Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Marvin Westrom

dblp:01/1948 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2001
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Learning and educational technologies · 61% Collaborative and social computing · 30% Interaction techniques and input · 9%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing › collaborative learning
reflective thinking
0.012001
Role of interface manipulation style and scaffolding on cognition and concept learning in learnware · ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2001
Learning and educational technologies
scaffolding
0.012001
Role of interface manipulation style and scaffolding on cognition and concept learning in learnware · ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2001
Interaction techniques and input
direct manipulation
0.012001
Role of interface manipulation style and scaffolding on cognition and concept learning in learnware · ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2001

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

interface comparison · 0.0empirical study · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2001 Role of interface manipulation style and scaffolding on cognition and concept learning in learnware
abstract
This research investigates the role of interface manipulation style on reflective cognition and concept learning through a comparison of the effectiveness of three verisons of a software application for learning two-dimensional transformation geometry. The three versions respectively utilize a Direct Object Manipulation (DOM) interface in which the user manipulates the visual representation of objects being transformed; a Direct Concept Manipulation (DCM) interface in which the user manipulates the visual representation of the transformation being applied to the object; and a Reflective Direct Concept Manipulation (RDCM) interface in which the DCM approach is extended with scaffolding. Empirical results of a study showed that grade-6 students using the RDCM version learned significantly more than those using the DCM version, who is turn learned significantly more than those using the DOM version. Students using the RDCM version had to process information consciously and think harder than those using the DCM and DOM versions. Despite the relative difficulty when using the RDCM interface style, all three groups expressed a similar (positive) level of liking for the software. This research suggests that some of the educational deficiencies of Direct Manipulation (DM) interfaces are not necessarily caused by their “directness,” but by what they are directed at—in this case directness toward objects rather than embedded educational concepts being learned. This paper furthers our understanding of how the DM metaphor can be used in learning- and knowledge-centered software (i.e., learnware) by proposing a new DM metaphor (i.e., DCM), and the incorporation of scaffolding to enhance the DCM approach to promote reflective cognition and deep learning.
Kamran Sedig, Maria M. Klawe, Marvin Westrom
ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact.3