MINIMALIST COMPUTER DOCUMENTATION - Universiteit Twente

More documents

Recommendations

Info

46 CHAPTER 4 same basic tasks (see Appendix 1), and the same command names and approach to the program (menu-oriented rather than by using the function keys of WordPerfect). Moreover, the lay-out was identical. The SS was adapted from a sample of currently used WordPerfect manuals. These manuals start from the belief that the presence of declarative information is a necessary condition for the development of a skill (e.g., Anderson, 1985). In addition to the procedural information that it shared with the MM, the SS therefore gave ample conceptual information. Thus, the SS contained regular sections such as a welcome word, an introduction, an index, and summaries. Moreover, explanations accompanied most of the procedures (i.e., the manual explains what happens 'inside the computer' when a command is executed). All procedures to attain a certain goal were explicated as opposed to the occasional inferencing in the MM. The SS also explained jargon and technical terms in detail, many of which were introduced before the users had turned the computer on. Like most traditional self-study manuals, the SS gave little error-information and there were no 'Do it yourself' sections that invited users to explore additional options of the program. As a result, the SS was almost twice as thick as the MM and it had three times as many words as the MM. Illustrative pages of both manuals are shown in Appendix 2 and 3. 3.3 Method 3.3.1 SUBJECTS Sixty-four first-year Dutch university students participated in this study. There were 15 males and 49 females with a mean age of 19.1 (SD=2.2). The subjects received course credits for participation. They were classified as novice, beginner or intermediate user (Brockmann, 1990; Chin, 1986) and randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions (MM or SS). The allocation of subjects to conditions is shown in Table 3.1. Subjects were considered novices when they had less than fifty hours experience with computers and no background with word processors. Beginners had either less than fifty hours experience with computers and experience with word processors, or had more than fifty hours computer experience, but no experience in working with WordPerfect. Intermediate users had some experience with WordPerfect. The drop-out rate was low. Only one (SS) subject did not attend the second session. Due to a computer break-down, there were incomplete data for seven subjects during the learning phase (2 MM; 5 SS) and for five subjects during the test (2 MM; 3 SS). The data for these subjects were
THE MINIMAL MANUAL: IS LESS REALLY MORE? Table 3.1 Number of subjects per condition MM Condition a SS b Row total User Novice Beginner Intermediate 13 7 10 18 7 9 Column total 30 34 64 a Minimal manual b Self-study manual excluded on an analysis-by-analysis basis, causing variable group sizes in some of the analyses. Experimental checks on the random allocation to conditions revealed no significant differences between the groups for intelligence, educational background, sex, initial motivation or typing skill. As Table 3.1 shows, computer experience was evenly distributed between experimental groups. 3.3.2 MATERIALS Experimental setting and word processor All sessions took place in a computer class equipped with a network of 19 Sirex 386-SX personal computers and a laser printer. The word processor (WordPerfect 5.1) was downloaded from a network, thereby assuring an identical setup for all subjects. Given the fact of relatively inexperienced users, WordPerfect's menu (instead of its infamous function keys) was used to execute commands (see Cuff, 1980). During the hands-on part of the training sessions and during the test phase, a registration program stored the subjects' actions in a logfile. Every time a subject struck a key, time and keypress were recorded. Instructional materials During training, all subjects received a manual (MM or SS) and a diskette containing all documents to be used in training. Both manuals were developed iteratively. A concept version of each manual was reviewed by three experts (an instructional technologist, a technical writer with detailed knowledge of the software and a graphical designer). In addition, pilot tests were run with a number of novice students. On the basis of these findings, both manuals were revised. 31 14 19 47
Page 1 and 2: MINIMALIST COMPUTER DOCUMENTATION A
Page 3 and 4: MINIMALIST COMPUTER DOCUMENTATION A
Page 5 and 6: Acknowledgements Including acknowle
Page 7 and 8: Contents Chapter 1: General introdu
Page 9 and 10: CONTENTS 5.2.1 Subjects 85 5.2.2 Ma
Page 12 and 13: xii
Page 14 and 15: 14 What instructional methods shoul
Page 16 and 17: 16 CHAPTER 1 is their primary inter
Page 18 and 19: 18 CHAPTER 1 documentation is incre
Page 20 and 21: 20 CHAPTER 1 commercially available
Page 22 and 23: 22 CHAPTER 1 Kerr, M.P., & Payne, S
Page 24 and 25: 24 CHAPTER 2 1983) that they began
Page 26 and 27: 26 CHAPTER 2 However, these manuals
Page 28 and 29: 28 CHAPTER 2 To allow users to lear
Page 30 and 31: 30 Table 2.1 Minimalist principles
Page 32 and 33: 32 CHAPTER 2 2.3.2 TEXT OPTIMIZATIO
Page 34 and 35: 34 CHAPTER 2 information reads: "Ca
Page 36 and 37: 36 CHAPTER 2 Chapters in a minimal
Page 38 and 39: 38 References CHAPTER 2 Aizu, I., &
Page 40 and 41: 40 CHAPTER 2 Scharer, L.L. (1983).
Page 42 and 43: 42 CHAPTER 4 These studies have ind
Page 44 and 45: 44 CHAPTER 4 Carroll et al. (1987)
Page 48 and 49: 48 CHAPTER 4 Questionnaires and tes
Page 50 and 51: 50 CHAPTER 4 Table 3.2 Mean time to
Page 52 and 53: 52 CHAPTER 4 Table 3.4 Mean number
Page 54 and 55: 54 CHAPTER 4 Table 3.7 Mean perform
Page 56 and 57: 56 CHAPTER 4 with regard to the per
Page 58 and 59: 58 CHAPTER 4 procedural skills (e.g
Page 60 and 61: 60 CHAPTER 4 Paxton, A.L., & Turner
Page 62 and 63: 62 CHAPTER 4 The main reason for th
Page 64 and 65: 64 CHAPTER 4 in the detection of an
Page 66 and 67: 66 Retrieving a document Before you
Page 68 and 69: 68 CHAPTER 4 information at all. It
Page 70 and 71: 70 Table 4.1 Mean test time scores
Page 72 and 73: 72 Table 4.3 Mean number of errors
Page 74 and 75: 74 Table 4.6 Mean rank scores of th
Page 76 and 77: 76 4.7 Discussion CHAPTER 4 This st
Page 78 and 79: 78 CHAPTER 4 software. During pract
Page 80 and 81: 80 CHAPTER 4 Lazonder, A.W., & Van
Page 83 and 84: CHAPTER 5 Verifying the preconditio
Page 85 and 86: PRECONDITIONS FOR ERROR-BASED LEARN
Page 91 and 92: CHAPTER 6 The effect of error-infor
Page 93 and 94: THE EFFECT OF ERROR-INFORMATION IN
Page 95 and 96: THE EFFECT OF ERROR-INFORMATION IN
Page 97 and 98:
THE EFFECT OF ERROR-INFORMATION IN
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
CHAPTER 7 General discussion 7.1 In
Page 121 and 122:
GENERAL DISCUSSION the high popular
Page 123 and 124:
GENERAL DISCUSSION management depar
Page 125 and 126:
GENERAL DISCUSSION support one aspe
Page 127 and 128:
GENERAL DISCUSSION process progress
Page 129 and 130:
GENERAL DISCUSSION location was con
Page 131 and 132:
GENERAL DISCUSSION 7.4.3 PRODUCTION
Page 133 and 134:
GENERAL DISCUSSION knowledge for th
Page 136 and 137:
136
Page 138 and 139:
138 DUTCH SUMMARY (les)handleiding
Page 140 and 141:
140 DUTCH SUMMARY herstellen. Omdat
Page 142 and 143:
142 DUTCH SUMMARY naar het effect v
Page 144 and 145:
144 DUTCH SUMMARY aan de hand van d
Page 146 and 147:
146
Page 148 and 149:
148 Rearranging text Deleting text
Page 150 and 151:
150 Removing the underlines On your
Page 152 and 153:
152 ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡ ¡
Page 154 and 155:
154 APPENDIX 3
Page 156 and 157:
156 APPENDIX 4 CONFIDENCE/PRIOR KNO
Page 158 and 159:
158
show all

MINIMALIST COMPUTER DOCUMENTATION - Universiteit Twente

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?