DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effects of learning method, learning schedule, and task difficulty on the learning of computer software

학습방법, 학습계획, 과제 난이도가 소프트웨어 학습에 미치는 영향

  • Kim, Kyung-Su (Department of Industrial Psychology, Kwangwoon University) ;
  • Li, Hyung-Chul (Department of Industrial Psychology, Kwangwoon University) ;
  • Kim, Shinwoo (Department of Industrial Psychology, Kwangwoon University)
  • 김경수 (광운대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 이형철 (광운대학교 산업심리학과) ;
  • 김신우 (광운대학교 산업심리학과)
  • Received : 2013.12.13
  • Accepted : 2014.02.13
  • Published : 2014.03.30

Abstract

Quick and accurate learning of diverse electronic products has become an important daily task. In particular, software occupies core status in the control and operation of the products. This research tested the effects of learning method, schedule, and task difficulty in the learning of software. Using 2 (learning method: experiential vs. verbal) ${\times}$ 2 (learning schedule: spaced vs. massed) ${\times}$ 2 (difficulty: easy vs. difficult) between-subjects design, Experiment 1 tested participants' learning of file control using Windows Movie Maker. There was no effect of learning schedule on task completion time, but participants in experiential learning were faster in the completion of evaluation task compared with those in verbal learning condition. Importantly, as task difficulty increases participants in verbal condition showed markedly lower performance than those in experiential condition, which suggests that experiential learning is more effective with more difficult learning task. That is, in case of learning simple operation of software verbal learning using linguistic manual or instruction could be sufficient; on the other hand in case of learning complex operation learning from experience or tutorial mode would be more effective. Additional studies which manipulated task difficulty (Expt. 2) and inter-trial learning interval (Expt. 3) did not produce meaningful results.

다양한 전자제품의 조작법을 빠르고 정확하게 학습하는 것은 일상적이고 중요한 과제가 되었다. 특히 소프트웨어는 여러 제품들의 통제 및 조작에서 핵심적인 지위를 차지하고 있다. 본 연구는 기존 학습연구에서 중요한 변인으로 연구되어온 학습방법, 학습계획, 과제난이도가 소프트웨어 학습에 미치는 영향을 검증하였다. 실험1에서는 2 (학습방법: 경험적 vs. 언어적) ${\times}$ 2 (학습계획: 간격 vs. 덩이진) ${\times}$ 2 (난이도: 쉬움 vs. 어려운)의 피험자간 요인설계를 사용하여 각 조건에서 참가자들이 윈도우 무비메이커를 사용하여 파일을 조작하는 방법을 학습하는 실험을 실시하였다. 그 결과 학습계획에 따른 수행의 차이는 발견할 수 없었으나, 언어적 학습보다 경험적 학습에서 참가자들은 더 빠르게 평가과제를 완료하였다. 특히 과제난이도가 높아질 경우 참가들은 언어적 조건에서 경험적 조건보다 두드러진 수행저하를 보였는데, 이는 과제가 어려워질수록 경험적 학습이 효과적인 학습방법이 라는 것을 시사한다. 즉 소프트웨어 학습에서 간단한 조작의 경우에는 매뉴얼 혹은 지시문의 형태로 구성된 언어적 학습으로 충분하지만 어려운 과제의 경우에는 체험 프로그램이나 투토리얼 모드를 통해 학습하는 것이 효과적일 것이다. 추가실험에서 난이도 증가에 따른 언어적 학습의 선형적 이득을 확인하기 위해 난이도를 3단계로 세분화하여 검증하였으며 (실험 2) 학습계획의 효과를 확인하기 위해 학습시행간 간격을 증가시켰으나 (실험3) 유의미한 결과를 발견하지는 못했다.

Keywords

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1999). Skill acquisition. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Learning and Memory, New York: John Miller. 304-337
  2. Appleton-Knapp, S. L., Bjork, R. A., & Wickens, T. D. (2005). Examining the spacing effect in advertising: Encoding variability, retrieval processes, and their Interaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 266-276. https://doi.org/10.1086/432236
  3. Bjork, R. A. & Allen, T. W. (1970). The spacing effect: Consolidation or differential encoding? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 567-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80103-7
  4. Burson, K. A. (2007). Consumer-product skill matching: The effects of difficulty on relative self-assessment and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 104-110. https://doi.org/10.1086/513051
  5. Dempster, F. N. (1996). Distributing and managing the conditions of encoding and practice. In R. Bjork, & E. Bjork (Eds.), Memory (pp. 317-344). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  6. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology (Henry A. Ruger & Clara E. Bussenius, Trans.). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
  7. Janiszewski, C., Hayden, N., & Sawyer, A. G. (2003). A meta-analysis of the spacing effect in verbal learning: Implications for research on advertising repetition and consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 138-149. https://doi.org/10.1086/374692
  8. Lakshmanan, A., Lindsey, C. D., & Krishnan, H. S. (2010). Practice Makes Perfect? When does massed learning improve product usage proficiency? Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 599-613. https://doi.org/10.1086/655686
  9. Lee, T. D. & Magill, R. A. (1983). The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 730-746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.9.4.730
  10. Nokes, T. J., & Ohlsson, S. (2005). Comparing multiple paths to mastery: What is learned? Cognitive Science, 29, 769-96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_32
  11. Schmidt, R. A. & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptuali zations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x
  12. Shea, C. H., Lai, Q., Black, C., & Park, J. H. (2000). Spacing practice sessions across days benefits the learning of motor skills. Human Movement Science, 19, 737-760. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9457(00)00021-X
  13. Squire, L. R., Knowlton, B. J., & Musen, G. (1993). The Structure and Organization of Memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 453-495. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.002321
  14. Taatgen, N. A., Huss, D., Dickison, D., & Anderson, J. A. (2008). The acquisition of robust and flexible cognitive skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 548-565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.137.3.548
  15. Thompson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W., & Rust, R. T. (2005). Feature fatigue: When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 431-42. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.2005.42.4.431
  16. Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple motor skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 185-211. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196276