Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of metaphorical interface on germane cognitive load in Web-based instruction

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a metaphorical interface on germane cognitive load in Web-based instruction. Based on cognitive load theory, germane cognitive load is a cognitive investment for schema construction and automation. A new instrument developed in a previous study was used to measure students’ mental activities of schema construction and automation supported by structural cues in a metaphorical interface environment. Eighty participants were randomly assigned to one of two types of instructional units with the same instructional content and different interface types (i.e., non-metaphorical interface and metaphorical interface). The results indicated that germane cognitive load positively affected learning performance while there was no relationship between germane cognitive load and students’ prior knowledge. A metaphorical interface enhanced learners’ germane cognitive load and learning performance, and both germane cognitive load and prior knowledge similarly contributed to learning performance. The findings provide implications for the advancement of cognitive load theory and the practice of instructional development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allbritton, D. W. (1995). When metaphors function as schemas: Some cognitive effects of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. A. (2006). Exploring the art and technology of web design. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, P., Biddle, R., & Noble, J. (2002). A taxonomy of user interface metaphors, In Proceedings of SIGCHI-NZ symposium on computer–human interaction (CHINZ 2002). Hamilton. Retrieved from http://www.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/~chikken/research/papers/chinz2002/barr_chinz2002.pdf.

  • Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., Gijselaers, W., & Westendorp, J. (2008). Cognitive load measurements and stimulated recall interviews for studying the effects of information and communications technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(3), 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beriswill, J. E. (1998). Analysis-based message design: Rethinking screen design guidelines. In Proceedings of the 20th national convention of the association for educational communications and technology, pp. 29–37.

  • Berkley, J., & Cates, W. M. (1996). Building coping skills on a firm foundation: Using a metaphorical interface to deliver stress management instruction. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1996 national convention of the association for educational communications and technology, 15, pp. 71–79.

  • Cates, W. M. (1994). Designing hypermedia is hell: Metaphor’s role in instructional design. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1994 national convention of the association for educational communications and technology, 16, pp. 95–108.

  • Cates, W. M. (1996). Towards a taxonomy of metaphorical graphical user interfaces: Demands and implementations. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 18th national communications and technology, pp. 101–110.

  • Cates, W. M. (2002). Systematic selection and implementation of graphical user interface metaphors. Computers & Education, 38(4), 385–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cates, W. M., & Berkley, J. (2000) What price metaphor? Calculating metaphorical interfaces’ return-on-investment. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 2000 national convention of the association for educational communications and technology, 22, pp. 59–70.

  • Chalmers, P. A. (2003). The role of cognitive theory in human-computer interface. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(5), 593–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, J., & Grant, M. M. (2009). Are pretty interfaces worth the time? The effects of user interface types on web-based instruction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(1), 5–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, J., & Grant, M. M. (in press). Examining the relationships of different cognitive load types related to user interface in web-based instruction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research.

  • Davidson, M. J., Dove, L., & Weltz, J. (1999). Mental models and usability. Retrieved from http://www.lauradove.info/reports/mental%20models.htm.

  • de Jong, T., & van der Hulst, A. (2002). The effects of graphical overviews on knowledge acquisition in hypertext. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P. (2005). The psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firat, M., & Kakakci, I. (2010). Use of visual metaphors for navigation in educational hypermedia: Effects on the navigational performance. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19(1), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadanidis, G., Sedig, K., & Liang, H. N. (2004). Designing online mathematical investigation. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(3), 275–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haag, B. B., & Snetsigner, W. (1993). Aesthetics and screen design: An integration of principles. In Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the international visual literacy association, pp. 92–97. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/26/9e/f4.pdf.

  • Hallahan, K. (2001). Improving public relations web sites through usability research. Public Relation Review, 27(2), 223–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, A. (2000). Interface metaphors and logical analogies: a question of terminology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989). An integrated framework for CBI screen design and layout. Computers in Human Behavior, 5(3), 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L., Putt, I., & Coombs, G. (2002). Mental models of teaching and learning with the WWW. Auckland: Paper presented at ASCILITE conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrington, J. A. (1997). Authentic learning in interactive multimedia environments. Edith Cowan University. Unpublished doctoral thesis.

  • Herrington, J., Oliver, R., Herrington, T., & Sparrow, H. (2000). Towards a new tradition of online instruction: Using situated learning to design web-based units. Coffs Harbour, QLD: Paper presented at ASCILITE conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hron, A. (1998). Metaphors as didactic means for multimedia learning environments. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(1), 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, Y. C., & Boling, E. (2007). An approach for designing composite metaphors for user interfaces. Behavior & Information Technology, 26(3), 209–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, Y., & Schwen, T. (2003). The effects of structural cues from multiple metaphors on computer users’ information search performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, W. (2000). Why metaphor is a double-edged sword. Interactions, 7(3), 11–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jih, H. J., & Reeves, T. C. (1992). Mental models: A research focus for interactive learning systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner expertise into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphor we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, J. (2003). Role of metaphor in multimedia curriculum design for preservice teacher professional learning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian teacher education association, Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.atea.edu.au/Conf2003Papers.htm.

  • Lee, J. (2007). The effects of visual metaphor and cognitive style for mental modeling in a hypermedia-based environment. Interacting with Computers, 19(6), 614–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Boling, E. (1999). Screen design guidelines for motivation in interactive multimedia instruction: A survey and framework for designers. Educational Technology, 39, 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohr, L. L., & Ku, H. Y. (2003). Development of a web-based template for active learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 213–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metros, S. E., & Hedberg, J. G. (2002). More than just a pretty (inter) face: The role of the graphical user interface in engaging elearners. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Microsoft Corporation. (1995). The windows interface guidelines—A guide for designing software. Retrieved from http://www.ics.uci.edu/~kobsa/courses/ICS104/course-notes/Microsoft_WindowsGuidelines.pdf.

  • Mitchell, T. J. F., Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2005). Hypermedia learning and prior knowledge: Domain expertise vs. system expertise. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielson, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. (1998). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohl, T. M., & Cates, W. M. (1997). Applying metaphorical interface design principles to the World Wide Web. Educational Technology, 37(6), 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otter, M., & Johnson, H. (2000). Lost in hyperspace: Metrics and mental models. Interacting with Computers, 13(1), 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parizotto-Ribeiro, R., & Hammond, N. (2005). Does aesthetics affect the users’ perceptions of VLEs? Paper presented at the 12th international conference on artificial intelligence in education, Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/gr20/aied05/finalVersion/RParizotto.pdf.

  • Pearrow, M. (2007). Web usability handbook (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Charles River Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L. (1998). Design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign language multimedia software: A cognitive approach. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 40–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Grosse, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works—A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rikers, R. M. J. P., Van Gerven, P. W. M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2004). Cognitive load theory as a tool for expertise development. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2005). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. Retrieved from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/books/interactions.pdf.

  • Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szabo, M., & Kanuka, H. (1998). Effects of violating screen design principles of balance, unity and focus on recall learning, study time and completion rates. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(1), 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dam, A. (2000). Beyond WIMP. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 20(1), 50–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Hendriks, M., & Schmidt, H. G. (2003). The efficiency of multimedia learning into old age. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 489–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(3), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, C. (2001). The design elements in developing effective learning and instructional web-sites. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(4), 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R., Tollett, J., & Rohr, D. (2002). Robin Williams web design workshop. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, Texas Tech University, Box 41071, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA

    Jongpil Cheon

  2. University of Memphis, 401E Ball Hall, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA

    Michael M. Grant

Authors
  1. Jongpil Cheon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael M. Grant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jongpil Cheon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cheon, J., Grant, M.M. The effects of metaphorical interface on germane cognitive load in Web-based instruction. Education Tech Research Dev 60, 399–420 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9236-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9236-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation