Explorando Tipos de Estilos de Interação em Interfaces de Software e seu Impacto no Esforço Cognitivo
Resumo
As exposições em tarefas instrucionais variam desde representações simples como papel e lápis até exposições dinâmicas mais complexas encontradas nos dispositivos interativos atuais, por meio de estilos de interação. Estudos na área destacaram que os potenciais planejamentos mentais durante a execução dessas tarefas são influenciados pelo custo operacional associado ao estilo de interação utilizado, afetando tanto o tempo quanto o esforço cognitivo necessários. Por isso, sugerimos uma atividade instrucional para alunos do Ensino Fundamental, visando apresentar diferentes tipos de estilos de interação e discutir o esforço cognitivo associado a cada um.
Referências
Alshaer, A., Regenbrecht, H., and O’Hare, D. (2017). Immersion factors affecting perception and behaviour in a virtual reality power wheelchair simulator. Applied Ergonomics, 58:1–12.
Bai, L., Liu, X., and Su, J. (2023). Chatgpt: The cognitive effects on learning and memory. Brain-X, 1(3):e30.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press.
Firat, M. (2023). How chat gpt can transform autodidactic experiences and open education? Hasan, B. and Ahmed, M. U. (2007). Effects of interface style on user perceptions and behavioral intention to use computer systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6):3025–3037.
Jetter, H.-C., Reiterer, H., and Geyer, F. (2014). Blended interaction: understanding natural human–computer interaction in post-wimp interactive spaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18:1139–1158.
Kothiyal, A., Majumdar, R., Pande, P., Agarwal, H., Ranka, A., and Chandrasekharan, S. (2014). How does representational competence develop? explorations using a fully controllable interface and eye-tracking. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on computers in education, pages 738–743. Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education Nara.
Kyritsis, M., Gulliver, S. R., and Feredoes, E. (2016). Environmental factors and features that influence visual search in a 3d wimp interface. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 92:30–43.
Michaelidou, N., Gagatsis, A., and Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2004). The number line as a representation of decimal numbers: A research with sixth grade students. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
Norman, D. (1986). Cognitive engineering in donald norman and stephen draper (eds.) user-centered design: new perspectives on human-computer interaction.
Shapiro, A. and Niederhauser, D. (2013). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, pages 603–618.
Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., Jacobs, S., Elmqvist, N., and Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Pearson.
Souza, C. d., Leite, J. C., Prates, R. O., and Barbosa, S. D. (1999). Projeto de interfaces de usuário: perspectivas cognitivas e semióticas. In XIX Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, pages 420–470.
Bai, L., Liu, X., and Su, J. (2023). Chatgpt: The cognitive effects on learning and memory. Brain-X, 1(3):e30.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press.
Firat, M. (2023). How chat gpt can transform autodidactic experiences and open education? Hasan, B. and Ahmed, M. U. (2007). Effects of interface style on user perceptions and behavioral intention to use computer systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6):3025–3037.
Jetter, H.-C., Reiterer, H., and Geyer, F. (2014). Blended interaction: understanding natural human–computer interaction in post-wimp interactive spaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18:1139–1158.
Kothiyal, A., Majumdar, R., Pande, P., Agarwal, H., Ranka, A., and Chandrasekharan, S. (2014). How does representational competence develop? explorations using a fully controllable interface and eye-tracking. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on computers in education, pages 738–743. Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education Nara.
Kyritsis, M., Gulliver, S. R., and Feredoes, E. (2016). Environmental factors and features that influence visual search in a 3d wimp interface. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 92:30–43.
Michaelidou, N., Gagatsis, A., and Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2004). The number line as a representation of decimal numbers: A research with sixth grade students. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
Norman, D. (1986). Cognitive engineering in donald norman and stephen draper (eds.) user-centered design: new perspectives on human-computer interaction.
Shapiro, A. and Niederhauser, D. (2013). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, pages 603–618.
Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., Jacobs, S., Elmqvist, N., and Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Pearson.
Souza, C. d., Leite, J. C., Prates, R. O., and Barbosa, S. D. (1999). Projeto de interfaces de usuário: perspectivas cognitivas e semióticas. In XIX Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, pages 420–470.
Publicado
13/03/2024
Como Citar
QUEIROZ, Ana Emilia de Melo.
Explorando Tipos de Estilos de Interação em Interfaces de Software e seu Impacto no Esforço Cognitivo. In: SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO DE COMPUTAÇÃO NA EDUCAÇÃO BÁSICA (SBC-EB), 1. , 2024, Porto Alegre/RS.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2024
.
p. 21-25.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/sbceb.2024.1654.
