Cross-cultural dimensions of meaning in the evaluation of events in world history? Perceptions of historical calamities and progress in cross-cultural data from 30 societies

The universality versus culture specificity of quantitative evaluations (negative-positive) of 40 events in world history was addressed using World History Survey data collected from 5,800 university students in 30 countries/societies. Multidimensional scaling using generalized procrustean analysis indicated poor fit of data from the 30 countries to an overall mean configuration, indicating lack of universal agreement as to the associational meaning of events in world history. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified one Western and two non-Western country clusters for which adequate multidimensional fit was obtained after item deletions. A two-dimensional solution for the three country clusters was identified, where the primary dimension was historical calamities versus progress and a weak second dimension was modernity versus resistance to modernity. Factor analysis further reduced the item inventory to identify a single concept with structural equivalence across cultures, Historical Calamities, which included man-made and natural, intentional and unintentional, predominantly violent but also nonviolent calamities. Less robust factors were tentatively named as Historical Progress and Historical Resistance to Oppression. Historical Calamities and Historical Progress were at the individual level both significant and independent predictors of willingness to fight for one’s country in a hierarchical linear model that also identified significant country-level variation in these relationships. Consensus around calamity but disagreement as to what constitutes historical progress is discussed in relation to the political culture of nations and lay perceptions of history as catastrophe.

Exploring the benefits of using multi-touch devices in performing information search tasks: An analysis in terms of performance, cognitive load and task engagement

Over the last decade, multi-touch devices (MTD) have spread in a range of contexts. In the learning context, MTD accessibility leads more and more teachers to use them in their classroom, assuming that it will improve the learning activities. Despite a growing interest, only few studies have focused on the impacts of MTD use in terms of performance and suitability in a learning context.However, even if the use of touch-sensitive screens rather than a mouse and keyboard seems to be the easiest and fastest way to realize common learning tasks (as for instance web surfing), we notice that the use of MTD may lead to a less favorable outcome. More precisely, tasks that require users to generate complex and/or less common gestures may increase extrinsic cognitive load and impair performance, especially for intrinsically complex tasks. It is hypothesized that task and gesture complexity will affect users’ cognitive resources and decrease task efficacy and efficiency. Because MTD are supposed to be more appealing, it is assumed that it will also impact cognitive absorption. The present study also takes into account user’s prior knowledge concerning MTD use and gestures by using experience with MTD as a moderator. Sixty university students were asked to perform information search tasks on an online encyclopedia. Tasks were set up so that users had to generate the most commonly used mouse actions (e.g. left/right click, scrolling, zooming, text encoding…). Two conditions were created: MTD use and laptop use (with mouse and keyboard) in order to make a comparison between the two devices. An eye tracking device was used to measure user’s attention and cognitive load. Our study sheds light on some important aspects towards the use of MTD and the added value compared to a laptop in a student learning context.