Processing procedural documents: A cognitive model for following written directions

Guthrie, John T.; Bennett, S. N.; Weber, Shelley

doi:10.1007/bf01320078

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Animation instructions, on the other hand, provided a great amount of visual information as it not only included explicit spatial information but included explicit temporal elements that did not have to be inferred between frames but could be observed as they occur. These distinctions affect how information is taken from external stimuli (instructions) and used to construct an internal representation or mental model that is central to the processing of instructions (Ganier et al, 2000;Guthrie et al, 1991).…”

Section: External Models and Internal Representationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ganier, Gombert, and Fayol (2000) extended this three-stage model to how a reader of instructions moves from perceiving instructions to performing an action, that is, (a) the reader either jointly or sequentially activates and/or maintains the goal of the task in working memory; (b) encodes the instructions, encodes the characteristics of the device and elaborates an integrated representation (mental model) of all these sources and an action plan; and (c) finally, executes the action. Guthrie, Bennett, and Weber (1991) had previously proposed a ''Transformational model'' e whereby transformation of information represented verbally in a procedural text must be transformed into a procedure represented behaviourally in a performance. The model proposes that in order for this transformation to be successful, users must form a conceptual model of the performance, encode procedures from the document, engage in self-testing and conduct selfcorrections to repair mistakes.…”

Section: Processing Procedural Instructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do dynamic work instructions provide an advantage over static instructions in a small scale assembly task?

Watson

Butterfield

Curran

et al. 2010

Learning and Instruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: External Models and Internal Representationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Processing Procedural Instructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do dynamic work instructions provide an advantage over static instructions in a small scale assembly task?

Watson

Butterfield

Curran

et al. 2010

Learning and Instruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We assume that procedural information primarily enhances the user's procedural model, whereas system information enhances their system model. This view seems to be compatible with the view of instructions as "external memory" for the user [11]. We also assume that users can infer missing elements of the procedural model from their system model, and vice versa.…”

Section: Theoretical Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Some Effects of System Information in Instructions for Use

Karreman¹,

Steehouder²

2004

IEEE Trans. Profess. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-An experiment was carried out to investigate whether it is useful to add system information to procedural information in instructional text. It was assumed that readers of instructions construct bothDoes someone who operates a device need to know how that device works? Many tend to answer in the negative: "Just tell me what I should do and don't bother me with the technical details." Researchers of user instructions seem to agree; they advocate an action-directed or procedural approach with some additional information only in small introductory or concluding notes (e.g., [1]). Nevertheless, it seems plausible that at least some understanding of the working of a technical device or a software program is useful for operating it adequately and that this understanding might be enhanced by explanatory information in user instructions. In this article, we make a distinction between two types of relevant knowledge for task performance. PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE includes knowledge about goals, actions, and effects of actions, also called a mental plan [2]. SYSTEM KNOWLEDGE includes knowledge about the different parts of the device, their functions, the processes that occur within the device, etc. (for the distinction, see also [3] and [4]). Parallel to these two forms of knowledge, we also distinguish two types of information in instructional documents: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION and SYSTEM INFORMATION. LITERATURE REVIEWPrevious research is not conclusive to the question of whether system information improves task performance. Smith and Goodman showed that instructions with descriptive information enhanced task performance [5]. Kieras and Bovair found that a schematic description of the internal mechanism of a device led to reduction of errors in task performance [6]. However, their study also suggested that this effect occurs only if the information describes the internal functioning of the product, not when it merely stresses motivational aspects or general principles. Experiments by Dixon et al. showed no effect of system information on how accurately subjects chose the actions needed to complete a task [7]. However, they did show an effect of system information on the recall of actions that needed to be performed.Ummelen investigated the use and effects of "declarative" information (including system information) in an experiment with an unknown and rather complex spreadsheet program [8]. Subjects were offered a manual on screen containing two types of text blocks: procedural (stepwise instructions) and declarative (task-related information about the system). The text blocks were blurred and thus illegible, except for the headings that suggested what kind of information the text block contained. By clicking with the mouse on a block, it became legible for the subjects. This "click and read technique" enabled Ummelen to see when, how often, and how long procedural and declarative information were read.The experiment showed that subjects read procedural text blocks more often and for longer periods of time than declara...

show abstract

“…First, triggering comes in response to some external cue. For example, a user perceives a discrepancy between an outcome and some definitive yardstick of correctness (Guthrie et al, 1991;Lewis, 1981). Second, detection can be prompted internally.…”

Section: Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of error information in tutorial documentation

Lazonder¹,

Meij²

1994

Interacting with Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In learning to use software, people spend at least 30% of their time on dealing with errors. It could therefore be desirable to exploit users' errors rather than to avoid them. That is, to include error information in a manual to support users in dealing with errors. An experiment was performed to examine the functionality of such error information in a manual for a word processor. Two manuals were compared, one with error information and one from which this information was removed. Forty-two subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. Subjects who used the manual with error information were expected to become more proficient at using the word processor (i.e. to show better constructive and corrective skills) and to develop more self-confidence.The results were equivocal. On some aspects of skill the error information in the manual led to better performance (i.e. correcting syntactic errors). On others it had an adverse effect (i.e. detection of semantic errors and overall error-correction time). Explanations are advanced for these findings and topics for further research are identified.keywords: human-computer interaction, human error, tutorial documentation, error information, corrective skills development One of the most striking features of first-time computer users is that they are active learners.They want to do things in order to reach personal goals, rather than read through endless pages of what they consider to be 'just information' (Carroll, 1990b; Redish, 1988; Scharer, 1983; Wendel and Frese, 1987). Unfortunately, the instructional strategy of most computer manuals does not suit this spontaneous learning strategy. Most manuals require users to proceed step-bystep through endless series of drill and practice exercises, giving them (too) little freedom for active (i.e., self-initiated) learning.The main reason for this is that trainees get themselves in trouble when they explore (Njoo and De Jong, 1991). Although these explorations can be advantageous in learning computer-related tasks (e.g. Kamouri et al., 1986; Van

show abstract

Processing procedural documents: A cognitive model for following written directions

Cited by 27 publications

References 21 publications

Do dynamic work instructions provide an advantage over static instructions in a small scale assembly task?

Do dynamic work instructions provide an advantage over static instructions in a small scale assembly task?

Some Effects of System Information in Instructions for Use

Effect of error information in tutorial documentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About