No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The supportive arguments for hypermedia and hypertext learning environments typically assert that as the systems permit individuals to self-select content based on needs, to control the pace and content, and/or provide a measure of control otherwise missing in traditional, linear texts and lectures, learning and knowing outcomes increase. There are two difficulties with this argument and some of the resultant empirical literature. The first is that knowing is a complex phenomenon which can be variously defined and measured. However, the literature often focuses on a narrow range of definitions and measures and doesn't exploit the full range of theory. This, in turn, may lead to the second difficulty, that of very limited outcomes. A cognitive model of learning and knowing is presented and contrasted with a sample of empirical research. This model provides a solid theoretical basis for research into cognitively engaging hypermedia systems.

The results of usability verbalizations gathered using a talk aloud protocol during a heuristic evaluation with persons knowledgeable about usability are reported. An explicit problem in system design is the application and subsequent utilization of heuristic evaluations in conjunction with talk aloud protocols [1,4]. Though a common practice, the verbalizations themselves may not conform to Ericsson and Simon's [5] protocol, which is often cited as justification and is perhaps the most heavily cited process-tracing method. The difficulty is that Nielsen's heuristic evaluation [10,13], with which the protocol is often paired, specifically requires Type 3 verbalizations -data that is deemed unreliable by Ericsson and Simon. A different theory, which considers the attributes of the individual and is also from cognitive science and Simon [5], is suggested to reconcile the theory with the practice of verbal protocols.