hedberg1


 

 
 
 

Human-computer interaction and CAI: A review and 
research prospectus 
 

John G Hedberg and Neil R Perry 
Faculty of Education 

Western Australian Institute of Technology 
 
Introduction 
 

None of the benefits of computer based instruction are inherent in 
computer based instruction...they all hinge upon the dedication, persistence 
and ability of good teachers and courseware developers....while technology 
can be a tremendous multiplier on good ideas, it does not, in itself, produce 
them. (Kearsley and others, 1983, p.94) 

 
In recent years educators have become increasingly enthusiastic about the 
application of microcomputers in education. The potential of the 'cheap' 
computer appears to be greater than previous technologies. Teachers who 
have never touched a computer are enrolling in courses so that they 
become 'computer literate'. While the new technology can place a 
computer into each school or classroom for a reasonable cost, the problems 
of application and use of the technology, have not changed markedly from 
the time of early computer based education experiments in the middle 
1960s. 
 
In a recent review, Kearsley (1983) identified nine major outcomes of 
computer based instruction research. While Kearsley and his co-workers 
have identified an impressive series of developments, they highlight the 
lack of preparation provided for the average teacher. Faced with a 
growing amount of software and courseware, the novice teacher must 
examine the possible programs that are suitable for the particular subject 
and the approach the teacher wishes to adopt. Software is often described 
in brief terms that make practical judgements of its suitability extremely 
difficult. 
 
A computer assisted information system consists of three major 
components: hardware, software, and the user (Figure 1). The interaction 
of these components is one of the important parts of the system - the 
human computer interface. 
 



Hedberg and Perry 13 

Hardware  Software 
Human- 

Computer 
Interaction 

 User  
 

Figure 1: Human-Computer Interface (from Bo, 1982) 
 
This paper examines ways in which attributes of computer assisted 
learning systems can be matched with human cognitive skills. 
 
It has been suggested by Jones and O'Shea (1982) that the perceived 
educational benefits of a computer system have little to do with the 
amount of use it gets. Instead, it seems that the quality and ease of the 
interaction are the most important factors. It is therefore argued that if 
human-computer interface can be improved, one further barrier to CAI 
use will be removed. 
 
Human-computer interaction 
 
It is significant to note that within the field of human-computer interaction 
there is a call for an increased emphasis to be placed upon the cognitive 
operations of the user. Thus, instead of designers of systems relying on 
'folk psychology', Moran (1981) and Caroll & Thomas (1982) argue for an 
objective study of the user, and for computer systems designed to fit the 
user. 
 
The lack of interest in a systematic study of the user as part of the human-
cooputer system is not surprising given the classical-engineering 
equipment emphasis of many ergonomics/human factors studies. Reports 
summarising such research may be found in Willeges (1982), Didner 
(1982), Kearsley and Hillelsohn (1982) and Galer and Pearce (1980). 
Typically, only the physical design of electronic hardware has been 
considered (Shneiderman, 1980), which has lead to a concentration upon 
hardware and environmental issues of computer use (Shackel, 1980). 
Whilst this emphasis has clearly been successful in the effective 
development of ergonomically designed computing equipment, the broad 
claims of simplicity, naturalness or ease of use of new computer systems, 
languages or techniques are not based upon experimental confirmation 
(Shneiderman' 1980). Indeed, it is only very recently that the notion of 
'user friendliness' has been taken seriously by hardware producers with 
the development of Apple's Lisa and Xerox' Ethernet (Micro Computer 
Printout, March 1983). As put by Didner (1982), until recently, problems of 
human-computer interaction has been a case of the 'tail wagging the dog', 
or instead of a computer being designed to support the users' activity, 
users have had to modify their activity to conform to whatever the system 
confronts them. 
 
Whilst there has been increased interest in the study of users as a part of 
the human-computer system, most studies have been directed towards 



14 Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 1985, 1(1) 

experienced computer users - or more specifically, programmers. Early 
examples of these studies may be found in Martin (1973), Sackman (1970), 
Meadow (1970), Goos and Hartmanis (1977), Shneiderman (1978) and 
Buckingham (1977). 
 
Several more recent papers deal more specifically with casual or novice 
users, for example: Mehlmann (1981), Radhakrishnan, Grossner and 
Benoliel (1982), Rouse, Rouse and Morehead (1982), Boyce (1982) and 
Morehead and Rouse (1982). These studies, however do not consider 
cognitive individual differences between users to be important. 
 
Novice and expert users generally exhibit quite different modes of 
behaviour (Moran, 1981). The novice usually is engaged in problem 
solving activity, whereas the expert is skilled in interacting with the 
computer. Interaction is for the expert user a routine cognitive skill (Card, 
Moran and Newell, 1980). Moran believes that the only way to attain a 
coherent understanding of the user is to look behind the superficial 
features of the computer system and consider the user in psychological 
terms. He adds that the most promising approach may be the application 
of information processing models, which spell out the mental operations 
that the user must go through to accomplish given tasks. Only a few 
studies have taken up this issue - the application of information processing 
models to study the cognitive processes of novice and experienced 
computer users. Studies by Hoffman and Waters (1982), and Caffarella 
and others (1980) have indicated that users' personalities affect CAI 
effectiveness. 
 
Whilst it is difficult to draw together such a wide range of research, the 
following tentative general points about human-computer interaction can 
be made: 
 
1. there has been a large increase in the amount of human-computer 

interaction research over the past decade  
2. the role of the user is being viewed to be of increasing importance  
whilst users are an integral part of human-computer interaction, research 

to date has concentrated primarily upon programmers at the expense 
of novice users  

3. individual differences between users have not been emphasised  
4. very little research has emphasised the cognitive processes of users 

(programmers or non-programmers) as they interact with computer 
systems. 

 
Design of computer assisted instructional materials 
 
In general terms, the design of the human-computer interface has been left 
to 'educated guesstimates' about users and their requirements. This section 
of the paper attempt to derive some principles for the successful design of 
interactive computer systems by reviewing literature relating to the 
subject. It also suggests some areas of future research which emphasise the 
users' cognitive processes when interacting with computers. 
 



Hedberg and Perry 15 

The role of instructional design in computing has been stressed by Gagne 
(1982). He argues for instructional designers and computer programers to 
work together to produce computer based materials that take advantage of 
the particular features of the computer. He also notes that this process has 
been hindered by the commercial factor: it seems that programmers can 
turn out software that sells without considering the principles of 
instructional design. One of the most important factors that instructional 
designers can bring to computin. is the knowledge of the relationship 
between materials and cognition of the user. General concerns such as the 
best sequencing of conten or media or the amount of redundancy/ 
repitition needed are addressed by Briggs and others (1977) and Fleming 
and Levie (1978). These propositions remain untested in the case of 
computer based instructions. 
 
User engineering principles 
First principle: Know the user 
 
Minimise memorisation ! 

Selection not entry 
!Names not numbers ! 
Predictable behavior ! 
Access to system information ! 

Optimise operations ! 
Rapid execution of common 
operations ! 
Display inertia ! 
Muscle memory 
!Reorganize command parameters ! 

Engineer for errors ! 
Good error messages ! 
Engineer out the common errors ! 
Reversible actions 
!Redundancy ! 
Data structure integrity 

 

User engineering principles for 
interactive systems (Hansen, 1971). 
 

 
Introduce through experience ! 
Immediate feedback 
!Use the user's model 
!Consistency and uniformity ! 
Avoid acausality 
!Query-in-depth (tutorial aids) ! 
Sequential - parallel tradeoff (allow 
choice of entry patterns) ! 
Observability and controllability 
 

Design guidelines for interactive 
systems (Gaines and Facey, 1975). 

 

Simple. Project a 'natural', 
uncomplicated 'virtual' image of the 
system 
 
Responsive. Respond quickly and 

meaningfully user commands ! 
User-controlled. All actions are 

initiated and controlled by the 
user ! 

Flexible. Flexibility in common 
structure and tolerance or errors 

!Stable. Able to detect user difficulties 
and assist him in returning to 
correct dialog; never deadening' 
the user (ie, offering (no recourse) ! 

Protective. Protect the user from 
costly mistakes or accidents (eg, 
overwriting a file) ! 

Self-documenting. The commands 
and system responses are self-
explanatory and documentation, 
(explanations or tutorial material 
are part of the environment 

!Reliable. Not conducive to 
undetected errors in man-
computer communication 

!User-modifiable. Sophisticated users 
are able to personalize 
environment 

 
Interface design for time-sharing 
systems (Cheriton, 1976) 
 

 
 
 



16 Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 1985, 1(1) 

1. Use terse 'natural' language, avoid 
codes, allow abbreviations ! 

2. Use short entries to facilitate error 
correction and maintain tempo 

!3. Allow single or multiple entries to 
match user ability ! 

4. Maintain 'social element' to the 
communication 

!5. Permit user to control length of 
cues or error messages ! 

6. Error messages should be polite, 
meaningful and informative ! 

7. Give help when requested or 
when errors are in difficulty 

!8. Simple, logically consistent 
command language 

!9. Control over all aspects of the 
system must appear to belong to 
the user ! 

10. Avoid redundancy in dialog 
!11. Adapt to the user's ability ! 
12. Keep exchange rate in user's 

stress-free range; user can control 
rate 

 
Ground rules for a 'well-behaved' 
system (Kennedy, 1974). 
 

 
Simplicity 
!Power ! 
User satisfaction ! 
Reasonable cost 
 
Software psychology (Schneiderman, 
1980) 

Know the user population ! 
Respond consistently and clearly 
!Carry forward a representation of 

the user's knowledge base ! 
Adapt wordiness to user needs 
!Provide the users with every 

opportunity to correct their own 
errors ! 

Promote the personal worth of the 
individual user 

 

Design guidelines for interactive 
systems (Pew and Rollins, 1975). 
 

 
Provide a program action for every 

possible type of user input ! 
Minimize the need for the user to 

learn about the computer system 
!Provide a large number of explicit 

diagnostics, along with extensive 
online user assistance 

!Provide program short-cuts for 
knowledgeable users ! 

Allow the user to express the same 
message in more than one way 

 

The design of idiot-proof interactive 
programs (Wasserman, 1973). 
 

 
Forgiveness - ease in repairing 

errors ! 
Segmentation - layered approach ! 
Variety - choice of style ! 
Escape - break out of danger 
Guidance - direction and learning 
!Leverage - flexible, powerful 

features 
 
The human-machine interface in a 
computerized conferencing environment 
(Turoff, Whitescarver and Hiltz, 
1978). 

 
When commmenting on the deliberations of the Software Psychology 
section of the British Psychological Society's 1979 Conference, Hale (1981) 
noted that a persistent theme of papers was the need for continued 
support of human factors studies dealing with human-computer 
interaction. Further, Kearsley and Hillelsohn (1982) have called for a 
systematic methodology for the process of involving users in the design 
and implementation of computer based training Systems. In the context of 
increasing use of computers for individualised instruction and computer 
assisted learning. 



Hedberg and Perry 17 

Barker (1982) has called for the development of a variety of interaction 
techniques that permit users to select modes of interaction that are best 
suited to their dispositions. He does not, however, refer to any such 
methods, nor list user dispositions that are likely to interact with 
performance whilst interacting with a computer. Stewart (1980) has been 
more specific in arguing for the rigorous testing of a number of guidelines 
for human-computer interaction. First, the layout and format of 
information needs to be tested on users. Second, user orientated formats 
should be tested on the actual equipment with real users before being 
finalised. Last, guidelines should not depend solely upon general 
principles, and the dialogue needs to be tested from the user's point of 
view. Stewart does not, however, couch his guidelines in terms of the 
cognitive processes of the users. 
 
Broad ranging reviews of issues for the design of the human-computer 
interface have been discussed by Nickerson (1969), Bennett (1972), Martin 
(1973), and Miller and Thomas (1977). As noted by shneiderman (1980) 
however, the diversity of situations in which interactive systems may be 
used makes it difficult to prescribe a universal set of goals. Whilst very 
few attempts at this task have been directed specifically at CAI interaction, 
some have general applicability to the area. Shneiderman (1980) has 
reviewed the goals of various interactive systems designers, a summary of 
which are presented in Figure 2. Shneiderman's own list of goals is also 
presented in this Figure. 
 
These goals of interactive systems design provide a useful set of guidelines 
for designers of CAI software. All of those who have used CAI will have 
not doubt been annoyed by materials that, for example, do not provide a 
working description of a program, contain inadequate messages, are 
inflexible and the like. 
 
More importantly, however, these goals present the instructional designer 
with some of the variables of research into the design of CAI materials. 
Whilst all factors mentioned in these goals deal with the ways in which 
users process information, none is based upon research that has been 
couched in information processing psychology terms. In other words, the 
term 'user' needs to be specified with more cognisance of the individual 
differences between users. Put simply, if CAI materials are to be designed 
so that users can interact with them at a meaningful level, instructional 
designers need to study the cognitive processes with which users interact 
with such materials in a manner similar to that described by Saloman 
(1979) for visual media. 
 
The goals listed in Figure 2 provide the basis of a prospectus of research 
into the cognitive processes with which users interact with computers and 
CAI materials. Such a prospectus would include some of the following 
factors. 
 
 
 
 



18 Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 1985, 1(1) 

• User characteristics 
!Instructional designers should be aware of the likely user population, 
and thus the differences in cognitive processes that that they bring to 
the task at hand.  

• Simplicity ! 
The notion of simplicity requires specification, as what is simple for 
some users may not be so for others. A detailed understanding of 
computer users' information processing skills is required before 
determinations of simplicty can be made.  

• Flexibility 
!It is apparent that CAI materials need to be flexible in a number of 
ways, such as providing for a wide variety of user input so as to 
capture the users' thoughts. Again, a detailed understanding of 
computer users' information processing skills will help determine the 
extent and nature of the flexibility that is required in CAI materials.  

• User control and feedback ! 
If designers of CAI materials work with understanding of the ways in 
which users interact with computers, means to increase user control 
over learning will follow. One possible way of promoting user control 
is by the use of effective and appropriate feedback.  

• Error messages ! 
Whilst it is apparent that error messages should be polite, meaningful 
and informative, research into what these terms mean for different 
users is required.  

• Format of materials ! 
As with other areas of instructional design, research is required into the 
effectiveness of various formats of CAI materials on different types of 
computer users. 

 
Conclusion 
 
At the outset of this paper it was stated that study of a human-computer 
system must include the systematic study of the cognitive attributes of 
individual users. It was demonstrated that human-computer research has 
largely neglected these attributes, and thus the match between human and 
computer attributes is incomplete. 
 
The interplay between psychology and computing may in fact be a two-
way process. In the words of Caroll and Thomas (1982, p.115) 
 

Psychological theory and methods ... can provide a foundation for better 
interface design; but reciprocally, interface design provides a rich and 
detailed practical domain in which to assess and refine psychological 
theories of complex learning behaviour. Perhaps both disciplines are now 
mature enough to contemplate a serious relationship. 

 
It is proposed that the effect of such research would be to remove some of 
the barriers to the use of computers in education. No longer would it only 
be the enthusiastic instructor who uses CAI programs, but a wider range 
of users would find it easier to interact with such materials. 
 



Hedberg and Perry 19 

References 
 
Barker, P. G. Some experiments in man-machine optimal relevant to 

computer assisted instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 
1982, 1(13), 65-75. 

Bennett, J. L. The user interface in interactive systems. In C. Cuadra (ed.) 
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 1972, 7, 159-196. 

Bo, K. Human-computer interaction. IEEE, 1982, 15(11), 9-11. 
Boyce, B. Beyond topicality: A two stage view of relevance and the 

retrieval process. Information Processing and Management, 1982, 18(3), 
105-109. 

Briggs, L. J. and others. Instruction Design: Principles and Applications 
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1977. 

Buckingham, R. A. (ed.) Education and Large Information Systems. 
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1977. 

Caffarella, E. P., Cavert, C. E., Legum, S. E., Shtogren, J. A. & Wager, W. 
W. Factors affecting instructor/student ratios for self-paced instruction. 
Educational Technology, December 1980, 5-9. 

Card, S. R., Moran, T. P. & Newell, A. Computer text-editing: An 
information-processing analysis of a routine cognitive skill. Cognitive 
Psychology, 1980, 12, 32-74. 

Carroll, J. M. & Thomas, J. C. Metaphor and the cognitive representation of 
computing systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 
1982, 12(2), 107-115. 

Didner, R. S. Back-to-front design: A guns and butter approach. 
Ergonomics, 1982, 25(6), 564-565. 

Fleming, M. & Levie, W. H. Instructional Message Design: Principles from the 
Behavioural Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Eduational Technology 
Publications, 1978. 

Gagne, R. M. Developments in learning psychology (Interview). 
Implications for instructional design. and effects of computer 
technology on instructional design and development Educational 
Technology, June 1982, 11-15. 

Galer, I. A. R. & Pearce, B. G. Man-computer communications: Ergonomics 
and the design of computer dialogues. Ergonomics, 1980, 23(9), 855. 

Goos, G. & Hartmanis, J. (eds.) Interactive Systems. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 
1977. 

Hale, D. J. (ed ). International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1981, 14, 235-
236. 

Hoffman, J. L. & Waters, K. Some effects of student personality on success 
with computer-assisted learning. Educational Technology, March 1982, 
20-21. 

Jones, A. & O'Shea, T. Barriers to the use of computer assisted learning. 
British Journal of Educational Technology, 1982,3(13), 207-217 

Kearsley, G. P. & Hillelsohn, M. J. Human factors considerations for 
computer-based training. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 1982, 
8(4), 74-85. 

Kearsley, G., Hunter, B. & Seidel, R. J. Two decades of computer based 
instruction projects: What have we learned? Technological Horizons in 
Education Journal, 1983, 10(4), 88-96. 



20 Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 1985, 1(1) 

Martin, J. Design of Man-Computer Dialogues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 
Prentice-Hall, 1973. 

Meadow, C. T. Man-Machine Communication. New York: Wiley-
Interscience, 1970. 

Mehlmann, M. When People Use Computers: An Approach to Developing an 
Interface. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981. 

Micro Computer Printout, March 1983, 32-37. 
Miller, L. A. & Thomas, J. C. Behavioural issues in the use of interactive 

systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1977, 9, 509-536. 
Moran, T. P. An applied psychology of the user. Computing Surveys, 1981, 

13(1), 1-11. 
Morehead, D. R. & Rouse, W. B. Models of human behaviour in 

information seekings tasks. Information Processing and Management, 
1982, 18(4), 193-205. 

Nickerson, R. S. Man-computer interaction: A challenge for human factors 
research. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Studies, 1969, 10, 164. 

Radhakrishnan, T., Grossner, C. & Benoliel, M. Design of an interactive 
data retrieval system for casual users. Information Processing and 
Management, 1982, 18(1), 23-32. 

Rouse, W. B., Rouse, S. H. & Morehead, D. R. Human information seeking: 
Online searching of bibliographic citation networks. Information 
Processing and Management, 1982, 18(3), 141-149. 

Sackman, H. Man-Computer Problem Solving. Princeton, N.J.: Averbask, 
1970. 

Saloman, G. Interaction of Media, Cognition and Learning. San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass, 1979. 

Shackel, B. Dialogues and language - can computer ergonomics help? 
Ergonomics, 1980, 23(9), 857-880. 

Shneiderman, B. (Ed) Databases: Improving Usability and Responsiveness. 
New York: Academic Press, 1978. 

Shneiderman, B. Software Psychology: Human Factors in Computer and 
Information Systems. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1980. 

Stewart, T. Communicating with dialogues. Ergonomics, 1980, 23(9), 909-
919. 

Willeges, R. C. Design of human-computer dialogues. Ergonomics, 1982, 
25(6), 560. 

 
Please cite as: Hedberg, J. G. & Perry, N. R. (1985). Human-computer 
interaction and CAI: A review and research prospectus. Australian Journal of 
Educational Technology, 1(1), 12-20. 
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet1/hedberg1.html