ࡱ> 574 bjbjWW *$55@ @ +KJGGGGG"""7""""&FGGFFF*GGF"FF?#1 0K F F"""@ :   This Is the Title of the Paper AUTHOR 1 Affiliation 1 and AUTHOR 2 AND AUTHOR 3 Affiliation 2 ________________________________________________________________________ This research investigates the role of interface manipulation style on reflective cognition and concept learning through comparison of the effectiveness of three versions 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 transfroamtion being applied to the object; and a Reflective Direct Concept Manipulation (RDCM) interface - in which the DCM approach is extended with scaffolding. Categories and Subject Descriptors: G.4 [Mathematics of Computing]: Mathematical Software - User Interfaces; H5.2 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: User Interfaces - User-centered design; Interaction styles; Theory and methods; K.3 [Computing Milieux]: Computers and Education General Terms: Design, Experimentation, Human Factors Additional Key Words and Phrases: Human-computer interaction, direct manipulation, reflection, education, learning, cognition, learnware, transformation geometry, problem solving ________________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION A great deal of interface design research has been devoted to determining mechanisms for making productivity tools ( e.g., word processors and drawing tools) easy to use and intuitive so that users can perform a given task more smoothly and efficiently. Hutchins et al. [1986] outline different aspects of "directness." They state: The Gulf of Execution is bridged by making the commands and mechanisms of the system match the thoughts and goals of the user as much as possible. The Gulf of Evaluation is bridged by making the output displays present a good Conceptual Model of the system that is readily perceived, interpreted, and evaluated. The research presented in this paper addresses the following questions arising in the preceding discussion: Is a shift from DOM to DCM conducive to effective learning? Does DCM afford more reflective cognition and concious processing of concepts? This research was supported by the Funding Agency. Authors' addresses: Author 1, Department of ..., The University of ..., State Zip Code; Author 2, Department of ..., The University of ..., State Zip Code; Author 3, Department of ... , The University of ..., State Zip Code. How can the interface support reflective cognition, and are there scaffolding strategies that would support and enhance the DCM metaphor? 2. PRIMARY HEAD 2.1 Secondary Head In the DOM version, the user manipulates the geometric shapes directly. Buttons on the side allow users to select drag, clockwise rotate, counter-clockwise rotate, horizontal flip, or vertical flip mode (see Figure 5). Fig. 5. Figure caption is set underneath the illustration. 2.1.1 Tertiary Head. This can be illustrated by the following equation: TAttempt (m) = TOverread(m) + R(m) . TIntput(m) (2) Table II shows mean pretest scores were at about the same level for all the groups. However, the results show large gains for the RDCM treatment group. Table II. Table Head Sits on Top of the Table ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to my former colleagues at the University of Illinois who developed the earlier prototypes of the system described here. REFERENCES <> <> ABDELBAR, A.M., AND HEDETNIEMI, S.M. 1998. Approximating MAPs for belief networks in NP-hard and other theorems. Artificial Intelligence 102, 21-38. <> GINSBERG, M. 1987. Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA. <> GREINER, R. 1999. Explanation-based learning. In The Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, R. WILSON AND F. KEIL, Eds. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 301-303. <> MAREK, W., AND TRUSZCZYNSKI, M. 1989. Relating autoepistemic and default logics. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toronto, Canada, May 1989, H. BRACHMAN AND R. REITER, Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 276-288. Received August 2000; revised March 2001; accepted May 2001. _f g   * , > @ R Y j n $78nuvwxy}!XYjkr  Bd%EFJPSU h: h5CJ h6H* h6KH h6 h5hCJOJQJhOJQJhN(6:P^_f g n PQ]] ]$]a$]]]HI|^ #$lPQY]] ]]  & F]]Yj d%Egh] U`!(),16 h6h h: (&P`' :!"#$%!666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH 8`8 Normal_HmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontViV 0 Table Normal :V 44 la (k ( 0No List JOJ References$]a$ CJOJQJB>@B Title <@&CJ KHOJQJNON Author's Name(] ;OJQJBO"B Affiliation ]OJQJFO2F Abstract$]a$ CJOJQJJOBJ Primary Head $xa$ ;OJQJRB@RR Body Text$ dh]` a$OJQJ0O1b0 Categories,O1r, FootnoteHOQH Quoted Texthhd]h^h>OQ> Numbered List  & FPOQP Secondary Head]`OJQJBOQB Figure Caption$a$CJ>Q> Tertiary Head6KH6OQ6 Table Head$a$LOQL Displayed Equation ]6NOQN Initial Body Text ]`PK!K[Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢]yl#!MB;BQޏaLSWyҟ^@ Lz]__CdR{`L=r85v&mQ뉑8ICX=H"Z=&JCjwA`.Â?U~YkG/̷x3%o3t\&@w!H'"v0PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!\theme/theme/theme1.xmlYOoE#F{o'NDuر i-q;N3' G$$DAč*iEP~wq4;{o?g^;N:$BR64Mvsi-@R4Œ mUb V*XX! cyg$w.Q "@oWL8*Bycjđ0蠦r,[LC9VbX*x_yuoBL͐u_. DKfN1엓:+ۥ~`jn[Zp֖zg,tV@bW/Oټl6Ws[R?S֒7 _כ[֪7 _w]ŌShN'^Bxk_[dC]zOլ\K=.:@MgdCf/o\ycB95B24S CEL|gO'sקo>W=n#p̰ZN|ӪV:8z1f؃k;ڇcp7#z8]Y / \{t\}}spķ=ʠoRVL3N(B<|ݥuK>P.EMLhɦM .co;əmr"*0#̡=6Kր0i1;$P0!YݩjbiXJB5IgAФ޲a6{P g֢)҉-Ìq8RmcWyXg/u]6Q_Ê5H Z2PU]Ǽ"GGFbCSOD%,p 6ޚwq̲R_gJSbj9)ed(w:/ak;6jAq11_xzG~F<:ɮ>O&kNa4dht\?J&l O٠NRpwhpse)tp)af] 27n}mk]\S,+a2g^Az )˙>E G鿰L7)'PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-!K[Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 1_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!\theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] $U Y8@0( p n B S  ?cj:C' / m u | ,8t69=BO |  CEj::::::::::::!w' hh^h`.!w@p@UnknownGTimes New Roman5Symbol3 ArialWMTms RmnTimes New Roman;Helvetica"qhLZFcFRZF24dK#Q HP?'iH0<C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Templates\ACM Template.dotcRole of Interface Manipulation Style and Scaffolding on Cognition and Concept Learning in LearnwareJono Hardjowirogo yahoo! yahoo!  Oh+'0,8|      'dRole of Interface Manipulation Style and Scaffolding on Cognition and Concept Learning in LearnwareJono Hardjowirogo<\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Templates\ACM Template.dotyahoo! yahoo!3Microsoft Macintosh Word@0@IDV@1V@% ՜.+,0L hp|  ,'ACM dRole of Interface Manipulation Style and Scaffolding on Cognition and Concept Learning in Learnware Title  !"#%&'()*+-./01236Root Entry F]d181Table WordDocument*$SummaryInformation($DocumentSummaryInformation8,CompObj` F Microsoft Word 97-2004 DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8