The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning technology and usability: a framework for understanding courseware
Abstract
This paper argues that the usability of educational software cannot be measured in the same terms as other work contexts. This is because learning is a by-product of understanding rather than an activity which can be supported directly. Although it is best achieved through the performance of meaningful tasks, these tasks need to be designed to support different kinds of learning. We approach the problem through an attempt to derive a framework for understanding courseware. Conceptual learning is characterized as a cycle, involving the three stages which we term conceptualization, construction and dialogue. These are mapped onto primary, secondary and tertiary courseware. Each kind of courseware is discussed in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and usability.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Levels of processing: A framework for memory research
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80001-x · Cited by 9,566
Plans and the structure of behavior.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960) · doi:10.1037/10039-000 · Cited by 4,630
Acquisition of cognitive skill
Anderson, J. R. (1982) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.89.4.369 · Cited by 3,663
The Usability Engineering Lifecycle
NIELSEN, J. (1993) · Usability Engineering · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-052029-2.50007-3 · Cited by 2,657
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism
Phillips, D. C. (1995) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x024007005 · Cited by 1,330
AI in CAI: An Artificial-Intelligence Approach to Computer-Assisted Instruction
Carbonell, J. (1970) · IEEE Transactions on Man Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/tmms.1970.299942 · Cited by 955 · cited 2×
“Although over a quarter of a century has passed since SCHOLAR (Carbonell, 1970) demonstrated that it was possible to simulate a tutorial dialogue through machine representation of domain knowledge, it is still not possible to construct dialogue-providing tutors for subject-matter where discussion and reflection are im…”
BackgroundAccretion, Tuning and Restructuring: Three Modes of Learning
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1976) · doi:10.21236/ada030406 · Cited by 609
Cited by
Virtual reality and learning: Where is the pedagogy?
Fowler, C. (2015) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12135 · Cited by 477
Self-citationVirtual Reality and Its Applications in Education: Survey
Kamińska, D., Sapiński, T., Wiak, S., Tikk, T., Haamer, R., Avots, E., Helmi, A., Ozcinar, C., & Anbarjafari, G. (2019) · Information · doi:10.3390/info10100318 · Cited by 459
Integrating cognitive load theory and concepts of human–computer interaction
Hollender, N., Hofmann, C., Deneke, M., & Schmitz, B. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.031 · Cited by 328
On the usability and likeability of virtual reality games for education: The case of VR-ENGAGE
Virvou, M., & Katsionis, G. (2008) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.04.004 · Cited by 324
Lui, A. L. C., Not, C., & Wong, G. K. W. (2023) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-023-10035-2 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Mayes, J. T., & Fowler, C. J.
- Venue
- Interacting with Computers
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-05
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 485-497
- ISSN
- 0953-5438 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2092245942
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 6.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning technology and usability: a framework for understanding courseware. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0953-5438(98)00065-4
- The paper
- Mayes, J. T., & Fowler, C. J. (1999). Learning technology and usability: a framework for understanding courseware. Interacting with Computers. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0953-5438(98)00065-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
