative Internet applications are utilized, more of one’s daily activities will be influenced by technology. Education is an area which is undergoing major restructuring due to increased Internet usage and applications. Every year more universities and colleges are deciding to implement completely web-based classes and classes that are technology enhanced (Ewing-Taylor, 1999). Experts estimate that within the next year, software and services for web-based classes will surpass $1 billion (Kaplan, 2003).

A greater reliance on technology alters the student-teacher interaction. Instruction through computers can give students more control over their learning environments and access to a wider range of materials to use in the learning process; however, for computer-assisted learning to be effective, the instructors need to put careful thought into their lesson plans. The level of student understanding must be taken into consideration. “Instructional software makes the human teacher more important, rather than less” (Ransdall, 2002). In order to fully understand how computers contribute to learning, there has to be an investigation into how the use of a computer controls the behavior of both students and teachers (Karasavvidis et. al., 2003).

In a previous study done by Lavooy and Palmer (2003), the group dynamics of the traditional classroom and virtual classroom were observed and compared. This study revealed that a technologically-enhanced class environment resulted in a greater cooperative group dynamic without any prompting from the instructor. Another comparison revealed that almost every student that accessed the lecture in the virtual classroom participated by asking and answering questions, while little participation was observed in the traditional classroom setting. Another illustrative example comes from a study done at Drexel University, which explored the effect of technology on the student-instructor interaction (Andriole, Lytle & Monsanto 1995). In the fall of 1994, Drexel University began offering courses over an asynchronous learning network. Seventy-five percent of the participants in this study felt they had more communication with fellow students and with the instructor than in a conventional course. Seventy-three percent felt they learned more in asynchronous-learning, network-based courses than they would have expected to learn in a conventional course.

Previous studies indicate that the introduction of technology alters the student-instructor interaction. This study investigates how students' performance and use of the technology offered to them is affected by the changing role of the instructor.

Method

Participants

Thirty-six undergraduate college students volunteered for this study. They were all enrolled in one of two sections of the “Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences” class offered in the Spring of 2004 at Wichita State University.

Procedure

Two sections of behavioral statistics were used in this study. Each section had an different class format but presented the same information. Both classes were taught by the same instructor, had the same text books and were given the same exams. The material covered in class was covered at the same pace, with tests being given on the same date for both classes. Each participant had access to the same material via Blackboard™, a web-based course management software used at Wichita State University that allows instructors to post announcements, class notes, practice quizzes and conduct lectures in the virtual classroom.

The independent variable in this study was the instructor's method of conducting class. Condition 1 was structured as a “hybrid” class, a combination of the traditional classroom setting and an online course. This arrangement offered the students a balance between formal classroom instruction and time for student-directed learning each day. During the student-directed learning time, students were able to use Blackboard™ to access class materials, take practice quizzes, and engage in virtual chat with others, etc. Condition 2 was completely student-centered and offered the students only student-directed learning time each day, with the instructor physically present to ask questions and assist the students with any problems.

In Condition 1 the teacher-student interaction was initiated by both parties, while in Condition 2 the teacher-student interaction was primarily initiated by the student. Condition 2 most closely represented the types of relationship that is present in asynchronous learning, web-based courses.

The participants in each condition completed a full semester of “Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences” and their performance and use of Blackboard™ was monitored and compared.

Results

A comparison of student performance and student interactions is summarized in Table 1 below. Students in Condition 1 performed significantly better on the first exam than students in Condition 2 (Table 1). Students in Condition 1 spent significantly more time interacting with material via Blackboard™. Students in Condition 1 also spent significantly more time collaborating with other students and instructors tools available on Blackboard™ (e.g., virtual classroom).

Table 1. Comparison of performance and student interactions

Discussion

In this study two different class formats, each with differing instructor roles, were compared. Our hypothesis was that the more student-centered the class format, the more performance and collaboration amongst students would be enhanced. Our findings contrast this idea. This study supports the notion that, in order for technological integration in the classroom to be effective, the instructor must take a prominent role in the class structure. Technology and computer-mediated instruction cannot replace what is contributed by the presence and formal guidance of the lecturer. Technology is a powerful tool for enhancing educational settings, but the instructor must guide the students when using these tools.

The short lecture and list of objectives offered at the beginning of each “hybrid” class not only changed the teacher-student interaction and the way the technology in the class was used, but also altered the student-student interaction. The experience of all students receiving the same lecture every class period may have fostered a more cohesive group than a setting wherein a group of individuals sat in a classroom and worked at their own pace.

The preliminary review of this study supports that a balance between student-centeredness and formal lecture is optimal and attainable. The data presented in this study, however, represents student performance and interactions only to mid-semester. There is still more data to be reviewed, which will assess if individual differences had an effect on the way students performed in each condition and how they used the technological tools. There are also “student perceptions of teaching effectiveness” (SPTEs) concerning these two classes to be reviewed. Future research will also assess the ways in which students in these two conditions used the online textbook and if it had an effect on their performance.

References

Andriole, S, Lytle, R, Monsanto, C. (1995). Asynchronous learning networks: Drexel’s experience. THE Journal (Technological Horizons In Education), 23, 97(5).

Ewing-Taylor, J. (1999). Student attitudes toward web-based courses. Retrieved November 23, 2003 from: http://unr.edu/homepage/jacque/research/student_ attitudes.html.

Kaplan, A. (2003). The worldwide classroom: Internet collaboration: the other killer app for distance learning. Computer User, 21, 18 –21.

Karasavvidis, J.M, et. al. (2003). Exploring the mechanisms through which computers contribute to learning. Retrieved March 25, 2004 from Blackwell Publishing.

Lavooy, M, & Palmer, S. (2003). Computer mediated communication: online instruction and interactivity. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14, 157-166.

Ransdall, S. (2002). Teaching psychology as a laboratory science in the age of the internet. Retrieved march 25, 2004 from Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Blackboard™ Gets A Global Review

  By Gina M. Copas, Tonya L. Witherspoon, & Karen V. Reynolds

Summary: A global group of robotics educators were invited to participate in and evaluate a pilot online course on LEGO® Mindstorms Robotics that was delivered via Blackboard™ course management software. Participants completed a usability survey regarding their perceptions of Blackboard’s™ ease of use. In general, the results were favorable toward Blackboard™ as a communication tool.

Course management software, such as Blackboard Learning System™ (Blackboard™) is widely used in distance learning in order to (i) facilitate continuous and direct communication between instructors and students; (ii) to deliver and exchange course information; and (iii) to facilitate collaborative partnerships among students (Romeu, 2002). In 1999, Wichita State University adopted Blackboard™ as their course structure tool to meet the growing demand for distance education. Many researchers agree that course structure is an important component for creating a sustainable learning environment (Fisher & Coleman, 2001; Smith, Ferguson & Caris, 2002; Verbeeten, 2001) Verbeeten also suggests that successful interactions between the user and technology lead to optimism towards web-based education, thus assessments of perceived user satisfaction is necessary. Communale, Sexton, & Voss (2001) agree that it is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of web tools for education.

This article describes a university course pilot study, Robotics Projects, that investigated the viability, sustainability, and transferability of an online, global, learning environment. This online course pilot study was built from pre-service teacher and graduate-level courses offered within the College of Education in which teachers learn to design, build, and program robots using LEGO® Mindstorms Robotics Invention Systems. The study investigated three major research questions: 1) Can participants build an online global community of practice and create their own learning? 2) Can participants design, build, and program robots collaboratively in an online global classroom? 3) Will participants broaden their global perspective and knowledge through this interaction? More complete descriptions of the project (Witherspoon, T.L., Reynolds, K.V., Alagic, A. & Copas, G.M. 2004) and (Witherspoon, T.L., Reynolds, K.V., & Copas, G.M. 2004) can be found at www.wichita.edu/gl under “Bibliography”.

METHOD

Participants

A global group of robotics educators was recruited to participate in this course pilot study via the Internet using educational listservs, bulletin boards, and educational robotics mailing lists. There were twenty-two participants representing nine countries that began the study, however, only nine participants remained to complete the final survey. Participant attrition was anticipated as participation was entirely voluntary and this study provided no compensation. Participant comments with regard to their not being able to complete the pilot study frequently included mention of prior time commitments. Thus, the final nine participants represented the US, Canada, India, Saudi Arabia. Four participants reported that they had never used Blackboard™ before, however, three of those had used other course management software.

Materials

The communication strategies used within Blackboard™ included public discussion forums, private small group discussion forums, virtual classrooms with guest experts, and file exchange capabilities (Witherspoon, T.L., Reynolds, K.V., Alagic, A. & Copas, G.M. 2004).  Course content included online collaborative activities including designing, building, and programming LEGO® robots (Witherspoon, T.L., Reynolds, K.V., & Copas, G.M., 2004).

Procedure

The Blackboard™usability survey was a series of Likert-type questions adapted from the Post Study System Usability Questionnaire (Lewis, 1995) and delivered as part of a larger survey via the Internet.  Participants were requested to evaluate each statement and respond within a scale of 1 = Agree; 6 = Disagree.  Usage data was retrieved from Blackboard’s™ internal statistical tools.

RESULTS

Completion of the study indicated that the original purpose of the study was successful; it was, in fact, possible for an online, global learning environment to be viable and sustainable. It was determined that Blackboard™ was an appropriate course management tool to manage virtual meetings of instructors, participants, and guest experts. Participants were able to use file exchange tools to exchange technical building guides and programs. They were also able to effectively use the communication tools to discuss problems as well as reflect on learning experiences.  In an effort to increase global awareness, participants were also able to discuss current events and cultural customs via Blackboard’s™ communication tools. Blackboard™ was able to support the challenges of time differences that occur in global interactions by being available 24 hours a day. The distribution of Blackboard™ usage is shown in Table 1.

The areas most accessed by students were the communication areas which include the public discussion forums, virtual classrooms and e-mail capabilities. The group areas were next in total number of hits and included the discussion and file exchange services in which students were divided into groups with the capability of private discussions among group members. The main content areas included those areas in the course management tool that allowed instructors to post information regarding the assigned projects as well as additional resources. Finally, the areas accessed the least were the student areas, where participants could post personal information.

Table 2.  Participant Perceptions of Blackboard’s™ Ease of Use

DISCUSSION

Survey results indicate that participants were very satisfied overall with their experience using Blackboard™. There were highly favorable responses to issues such as: satisfaction, effectiveness, efficiency, comfort, learnability, productivity, error recovery, structure, and interface aesthetics. Although responses were still favorable, issues that were not as highly rated included the online information (online help, onscreen messages, and other documentation) and personal expectations regarding functions and capabilities. These perceptions could be influenced by how the instructors used the course management software as well as participants prior experience with other web-based educational tools.

REFERENCES

Communale, C., Sexton, T., & Voss, D. (2001). The effectiveness of course web sites in higher education:  An exploratory study.  Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30, (2).  171-190.

Lewis, J. (1995).  IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use.  International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7, (1), 57-78.

Romeu, J.L. (2002).  Course administration: The often neglected component of technology infusion. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31, (1). 35-43.

Smith, G., Ferguson, D., & Caris, M. (2001).  Teaching on-line versus face-to-face.  Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30, (4). 337-364.

Witherspoon, T.L, Reynolds, K.V., & Copas, G.M. (2004).  Building bricks for an online global community of practice.  Proc. Ed-Media 2004 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, & Telecommunications.  June 21-26.  Lugano, Switzerland.