A cognitive load approach to metaphorical interface design: Reconsidering

theoretical frameworks

Jongpil Cheon
Instructional Design and Technology
University of Memphis
United States
jpcheon@memphis.edu

Michael M. Grant
Instructional Design and Technology
University of Memphis
United States
mgrant2@memphis.edu

Abstract: This paper presents theoretical foundations to investigate in what ways

a metaphorical
interface in Web-based instruction affects learning in terms of cognitive load.
The previous study
by the authors revealed there were no significant differences among three
interface types. To
ground a follow-up study, new theoretical frameworks of metaphorical interface and
cognitive load
are presented followed by implications for the future study. This paper explores
systematic uses of
a metaphorical interface and relationships between the functions of metaphorical
interfaces and
cognitive load types. In addition, the implications for the future study are
proposed.

Introduction

A functional, communicative and aesthetically appropriate user interface plays an

important role in helping
learners focus on learning activities. An effective interface should be intuitive
and facilitate communication between
learners and instruction by cultivating learning rather than operating an
instructional unit (Haag & Snetsigner, 1993;
Metros & Hedberg, 2002). However, designing a usable and appealing interface is
still challenging for instructional
designers. For example, the user interface portion of the software accounts for
over half of the code and
development time (Chalmers, 2003; Myers, 1998). In order to implement an effective
user interface, interface
guidelines and considerations have been introduced based on graphic design rules,
human cognition and usability
(Cheon & Grant, in press). Our previous research focused on the effects of three
different interface types (i.e., text-
based, graphical and metaphorical interfaces) on performance, cognitive load,
usability and appeal. There were no
significant differences except with appeal. This proposal extends the previous
study. The purpose of this study is to
investigate relationships between a metaphorical interface and two different
cognitive load types (germane and
extraneous cognitive load). To achieve the research purpose, we reconsider the
assumption with established
cognitive load research methods and measures, and present future research plans.

Metaphorical interface

What is a metaphorical interface?

A metaphorical interface design employs a visually underlying metaphor related to

the instructional
contents within an entire Web environment (Cates, 1996; Hron, 1998; Hsu & Boling,
2007). A metaphorical
interface conveys rich images and other types of multimedia holding more meaning
than the literal definitions
(Berkley & Cates, 1996) so that the users can assimilate new knowledge into
existing schemata (Ohl & Cates, 1997).

Studies defined different types of a metaphorical interface based on several

perspectives: (a) an integral and
a composite metaphorical interfaces based on the number of metaphors (Hsu &
Boling, 2007), and (b) a mixed,
thematic and immersive metaphorical interfaces based on the depth of metaphors
used (Cates, 1996). Cates (1996,
2002) also defined two components of a metaphorical interface: (a) an underlying
metaphor employed as a basis,
and (b) an auxiliary metaphor employed later to extend and complement the
underlying metaphor.

In this proposal, the metaphorical interface can be classified into two different
types depending on the way
metaphors are employed: (a) a thematic and (b) an immersive metaphorical
interface. A thematic metaphorical
interface uses a metaphorical theme that does not exactly reflect the contents,
but the theme is familiar with learners,
such as a book or a folder on the computer screen. On the other hand, an immersive
metaphorical interface builds an
authentic environment that reflects learning contents with structural cues or
organizational hints.

What are the advantages of a metaphorical interface?

Based on the relationship between a metaphorical theme and learning content,

learners can intuitively
interact with instructional resources to organize knowledge schema (Allbritton,
1995; Cates, 1996; Hron, 1998;
Lang, 2003; Metro & Hedberg, 2002) and develop mental models (Cates & Berkley,
2000). Since the metaphorical
environment allows the user to gain insight about unfamiliar learning content, it
can decrease learners� cognitive
load related to interfaces and disorientation (Hron, 1998; Ohl & Cates, 1997). For
example, a metaphor offers novice
users a safe and familiar environment to explore learning contents (Cates &
Berkley, 2000).

How should we choose appropriate metaphors?

Although previous research asserted many promises of a metaphorical interface,

selecting appropriate
metaphors and determining how to apply it are still challenging for instructional
designers (Cates, 2002; Ohl &
Cates, 1997). Inappropriate metaphors that mismatch a relationship or
representation of learning contents could lead
to incorrect inferences (Barr et al., 2002; Hamilton, 2000; Hsu & Boling, 2007).
The design guidelines for a
metaphorical interface are categorized as follows:

� Metaphors should be related to learning contents and provide adequate clues to

users (Hsu & Boling,

2007; Hudson, 2000)

� Metaphors should represent the system structure such as information sequence

(Barr et al., 2002; Hron,

1998; Hsu & Boling, 2007; Hudson, 2000)

� Metaphors should support learning strategies (Hron, 1998)

� Learning environment and navigation and learning contents should be closely

interrelated (Hron, 1998)
� Metaphors should provide not only their appearance but also their action (Hsu &
Boling, 2007; Hudson,

2000)

� Metaphors should consider learner�s age and culture (Hudson, 2000; Ohl, & Cates,
1997)

Effects of a metaphorical interface on learning

The theories and research mentioned in the previous section argued that
interactions with metaphorical
interfaces could either enhance or impede learning. Effectiveness of interfaces
has been measured by three
perspectives: learning performance, cognitive load and usability (Cheon & Grant,
in press). However, few studies
have examined the effectiveness of a metaphorical interface. Hsu and Schwen (2003)
found that searching
performance was better with a composite metaphorical interface. In addition, a
subsequent study showed that a
metaphor-rich interface facilitated experts� searching better than novices�
searching (Hsu, 2005). This finding
opposes Cates�s (2002) argument that a metaphor helps particularly novice users.
On the other hand, Cates and
Berkley (2000) found no significant differences in terms of the effectiveness of
instruction between a metaphorical
design and an equivalent thematic version. In addition to learning performance
metaphorical interface�s effects on
cognitive load should be considered.

Cognitive load theory

The functions of a metaphorical interface have been emphasized by scholars from a

cognitive perspective
(e.g., Allbritton, 1995; Hamiltion, 2000; Ohl & Cates, 19997). For example, an
important function of metaphors is
providing the learner with a coherent framework and schema for understanding
complex domains (Allbritton, 1995).
In addition, Ohl and Cates (1997) asserted that a metaphor could be a cognitive
aid to the user, and it could enhance
the usability of the interface. The cognitive aid with a structural cue and
usability is closely related to cognitive load
theory. In order to measure these potential functions of a metaphorical interface,
cognitive theory should be applied
to empirical research.

Proponents of cognitive load theory argued that working memory is limited (Sweller
& Chandler, 1994).
Cognitive load theory strives to capture the learner�s focus by preventing the
learner�s capacity from overloading
(Vogt, 2001). Cognitive load theory distinguishes three types of cognitive load:
(a) intrinsic cognitive load affected
by the intrinsic nature of the learning tasks themselves; (b) extraneous cognitive
load affected by the manner in
which the tasks are presented; and (c) germane cognitive load that is the amount
of cognitive resources that learners
willingly invest in schema construction and automation (Sweller & van Merrienboer,
1998). The three types of
cognitive load are additive, and both extraneous and germane load are under the
direct control of instructional
designers (Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbers & Van Gerven, 2003). Therefore, the primary
implication for instruction is to
decrease extraneous cognitive load and to increase germane cognitive load within
the limits of available processing
capacity (van Merrienboer & Ayres, 2005). If the limits of human cognitive
capacity are ignored, a Web-based
instructional unit can actually interfere with learning even though it has many
multimedia resources (Clark &
Mayer, 2003).

We posit that extraneous cognitive load is closely related to usability. Usability

studies evaluate online
learning functions for minimal amounts of user frustration, time, and effort
(Nielson, 2000; Pearrow, 2007). A well-
designed interface should inform users what the objects on the screen stand for
and how they work (Sing & Der-
Thanq, 2004). Therefore, high usability means low extraneous cognitive load.
Moreover, the structural and
procedural cues in a metaphorical interface are related to germane cognitive load.
Easily understandable structures
given by a metaphor could enhance students� automation for connecting their
existing schemata.

Research findings with cognitive load

Cognitive load research has focused on two variables: learner performance and
learner mental effort. High
learning efficiency occurs when learner performance is higher than learner mental
effort (Tuovinen & Paas, 2004).
Efficiency metrics have been used to quantify the efficiency of an instructional
product (e.g., Kalyuga & Sweller,
2005; Paas, Tuovinen, van Merrienboer & Darabi, 2005; Paas & van Merrienboer,
1993). For example, Paas and van
Merrienboer (1993) suggested that instructional condition efficiency could be
measured by a standardized z-score
for mental effort and a z-score for performance. In Kalyuga and Sweller�s study to
examine the efficiency of an
adaptive learning system, the mental effort rating of tasks was combined with the
performance scores of the same
tasks to provide a cognitive efficiency indicator.

Cheon and Grant (in press) conducted an interface study with three different types
of interfaces. The
findings showed that there were no differences among the groups in terms of mental
efforts and time to completion.
In addition to the two variables, a learning efficiency score was compared.
Although a graphical interface had the
highest efficiency score, there was no significant difference. The study failed to
demonstrate the superiority of both
graphical interface and metaphorical interfaces to a text-based interface except
in appeal.

Future research

The next step is a systematic inquiry into the effects of a metaphorical interface
on cognitive load through
implementing a theory-based metaphorical interface, developing logical data
collection methods, and conducting
thorough data analysis.

Research questions

The main question of the future study is derived from Cates�s (2002) question that
is how to determine if a
metaphorical interface interacts in ways that contribute to the effectiveness of
learning. The theoretical frameworks
for cognitive load led to cognitivist ways of measuring effectiveness of
metaphorical interfaces. However, the
operationalization of mental effort from previous studies has not been clear. For
example, mental effort could be
attributed to germane cognitive load because users use their mental effort to
build their own mental model. Or, the
measure of mental effort seems to indicate intrinsic cognitive load, because
researchers asked participants only to
rate the difficulty of the instruction.

The relationship between usability and extraneous cognitive load should also be
considered. An interface
with higher usability could have a higher possibility of producing lower
extraneous cognitive load. Interface design
may also have the added responsibility of being useful to both novice and expert
users without alienating either.
Therefore, it is important to gauge users� germane and extraneous cognitive load
to investigate a
metaphorical interface�s roles with research questions: (a) Does a metaphorical
interface affect learners� cognitive
load types? (b) Are there any differences in germane or extraneous cognitive load
with metaphorical and graphical
interface? (c) What are the effects of a metaphorical interface on novice and
experts?

Possible methodologies

The research methods could be built from the theoretical frameworks and
suggestions from the previous
study. For example, a more realistic metaphorical interface within a concrete
domain, such as Biology or
Architecture, needs to be implemented following the design guidelines of
metaphorical interfaces. Also, developing
both a graphical interface and a metaphorical interface with the same learning
contents would offer an opportunity to
compare the effectiveness of different types of interfaces. In addition, a larger
sample would enhance the credibility
of the findings of the future study.

The most important data source is isolating the different types of cognitive load.
Few studies developed
practical methods to gauge germane and extraneous cognitive load and the
definition of mental effort remains
ambiguous. Although extraneous cognitive load could be measured by usability test
items, it would be challenging
to measure users� germane cognitive load. So, we are considering ways to
incorporate prior knowledge with mental
effort to produce a standardize score to represent intrinsic cognitive load with
the remainder attributed to germane
cognitive load.

Summary

To conduct a precise investigation of the effectiveness of a metaphorical

interface, an in-depth review was
presented. We defined a metaphorical interface, described advantages, and
classified guidelines for implementing a
metaphorical interface. In addition, three types of cognitive load were
characterized, relationships between cognitive
load theory and metaphorical interface were considered and suggestions for future
study were stated. Based on the
implications, a subsequent study will be conducted, and further explanation about
implementation and findings will
be provided in the presentation.

References

ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction Curriculum Development

Group. (2004). Curricula for human-
computer interaction. Retrieved November, 24, 2006 from
http://sigchi.org/cdg/index.html

Allbritton, D. W. (1995). When metaphors function as schemas: Some cognitive

effects of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and
symbolic activity, 10(1), 33-46.

Barr, P., Biddle, R. & Noble, J. (2002). A taxonomy of user interface metaphors,
in Proceedings of SIGCHI-NZ Symposium on
Computer-Human Interaction (CHINZ 2002), Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved October,
15, 2007 from
http://www.mcs.vuw.ac.nz/~chikken/research/papers/chinz2002/barr_chinz2002.pdf

Berkley, J., & Cates, W. M. (1996). Building coping skills on a firm foundation:
Using a metaphorical interface to deliver stress
management instruction. Proceedings of selected research and development
presentations at the 1996 national convention of the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 15, 71-79.

Cates, W. M. (1996). Towards a taxonomy of metaphorical graphical user interfaces:

Demands and implementations.
Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 18th
National Communications and Technology, 101

110.
Cates, W. M. (2002). Systematic selection and implementation of graphical user
interface metaphors. Computers & Education,
38, 385-397.

Cates, W.M., & Berkley, J. (2000). What price metaphor? Calculating metaphorical
interfaces� return-on-investment.

Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 2000

national convention of the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, 22, 59-70.
Chalmers, P. A. (2003). The role of cognitive theory in human-computer interface.
Computers in Human Behavior, 19(5), 593

607.
Cheon, J., & Grant, M. M. (in press). Are pretty interfaces worth the time? The
effects of user interface types on Web-based
instruction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction.
San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Goldfarb, I., & Kondratova, I. (2004, August). Visual interface design tool for
educational courseware. Paper presented at the

International Association of Science and Technology (IASTED) International

Conference on Computers and Advanced
Technology in Education (CATE). Hawaii, USA. Retrieved November 10, 2006 from
http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/iit-publicationsiti/
docs/NRC-47155.pdf

Haag, B. B., & Snetsigner, W. (1993). Aesthetics and screen design: An integration
of principles. Proceedings of the 25th Annual
Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association, 92-97. Retrieved June
30, 2006 from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/26/9e/f4
.pdf

Hamilton, A. (2000). Interface metaphors and logical analogies: a question of

terminology. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science, 51(2), 111-122.

Hannafin, M. J., & Hooper, S. (1989). An integrated framework for CBI screen
design and layout. Computers in Human
Behavior, 5(3), 155-165.

Hron, A. (1998). Metaphors as didactic means for multimedia learning environments.

Innovations in Education and Training

International, 35(1), 21-28.

Hsu, Y. C. (2005). The long-term effects of integral versus composite metaphors on
experts� and novices� search behaviors.
Interacting with Computers, 17(4), 367-394.

Hsu, Y. C., & Boling, E. (2007). An approach for designing composite metaphors for
user interfaces. Behavior & Information

Technology, 26(3), 209 -220.

Hsu, Y. C., & Schwen, T. M. (2003). The effects of structural cues from multiple
metaphors on computer users� information
search performance. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 58(1), 39-55.
Hudson, W. (2000). Why metaphor is a double-edged sword. Interactions, 7(3), 11-
15.

Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to

improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning.
ETR&D, 53(3), 83-93.
Lackoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lang, J. (2003, July). Role of metaphor in multimedia curriculum design for
preservice teacher professional learning. Paper

presented at the annual conference of the Australian Teacher Education

Association, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved July 13,

2006 from http://www.atea.edu.au/Conf2003Papers.htm

Lohr, L. L. (2003). Creating graphics for learning and performance: Lessons in
Visual Literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc.

Marcus, A. (2002). Metaphors and user interface in 21st century, Interactions,

9(2), 7-10

Metros, S. E., & Hedberg, J. G. (2002). More than just a pretty (inter) face: The
role of the graphical user interface in engaging
elearners. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 191-205.
Myers, B. A. (1993). Why are Human-Computer Interfaces Difficult to Design and
Implement?, Technical Report, Report No.

CMU-CS-93-183, Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University,

Pittsburgh, PA.
Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity.
Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.
Ohl, T. M., & Cates, W. M. (1997). Applying metaphorical interface design
principles to the World Wide Web. Educational

Technology, 37(6), 25-38.

Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional
conditions: An approach to combine mental effort
and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737-743.

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive
load measurement as a means to advance
cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. A.
(2005). A motivational perspective on the
relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing learner involvement in
instruction. ETR&D, 53(3), 25-34.

Parizotto-Ribeiro, R., & Hammond, N. (2005, July). Does aesthetics affect the
users� perceptions of VLEs? Paper presented at the
12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Amsterdam,
Denmark. Retrieved June 30, 2006 from
http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/gr20/aied05/finalVersion/RParizotto.pdf

Pearrow, M. (2007). Web usability handbook: The second edition. Boston, MA:
Charles River Media.

Plass, J. L. (1998). Design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign

language multimedia software approach. Language
Learning & Technology, 2(1), 40-53.

Sing, C. C., & Der-thanq, V. (2004). A review on usability evaluation methods for
instructional multimedia: An analytical
framework. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3). 229-238.

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn.
Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.

Sweller, J., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and

instructional design. Educational Psychology Review,
10(3), 251-296.

Szabo, M., & Kanuka, H. (1998). Effects of violating screen design principles of
balance, unity and focus on recall learning,
study time and completion rates. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 23-42.

Tuovinen, J. E., & Paas, F. (2004). Exploring multidimensional approaches to the

efficiency of instructional conditions.
Instructional Science, 31, 133-152.

van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory
and its design implications for e-learning.
ETR&D, 53(3), 5-13.

Vogt, C. (2001). The design elements in developing effective learning and

instructional web-sites. Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 5(4), 40-47.