Maps or Analogies? A Comparison of Instructional Aids for Menu Navigation

Abstract

We investigated the relative efficacy of a variety of spatial maps and analogies as instructional aids for the learning and navigation of hierarchical data bases. Subjects performed single- and multi-node retrieval tasks with novel data bases. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that subjects who studied an analogy prior to performing data retrieval tasks were less affected by increasing search distance than were subjects who studied a spatial map. The results of Experiment 2 suggested that the benefits of analogy relative to other instructional aids increased as time passed between initial instruction and interaction with the data base. A comparison of the findings in Experiments 1 and 2 indicated that “generic” analogies, which can be applied to a number of data bases, are as effective as more specific, literal similarities. The findings are discussed in terms of models of analogy as well as implications for the design of instructional materials for data base navigation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Billingsley, P. A. (1982). Navigation through hierarchical menu structures: Does it help to have a map? In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 26th Annual Meeting (pp. 103–107). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Bower, G. H. , Clark, M. C. , Lesgold, A. M. , and Winenz, D. (1969). Hierarchical retrieval schemes in recall of categorical word lists. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 8, 323–343.

Broadbent, D. E. , Cooper, P. J. , and Broadbent, M. H. P. (1978). A comparison of hierarchical and matrix retrieval schemes in recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 486–497.

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

Gentner, D. , and Schumacher, R. M. (1986, October). Use of structure-mapping theory for complex systems Presented at the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Atlanta, GA.

Halasz, F. , and Moran, T. P. (1982). Analogy considered harmful. In Human factors in computing systems---Proceedings of CHI '82 (pp. 212–216). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Kieras, D. , and Bovair, S. (1984). The role of mental models in learning to operate a device. Cognitive Science, 8, 255–273.

Kramer, A. F. , and Schumacher, R. M. (1987). Human-computer interaction: A brief glimpse of an emerging field. In L. S. Mark , J. S. Warm , and R. L. Huston (Eds.), Ergonomics and human factors: Recent research (pp. 213–224). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7–17) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

10.

Parton, D. , Huffman, K. , Pridgen, P. , Norman, K. , and Shneiderman, B. (1985). Learning a menu selection tree: Training methods compared. Behaviour and Information Technology, 2, 81–89.

11.

Robertson, G. , McCracken, D. , and Newell, A. (1981). The ZOG approach to man-machine communication. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 14, 461–488.

12.

Shneiderman, B. (1987). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. New York: Addison-Wesley.

13.

Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.