From
the Editors …
Welcome to
the April 2010 issue of the Learning Technology newsletter.
Usability
is acknowledged as one of the key qualities of technology-enhanced learning
(TEL) applications and services, since it can significantly affect their
overall success and acceptability. This issue focuses on usability aspects in
TEL and introduces papers which describe new frameworks for addressing and
evaluating usability in TEL, as well as specific usability evaluation case
studies.
Minocha
& Reeves discuss design considerations which can help the development of 3D
virtual learning spaces which are accessible by all potential users, including
users with special needs. Metscher & Bredl describe the edubreakCAMPUS
learning environment and some studies which aimed to investigate its usability.
Santos & Boticario describe their work on developing and evaluating the
usability of semantic educational recommender systems (SERS). Gasparini, et
al., present the AdaptWeb adaptive learning environment and discuss the results
of a series of experiments which investigated its usability. Zaharias &
Koutsabasis present the empirical application and comparison of two heuristic
sets that have been proposed specifically for contemporary e-learning
applications. Finally, Daneshgar, et al., investigate methods for enhancing
e-learning satisfaction among adult e-learners in today’s workplaces.
The issue
also includes a section with regular articles (i.e. articles that are not
related to the special theme on
usability in TEL). Retalis & Sloep describe idSpace, a groupware system for
supporting collaborative creativity. Shah, et al., discuss the evolution of
game-based learning. Konetes discusses findings from literature concerning the
online attrition rates in university and business settings. Finally, Nicaud
& Viudez describe epsilonwriter.com, a tool for easy working on documents
with formulas.
After this
section, you find an announcement for a recently published book by Stephen Reed
with the title Thinking Visually.
We
sincerely hope that this issue will help in keeping you abreast of the current
research and developments in usability aspects of TEL. In our effort to improve
the usefulness of the newsletter, this issue also includes an annex with a list
of conferences related to Learning Technology (the list is taken from ASK’s
Web-Site, at http://www.ask4research.org).
We also
would like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute your own work on
technology enhanced learning (e.g., work in progress, project reports, case
studies, and event announcements) in this newsletter, if you are involved in
research and/or implementation of any aspect of advanced learning technologies.
For more details, please refer to the author guidelines at
http://www.ieeetclt.org/content/authors-guidelines.
Deadline for submission of articles:
28 June, 2010
Special theme of the next issue: Collaborative Learning Supported by
Technology
Articles that are not in the area of
the special theme are most welcome as well and will be published in the regular
article section!
Editors
Sabine Graf
Athabasca
University, Canada
sabineg@athabascau.ca
Charalampos Karagiannidis
University of Thessaly, Greece
karagian@uth.gr
Special
Theme Section: Usability Aspects in Technology Enhanced Learning
Introduction
Educational institutions
are increasingly adopting 3D virtual worlds (VWs) in their learning and
teaching. In a 3D VW, users synchronously interact in 3D spaces
via their graphical self-representations known as ‘avatars’ and converse in
real-time through gestures, audio- and text-based communication. Second Life (SL) is the most widely used 3D VW in education.
Unlike role-playing games such as World of Warcraft that has a storyline, SL,
is not a ‘game’ per se. The lack of a guiding narrative in SL provides
flexibility for users to design spaces and activities for their requirements.
In the research project ‘DELVE’
(Design of Learning Spaces in 3D Multi-user Virtual Environments), we conducted
a study to investigate users’ perceptions of learning space designs in SL.
Although our focus in DELVE was on the design of 3D learning spaces, our
empirical investigations have shown that usability of 3D spaces, in general,
influences user’s experience and sense of engagement in a 3D VW.
Research on
the usability of spaces in 3D VWs has been anecdotal to date but there is a
growing interest in the community. For example, Pursel
discusses usability issues such as navigation, space design and familiarity:
narrow corridors and tight corners are difficult for avatars to navigate as are
rooms with narrow ceilings and no natural exits (e.g. doors) even if the
teleporting facility for an exit is present.
We have
discussed usability principles related to way-finding, navigation and others in
[1]. In this article we focus on usability aspects that influence the
accessibility of 3D spaces.
Figure 1: Virtual Ability
Island: Figure 2: Virtual Ability Island:
Welcome area Orientation area
Accessibility of 3D spaces
By
accessibility we mean designing 3D spaces so that they are accessible to users
who may have a range of disabilities (mental or physical) in real life. In this
article, we discuss five design considerations along with data-excerpts from
our conversations with colleagues associated with the Virtual Ability Island in
SL [2] (see Figure 1 and 2). These design considerations and data-excerpts
provide interesting insights about how the designing for accessibility could
actually imply ‘universal usability’, that is, usability for all users.
Design for accessibility
The
design strategy should consider target users and their accessibility
requirements. The designs should be evaluated with the end-users.
“Accessibility
is # 1. We did many tests as we built to make sure that it was accessible in
many ways. The builders and I would wear wheelchairs as we built to test
different aspects of the floor. We had real-life accessibility experts come in
to advise us as we progressed too also making the signage easy to read was key
we had low vision members testing the signs as we would develop a new one to
give us feedback”
Design to avoid fatigue amongst users
A
sequence of activities towards a goal such as the orientation centre, should be
designed to avoid fatigue:
“We
created the Orientation Centre to take about an hour, which we thought was the
fatigue limit on our target audience. But you don't SEE that, so there is no
reminder that there is a fatigue limit, we just made it part of the design,
that is how Universal Design [4] works”
Design accessibility into both the look and the function
The look
and function of the 3D spaces should be designed for accessibility:
“The
training facilities where we hold classes had to look and function accessibly.
So we made them open, easy seating, lots of spaces for chairs, level floors,
three screens for the presenter to show media, and all within hearing distance
of the presenter”
“There
are things we can do in SL that we can't in RL, for instance, space inside an
SL building is cheap compared to similar space in RL, so when we designed the
auditorium, we could put enough space in front of the rows of seats that a
person in a wheelchair can pass in front and not roll over toes of those
already seated; you can't afford that space in an RL theatre!!”
Design to overcome existing mental barriers
Designers
should consider how their designs and the associated guidance for the use of
the spaces might help overcome the mental inhibitions that disabled users may
bring into a 3D VW:
“There
are some people with disabilities that have problems doing things in SL, their
avatars CAN do it but mentally they can't. For example, some folks feel that if
their wheelchair could not go ride over sand or grass in real-life, they can't
do it here as well” …”we stayed away from path-textures that had planks with
spaces between them and any path-textures that looked broken or uneven.”
Support blind and dyslexic users
Designing for people with disabilities can also
help other user groups, e.g. non-native English speakers:
“We know
that what we design specifically for assisting people with disabilities also
helps others. For instance, when we design wav files to provide our posters in
auditory format it not only benefits our blind users but also those who are
dyslexic and those for whom English is not their first language and they
understand what is spoken more readily than what they read”
Conclusions
Careful
consideration to accessibility of learning spaces can provide benefits for all
user groups. As the designer-participant in our study stated: “I would
recommend using the principles of Universal Design [3] as far as possible. We
know that what we design specifically for assisting people with disabilities,
it also helps others.”
References
[1] http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning/ltig/delve.aspx
[2] Minocha, S and Reeves, A. J. (2010).
“Interaction Design and Usability of Learning Spaces in 3D Multi-user Virtual Worlds”
in Human Work Interaction Design: Usability in Social, Cultural and
Organizational Contexts, Katre, D. et al. (Eds.), Springer, pp. 157-167.
[3] Virtual
Ability island: http://slurl.com/secondlife/virtual
ability/128/128/23
[4] Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J. (2003). Universal Principles of Design. Rockport, Inc.
Shailey Minocha
Centre for
Research in Computing,
The Open
University,
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA, UK
s.minocha@open.ac.uk
Ahmad J. Reeves
Centre for
Research in Computing,
The Open
University,
Milton
Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
dr.a.reeves@gmail.com
Abstract. This article highlights the continuous study and improvement of the
usability of the online environment edubreakCAMPUS,
which was developed by the company Ghostthinker
GmbH and was evaluated by the Institute for Media and Educational
Technology at the University of Augsburg. We outline the challenge created
through the use of a combination of a complex software solution, including a
rich video annotation application, and an ambitious didactical approach for
embedding video reflections in a blended-learning course targeting a
heterogeneous group of users.
Introduction
Since
2007, Ghostthinker GmbH company developed an overall concept for advanced
training courses in close partnership with different sports associations and
the Institute for Media and Educational Technology. Of foremost importance is a
combination of the latest Web 2.0 technologies, an adapted blended learning
concept and the principles of media-supported quality and knowledge management.
The underlying instructional design is based on the latest findings in research
in the field of media-supported teaching and learning. It supports a model of
active and social learning which is enhanced through an elaborated task design.
These tasks are designed in a way that motivates participants to articulate their
tacit knowledge with the help of the edubreak
video player, to reflect on their individual learning experience in a blog.
Implementation
The
technical implementation is accomplished in short development cycles based on the
idea of agile methods. The development includes a rich video annotation
application called edubreak video
player, which enables the user to directly create time precise
annotations and to enhance annotations with a number of different extensions
like drawing, audio remarks, rating and tags. In addition, participants have
the option of using Web 2.0 applications, like web blogs and e-portfolios,
together with edubreakCAMPUS.
One
of the major challenges regarding the usability of the learning environment is
supporting each user equally: the participants
during the learning and reflecting process and the moderators during the teaching and supervising process. The latter
have the benefit of a customized module called Moderator Cockpit, which provides an overview of all contents
created by participants, including video annotations and blog entries. In
addition, it enables moderators to manage their feedback.
During
the first courses, which took place early in 2009, the efforts to support
participants quickly exceeded the capacities of the moderators (see figure 3)
and it was neither efficient nor satisfying to reply to every post directly in
the video player. Hence, further development focused on the improvement of
feedback management by the moderators.
Particularly,
when working with videos, the internet bandwidth of each user is still a
critical factor. With an unstable and volatile internet connection, the
reaction of the video player may be delayed and it may cause a decrease in ease
of use.
Figure 1: edubreak video player Figure
2: Moderator Cockpit
Evaluation
The
learning environment has been continuously evaluated in terms of user
satisfaction and motivation for use. The blended-learning courses are reviewed
by means of questionnaires and interviews. In addition, the analysis of usage
statistics of the learning environment also allows the tracking of users'
actions. The results are included and consulted in the next development cycle.
Figure 3: Analysis of questionnaire and user statistics
of two courses in 2009
In
the winter term 2009/2010, the edubreakCAMPUS
was introduced at two local schools and its usage was evaluated by a group of
students. A user survey with the help of a semi-standardized questionnaire was
used to inquire the perceived usability and clarity of the online environment.
In addition, the students carried out a scenario testing, enhanced with
thinking aloud.
Figure 4: Have you oriented yourself fast in the
online environment?
Although
the majority of the students from both schools were able to orient themselves
relatively quickly in edubreakCAMPUS
(see Figure 4), the difference between the results (see Figure 3) is
striking. Differences could be due to the dissimilarity in the types of schools
(School 1 is a supportive school an/d School 2 a high school). The students of
the first school were complaining about unknown technical terms mentioned on
the learning environment. The result also shows that the online environment
should be adapted more closely to each user group and context to increase its
usability. In the future a usability-test with a few individuals of the new
user group should be arranged during the preparation of the environment.
Conclusions and Further Work
The
minimization of efforts and optimization of use in the sense of User-Centered
Design has been used in features such as the Cockpit which has been successfully implemented. Concurrently, the edubreak video player has also been
improved in terms of its capabilities, even with a slow internet connection, as
a result of the latest inquiries.
In
addition to the described methods, it is essential to evaluate the environment
and all its components using an expert heuristic, to enhance the adaptability
of language in the environment and further the reduction of complexity. This
will allow for edubreakCAMPUS to
be introduced in further contexts and to additional user groups.
References
[1] C. Ardito, M. Costabile, M. Marsico, R.
Lanzilotti, S. Levialdi, T. Roselli, und V. Rossano, "An approach to
usability evaluation of e-learning applications", Universal Access in the Information Society,
vol. 4, März. 2006, S. 270-283.
[2] S. Bødker, "Scenarios in
user-centred design--setting the stage for reflection and action", Interacting with Computers, vol. 13, Sep.
2000, S. 61-75.
[3] F. Vohle, "Reflective learning in
physical education with a multicodal online video tool", 2009.
[4] F. Vohle, "Cognitive Tools 2.0 in
Trainer Education", International
Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, vol. 4, 2009, S. 11.
[5] F.
Vohle, "Video Annotation 2.0: Fostering Reflective Learning in Sports
Coach Education", 2009.
Johannes Metscher
Institute
for Media and Educational Technology
University
of Augsburg, Germany
Johannes.Metscher@phil.uni-augsburg.de
Klaus Bredl
Institute
for Media and Educational Technology
University
of Augsburg, Germany
bredl@phil.uni-augsburg.de
Recommender
systems aim to offer relevant guidance to individuals who lack sufficient
experience or knowledge on the alternatives when they have to make choices in
daily life situations. The successful implementation of these systems in the
e-commerce domain has motivated their consideration for the educational domain.
However, it is arguable that educational recommender systems share the same key
objectives as recommenders for e-commerce applications (i.e. helping users to
select the most appropriate item from a large information pool) since there are
some particularities that make not possible to directly apply existing
solutions from those systems. For instance, recommendations in the educational
domain should not be guided only by the learners’ preferences but also
educational criteria should be considered. However, up to now, most educational
recommender systems approaches have focused on applying traditional
recommendations algorithms in order to find out relevant resources to recommend
to learners in learning scenarios. While this approach is pointing at
interesting open issues, there are complementary views in this field.
We have
been working in the definition of a semantic educational recommender system,
which recommend learners relevant actions to carry out while they are involved
in the learning process in a learning environment. Those actions are described
in terms of a semantic recommendation model that we have proposed in [4]. In
our approach, the involvement of the educator in the process of eliciting the
recommendations is essential [5] to obtain qualitative information to describe
the recommendations required from an educational perspective. This includes
issues such as what to recommend in which situation, as well as to characterize
the recommendation with some metadata (e.g. category, relevance, origin …). The
approach is complemented with data mining algorithms, which can be used to tune
the educators’ design work with specific values for the conditions by analyzing
previous interactions in the learning environment. This model helps to bridge
the gap between the educator understanding and the algorithms, as the former is
able to express the recommendations required to accomplish the educational
needs of their students, while the latter are able to detect additional pieces
of information that turns out to be relevant in real use.
A number of
usability methods [1] can be used in the process of involving the educator to
elicit recommendations. In our approach, we have applied methods such as
meetings with stakeholders, brainstorming, and observational studies to
understand the learning needs and how recommendation strategies can be applied
in the educational domain. This information was useful to design the semantic
recommendations model.
Next, we
evaluated if it was possible to describe recommendations with that model and
what was the users’ perception of them. We prepared an experiment with a total
of 40 users in 3 runs of a course developed using the ALPE methodology [3]
focused on how to use the learning platform. For that course, and based on this
recommendations model, 13 recommendations were described, which addressed
different users’ features. Participants worked on the course for one hour. Some
of these recommendations were offered to them, depending on their user model.
After the experience, they were given a questionnaire to evaluate the
experience, the recommendations and the model elements. The feedback obtained
was positive.
Subsequently,
we looked for usability methods to involve the educator in the recommendations
design process. A methodology to elicit recommendations was defined [5] which
combines questionnaires to know the expertise of the participants regarding
online teaching and interviews to identify relevant situations in their
previous online teaching experiences. Three educators were consulted. The
situations identified were turned into scenarios, identifying the problem and
solution scenarios [2]. Problem scenarios state the situation as it is, while
solution scenarios are modifications to the problem scenarios to introduce
recommendations that could be provided to avoid or limit the problems
identified. At this point the recommendations are described in terms of the
conditions that should take place for the recommendation to be offered. 18
scenarios and 43 recommendations were proposed.
These
recommendations were discussed in a focus group in order to refine them. To
classify the recommendations as defined in the model, some card sorting
activities [6] were carried out. First, an open card sorting was done by 6
educators to reveal relevant categories for the given set of recommendations.
Second, a close card sorting -involving 20 educators and 20 learners- focused
on classifying the recommendations in the categories learnt. As a result, 51
recommendations were produced, grouped in 11 categories. These results were
validated by 3 educators and recommendations are now ready for the course.
References
[1] Bevan, N., (2003). UsabilityNet
Methods for user centered design. In: Jacko, J. and Stephanidis, C. eds. Human-Computer
Interaction: Theory and Practice (Part 1), Volume 1. Heraklion, Crete: Lawrence
Erlbaum. 434–438.
[2] Rosson, M. B. and Carroll, J. M.
(2001). Usability engineering: scenario-based development of human computer
interaction. Morgan Kaufmann.
[3] Santos, O.C., Boticario, J.G.,
Fernández del Viso, A., Pérez de la Cámara, S., Rebate
Sánchez, C., Gutiérrez y Restrepo, E. (2007). Basic skills training to disabled
and adult learners through an accessible e-Learning platform. 12th
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
[4] Santos, O.C. and Boticario, J.G., (2008). Users' experience with a recommender
system in an open source standard-based learning management system. In
proceedings of the 4th Symposium of the WG HCI&UE of the Austrian Computer
Society on Usability & HCI for Education and Work.
[5] Santos, O.C., Martin, L., del Campo, E.,
Saneiro, M., Mazzone, E., Boticario, J.G. and Petrie, H. (2009). User-Centered
Design Methods for Validating a Recommendations Model to Enrich Learning
Management Systems with Adaptive Navigation Support. In: S. Weibelzahl, J.
Masthoff, A. Paramythis, and L. van Velsen (Eds.) Sixth Workshop on
User-Centred Design and Evaluation of Adaptive Systems, in conjunction with
International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization
(UMAP2009).
[6] Spencer, D. (2009). Card Sorting.
Designing Usable Categories. Rosenfeld Media.
Olga C. Santos
aDeNu
Research Group, UNED
ocsantos@dia.uned.es
Jesus G. Boticario
aDeNu
Research Group, UNED
jgb@dia.uned.es
Introduction
Both
Learning Technology and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) communities are
unanimous in recognizing that usability is a very important quality
criterion for e-learning systems (ELS). Usability is the effectiveness,
efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users achieve specified goals
in a particular context of use [1].
Since ELSs are normally used by a
wide variety of students with different skills, background, preferences, and
learning styles, a straightforward way an ELS can
provide usability is
that of being adaptive/personalized adopting different adaptive strategies like
adaptive ordering, link hiding, and adaptive link annotation
[2]. Adaptive ELSs ideally provide the student with exactly the
material s/he needs: for this, they adapt
dynamically the content, the presentation, and the assistance offered to
users, according the student's profile.
Adaptive techniques are examples of user-centered techniques for approaching a range of serious
usability problems found in conventional non-adaptive web-based ELSs, usually
related to present homogeneous content and navigation scheme for all students,
without focusing on a more adequate for each student. These
usability problems are critical for ELSs design, i.e. referring to ELS as a whole, not
just the visual aspects of it.
An
aim of our research has been ultimately to investigate approaches putting the
users’ profile and contextual knowledge into practice in the development
process of the actual ELSs – in particular of an ELS called AdaptWeb®
(Adaptive Web-based learning Environment) [3], an adaptive hypermedia system
aiming to adapt the content, the presentation and the navigation in web-based
courses, according to the student model. AdaptWeb is an open source
environment, available in SourceForge
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/adaptweb/), and being used in different
universities today.
AdaptWeb®
environment
AdaptWeb provides personalized content to
different students groups. AdaptWeb is composed of a) an authoring environment
where the teacher/author organizes and creates the structure of content of
their courses, adapted to degree programs (e.g. Engineering or Computer Science - CS), and b)
the students’ environment, which personalizes the content, the interface and
navigation to each student.
The
AdaptWeb’s educational contents are modeled through a hierarchical structure of
concepts where the criteria for prerequisites are established. This structure
is defined during the authorship stage and then stored in XML format. The XML
documents should go through a filtering process, which happens dynamically at
the student interaction with the environment, and satisfies the criteria of
adaptation represented in the model of each student in particular, namely:
knowledge, degree program (area of knowledge), and preferences. In the design
and implementation of AdaptWeb, usability issues (like navigation, interface,
content disposable [4,5]) were always considered as requirements.
AdaptWeb® usability evaluation
AdaptWeb
has been made available for use by actual users in our academic context.
Following well-known subjective evaluation methods from the HCI field, we made
some experiments to obtain qualitative and quantitative information about
AdaptWeb usage and the viewpoint of its users.
The goal of first experiment was the
evaluation of major usability problems and user satisfaction, concerning
40
students. Thus, many improvements were necessary and implemented, not only
based on the evaluation, but mainly because new technologies and cooperative
tools were available; a second experiment was oriented to both points of view:
the students´ and authors´ interfaces. The first evaluation method
adopted was heuristic evaluation by 3 GUI experts to detect general interface
design problems. We used the Nielsen´s 10 heuristics [5], the Ergonomic
criteria proposed by Scapin and Bastien [6] and a specific
evaluation for online courses proposed by Dringus and Cohen [7] to achieve more
particular ELS´s problems related. A second evaluation method adopted was user testing, involving 44
CS students in a HCI course at UDESC University, to identify difficulties
related to user´s task performance. During user testing, each user was
observed directly using AdaptWeb (in a laboratory) and was asked to answer a
questionnaire. To the author´s point-of-view, we also used first the
heuristics evaluation followed by a focus group with 14 teachers followed by an
usability test and questionnaire answering.
As a direct result of the
combination of several methods for evaluation many improvements for AdaptWeb
were detected: a) a better support for helping author(s) and student(s) to
communicate to each other, including mechanisms like forum, agenda and whiteboard;
b) a richer context modeling – complementary to existing student modeling - in
order to provide better adaptation mechanisms; c) fault report and diagnosis
mechanisms,
helping users to relate problems and make suggestions and critics; d) providing
teachers with a more sophisticated student´s log analysis, helping to
identify usage patterns, frequency, the content most searched, the most used
type of navigation, days with more/less access, and so on. Clearly the most
important evaluation results were those that allowed us to identify some
features not being addressed by the initial design of AdaptWeb.
References
[1] ISO 9241. Ergonomics requirements for
office with visual display terminals (VDTs) (1998).
[2] Brusilovsky, P. Adaptive Hypermedia. User
Modeling and User Adapted Interaction, v.11, n. 1-2, p. 87-110 (2001).
[3] Freitas, V. de, Marçal, V. P.,
Gasparini, I., et. al. AdaptWeb: an Adaptive Web-based Courseware.
International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Education
(ICTE2002) (2002).
[4] Nielsen, Jakob. Usability Engineering.
Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, (1993).
[5] Shneiderman, Ben. Designing the user
interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction, Addison-Wesley,
Boston, MA, USA, (1997).
[6] Scapin, D. L; Bastien, JMC. Ergonomic
criteria for the evaluation of human-computer interfaces. INRIA,
(1993). Available:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/07/00/12/PDF/RT-0156.pdf.
[7] Dringus, LP and Cohen, MS. An
adaptable usability heuristic checklist for online courses. Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference (2005).
Isabela Gasparini
Informatics Institute, UFRGS, & Computer
Science Department, UDESC, Brazil
igasparini@inf.ufrgs.br
Marcelo S. Pimenta
Informatics Institute, UFRGS , Brazil
mpimenta@inf.ufrgs.br
José Palazzo M. de
Oliveira
Informatics Institute, UFRGS , Brazil
palazzo@inf.ufrgs.br
Avanilde Kemczinski
Computer Science Department, UDESC, Brazil
isabela, avanilde@joinville.udesc.br
Overview
Improving
the effectiveness and efficiency of heuristic evaluation has gained the
interest of several researchers and practitioners within the e-learning
research community (Zacharias, 2007). This study focuses on the empirical
application and comparison of two heuristic sets that have been proposed
specifically for contemporary e-learning applications. The main results of the
study indicate that both heuristic sets exhibit wide coverage of potential
usability problems, despite that some heuristics are more general than others.
Heuristic evaluation of e-learning
applications
Heuristic
Evaluation (HE) is a systematic inspection of a user interface design for
usability (Nielsen & Molich, 1990). It is the most commonly used inspection
technique and it is inexpensive and relatively easy to conduct in comparison to
other evaluation methods.
This
study focuses on the comparison of two different heuristic protocols that have
been developed specifically for e-learning applications. The first was
developed by Reeves et al. (2002) based on Nielsen’s protocol, having expanded
this to include instructional design heuristics:
|
1. Visibility
and System Status
2. Match
between System and Real World
3. Error
Recovery and Exiting
4. Consistency
and Standards
5. Error
Prevention
6. Navigation
Support
7. Aesthetics
8. Help
and Documentation
|
9. Interactivity
10. Message Design
11. Learning Design
12. Media Integration
13. Instructional Assessment
14. Resources
15. Feedback
|
The
second heuristic set was proposed by Mehlenbacher et al. (2005), having been
influenced by usability research, rhetorical theory and e-learning design
(Table 1).
Overview of the study of heuristic
evaluation for e-learning
Method
A
typical commercial asynchronous e-learning course was evaluated in this study.
The course was on “Internet Marketing” and it contained four main learning
modules. The heuristic evaluation was conducted by two reviewers that have
experience in usability evaluation and in e-learning (‘double experts’
according to Nielsen). The goal was to identify as many usability problems
(UPs) as possible, and then to match these with the heuristics of the two
heuristic sets, while a common report format was used for documentation. The
matching of heuristic sets to UPs found is discussed in terms of:
·
Coverage, i.e. the degree to which the
heuristic sets ‘include’ the UPs identified. A high coverage of all UPs identified
by a heuristic set for a particular evaluation study indicates that the set is
inclusive and does not leave important aspects of usability out of its scope.
·
Distribution, i.e. the degree to which each
heuristic ‘gathers’ a considerable amount of UPs. If some heuristics gather the
large majority of UPs, then it is possible that these should be refined.
·
Redundancy, i.e. the degree to which UPs
appear relevant to more than one heuristic. These heuristics are not distinct
and allow broader interpretations.
Table
1: Dimensions of Instructional Situations and heuristics (Mehlenbacher
et al. (2005)
Results
The
heuristic evaluation resulted in a total number of 76 UPs found, out of which
54 (71%) were severe, 20 (26%) were moderate and 2 (3%) were minor problems.
Overall, the reviewers felt that a lot of good technical work has been put on
to set up this environment (i.e. all major Web technologies were present
including HTML, CSS, Javascript and Flash); however several problems were
identified regarding usability, accessibility and instructional design issues.
Table
2 presents an overview of the match of heuristic sets to UPs indicating the
values of the above criteria.
Table
2: Heuristic sets and usability problems (UPs) identified.
With
regard to coverage, we have seen that both heuristic sets exhibit high
coverage. This is certainly a desirable attribute for any heuristic set (HS).
HS #1 (Reeves et al, 2002) has incorporated 72 out of 76 (95%) of the UPs
identified. HS #2 also exhibits a particularly high coverage of 71 out of 76
(93%) of the UPs found.
With
regard to distribution, for both heuristic sets there are only some
heuristics that have attracted a large portion of UPs, while other attracted
too few and some even not a single UP! The fact that a high distribution is
observed to a few heuristics is a strong indication that these heuristics may
be too generic, therefore there may be a need to refine these for more useful
guidance to practitioners. Specifically, for HS #1, the heuristics that have
attracted most UPs were: ‘visibility of system status’ (22% Ups),
‘interactivity’ (16%), ‘learning design’ (22%). For HS #2, the ‘most important’
heuristics were: ‘accessibility’ (25%), user control error tolerance, and
flexibility (24%); readability and quality of writing (14%).
With
regard to redundancy, we have found that the HS #1 (Reeves et al, 2002)
exhibited better (i.e. lesser) than HS #2 (Mehlenbacher et al, 2005): A 20% of
UPs were reported for more than one heuristic for HS #1, while a 39% of UPs
were reported for more than one heuristic for HS #2. For these UPs it was not
particularly straightforward to match them with a single guideline.
Future work
Future
work will employ a larger number of evaluators and additional e-learning
applications. In addition we plan to compare the results of these heuristic
sets to user testing. A comparative analysis can be conducted along criteria
such as: realness, validity, thoroughness and effectiveness (Koutsabasis et al,
2007).
Acknowledgements
Authors would
like to thank e-LearningCenter (http://www.e-learningcenter.com/index.htm) for their
assistance in this research.
References
[1]
Koutsabasis,
P. Spyrou, T. and Darzentas, J. (2007) Evaluating Usability Evaluation Methods:
Criteria, Method and a Case study, 12th International Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction, Beijing, China, 2007, Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, Vol. 4550, Springer.
[2]
Mehlenbacher,
B., Bennett, L., Bird, T., Ivey, M., Lucas, J., Morton, J., & Whitman, L.
(2005) Usable e-learning: A conceptual model for evaluation and design. In
Proceedings of HCI International 2005: 11th International Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 4 — Theories, Models, and Processes in HCI.
Las Vegas, NV: Mira Digital P, pp 1-10.
[3]
Nielsen,
J. Molich, R. (1990) Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings
ACM CHI’90 Conference, ACM, Seattle, WA. pp 249-256.
[4]
Reeves,
T., Benson, L., Elliott, D., Grant, M., Holschuh, D., Kim, B., Kim, H., Lauber,
E., Loh, S. (2002) Usability and Instructional Design Heuristics for E-Learning
Evaluation. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia and Telecommunications, pp 1615-1621. Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
[5]
Zaharias,
P. (2007) Heuristic evaluation in e-learning context: Selecting the appropriate
tasks and reporting usability problems. In Proceedings of International
Conference on E-Learning -ICEL07.
Panagiotis Zaharias
Department of Computer
Science
University of Cyprus,
Nicosia, Cyprus
zaharias@cs.ucy.ac.cy
Panayiotis Koutsabasis
Department of Product &
Systems Design Engineering
University of the Aegean,
Syros, Greece
kgp@aegean.gr
Background
Today’s knowledge economies have
created a need for life-long learning among adult employees. In preparation for
a globally diversified workforce, organisations are providing e-Learning
courses for their employees in their international operations in an attempt to
address both cultural differences that affect management, as well as employees’
need for life-long learning. This paper investigates methods for enhancing
e-Learning satisfaction among adult Learners in today’s workplaces. Whilst the current
body of literature provides some evidence of similar studies having been
conducted, the domain of these previous studies has always tended to be higher education (Daneshgar, Van Toorn
and Abedin, 2009). The current study seeks to extend these findings by applying
existing methods and practices to the domain of the workplace environment.
A systematic review of the current
literature pointed to thirteen factors affecting learners’ satisfaction of
e-Learning settings. These are shown in the research model, Figure 1 below, a
synthesized model explored from existing literature to define constructs and
relationships between perceived learner satisfaction and e-Learning
environmental characteristics.
Figure 1: Proposed Conceptual Model
Based on the above model, thirteen
hypotheses – labelled H1-H13 – were identified to test the existence and
strength of relationships between the various factors and perceived user
satisfaction.
Research Methodology
A sequential exploratory strategy
was adopted commencing with qualitative data collection and analysis, followed
by a quantitative approach. The purpose of this was to use qualitative results
to assist in the interpretation of quantitative findings. A three-step
exploratory research was conducted, including (i) a preliminary set of
structured interviews for preparing the main survey instrument, (ii) a survey
pilot study to validate the survey instrument, and (iii) a main survey study.
This paper reports on the last two components.
Development of the Survey Instrument: The Pilot Study
A
review of the literature identified thirteen crucial factors influencing the
perceived satisfaction of e-Learners - shown in Figure 1. These were drawn from
tested scales in existing literature (Amoroso and Cheney, 1991; Gattiker and
Hlavka, 1992; Barbeite and Weiss, 2004; Sun, 2008; Daneshgar and Van Toorn,
2009). Three demographic questions were included in the survey to aid in the
identification of potential limitations of the study or other possible
contributing factors.
The
pilot study was conducted after the survey was developed and reviewed by the
researchers to validate the survey questions and identify any errors or areas
of improvement in the survey. Results revealed that no instructor was present and therefore there were no interactions
between the learner and instructor or between the learners themselves. As a
result, the three questions related to the Instructor’s
Response Timeliness, Instructor’s
Attitude Towards e-Learning and Perceived
level of Interaction factors were dropped and ten factors remained for the
main survey. All scales in the pilot study satisfied the assumptions that
justified the use of factor analysis with the exceptions of Computer Anxiety and Internet Quality.
The Main Survey
The
refined survey was created using iSalient (http://www.isalient.com) online survey software and was
open for two weeks to collect responses. A total of 275 people were eligible to
participate in the survey. To determine the suitability of formative and
reflective indicators, weights and loadings were examined respectively. In the
current study, eight factors were identified as formative constructs. These
included Computing Attitude, Internet Self-Efficacy, Course Flexibility, Course Quality, Technology Quality, Internet
Quality, Diversity in Assessment
and Perceived e-Learner Satisfaction.
Whilst two factors were treated as reflective constructs, these included Computer Anxiety, Perceived Usefulness.
Implications of Key Findings
In
summary, the statistical results found that Course
Quality and Perceived Usefulness
of the e-Learning courses had a significant impact on perceived e-Learner
satisfaction in the workplace. These findings were also consistent with results
from the interviews. To a lesser extent, it was found that individual learner’s
Internet Self-Efficacy and the
organisation’s Internet Quality may
also have an impact on e-Learner satisfaction in the workplace. Organisations
offering e-Learning courses for adult learners in the workplace should focus on
these four factors when designing and implementing e-Learning courses to ensure
learner’s satisfaction with the e-Learning system and to maximise their
life-long learning experience.
The
ten factors identified from the existing literature: Computing Attitude, Computer
Anxiety, Internet Self-Efficacy, Course Flexibility, Course Quality, Technology
Quality, Internet Quality, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Diversity in Assessment, when combined, were
able to explain at least 76% of the variances in Perceived e-Learner Satisfaction in the workplace. Other factors
may also influence Perceived e-Learner
Satisfaction in the workplace and thus future studies may set out to
explore and investigate the remaining 24% of the variance in Perceived e-Learner Satisfaction in the
workplace.
Acknowledgement
This project was partly funded by the John Metcalf Memorial Grant
provided to the researchers in the Australian School of Business at the University
of New South Wales.
References
Amoroso, D.L. & Cheney, P.H. (1991)
Testing a causal model of end-user application effectiveness. Journal of Management Information Systems,
8 (1), pp. 63-89.
Barbeite, F.G. & Weiss, E.M.
(2004) Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an Internet sample:
Testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new
scales. Computers in Human Behavior,
20 (1), pp. 1-15.
Daneshgar, F. & Van Toorn, C.
(2009) e-Learning in Workplace versus e-Learning in Higher Education. Australian Educational Computing, 24(1),
pp. 16-22.
Daneshgar, F., Van Toorn, C. and
Abedin, B., (2009). A Research Theme
for Investigating the Effectiveness of Collaborative e-Learning in Higher
Education. The International Journal of
Learning, V 16 (3), pp 373-384.
Gattiker, U.E. & Hlavka, A.
(1992) Computer attitudes and learning performance: Issues for management
education and training. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13(1), pp. 89-101.
Sun, P.C., Tsai, R.J., Finger, G.,
Chen, Y.Y. & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An
empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner
satisfaction. Computers and Education,
50(4), pp. 1183-1202.
Farhad Daneshgar
Australian School of
Business
University of New South
Wales
Sydney, Australia
f.daneshgar@unsw.edu.au
Christine
Van Toorn
Australian School of
Business
University of New South
Wales
Sydney, Australia
c.vantoorn@unsw.edu.au
John
Hsu
Ernst & Young, IT
Risk & Assurance, Advisory
john.hsu@au.ey.com
Regular Articles Section
Collaborative Creativity Process
Nowadays, to invent and design new/innovative products
and/or services requires collective creative performance: creative action in
combination with collaboration. Creativity is being seen as a “universal
attribute, suggesting a need for greater creativity in order to both survive as
well as thrive in the twenty-first century” (Craft, 2006). Several creativity
techniques such as TRIZ, SCAMPER, Six Hats, 5W1H and more than 90 others have
been created in order to encourage people’s original thoughts and divergent
thinking. Some techniques require groups of two or more people while other
techniques can be accomplished by individual. All techniques try to steer
thought processes and help the individual or the group to find a structured
approach to answer questions, to see problems in their entirety, generate new
ideas and to reach to faster and better decisions.
Fostering creativity is increasingly seen as a key
direction and focus for pedagogic approaches, from nursery education, through
compulsory education to higher education and work environments. While
individual factors and initiative were important to creativity, social
environments made the difference (Glor, 1998). According to Amabile’s study
(1996), individual creativity can be mediated by the group and can be supported
by the social environment and management. Support of collaborative inventive
and creative thinking has to deal with intensive interaction and collaboration
of participants and evolving artifacts during exploration. So, collaborative
creativity requires:
•
Generation of new perspectives, new ideas.
•
Articulation of yet ‘tacit’ knowledge.
•
Exchange of ideas, finding common ground.
•
Learning from each other, exchanging existing
knowledge.
•
Evaluation of ideas.
•
Collaborative ‘construction’ of new propositions
Existing systems that aim to support collaborative
creativity processes are either mind or concept mapping tools, or mere
groupware tools. Most of them offer real-time cooperation and integrate
necessary functionalities like text chat, for instant communication, and a
common shared workspace. During the idSpace EU-funded IST FP7 project
[http://www.idspace-project.org/] a web-based platform in prototypical form was
created that allows a distributed team of innovators to elaborate on existing
ideas, to create and preserve new ideas, and to learn about them.
Supporting the collaborative creativity process: The
idspace platform
The idSpace platform features an integrative toolset.
It employs techniques for exploring new ideas (e.g. mind mapping in story
writing and brainstorming) and for refinement of ideas (e.g. morphological
analysis.) The platform contains tools to support traceability among stories,
mind maps, concept maps, goals, new product features, as well as company values
and policies. The platform also preserves semantic relationships among the
different viewpoints for later exploration, retrieval, and navigation purposes.
The idSpace platform (see Figure 1) differentiates and
innovates in guidance that offers to its users throughout the creative process
and elaboration on that process. Pedagogical learning scenarios guide the use
of the available creativity strategies, leading users to an effective and
efficient session of creation and innovation. The strengths of the idSpace
platform are the following:
•
The possibility of working over distance on a
problem/challenge
•
A workflow for working collaboratively. It guides the
users through creativity sessions while simultaneously supporting them with
related information
•
Reuse of creativity projects that have been created
with the platform. Earlier projects can be used as input for new projects, thus
transforming ideas into reusable knowledge.
•
Open platform that can contribute to a productive
result.
•
Inspiring the user with ideas expressed in past
projects, as well recommending related ideas, suitable users, past solutions,
and appropriate pedagogical strategies and creativity techniques
•
Supporting a complete process of project definition,
creativity activities, evaluation, and solution formulation
•
Easy expansion of the collection of creativity
techniques now used by the idSpace platform now supports
Figure 1: Screenshot of the ideation process at
the IdSpace platform
Extensive evaluation studies were performed with an
overall aim to analyze the usability and viability of the idSpace platform as a
tool:
•
to support actively and in a context-aware manner the
creation of new ideas.
•
to support elaboration (representation, storage and
management) of ideas.
The evaluation methodology and the promising findings
have been documented in an idSpace project deliverable report (IdSpaceEval,
2010).
Acknowledgements
This work has been
partially supported by the ISTFP7 idSpace project: Tooling of and training for
collaborative, distributed product innovation (grant num: 2008-216199).
References
Amabile, T. M.
Creativity in Context. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996.
Craft, A. (2006)
"Fostering Creativity with Wisdom". Cambridge Journal of Education,
36(3), pp. 337-350.
Glor, E.D. (1998),
"What do we know about enhancing creativity and innovation? A review of
literature", The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal,
Vol. 3 No.1
Goodyear, P.
(2005), "Educational design and networked learning: patterns, pattern
languages and design practice", Retrieved on Jan 2009 from
www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet21/goodyear.html
IdSpace Evaluation
Report (2010). “Deliverable D5.5: Evaluation Results & Integrated
Evaluation Report”, Access from DSpace Open University of the Netherlands
(Netherlands), http://dspace.ou.nl/
Simos Retalis
University of Piraeus
Department of Technology Education and Digital Systems
Piraeus, Greece
retal@unipi.gr
Peter
Sloep
Open University of the Netherlands
Centre for Learning Science and Technologies
Heerlen, The Netherlands
peter.sloep@ou.nl
Abstract. Games as learning environments are widely
believed to have prospective benefits such as increased motivation, engagement,
and improved learning outcomes. Games in general and computer games in
particular offer an array of knowledge presentation and create opportunities to
relate the knowledge within a virtual world, thus support and facilitate the
learning process. This paper
discusses games and their potential as learning tools.
Introduction
Interactive
entertainment and digital media today serves as a potent new economic,
cultural, and educational force. Games are now a multi-billion dollar industry. Experimenting with alternative
learning-environments combining digital games and learning edutainment is currently
in the spotlight and is the focus of a number of researchers. (Prensky, 2001),
author and CEO of games2train.com assert that educational games generate an
environment in which all the important factors of successful learning are
included: engagement, interactivity and most of all, fun. But most of the people assume that today’s games are measly “fancy
graphics”. Wenger (1998) remarks that
“the remoteness between doing and learning, or between entertainment and
learning, is not a difference in terms of activity nor it is that one is
mindless and the other thoughtful, that one is hard and the other easy or that
one is fun and the other arduous. It is that learning – whatever form it takes
- changes who we are by changing our ability to participate, to belong, to
negotiate meaning.”
The 21st century learners are
overexcited. Prensky (2005) underscores that the student of today anticipates
to be engaged in the everyday activities, plus in school, because of the amount
of engagement in most other facet of his/her life. Today’s students “have
something in their lives that’s really engaging—something that they do and that
they are good at, something that has an appealing, imaginative constituent to
it”. In today’s learners’ lives everything is “Online”, online gaming, online
shopping, online dating and every facet of their lives is engaged by computer
games, instant messaging, the Internet, music, movies and sports…except in
school! Game-Based Learning (Prensky, 2004), Gee, Prensky, and Herz
suggest that digital game-based learning lets learners to actually experience a
given subject rather than just reading about the subject. The learner gets a
hold and actually lives the subject and solicits about the rules within the
simulation; the learner in fact develops a vested interest in the subject.
Why do we play games?
Really…why do we play games? To have fun, to plunge into an imaginary
world, to take the challenge and outsmart the opponents and/or win, etc. There
are perhaps scores of slightly different reasons to play games.
When we come across the games in the learning context, contrary to the
activity only for the leisure time, we have learners’ and teachers’ viewpoint
of using games for learning. From the learners’ point of view using a game for
learning can have a variety of meanings, e.g. learning and having fun, taking
the challenge and realize better score, trying out different roles, being able
to experiment and seeing what happens, being able to express the feelings, be
able to reflect about certain conflict situation, etc.
As of the teachers’ standpoint, we select to use
games for learning to reach a new age bracket (Millennials) of learners with
the means they are familiar with to interact since their childhood.
The Games
To further support Gee, Prensky, and
Herz words, consider the game FarmVille developed by Zynga and available on the popular social
networking website Facebook. The game has over 83 million active users. These
users are not only playing a game but also through this game learning about
crops and farming. Another good example is that of Food Force a game published
by United Nations World Food Program (WFP) to educate children about hunger and
its effects. Within six weeks of its release the game had over 1 million
players and as of now the game has been translated into ten different
languages.
Perhaps this is enough evidence to
say that edutainment is the way forward. Websites such as (www.internet4classrooms.com, www.4teachers.org, www.schoolzone.co.uk) are just a few names to help
teachers bring edutainment to classrooms.
Meaningful effect
A full-time mother Gemma
for whom Farmville has become part of the daily routine, in-between nappy
changes and feeds. Both her sisters are signed up too. She was initially
dismissive of Farmville when she was asked to join, but is now an enthusiast.
So, what is the appeal?
"It becomes a
personal experience and something you care about," says Johnny Minkley, a
computer games expert. The game has certain "stickiness" to it,
because of the nurturing element involved, he says. "What you're doing
needs to have some meaningful effect, like the planting and growing of
crops."
Benefits of game-based learning
With using games we can stimulate motivation and stimulate engagement of
the learners in a positive way. Games offer environment that foster different
skill acquisition, skills like problem solving skills, communication and
collaboration skills, strategy making skills etc.
References
Gee,
J. P. (2003). What video games have to
teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave / Macmillan.
Gee,
J. P. (2005) What would a state of the art instructional video game look
like? Innovate 1 (6).
Herz, J.C. (1997). Joystick Nation. How videogames ate our
quarters, won our hearts, and rewired our minds. Princeton, NJ: Little
Brown & Company.
Prensky, M. (2001), Digital
game-based learning’, San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.
Prensky, M. (2005), “Engage Me or
Enrage Me:” What Today’s Learners Demand. Retrieved December, 2009.
Vaidyanathan, R. (2010). BBC News
Magazine. In Down on the Farmville.
Retrieved March 12, 2010.
Wenger, E. (1998), ‘Communities of Practice: learning, meaning
and identity’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taimur Ali Shah
Faculty of
Engineering LTH
Lund
University
Lund
Sweden
taimurkakakhel@yahoo.com
Mian Muhammad Irfan
Faculty of
Engineering LTH
Lund
University
Lund
Sweden
jhonindigo@yahoo.com
Maimoona Saleem
Faculty of Management Sciences
Sarhad University of Science and
Information Technology
Peshawar Pakistan
maimoonasaleem@gmail.com
Jonaid Aftab Taj
Faculty of Management Sciences
Sarhad University of Science and
Information Technology
Peshawar Pakistan
totti_jonaid@hotmail.com
Introduction
In
the dynamically developing field of online learning there are a number of
issues that are in somewhat of a state of flux while potential solutions and
applications are debated; student attrition rates being high on this list. This
paper draws upon recent research concerning the state of online learning
attrition rates in university and business applications, considers some of the
varying causes behind this issue and makes critical observations regarding
these causes and potential solutions.
Attrition Rates
Online
learning as a whole is and has been plagued with high course attrition rates
spanning across the university, corporate and training sectors. In terms of
higher education, distance learning courses experience an average attrition
rate of 10% – 20% higher than corresponding classroom courses (Angelino,
Williams, & Natvig, 2007). However some institutions report certain
situations where online course attrition rates are between 25% – 40% (Levy,
2007). These high dropout rates are seen as a significant problem within the
online learning sector as a whole (Van Tryon & Bishop, 2009). In addition
to high attrition rates at universities, there are also similar concerns regarding
distance learning for corporations and various forms of non accredited courses
and training (Tao, 2008). Certain online learning centers have recorded dropout
rates in excess of 50% while the same courses are taught face-to-face with only
a 10% dropout rate (Levy, 2007).
Causes
Attrition
within online learning courses is a result of a number of application specific
issues as well as overarching problems such as student satisfaction. According
to Levy (2007), a specific key identified that is a determining factor
influencing a student’s choice to drop out of an online course is student
satisfaction with the course and learning procedures. Students who have
completed online courses reported high levels of student satisfaction while
those who dropped out often reported significantly lower satisfaction levels
(Levy, 2007). Some specific causes for low satisfaction are feelings social
disconnection, lack of interpersonal social cues and interactions as well as
loss of teacher immediacy, all of which are typically alleviated in
face-to-face learning environments (Van Tryon & Bishop, 2009). Additional
reasons for dropping out of university online courses include professional,
academic, family, health and personal issues. According to Tao, (2008)
attrition reasons which are more closely linked to the online format and
requirements also include lack of instructor assistance, poor course and
technical support, communication problems and lack of learning community.
University attrition concerns have also been linked to a focus on expansion of
online programs and optimizing enrollments at the cost of course content and
management (DiRamio & Wolverton, 2006). However the reasons for online
learning attrition among corporate employees somewhat differ and include time
constraints, workplace distractions, lack of internet access at home, poor
management, poor motivation, technology issues, inexperienced teachers, badly
designed courses and lack of incentives like college credits and active
instructor correspondence through reliable online office hours (Tao, 2008).
Critical Evaluation
Many
of the specific issues mentioned in the literature in regard to causes of
attrition in university online learning programs stem from problems within the
course content and methodologies. These issues may be correctable at the
institutional level and do not seem to be problems inherent with the medium.
However, the overarching issues such as student satisfaction are somewhat more
difficult to solve. Even with the use of well coordinated learning strategies
it does not seem as if this issue can be easily or completely resolved.
Although perhaps it does not need to be completely resolved as the paradigm
shift towards online learning does not necessitate or require the extinction of
traditional face-to-face learning structures, thus allowing students with
strong dispositions toward traditional learning to continue in their chosen
avenues.
Corporate
online learning attrition structures however seem to operate under different and
more complex issues. Motivation, access, course quality, time and financial
concerns are matters that reach out beyond the locus of control of the
educational structures and even perhaps beyond the student. Corporations
operating within their financial constraints may not have the means to provide
acceptable online learning accommodations to their employees and even if they
did, employee disinterest may counter the efforts. It would appear that this
challenge requires action on multiple levels and greater investments made on
more fronts to achieve optimal results. According to Konetes (2010), the
intrinsic motivation found within university students is often lacking in the
business sector thus relegating online learning to a secondary position of duty
in order to maintain the status quo. In effect this may add additional factors
which influence attrition in online learning environments.
References
Angelino, L., Williams, F., &
Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online students and reduce attrition rates.
The Journal of Educators Online, 4(2),
1-14.
DiRamio, D., & Wolverton, M.
(2006). Integrating learning communities and distance education: Possibility or
pipedream? Innovative Higher Education,
31(2), 99-113.
Konetes, G. (2010). The function of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in educational virtual games and
simulations. Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Web Intelligence, 2(1), 23-26.
Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts
and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers
& Education, 48(2), 185-204.
Tao, Y. (2008). Typology of college
student perception on institutional e-learning issues–An extension study of a
teacher’s typology in Taiwan. Computers
& Education, 50(4), 1495-1508.
Van Tryon, P., & Bishop, M.
(2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online
learning environments. Distance
Education, 30(3), 291-315.
George Konetes
Department of Communications
Media
Indiana University of
Pennsylvania
Indiana, PA USA
G.D.Konetes@iup.edu
The
epsilonwriter.com portal is launched in May 2010. It aims at providing an easy
web tool for writing texts and formulas, in particular educational
questionnaires, both for self-learning and for distance learning.
On
the one hand, until now, there was no application for easily communicating
between teachers and students with text and formulas, and for designing and
using questionnaires including formulas. On the other hand, we have developed
in the past an application called Aplusix [4] for helping students learning
algebra, with an advanced formula editor and an authoring tool for building
exercises. Aplusix has been experimented with success [5]. However, the
authoring tool needs to be improved. These two points led us to develop the
epsilonwriter.com portal [2] to allow teachers and students easily designing
and using questionnaires.
This
work is situated in the ITS authoring system framework [3] with advanced
features for mathematical formulas (syntax and semantics) and with a very large
set of possible users. The activities carried out are mainly rehearsal and
learning by doing.
The epsilonwriter editor
The
epsilonwriter editor has been developed to allow writing and modifying text and
formulas in a natural way, i.e., avoiding rigid mechanisms observed in many
equations editors. It is based on the Aplusix editor with several extensions.
It is described in [6].
Questionnaires for self-learning
Questionnaires
for self-learning contain explanations to be displayed to students during the
evaluation phase. Authors can insert multiple choice questions, with radio
buttons or checkboxes, writing formulas everywhere when they need. They choose
the maximum score and the way incorrect answers are scored.
Authors
can also insert open questions to let students enter freely their formulas.
They provide the expected answer, with the indication of the way the student’s
answer has to be compared with it, the maximum score and explanations.
Students
answering such questionnaires can answer to a question and go immediately in
evaluation of this answer to get the right answer, a score and the
explanations. In the case of an open question, they can modify the score. This
has been made to avoid frustrations for situations where the score is not well
calculated, for example because the author chose a too strict comparison way.
Questionnaires for distance learning
Questionnaires
for distance learning are built like the previous ones with, in addition, an “assessment”
password. When students answer these questionnaires, they cannot go in
evaluation of the answers. They have to send their work to the tutor. The
tutor, using the “assessment” password can write annotations on each question
and a tutor score on open questions. At the end, the tutor sends the
questionnaire to the student.
Figure 1. Mary answers to a questionnaire for distance learning. Then
she sends her work to the tutor (“Send” menu of the applet).
Figure 2. Peter, the tutor, receives Mary’s email. He clicks on the link and goes
to the portal. He chooses the “Assessment” menu and enters the “Assessment”
password. The explanations written by the author appear in blue. Note that the
first answer is considered as correct although it differs from the expected
answer, because of a comparison mode including calculations. Peter writes the
annotations (in red) and inputs a tutor score for the second question because
he thinks that 0 is not the right score. When Mary receives Peter email, she
will see exactly this figure.
Use cases of
epsilonWriter
EpsilonWriter
is a Java applet running in a browser. Questionnaires can be saved on the local
computer and on the website. In the second case, links are provided to be
pasted on web pages, email, etc.
Questionnaires
for self-learning can be written on forums. We have adapted the phpBB forum [7]
for that purpose.
Questionnaires
can be sent by email. In that case, the body of the email has an HTML
representation with images for the formulas and a link is included allowing
answering to the questionnaire on the portal.
Experiments
Forums
with questionnaires for self-learning are currently experimented in the
Grenoble University, first year, math teaching. They are proposed to students
for training before examinations. They have been built from preexisting paper
multiple choice questionnaires, adding explanations.
A
group of teachers currently experiments multiple choice questionnaires in
French high schools (math).
Future work
The
epsilonwriter project is conducted by the Aristod Company [1], a spin-off of
the University of Grenoble. It is developed in Java in order to run on many
platforms, however, in the current stage, the Windows platform is favored (we
will pay attention to Linux and MacOS soon). The portal will be announced the
20th of May 2010 on the “Café pédagogique” mailing
list which reaches many French teachers. The portal is currently in French and
English, it will be extended soon to Spanish, Italian and Portuguese.
Future
developments include:
•
A
stand alone application, to allow working offline.
•
A
chat, to be implemented on the portal.
•
A
calculation module, for doing calculations asked by the user.
•
A
module for drawing curves from their equations.
References
[1] The ARISTOD Company: www.aristod.com
[2] The epsilonwriter portal:
http://www.epsilonwriter.com
[3] Murray T. (1999). Authoring Intelligent
Tutoring Systems: An Analysis of the State of the Art. In International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
(1999), 10, 98-129.
[4] Nicaud, J.F., Bouhineau, D. and
Chaachoua, H. (2004). Mixing Microworld and CAS Features in Building Computer
Systems that Help Students Learn Algebra. International Journal of Computers
for Mathematical Learning 9 (2)
(2004) 169-211.
[5] Nicaud J.F., Bittar M., Chaachoua
H.,InamdarP., Maffei L. (2006). Experiments with Aplusix in Four Countries. In International Journal for Technology in
Mathematics Education, Volume 13, No 2.
[6] Nicaud, J.F. (2009). epsilonWriter:
implementing new ideas for typing text and math. http://www.activemath.org/workshops/MathUI/09/proc/Nicaud-Vuidez-EpsilonWriter-MathUI09.pdf
[7] phpBB: http://www.phpbb.com
Jean-François Nicaud
ARISTOD
Grenoble, France
Jean-Francois.Nicaud@imag.fr
Christophe Viudez
ARISTOD
Grenoble, France
Christophe.Viudez@imag.fr
Book
Announcement: Thinking Visually
Language is a marvelous tool for communication, but it is greatly
overrated as a tool for thought. This volume documents the many ways pictures,
visual images, and spatial metaphors influence our thinking. It discusses both
classic and recent research that support the view that visual thinking occurs
not only where we expect to find it, but also where we do not. Much of
comprehending language, for instance, depends on visual simulations of words or
on spatial metaphors that provide a foundation for conceptual understanding.
Thinking Visually
supports comprehension by reducing jargon and by providing many illustrations,
educational applications, and problems for readers to solve. It provides a
broad overview of topics that range from the visual images formed by babies to
acting classes designed for the elderly, from visual diagrams created by
children to visual diagrams created by psychologists, from producing and
manipulating images to viewing animations. The final chapters discuss examples
of instructional software and argue that the lack of such software in
classrooms undermines the opportunity to develop visual thinking. The book
includes the Animation Tutor™ DVD to illustrate the application of research on
visual thinking to improve mathematical reasoning.
Table of Contents
Part 1. Introduction. 1. Images versus Words. 2. Images before Words. 3.
Estimation. Part 2. Visual Metaphors and Images. 4. Spatial Metaphors. 5.
Producing Images. 6. Manipulating Images. Part 3. Visual Displays. 7. Viewing
Pictures. 8. Producing Diagrams. 9. Comprehending Graphs. Part 4. Integrating
Representations. 10. Words and Pictures. 11. Vision and Action. 12. Virtual
Reality. Part 5. Instructional Animation. 13. Science Instructional Software.
14. Mathematics Instructional Software. 15. The Future.
For more information, please visit:
http://www.psypress.com/thinking-visually-9780805860672
Stephen K. Reed
Center
for Research in Math & Science Education
San
Diego State University, USA
List
of Conferences
|
Conference Title
|
Date
|
Venue
|
Submission Date
|
|
2nd Hellenic Conference on ICT in Education
|
28 - 30 April 2011
|
Patras, Greece
|
1 December 2010
|
|
ICCE 2010 The 18th International
Conference on Computers in Education
|
29 November -
3 December 2010
|
Putrajaya, Malaysia
|
17 May 2010
|
|
INCoS 2010 International
Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems
|
24 - 26 November 2010
|
Thessaloniki, Greece
|
28 June 2010
|
|
7th Pan-Hellenic Congress E.E.E.P. – D.T.P.E, “The Future of
Learning”
|
30 - 31 October 2010
|
Apollo Edifice, Piraeus
|
Closed
|
|
IVLA2010 42nd Annual Conference
of the International Visual Literacy Association
|
29 - 3 October 2010
|
Limassol, Cyprus
|
10 May 2010
|
|
FIE 2010 The 40th Annual
Frontiers in Education Conference
|
27 - 30 October 2010
|
Arlington, Virginia
|
Closed
|
|
MTSR 2010 4th Metadata and
Semantics Research Conference
|
20 - 22 October 2010
|
Alcala de Henares, Madrid,
Spain
|
15 June 2010
|
|
PTF 2010 Professional Training
Facts 2010 “Learning – Competence – Performance”
|
20 - 21 October 2010
|
Stuttgart, Germany
|
N/A
|
|
TIC2010 2nd International
Conference on Learning and Teaching
|
18 - 19 October 2010
|
Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
|
Closed
|
|
E-Learn 2010 World Conference on
E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare & Higher Education
|
18 - 22 October 2010
|
Orlando, Florida
|
Closed
|
|
EL-A'10 International
Symposium on E-Learning – Applications
|
18 - 20 October 2010
|
Wisla, Poland
|
31 May 2010
|
|
ICWI 2010 IADIS International
Conference WWW/Internet 2010
|
14 - 17 October 2010
|
Timisoara, Romania
|
28 May 2010
|
|
EADTU 2010 EADTU's annual
conference 2010: Strategies and Business Models for Lifelong Learning
|
27 - 29 September 2010
|
Zermatt, Switzerland
|
Closed
|
|
ICT 2010 Digitally Driven
|
27 - 29 September 2010
|
Brussels, Belgium
|
Closed
|
|
APTEL 2010 Asia-Pacific Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning 2010
|
24 - 26 September 2010
|
Kansai University, Osaka,
Japan
|
15 May 2010
|
|
ETPE 2010 7th Pan-Hellenic
Conference Information and Communication Technologies in Education
|
23 - 26 September 2010
|
Korinthos, Greece
|
Closed
|
|
IFIP AI 2010 The 3rd IFIP
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Theory and Practice
|
20 - 23 September 2010
|
Brisbane, Australia
|
Closed
|
|
CLEF 2010 Conference on
Multilingual and Multimodal Information Access Evaluation
|
20 - 23 September 2010
|
Padua, Italy
|
Closed
|
|
USAB 2010 HCI in Work &
Learning, Life & Leisure, 6th Symposium of the WG HCI&UE of the
Austrian Computer Society
|
16 - 17 September 2010
|
Carinthia, Austria
|
Closed
|
|
UXFUL 2010 International Workshop
on Enabling User Experience with future Interactive Learning Systems in conjunction
with the USAB 2010: HCI in Work & Learning, Life & Leisure
|
16 - 17 September 2010
|
Klagenfurt, Austria
|
20 May 2010
|
|
DSC2010 5th South East
European Doctoral Student Conference
|
13 - 14 September 2010
|
Thessaloniki, Greece
|
Closed
|
|
DEXA 2010 21th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems
Applications
|
30 August -
3 September 2010
|
Bilbao, Spain
|
Closed
|
|
SPeL 2010 3rd International
Workshop on Social and Personal Computing for Web-Supported Learning
Communities in conjunction with the 21st International Conference on Database
and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2010)
|
30 August -
3 September 2010
|
Bilbao, Spain
|
Closed
|
|
CATE 2010 13th IASTED
International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education
|
23 - 25 August 2010
|
Maui, Hawaii, USA
|
Closed
|
|
ICSNC 2010 The 5th International Conference
on Systems and Networks Communications (track PESYS: Pervasive Education
Systems)
|
22 - 27 August 2010
|
Nice, France
|
Closed
|
|
Edutainment 2010 The 5th International
Conference on E-learning and Game
|
16 - 18 August 2010
|
Changchun, China
|
Closed
|
|
NDT 2010 The 2nd International
Conference on Networked Digital Technologies
|
4 - 6 August 2010
|
London Metropolita Business
School, United Kingdom
|
Closed
|
|
IET FC 2010 The 1st IET
International Conference on Frontier Computing - Theory, Technologies and
Applications
|
4 - 6 August 2010
|
Taichung, Taiwan
|
Closed
|
|
WBC 2010 IADIS International
Conference on Web Based Communities 2010 part of the IADIS Multi Conference
on Computer Science and Information Systems (MCCSIS 2010)
|
29 - 31 July 2010
|
Freiburg, Germany
|
Closed
|
|
KES IIMSS 2010 The 3rd International
Symposium on Intelligent and Interactive Multimedia: Systems and Services
|
28 - 30 July 2010
|
Baltimore, USA
|
Closed
|
|
eL2010 The IADIS
International Conference on e-Learning 2010, part of the IADIS Multi
Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (MCCSIS 2010)
|
26 - 29 July 2010
|
Freiburg, Germany
|
Closed
|
|
HSci2010 7th International
Conference on Hands-on Science
|
25 - 31 July 2010
|
The University of Crete,
Rethymno, Greece
|
20 May 2010
|
|
ICBDE 2010 International
Conference on the Business and Digital Enterprises
|
22 - 24 July 2010
|
Bangalore, India
|
Closed
|
|
DEBS 2010 4th ACM International
Conference on Distributed Event-Based Systems
|
12 - 15 July 2010
|
King's College, Cambridge,
United Kingdom
|
Closed
|
|
ICALT 2010 10th IEEE
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies
|
5 - 7 July 2010
|
Sousse, Tunisia
|
Closed
|
|
T4E' 10 International Conference on Technology for Education
|
1 - 3 July 2010
|
IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India
|
Closed
|
|
EISTA 2010 The 8th International
Conference on Education and Information Systems, Technologies and
Applications
|
29 June -
2 July 2010
|
Orlando, Florida, USA
|
Closed
|
|
CIT-10 10th IEEE
International Conference on Computer and Information Technology
|
29 June -
1 July 2010
|
Bradford, UK
|
Closed
|
|
ICLS 2010 9th International
Conference of the Learning Sciences Learning in the Disciplines
|
29 June -
2 July 2010
|
Chicago, IL, United States
|
Closed
|
|
EDMEDIA 2010 World Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunication
|
28 June -
2 July 2010
|
Toronto, Canada
|
Closed
|
|
JCDL 2010 Joint Conference on
Digital Libraries
|
21 - 25 June 2010
|
Gold Coast, Australia
|
Closed
|
|
UMAP 2010 18th International
Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization
|
20 - 24 June 2010
|
Big Island, Hawaii
|
Closed
|
|
ITS2010 10th International
Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems
|
14 - 18 June 2010
|
Pennsylvania, USA
|
Closed
|
|
CSPRED 2010 Computer-Supported Peer Review in Education: Synergies with
Intelligent Tutoring Systems
|
14 June 2010
|
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
USA
|
Closed
|
|
ISWSA 2010 The International
Conference on Intelligent Semantic Web – Services and Applications
|
14 - 16 June 2010
|
Faculty of Information
Technology, Isra University, Amman, Jordan
|
Closed
|
|
Hypertext 2010 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia
|
13 - 16 June 2010
|
Toronto, Canada
|
Closed
|
|
EDM2010 The 3rd International
Conference on Educational Data Mining
|
11 - 13 June 2010
|
Pennsylvania, USA
|
Closed
|
|
EDEN 2010 European Distance and
E-Learning Network Annual Conference
|
9 - 12 June 2010
|
Valencia, Spain
|
Closed
|
|
IDC2010 The 9th International
Conference on Interaction Design and Children
|
9 - 11 June 2010
|
Universitat Pompeu Fabra,
Barcelona, Spain
|
Closed
|
|
LEAFA 2010 The 1st International Conference of e-Learning For All
|
3 - 5 June 2010
|
Hammamet, Tunisia
|
Closed
|
|
ESWC 2010 7th Extended Semantic Web
Conference
|
30 May -
3 June 2010
|
Heraklion, Greece
|
Closed
|
|
LUPAS 2010 International Workshop
on Linking of User Profiles and Applications in the Social Semantic Web in conjunction
with ESWC 2010
|
30 May 2010
|
Heraklion, Greece
|
Closed
|
|
Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010 - Global
Conference on Learning and Technology
|
17 - 20 May 2010
|
Penang, Malaysia
|
23 November 2010
|
|
ACA 2010 Academic Cooperation
Association Annual Conference
|
16 - 18 May 2010
|
Cordoba, Spain
|
N/A
|
|
AICT 2010 The 6th International
Conference on Telecommunications (special area ELETE: E-learning and mobile
learning on telecommunications)
|
9 - 15 May 2010
|
Barcelona, Spain
|
10 December 2010
|
