Language Learning
&
Technology
Vol. 2, No. 1, July 1998, pp. 35-45
DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF THE USER INTERFACE
OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE MULTIMEDIA SOFTWARE: A COGNITIVE
APPROACH
Jan L. Plass
University of New Mexico
ABSTRACT
This paper is concerned with criteria for the design and evaluation
of the user interface of foreign language multimedia software. A hybrid
model is proposed that combines a cognitive and software engineering
approaches. Based on this proposed contextualized model of interface
design,
domain-specific evaluation criteria are developed to describe how well
the user interface is able to support the cognitive processes involved
in the development of linguistic and pragmatic skills and competencies
in SLA. The application of these criteria is demonstrated using the
multimedia
software CyberBuch/Ciberteca.
INTRODUCTION
The growing number of instructional multimedia software applications
for SLA and the large variety of features and components of these
programs
generate a need for methods to evaluate systematically these materials.
This paper is concerned with the design and evaluation of one of the most
prominent components of a software product-- the user interface. Defined
in very general terms as the part of an application in charge of
communication
with the learner, the user interface conveys the functionality of a
computer
application to the user, and translates the user's input into a
machine-specific
format (see Figure 1). Despite this key function
of facilitating human-computer interaction, issues in the design of the
user interface are often neglected in the development of instructional
software. The approaches and criteria used by developers as a basis for
interface design are often based more on intuition and experience than
on theory-based models. While in many cases this may result in user
interfaces
of a high usability, it makes the development of systematic evaluation
criteria for such systems difficult.
Attempts to define generally applicable design and evaluation criteria
for multimedia software have resulted in a number of different approaches
(Park & Hannafin, 1993; Ravden & Johnson, 1989). However, despite
their comprehensive list of criteria these approaches are not specific
enough to be usable for a particular subject matter area such as SLA. It
is argued in this paper that evaluation criteria need to be developed
based
on domain specific learning processes and activities and on the cognitive
processes that these activities involve. Using this approach, a taxonomy
of SLA software features would be based on the underlying pedagogy or
principles
of adult education (andragogy) and activities and instructional methods
of language learning and would address how well the individual components
of the software are able to facilitate them.
In order to develop evaluation criteria for the user interface of
foreign
language multimedia software, I will first briefly review existing
approaches
to interface design and identify the specifics of multimedia applications
for SLA. I will then propose a model for user interface design based on
a cognitive approach and will apply this model to the
CyberBuch/Ciberteca
software (Chun & Plass, 1995, 1997b, 1998). From this proposed
interface
design model, I will derive evaluation criteria for the user interface
of FL multimedia software with specific emphasis on reading
instruction.
APPROACHES AND MODELS OF INTERFACE DESIGN
Using a definition of the user interface as the communication channel
between the user and the functional elements of the computer (Furnes
&
Barfield, 1995; Marchionini, 1991; Waterworth, 1992), human-computer
interaction
can be seen as a system with three components: a computer/application,
an interface, and a human user subsystems (see Figure
1).
The function of the interface subsystem is to assign user input to
internal
representations of the application and internal representations of the
application to output that is comprehensible to the user. The type of
input
and output modes employed by the interface subsystem determines the type
of the interface. For example a text-based system uses only the written
verbal communication mode, whereas a direct manipulation system allows
the user to manipulate objects and use visual, verbal, and auditory
representations
of the system state.
-35-
Figure 1. Definition of user interface
The design process of a user interface involves the development of a
conceptual model of the application and its functionality by the
designer,
which is then implemented as the user interface, often using one or many
metaphors. Users have to interpret the interface and build their own
mental
model of its functionality (see Figure 2).
The user interface developed by the designer of the application is
influenced
by the particular functionality of the software, which in turn is
determined
by the system's inherent structure. In some cases, this structure can
influence
the design of the user interface. For example, the text-based
command-line
interface of the DOS operating system contains design features that are
influenced by the internal structure of the computer. The user has to
learn
a certain syntax of commands, parameters, and options that are closer to
the machine code of a microprocessor than to natural language. This
approach
could be characterized as Computer/Application-centered design
(Norman,
1990). The decision of how to implement the functionality conceptualized
by the developer was based more on how the computer processes and stores
information than on how the human user processes and stores it. This
results
in the requirement for the user to memorize procedural information that
is irrelevant to the actual learning task but which is necessary for
communication
with the computer.
In contrast to Computer/Application-centered design, a
User-centered
design takes human factors into account. Here the human-computer
interaction
is designed with a focus on how humans process and store information. The
goal is to allow the user to focus on the task at hand and reduce the
amount
of overhead knowledge required to communicate effectively with the
computer.
This approach requires extensive testing of the interface with actual
users
to study their behavior when using the software. Failure to conduct
usability
testing leads to the implementation of features that are solely based on
the designer's preferences and intuition, which often results in
inconsistent
features that don't fit into the user's mental model of the application
and its functionality. This approach could be characterized as
Designer-centered.
Therefore, the first question in developing evaluation criteria would be:
Is the design user-centered? (Norman, 1990). In order to answer this
question,
we need to take a closer look at current design approaches for the
development
of the user interface.
-36-
Figure 2. Design model for the user interface
In a more theory-based review of the current user interface design
practice,
Wallace and Anderson (1993) distinguish between four different types of
approaches to user interface design:
In the craft approach, the design is based on the skill and
experience
of the interface designer or human factors expert to suit the particular
circumstances (Dayton, 1991; Laurel, 1990; Norman, 1987; Rubinstein &
Hersh, 1984; Wroblewski, 1991). The goal of the design is to find the
most
appropriate features, based mainly on practical and economical
considerations
and the subjective judgment of the instructional designer rather than on
a global dominating theory. The advocates of this approach view interface
design as a craft, and put little emphasis on general principles
underlying
successful design. They argue that projects are so unique that the
development
of a structured methodology for interface design is impossible.
The enhanced software engineering approach incorporates human
factors, such as user characteristics and task analysis, into traditional
structured software engineering models exemplified by the waterfall model
or the Jackson model (Damodaran, Ip, & Beck, 1988; Shneiderman, 1993;
Sutcliffe, 1988, 1989; Waterworth, 1992; Winograd, 1992). The main focus
of this pragmatic approach is on usability and the desire to serve the
user effectively (Shneiderman, 1993).
The technologist approach focuses on providing software tools
for interface design, aimed at automating and quantifying the design
process
(Buxton & Lamb, 1983: Cockton, 1988; Wasserman, 1985). Advocates of
this approach stress the importance of rapid prototyping to identify user
requirements, but do not regard the human-computer interaction expert as
an important member of the design team. The design process is based on
user interface management systems and the idea that good interfaces can
be extracted from the user (Wallace & Anderson, 1993).
The cognitive approach applies psychological knowledge, such
as theories of information processing and problem solving to interface
design (Barnard, 1991; Card, Moran, & Newell, 1983; Gardiner &
Christie, 1991; Kieras & Polson, 1985; Landauer, 1991). This approach
is characterized by an attempt to measure the user's performance time and
memory load for a given task, to identify prerequisite and acquired
knowledge
for a task, and to describe the user's mental models and mental processes
for performing a task. The cognitive approach is the most theoretical
approach
to interface design, but it is often criticized for being too far removed
from the practical needs of the interface designer.
-37-
Recognizing the weakness of an approach that is entirely context-free,
a contextualized approach emerged that takes the specific content and
procedures
of a domain into consideration (Carroll, 1991; Dayton, 1991). Since the
cognitive approach is the only one that puts both the user and the
learning
task in the center of the design process, it seems to be the most
appropriate
basis for the development of evaluation criteria
In summary, while there exist a number of different approaches and
models
of user interface design, only a few of them focus primarily on the
learning
process and the user. The existing approaches are either pragmatic and
not firmly rooted in the theory of learning, or too complicated to be
useful
for practitioners of interface design. Moreover, no approach has been
found
that is specific to SLA and the instructional strategies and methods that
are relevant to this field. In the next section, I will therefore
summarize
the specific considerations of foreign language software, and then
integrate
them into a cognitive approach to interface that is both theory-driven
and pragmatic.
A COGNITIVE APPROACH TO INTERFACE DESIGN FOR FL MULTIMEDIA
SOFTWARE
A Cognitive Approach appears to be the most appropriate basis
both for the design and for the evaluation of user interfaces for SLA
software
since it incorporates both the user and the learning task into the
design.
In this section, I will describe some domain-specific issues of SLA,
discuss
the cognitive processes involved in SLA-related activities, and then
propose
a model for the design and evaluation of the user interface for these
applications.
Specifics of FL Multimedia Software
Software for SLA can be designed in a variety of forms and styles and
delivered in a variety of different ways, including CD-ROM-based or
WWW-based
instruction. What these different materials have in common is their goal
of developing and improving linguistic and pragmatic skills and
competencies
(see Table 1).
Table 1. SLA Competencies / Skills and Learner
Activities
Competencies/Skills |
Examples
of Learner Activities |
Listening |
Listen to passages (e.g., authentic conversations, news reports,
literary
texts) |
Speaking |
Record spontaneous speech; do intonation analysis and practice
(Chun, 1998),
use speech recognition tools (Ehsani & Knodt, 1998; Eskenazi, 1998;
Price & Rypa, 1998) |
Reading |
Macro level: view visual advance organizers, read background
information
(Chun & Plass, 1996b); Micro level: look up multimedia annotations
for vocabulary (Chun & Plass, 1996a) |
Writing |
Composition exercises, including peer-review, editing, and
rewriting |
Communicative |
Real-time chat, e-mail exchange, discussion lists (Warschauer,
1997), use
of speech recognition-based dialog systems (Luperfoy, 1998) |
Sociolinguistic |
Task-based, problem-solving, and role-playing activities that
address sociolinguistic
differences between native and target languages, and that could involve
real-time chat, e-mail exchange, discussion lists (Chun, 1994) |
Strategic |
Task-based, problem-solving, and role-playing activities that
require learners
to achieve specific goals (e.g., persuading, self-correcting, negotiating
a desired outcome); these could involve real-time chat, e-mail exchange,
and discussion lists |
To achieve these objectives, a variety of instructional activities are
implemented that are supported by various tools and features of the
program.
The user interface of FL multimedia software has to facilitate the
development
of the particular linguistic and pragmatic skills and competencies that
the software application addresses. The user interface design has to
support
the cognitive processes involved in these skills and competencies. Table 2 shows a list of cognitive processes generally
involved in learning.
Table 2. Cognitive Processes Involved in
Learning
1. Select instructional activity that supports cognitive processes
of competence or skill to be developed.
Based on a needs assessment, learner analysis, task and content
analyses,
and determination of goals and objectives, the design of instructional
materials will include the selection of instructional methods with a
number
of activities to be performed by the learners. For second language
instruction,
the goal is the development of some or all of the linguistic and
pragmatic
competencies listed in Table 1, which is accomplished by selecting the
appropriate instructional activities.
-39-
The type of activity selected will depend on the instructor's general
instructional philosophy and on the specific circumstances and needs of
the learners, but it is mainly determined by the objectives of the
instruction
and is, therefore, domain-dependent. For instance, science classes may
include problem solving activities, whereas language classes might prefer
communicative activities. These activities should support the cognitive
processes involved in the specific competency or skill. For example, in
the case of reading comprehension, the cognitive process of activating
prior knowledge could be supported by the instructional activity of using
an advance organizer. The process of building a text base from a text and
organizing information in short-term memory could be supported by
providing
annotations for vocabulary items. It should be mentioned at this point
that the selection of instructional methods and activities is also a
basis
for the selection of the delivery medium of the instruction (Clark & Sugrue, in
press). This does not necessarily imply that the delivery medium has to
be a software application.
2. Select attributes of feature.
After selecting the instructional activities to be implemented, the
attributes of the interface features can be determined. Attributes in
this
context are properties of the design feature that have relevance for the
effectiveness of the instruction. They include the functionality and
visual
appearance of both the feature and the application as a whole. These
attributes
can be derived from cognitive and educational psychology regarding human
memory, attention, interest, motivation, processing of information,
individual
differences, and construction of mental models.
In the case of reading comprehension, the use of an advance organizer
to support the process of activating prior knowledge would require
attributes
of this feature such as adaptability to different levels of prior
knowledge,
and ease of comprehension for learners with low prior knowledge. The use
of annotations for vocabulary items to aid organizing information in
short-term
memory would require easy access to different types of annotations in
different
presentation modes, avoiding distraction from the reading process if the
annotations are not needed, and avoiding covering the text when the
annotation
is displayed. Furthermore, the selection of the attributes of the design
feature has to take the interaction of the different features of the
application
into consideration.
3. Select design feature.
Based on the selected instructional activity and the attributes of the
design feature chosen, the interface designer now selects the actual
feature
and the form of its implementation. At this point, only the feature and
its attributes have been selected and usually several different
possibilities
exist for the actual implementation. Interface designers and graphic
designers
can implement the feature based on their approach and on such constraints
as cost. In the case of the above examples, the advance organizer was
implemented
as a preview movie with a voice-over that could be selected before the
story was read. Four types of annotations were implemented: definitions
in L1, translations in L2, and pictures and video visualizing the word.
In addition, the pronunciation of the word was given using a sound file.
The actual implementation is shown in Figure
4.
Figure 4. Example of annotations for vocabulary items in the project
Ciberteca
-40-
The proposed approach to interface design puts the user, the content,
and the instructional activity in the center of the design process. It
incorporates theories from cognitive psychology but it is domain-specific
enough to be practical. This model is not inherently prescriptive, and
can be used to derive guidelines for a particular project. In this sense,
it incorporates ideas from both the craft and the cognitive approaches.
Furthermore, this approach is based on instructional systems design
models
(Anglin, 1995; Smith & Ragan, 1993) that correspond to the structured
software engineering models from the enhanced software engineering
approach.
Finally, it allows for the use of CASE (computer-assisted software
engineering)
tools and the rapid prototyping method from the technologist approach.
As a hybrid of the cognitive and pragmatic approaches, this model combines
the theoretical foundation of cognitive psychology with the pragmatic
methods
of software engineering models. Finally, it allows for a more
user-centered
design by incorporating domain-specific considerations of cognitive
processes
to be performed by the learner.
In summary, the proposed model is contextualized, based on a cognitive
approach, and still pragmatic enough to be practically applicable. In
addition,
it provides a good basis for the development of evaluation criteria,
which
are discussed in the following section.
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE USER INTERFACE OF FL MULTIMEDIA
SOFTWARE
We will now return to the original question regarding the evaluation
of the user interface in FL multimedia software: "Is the design
user-centered?"
Based on the model proposed in the previous section, this question can
be specified further by incorporating the new definition and function of
the user interface. We can now ask two questions: (1) "What are the
functions of the interface elements?" and (2) "How well does
the user interface support the cognitive processes involved in
SLA?"
This approach to the evaluation of the user interface is
domain-specific
and can only be used with a specific field in mind. For second language
acquisition, the cognitive processes can be derived from the linguistic
and pragmatic competencies and skills described earlier (see Table
1).
The process of developing domain-specific evaluation criteria for a
particular software application would thus involve the following
steps:
For the assessment of the level of support for these processes one
would
identify the interface features supporting them and as well as the
quality
of the implementation. This includes an assessment of how well an
interface
feature supports individual learner differences, such as different
cognitive
or learning styles. This approach can accommodate new activities and
instructional
strategies and methods since it does not attempt to compile a
comprehensive
list of all activities known, but rather assesses whatever activities
were
implemented by the designers of the software. A sample evaluation form
is outlined in Table 3.
Table 3 is given as an example only and is not
meant to be a comprehensive list of cognitive processes or activities.
Its objective is to demonstrate the approach described in this section.
Each of the criteria is rated for its overall level of support, as well
as for the support of individual learner differences. Similar criteria
can be developed for other competencies and skills. This is, however,
outside
the scope of this paper. A comprehensive evaluation of a software
application
needs to include a number of additional sections that provide the reviewer's
information, a general program description, instructional goals and
objectives,
the target language, the overall instructional approach or philosophy,
the intended target audience, the required level of proficiency in the
foreign language, technical aspects of the software, and other
information
specific to that particular software.
-41-
Table 3. Sample Evaluation Form for Reading
Comprehension
The proposed approach results in evaluation criteria for software that
are domain-specific and that explicitly address the level of support for
individual differences in each cognitive process. In addition, this
approach
provides an adaptive evaluation method that can accommodate existing and
future instructional methods and activities. An implementation of such
an adaptive evaluation system could be done using an adaptive hypertext
that modifies the list of criteria for each application, based on the
activities
implemented in a particular program.
CONCLUSIONS
In the preceding sections I gave an overview of existing models and
approaches to user interface design and discussed their main focus and
strengths. The main problem with these approaches lies in the fact that
they are either very pragmatic and not based on underlying theories, or
that they are theory-driven but too complex to be used in the design
process.
In order to derive an approach specifically targeted for SLA software,
I first reviewed the linguistic and pragmatic competencies that are
addressed
in FL instruction and then described a new hybrid approach to interface
design for FL multimedia software.
This approach combines the theoretical basis of a cognitive approach
with the pragmatic methods of software engineering approaches. First and
foremost, it is based on the competencies and skills to be developed and
the cognitive processes underlying them. Second, it incorporates rapid
prototyping, or the use of CASE tools. It is argued that a contextualized
cognitive approach to interface design can lead to a more domain-specific
support of cognitive processes involved in the acquisition of FL
competencies
and skills, and will result in a more user-centered design of the user
interface. In addition, it will allow for the development of an adaptive
domain-specific set of evaluation criteria based on this level of
support.
I applied the proposed model to the design of software for reading
comprehension
and for developing evaluation criteria for such software. It goes without
saying that empirical research is needed to test the model's
effectiveness.
While the model for the design and evaluation of the user interface
proposed in this paper was demonstrated in its application to SLA, it has
the potential to provide a general framework for the development of
user-centered
instructional software and for the development of domain-specific
evaluation
criteria in other disciplines.
NOTE
This paper is based on a paper presented at the Invitational Symposium
on Assessing & Advancing Technology Options in Language Learning
(AATOLL)
at the National Foreign Language Research Center of the University of
Hawai'i
in February 1998 in Honolulu, HI.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jan L. Plass is an Assistant
Professor
in the Organizational Learning and Instructional Technologies Program at
the University of New Mexico. His research interests include learning
with
multimedia, especially L2 vocabulary acquisition and reading
comprehension,
interface design and constructivist learning in networked
environments.
E-mail: jan@unm.edu
-42-
REFERENCES
Anglin, G. J. (Ed.). (1991). Instructional technology: Past, present,
and future (2nd ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Barnard, P. (1991). Bridging between basic theories and the artifacts
of human-computer interaction. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing
interaction:
Psychology of the human-computer interface (pp. 103-127). Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Buxton, W., & Lamb, M. R. (1983). Towards a comprehensive user
interface
management system. Computer Graphics, 17, 35-42.
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology
of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carroll, J. M. (1991). The Kittie House Manifesto. In J. M. Carroll
(Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology of the human-computer
interface
(pp. 1-16). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the
acquisition
of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
Chun, D. M. (1998). Signal analysis software for teaching discourse
intonation. Paper presented at the Invitational Symposium: Assessing
& Advancing Technology Options in Language Learning (AATOLL).
University
of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Research Center, Honolulu, HI.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1995). Project CyberBuch: A
hypermedia
approach to computer-assisted language learning. Journal of
Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 4(1), 95-116.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996a). Effects of multimedia
annotations
on vocabulary acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 80,
183-198.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996b). Facilitating reading
comprehension
with multimedia. System, 24(4), 503-519.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1997a). Research on text
comprehension
with multimedia. Language Learning & Technology, 1(1),
60-81. Retrieved August 8, 1997 from the World Wide Web: http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vol1num1/chun_plass/default.html.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1997b). CyberBuch. [Computer
Program, Macintosh]. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1998). Ciberteca: Una Carta a
Dios.
[Computer Program, Macintosh, Windows 95/NT]. New York: St. Martin's
Press.
Clark, R. E., & Sugrue, B. (in press). Media selection for
training.
In S. Tobias & D. Fletcher (Eds.), APA handbook on training.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cockton, G. (1988). Generative transition networks: A new
communications
control abstraction. In D. M. Jones & R. Winder (Eds.), People and
computers IV (pp. 509-525). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
Damodaran, L., Ip, K., & Beck, M. (1988). Integrating human factor
principles into structured design methodology: A case study in the U.K.
civil service. In H. J. Bullinger (Ed.), Information technology for
organisational systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Dayton, T. (1991). Cultivated eclecticism as the normative approach
to design. In J. Karat (Ed.), Taking software design seriously
(pp.
21-44). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Ehsani, R., & Knodt, E. (1998). Speech recognition in computer
aided language learning. Paper presented at the Invitational
Symposium:
Assessing & Advancing Technology Options in Language Learning
(AATOLL).
University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Research Center,
Honolulu,
HI.
Eskenazi, M. (1998). Issues in the use of speech recognition for
foreign language tutors. Paper presented at the Invitational
Symposium:
Assessing & Advancing Technology Options in Language Learning
(AATOLL).
University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Research Center,
Honolulu,
HI.
-43-
Furnes, T. A., & Barfield, W. (Eds.). (1995). Virtual
environments
and advanced interface design. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gardiner, M. M., & Christie, B. (Eds.). (1991). Applying
cognitive
psychology to user-interface design. Chichster, New York: John
Wiley.
Kieras, D. E., & Polson, P. G. (1985). An approach to the formal
analysis of user complexity. International Journal for Man-Machine
Studies,
22, 365-394.
Landauer, T. K. (1991). Let's get real: A position paper on the role
of cognitive psychology in the design of humanly useful and usable
systems.
In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology of the
human-computer
interface (pp. 60-73). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Laurel, B. (Ed.). (1990). The art of human-computer interface
design.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Cary, R. N. (1987). On empirical
functions of pictures in prose. In D. H. Willows, & H. A. Houghton
(Eds.), The psychology of illustration, Vol. 1, pp. 51-85. New
York:
Springer.
Luperfoy, S. (1998). Tutoring versus training in spoken dialogue
instructional systems. Paper presented at the Invitational Symposium
on Assessing & Advancing Technology Options in Language Learning
(AATOLL).
University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Research Center,
Honolulu,
HI.
Marchionini, G. (1991). Psychological dimensions of user-computer
interfaces. Syracuse University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 337 203)
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right
questions?
Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
Norman, D. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York:
Doubleday
Currency.
Norman, D. A. (1987). Design principles for human-computer interfaces.
In R. M. Baeker & W. A. S. Buxton (Eds.), Readings in
human-computer
interaction: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 492-501). San
Francisco:
Morgan Kaufman.
Park, I., & Hannafin, M. J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines
for the design of interactive multimedia. Educational Technology
Research
and Development, 41, 63-85.
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998).
Supporting
visual and verbal learning preferences in a second language multimedia
learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology,
90(1),
25-36.
Price, P., & Rypa, M. (1998). Speech technology for language
education. Paper presented at the Invitational Symposium: Assessing
& Advancing Technology Options in Language Learning (AATOLL).
University
of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Research Center, Honolulu, HI.
Ravden, S. J., & Johnson, G. I. (1989). Evaluating usability
of human-computer interfaces: A practical method. Chichester, UK:
Ellis
Horwood.
Rubinstein, R., & Hersh, H. (1984). The human factor: Designing
computer systems for people. San Francisco: Digital Press.
Shneiderman, B. (1993). Designing the user interface: Strategies
for effective human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design.
New York: Merrill.
Sutcliffe, A. (1988). Some experiences in integrating specification
of human-computer interaction with a structured system development
method.
In D. M. Jones, & R. Winder (Eds.), People and computers IV
(pp. 146-160). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sutcliffe, A. (1989). Task analysis, systems analysis and design:
Symbiosis
or synthesis. Interacting with Computers, 1, 6-12.
van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse
comprehension.
New York: Academic Press.
Wallace, M. D., & Anderson, T. J. (1993). Approaches to interface
design. Interacting with Computers, 5(3), 259-278.
-44-
Warschauer, M. (Ed.). (1997). Virtual connections: Online
activities
& projects for networking language learners (Technical Report
#8).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.
Wasserman, A. I. (1985). Extending state transition diagrams for the
specification of human-computer interaction. IEEE Trans Software
Engineering,
11, 699-713.
Waterworth, J. A. (1992). Multimedia interaction with computers:
Human factors issues. Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood.
Winograd, T. (Ed.). (1992). Bringing design to software.
Reading,
MA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.
Wroblewski, D. A. (1991). The construction of human-computer
interfaces
considered as a craft. In J. Karat (Ed.), Taking software design
seriously
(pp. 1-19). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
-45-