Designing On-Line Learning Courses: Implications for Usability Panagiotis Zaharias a, Konstantina Vassilopoulou b and Angeliki Poulymenakoua a
Department of Informatics, Athens University of Economics & Business, 76 Patission str., 10434 Athens Greece b Department of Management Science and Technology, Athens University of Economics & Business, 47A Evelpidon & 33 Lefkados str., 11362 Athens Greece E-mail of the first author:
[email protected]
Abstract Advances in electronic technologies offer e-learning applications the possibility to become skillful and acquire knowledge on a task. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First to review papers related to usability methods and learning theories currently used to design e-learning applications. Secondly, to draw on the author’s experience from carrying out a test with a web-based testing application in order to emphasize on three challenges for usability scholars. A review of related papers on learning theories is presented. This review leads to three challenges that need to be considered in order to realize the learner-centered interface.
1. Introduction
-$3,7
While electronic learning environments provide exciting possibilities for supporting professional adults whilst working, specific usability attributes are as yet little understood. Further, given the importance of determining the effectiveness of the uses of information and communication technologies for learning, the need for evaluation of these technologies becomes crucial (Jones et al., 1999). To this end, Squires (1999) highlights the need for integration of usability and learning and points out the non-collaboration of workers in HCI and educational computing areas. The ultimate objective for educational software is that it should be educationally beneficial, thus it is important in such environments to understand how usability contributes (or not) to educational goals (Jones et al., 1999). Squires and Preece (1996) argue that scholars have not considered the implications of usability features of an educational package in order to achieve educational goals. To this end, these authors advocate that “there is a need to help evaluators consider the way in which usability and learning interact”. To this end, this paper argues that there is a need for usability scholars to consider the way in which usability and learning (special emphasis on user interfaces of web-based courses), interact. It is therefore, the aim of this paper to review usability methods and learning theories currently used to design e-learning applications, examine specific usability attributes that need to be considered and report some preliminary findings derived from a test using a web-based testing system.
2. Literature review Learning cannot be approached as a conventional task, as though it were just another kind of work, with a number of problems to be solved and various outputs to be produced (Mayes and Fowler, 1999). Thus, a good starting point would be through defining learning. Some definitions seem to deal only with behavior (Schunk, 2000), some only with knowledge (Mayer, 1987) and some deal with knowledge and observable behavior (Slavin, 1994). What these definitions share in common is that they view learning as a positive change over time that aims at improving capabilities to cognition, through a series of actions through personal observation and interaction. Further, these researchers seem to find another common ground: learning is not a process of transmitting information from someone who knows to someone who does not. Instead learning is an active process that happens through direct experience, by being engaged in authentic tasks (Soloway, 1996). While, considering the design of web-based learning applications (e.g. web-based courses) this active process that happens through direct experience takes the form of a web user interface. Further, good design of a course’s interface is critically important since learner interaction with a learning environment is often a one-time event (Jones, 1994). It is of great importance to point out that unlike software interface where users return time and again and gradually learn the interface, the web-based learning interface must make sense quickly since the user is unlikely to use the environment for an extended period of time. While few of the generic instructional systems design models mention development of the instructional interface as a unique element (Lohr, 2000), an instructional interface is especially effective when the learner is able to focus on learning content rather than focusing on how to access the learning content. The need to concentrate on the users’ objectives rather than the tasks long been accentuated. The need for usability has long been recognized in web site design literature as a critical quality criterion when determining user satisfaction with a software system. It can therefore be argued that the usability of a web-based learning application can significantly affect learning.
-$3,7
While making an attempt in identifying these usability attributes the first step would be to define the context of use of web-based learning applications. However, the increase in the diversity of learners and radical changes in learning tasks present significant challenges and pose the following questions: What is the role of usability in the context of modern educational software design? (Squires, 1999). Which usability attributes affect web-based learning? A potential starting point would be to review learning theories and usability techniques and how these are used to improve the user interface of web-based learning applications (web-based courses etc). 2.1. Applying Usability Evaluation Techniques Concerning usability evaluation methods, Notess (2001) asserts that usability testing needs additional consideration under the light of web-based learning environments: “Evaluating learning may move usability practitioners outside their comfort zone. To be effective, they need to familiarize themselves with the evaluation frameworks and methods from instructional design. Also essential are acquaintance with educational testing research, learning styles, and the rudiments of learning theory”. Furthermore, Dringus proposes that usability heuristics summarized by Shneiderman (1987)
and Nielsen (1993) can be applied to evaluate web-based course interfaces. They include the following: strive for consistency, minimize user memory load, provide informative feedback, provide clearly marked exits, provide shortcuts, prevent errors, provide help and documentation, provide ease of use and ease of learning the system, achieve aesthetic appeal of the interface, provide controls for parallel and serial group communication, effect transparency of the interface (Dringus, 1995a). Ravden and Johnson (1989), provide a checklist emphasizing on visual clarity, consistency, compatibility, informative feedback, explicitness, appropriate functionality, flexibility and control, error prevention and correction, user guidance and support. Schwier and Misanchuk (1993) present principles of simplicity, consistency, clarity, aesthetic considerations (balance, harmony, unity) white space, time and minimal memory load. General web design guidelines can be useful, particularly when establishing a delivery framework. But pedagogical guidelines typically have to be developed. There is clear need to work toward research-based design guidelines covering a range of on-line (and/or web-based) learning categories. The challenge for most types of web-based learning is that established sets of heuristics do not exist. Web design heuristics that have grown up around e-commerce should be used with caution since many assumptions about the users of e-commerce do not apply to on-line learners. The usability standards and tests that have proven their worthiness for e-commerce and other applications need to be transformed before being applied to web-based learning tools and applications. Learning with software heuristics
-$3,7
Squires and Preece (1999) realized that simple application of software heuristics (Nielsen’s or Schneiderman heuristics for example) cannot effectively be applied because they fail to address the specific challenges of learner centered interface design and the issue of integration of usability and learning. Thus, Squires and Preece proposed an adaptation of Nielsen’s (1994) heuristics, taking into account socio-constructivism tenets (Phillips, 1995; Soloway et al., 1996). The proposed set of “learning with software” heuristics contains the following: • Match between designer and learner models • Navigational fidelity • Appropriate levels of learner control • Prevention of peripheral cognitive errors • Understandable and meaningful symbolic representations • Support personally significant approaches to learning • Strategies for cognitive error recognition, diagnosis and recovery • Match with the curriculum As these authors contend this is a principled “first cut” at developing a predictive evaluation tool that takes account of both usability and learning issues. It is argued in this paper that the work of Squires and Preece (1999) worth further elaboration and attention on behalf of the research community since it is one of the first attempts towards the issue of integrating usability and learning. To this end, we associate below several studies with these “learning with software” heuristics. Navigational fidelity Relevant to navigational fidelity is the work conducted by Parlangeli et al. (1999). The working hypothesis was that the level of usability of a system could affect the learning performance. The results indicated that the low level of usability of the multimedia course (CD-ROM) under evaluation and the negative result in relation to the expected superiority by the students who
interacted with the multimedia course could be ascribed to the complex structure (non usable) of the system. Appropriate levels of learner control Piccoli et al (2001), focus their work on examining the Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) effectiveness and learner control. VLEs (Piccoli et al., 2001) are defined as “computer-based environments that are relatively open systems, allowing interactions and encounters with other participants” and providing access to a wide range of resources. Basic constructs of effectiveness are performance, self-efficacy, and satisfaction. The findings did not support the first hypothesis of this study: Students in the VLE achieve higher test scores than their counterparts in the traditional learning environments. On the other hand, students interacting with the VLE in the experiment conducted reported lower levels of satisfaction. Main reason for that was the quality of the technology used, more specifically the inefficient and ineffective interface and the non user-friendly technology environment. This finding stresses the need for designing usable interfaces in web-based learning applications. Understandable and meaningful symbolic representations Cronje (2001) investigated the issue of “what extent can some of the methods used by educators be replicated over the internet”. He posed the question of how can “adult learners respond to internetbased role-play exercises and youthful metaphors”. The challenge was to design a virtual learning environment by using metaphors applying theoretical foundations of collaborative learning. The results revealed that using metaphors (we associate metaphors with meaningful symbolic representations) can lead to successful and motivational learning and physical attributes of a classroom can be metaphorically recreated in cyberspace. Additionally, Dringus and Terrell (1998) focus their interest on awareness, which is “a combination of visual and conceptual cues given to the learner that increases a learner’s immediate sense of presence of others in an online class”. While investigating the question of “how awareness can be effectively conveyed online” they propose that awareness metaphors can be conveyed in a number of several ways: indication of number of learners and their locations, CVs, online tours, syllabi and readings, study hall, orientation room, research labs, help center etc. Additionally Forcheri et al. (1998), use metaphors from working context (lesson space, simulation etc.) while designing their prototype in order to engage workers to interact effectively with an on-line training application.
-$3,7
Support personally significant approaches to learning Learning styles issue is the crucial factor while supporting personally significant approaches to learning. Terrell and Dringus, (2000) investigated the effect of learning styles on student success in an on-line (web-based) learning environment. Kolb’s learning theory was the basic background theory and the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) the main instrument for assessing the learning styles of the participants in the experiment. The results indicated that students that fit with Accommodator learning style dropped from the program at higher rates. Finally, under the auspices of SIG, CHI (2001) it has been reported that: (a) very little quality control and usability testing has been going into the designing of courses and the design of elearning technologies, typically due to time constraints and low perceived importance of usability, (b) there is a need to focus on how to develop useful and usable tools and environments since so far we are focused more on the technology and not on the pedagogy, and (c) there is very little thought at the decision-making level to usability issues.
2.2 Learning Theories Learning models are classified as being behavioral or cognitive. The following table highlights some of the key tenets that characterize the most widely accepted learning models. Learning Models Objectivist model
Key tenets -There is an objective reality and the goal of learning is to understand this reality and modify the behavior accordingly -The goal of teaching is the transmission of knowledge from the expert to the learner - e.g. Stimulus response (Lin and Hsieh, 2001; Leidner and Jarvenpaa, 1995; Piccoli et al, 2001)
Constructivist model
-Knowledge is constructed by each learner rather than transmitted -Constructivist model calls for learner centered instruction -Learners must have experience with hypothesizing and predicting, manipulating objects, posing questions, researching answer, imaging, investigating in order for knowledge to occur (Lin and Hsieh, 2001; Leidner and Jarvenpaa, 1995; Piccoli et al, 2001; Schunk, 2000) -Learning emerges when individuals interact with other individuals (information sharing, discussion) -Collaborative groups allow more branching and concentricity -Pedagogical assumption: a) Knowledge is created as it is shared b) learners that have prior knowledge they can contribute to the discussion c) participation is critical to learning d) learners will participate if given optimal conditions such as small groups to work interactively (Lin and Hsieh, 2001; Leidner and Jarvenpaa, 1995; Piccoli et al, 2001) -Learners differ in terms of learning styles -Individual’s prior knowledge is represented by a mental model in memory and that the mental models is an important determinant of how effectively the learner will process new information -Given a learner’s limited information processing capacity, attention is selective -Pre-instructional methods such as topic outlines and learning goals may improve learning because they direct attention (Lin and Hsieh, 2001; Leidner and Jarvenpaa, 1995; Piccoli et al, 2001; Schunk, 2000) -It is an extension of and a reaction against some assumptions of constructivism -There is no external reality. (Constructivism and collaborativism force the minority to adopt the understanding derived by the majority) -The social environment and not a reflection of an underlying reality shape this knowledge construction -Learners should participate on their own terms. Instruction should not deliver a single interpretation of reality nor a culturally biased interpretation of reality -Social constructivism practically stresses the importance of
Cooperative model/Collaborativism
-$3,7
Cognitive information processing model
Socio-cultural learning model (socioconstructivism)
Computational model
feedback (reinforcement). (Pear and Crone-Todd, 2002; Schunk, 2000; Leidner and Jarvenpaa, 1995; Phillips, 1995; Soloway et al., 1996) -Knowledge, beliefs and desires are stored in our minds as bits and bytes of data. -Learning is an interplay a dialogue among facts, concepts and principles among bits, bytes and patterns (Lin and Hsieh, 2001) Table 1: Key tenets of predominant learning theories
It is widely accepted that there is no ideal learning theory/model. As Leidner and Jarvenpaa (1995) argue, different learning approaches will be appropriate depending on the circumstances (course content, student/learner experience, maturity, skills, preferences etc). Instructional principles common to diverse learning theories are the following (Schunk, 2000): 1. Learners progress through stages or phases 2. Material should be organized and presented in small steps 3. Learners require practice, feedback and review 4. Social models facilitate learning and motivation 5. Motivation and contextual factors influence learning The different learning theories and their major assumptions have guided design and development efforts. Some examples of their application: Chalmers (2000) links learning theories as well as instructional theories in order to present potential user interface improvements for research and development of computer-assisted instruction interfaces. This author suggests allowing quantification of observable results into the screen, use table of contents and the ability to link a chapter with the other chapter can be applications of behaviorism and cognitive learning theory respectively that can lead to learning (Chalmers, 2000).
-$3,7
Norman and Spohrer (1996) combine learner-centered approach with constructivism and problembased learning. To this end learners are motivated to seek out new knowledge when they confront real problems at hand. The goal is active exploration, construction and learning and not the passivity of the lecture attendance and textbook reading. As Norman and Spohrer (1996) assert that while this philosophy is not new, however, the current applications are. The ideas of active exploration and construction of meaning as well as the motivation to solve real problems in authentic contexts are here for ages. The new stuff is the flexibility and power that technology provides us, allowing us to place the learner in the center of the learning process (Lohr, 2000). Norman and Spohrer (1996) focus their analysis on three dimensions of instruction: engagement, effectiveness and viability: Engagement is tightly associated with motivation and the provision of rapid compelling interaction and feedback help make learners motivated and engaged, effectiveness is a major concern because after all, learning as such is the most critical issue and viability includes the issue of scalability, the technological infrastructure (authoring tools, design tools, component software standards etc) as well as the social and cultural one (integration into existing learning/training activities etc). Cronje (2001) relies on cooperative model/collaborativism while designing his virtual classroom (see more in challenges section). Pear and Crone-Todd (2002) focus their study on a computer mediated teaching system that has been developed by incorporating a social constructivism approach. Special emphasis has been given to the exchange of rich peer feedback and reinforcement.
Preliminary Experimental Results Despite the efforts of scholars from educational research streams and HCI the problem still remains. Dringus proposes heuristics without further adaptation to the context of learning environments. Squires and Preece propose such an adaptation but there is a clear need for further elaboration and empirical validation. Parlangeli et al. (1999), conduct their studies by using usability evaluation methods (Nielsen’s heuristics, User evaluation of Interactive Computers System Questionnaire (Shneiderman) that were developed to address different needs and challenges (typical software users and applications). While it can be concluded that educational computing literature as well as HCI scholars seem to deploy naïve and simplistic interpretations of web-based learning interface design, still the designer needs to design a usable interface for a web-based course. Towards this direction and to better understand the users’ reaction towards web-based learning a study was carried out (see acknowledgements). The objective of this study was to examine the effects of a web-based testing application interface on learners’ attitude. We consider a web-based testing system as an essential part of a web-based learning experience (Zaharias et al, 2002). This paper aims at reporting these results as a means to generate specific usability attributes designers of web-based learning applications need to consider. Usability testing has taken place in a real environment, in this case computer lab - the equipment used was one PC with Internet access and a browser (Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or Netscape Navigator 4.0 or newer versions) for each student and instructor, located in the university premises. Since the whole application was developed for proctored assessments, we considered university’s computer labs as real environments. The research groups (see acknowledgements) involved in this study, conducted experiments with real users (students and instructors). More specifically these include: (1) The “Internet Marketing” research group of Athens University of Economics and Business tested the system with a sample of 10 students who attended the Masters Program “Marketing and Communications with New Technologies”. One lecturer of the Marketing department acted as an online instructor; (2) The “ELTRUN” research group of Athens University of Economics and Business tested the system with a sample of 10 students who attended the “Decision Making Support Systems” course in Informatics Department. One lecturer of the Informatics department acted as an online instructor and (3) The “HyDiLib” research group of University of Athens tested the system with a sample of 25 students and 5 lecturers (acting as online instructors) from Informatics and Telecommunications Department and more specifically during the “Information Systems” and “Internet Applications” courses.
-$3,7
The task for instructors was to use the web-based testing application for developing a questionnaire (test) consisted of 5 to 10 questions and assign the 10 students who participated in the experiment as authorized users to take the test. They also assigned a time frame for test’s completion. The task for the students was to enter the system and take the test –during the time frame- that was assigned to them by the instructors. Once the test was completed the system would provide a response to the users regarding their understanding of the subject matter. The objective of this study was to examine learners’ preferences of a web-based testing course in a real environment. A questionnaire was designed to collect data regarding users’ subjective preference while using the on-line course. The questions used were based on Ravden and Johsnon (1989) comprehensive checklist. Modifications were made to adjust the questions to the
particularities of a web-based course as well as avoiding large-scale questionnaires that would inhibit learners from responding. The scale use used was 1 ‘strongly disagree’ and 3 ‘strongly agree’. This paper aims at reporting the results of this questionnaire as a means to address specific usability attributes designers of online web-based courses need to consider. The results of the mean scores of the questions as well the usability attributes included can be depicted in Table 2 below. Attributes of Web-based Instructional Course Consistency 1. Is the method of entering information (interaction) consistent; 2. Are abbreviations, acronyms, codes and other alphanumeric information used consistently throughout the system? Learnability 1. Is the system easy to learn? 2. Is information displayed on the dialog boxes easily understood? Flexibility and Control 1. Can the user choose the way at which information is presented? 2. Is there an easy way for the user to ‘undo’ an action and step back to a previous stage or screen? 3. Can the system easily perform several actions at the same time? 4. Does the system allow the users the use of ‘functional keys’ (e.g. F5) effectively? Visual Clarity 1. Does information appear to be organized logically on the screen? (e.g. menus organized by probable sequence of selection, or alphabetically)? 2. Is the information on the screen easy to read and see? 3. When the user enters information on the screen is it clear where the information should be entered (e.g. do titles and menus clearly indicate where should information be entered)? 4. Where a large amount of information displayed on one screen is it clearly separated into sections on the screen? 5. Do screens appear uncluttered (e.g. neat and organized)? 6. Does the use of color help to make the displays clear? Speed and Informative Feedback 1. Does the system promptly inform the user of any delay, making it clear that the user’s input or request is being processed? 2. Does the system clearly inform the user when it completes a requested action (successfully or unsuccessfully)? 3. Are instructions and messages displayed by the system concise so that they do not disrupt the user repeatedly? 4. Do error messages explain clearly what the errors are? 5. Are instructions and error messages indicate a positive tone to the user? 6. Is the wording used by the error messages accurate and informative?
-$3,7
Mean Values 1.0400 .9600
1.0200 .8200 1.4200 .6400 1.2000 2.0200 1.1800 .8400 1.0000 1.2600 1.2000 1.2200 1.3200 1.1000 1.1200 1.1400 1.0200 .7400
Table 2: Usability attributes and mean scores
The web-based course has several areas in which it performs fairly well overall, however, even within these areas there are some features that have possibilities for further development. Based on the learners’ responses within consistency respondents feel that abbreviations, acronyms, codes and other alphanumeric information are not used consistently throughout the system. Furthermore, within learnability respondents feel that information displayed on the dialog boxes is not fairly easily understood. Within visual clarity the information on the screen was not perceived as easy to read and see. Finally, within speed and informative feedback the respondents do not perceive the wording used by the error messages as accurate and informative. At the same time the web-based course has
particular strengths in the key areas for engaging learners’ interest in presenting information related to the content of the course in several different ways.
3. Challenges To address the current limitations of usability and learning theories and the results of the usability testing the authors present three challenges for HCI scholars. These challenges need to be carefully examined before the learner-centred interface is realised. To draw these challenges the authors made an attempt to address the needs of the learner and the learning environment. The user is a learner and the task is to learn Learner-centered interface places the learner at the center of the interface design. It should start by understanding the context from which the learner comes from. The user of an on-line learning course is the learner. When the users are learners we don’t need interfaces that support “doing tasks” but interfaces that support “learning while doing tasks” (Hsi and Soloway, 1998). Learner-centered interface places the learner at the center of the interface design. The emphasis, while designing learner-centered systems, is on the learner’s competence and proficiency in specific areas of professional knowledge, skills and understanding. Thus, it is crucial to understand what are the differences between the typical software users and the users as learners. While transitioning from User Centered Design to Learner Centered Design we have to identify the unique needs of learners that go beyond those of typical users. Hsi and Soloway (1998) assert that these additional needs are focused on: • Growth, that deals with the change of learners as they go through the learning process. • Diversity, that deals with issue of heterogeneity of learners: different cognitive and social development, different culture and learning styles. • Engagement, that deals with the crucial issue of helping, motivating and engaging learners.
-$3,7
Enhancing Awareness and Virtual contact: Class is now in session The user interface is a critical perceptual component of the web-based learning applications because one of their main functions is to create an awareness that “class is now in session” (Dringus, 1995b). Awareness is a metaphor concept. How can this awareness be effectively conveyed on-line? Dringus (1995b) proposes a number of awareness metaphors that can be conveyed in interfaces of on-line learning courses. Moreover, Cronje (2001) designed a digital classroom using the metaphor of a junior school classroom. The objective was for adult learners, enrolled for a masters degree, to experience “Internet-based learning” and test how closely the events of a real, physical classroom, could be imitated in a web-based classroom. A web site was designed representing the physical portion of a classroom and a list server supported virtual communications among its users. An important outcome was that the students recognized the metaphors and engaged in the role-play that was necessitated without being explicitly advised to do so. While the students engaged in both the classroom and the list server, still they remained adult learners in their decision-making. Finally, the system aside from covering distance further supported the enhancement of virtual contact among the learner participants. For example, during the sessions of humorous messages were exchanged that can create group solidarity, group identity and further individual identity in Computer-Mediated Communication environments (Baym, 1995).
Effective Integration of Research Streams Finally, an important challenge lies at the center of the multidisciplinary nature of the HCI community. While, usability within HCI has provided examples of how interaction structures can guide users through complicated tasks such as menu structures, screen layout, and effective help systems. Research in education has sought to characterize how learning can be facilitated. Research in the design of educational technologies has provided many examples how computational interaction structures such as fading interfaces, the use of multiple media, and intelligent guides or coaches can support learners in the process of successfully achieving complex tasks and learning through this experience. Thus, aside software engineering we further need to consider research in education and educational technologies, traditional instructional theories and effectively integrate them to create an enhanced virtual learning environment for the adult professional. A potential starting point would be to apply current usability techniques to design usable web-based learning applications. These authors have applied Ravden and Johnson (1989) questionnaire in order to measure users’ preference of a web-based testing application. The results suggest further investigation for the design of the user/learner interface and usability attributes to be considered: consistency, learnability, speed and informative feedback, and visual clarity. Finally, it should be noted here that other issues that may relate to the usability of web-based courses should be considered. Enhancing awareness and virtual contact may be one of those. Research should be directed towards systematic approach of effective measurement of usability attributes currently not considered while measuring usability.
-$3,7
4. Conclusions and Limitations
One of the objectives of this paper was to report the results of a usability testing carried out in Greece using a web-based testing system. The questionnaire used to measure users’ preference was based on Ravden and Johnson (1989). It should be mentioned here that while the authors made an attempt to adjust the questionnaire to the particularities of the learning application interface, still other issues related to educational interfaces needed further consideration. Learner-centered design offers a new perspective in which Human Computer Interaction principles are combined with educational interaction support. The fundamental issue remains, however: Is the distinction between the notion of users and learners merely rhetoric or is there truly a substantive distinction being made? If addressing the needs of learners is the driver, then it is natural to focus on the development of understanding, performance, and expertise (Soloway et al., 1994). Furthermore, the emphasis, while designing learner-centered systems, should lie on the learner’s competence and proficiency in specific areas of professional knowledge, skills and understanding. Learning how to use an on-line learning course is not the primary task. Instead the prime aim of a learner-centered system should be how to create a stimulating environment so that the learner’s focus is on the task: acquiring knowledge. Finally, scholars should not forget the ultimate goal: design software and applications that “make people more effective learners”. In interface level that means making learners want to learn and know how to learn beyond the computer task at hand (Hsi and Soloway, 1998).
Acknowledgments The European Commission and the Greek General Secretariat of Research and Technology have funded this work through a specific category of projects that focuses on supporting new researchers and new advanced IT developments. The authors wish to acknowledge these bodies for their support. We also wish to acknowledge our gratitude and appreciation to all the project partners for their contribution during the development of various ideas and concepts presented in this paper. Partners of the consortium are: “eLTRUN” research team and “Internet Marketing” research team from Athens University of Economics and Business and “Hypermedia and Digital Libraries” research group from University of Athens.
References Baym, N. (1995). The Emergence of Community in Computer-Mediated Communication. In Steven Jones (Ed.) CyberSociety, 138-163. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chalmers P.A., User interface improvements in computer-assisted instruction, the challenge, Computers in Human Behavior 16 507-517 (2000). Cronje, J. C. Metaphors and models in Internet-based learning. Computers &Education 37 (2001), 241-256. Dringus,L., An Iterative Usability Evaluation Procedure for Interactive Online Courses. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development.7(4), 10-14 (1995a). Dringus,L., Interface Issues Associated with Using the Internet As a Link to Online Courses. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development 16-20 (1995b). Dringus, L. & Terrell, S. (1998, March). Awareness as a metaphor in online learning environments. Paper presented at the International Conference on Technology and Education (ICTE), Santa Fe, New Mexico, March 8-11, 1998
-$3,7
Forcheri P., Molfino M.T., Quarati A (1998), Design of learner-centered tools for continuous training in SMEs. Education & information technology vol.3, 1-16 (1998) Hsi, S., Soloway, E., Learner-Centered Design: Addressing, Finally, The Unique Needs Of Learners, In Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction ’98, 211-212 (1998). Jones, A., Scanlon, E., Tosunoglu, C., Morris, E., Ross, S., Butcher, P., Greenberg, J., Contexts for evaluating educational software, Interacting with Computers 11 (5) 499-516, (1999). Jones, M.G., Visuals for information access: a new philosophy for screen and interface design. In Imagery and visual literacy: selected readings from the annual conference of the international visual literacy association, Tempe, 26, October 12-16, 264-272 (1994). Leidner D.E. and S.L. Jarvenpaa (1995), The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view, MIS Quarterly 19, No 3, 265-291 Lin, B. and Hsieh, C.T. (2001), Web-Based Teaching and Learner Control: A Research Review, Computers & Education, Vol.37, pp.377-386 Lohr.L.L, Designing the instructional interface, Computers in Human Behavior 16 161-182 (2000). Mayer, R. E., Educational psychology: A cognitive approach. Boston: Little, Brown and Co (1987). Mayes. J.T., Fowler C.J., Learning technology and usability: a framework for understanding courseware, Interacting with Computers 11 (5) 485-497 (1999). Nielsen, J. Usability Engineering. Boston, MA: Academic Press, 1993. Nielsen J., Usability inspection methods, in: J. Nielsen, R.L. Mack (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley, New York, 1994, p. 30. Norman, D., Spohrer, J., Learner Centered Education, Communication of the ACM, 39 (4) 24-27, (1996). Notess, M. Usability, User Experience, and Learner Experience, 2001 Available at http://www.elearnmag.org/ Parlangeli, O., Marchigianni, E. and Bagnara, S. Multimedia System in Distance Education: Effects on Usability, Interacting with Computers, 12, 37-49, (1999).
Pear, J.J., & Crone-Todd, D. E. (2002). A social constructivist approach to computer-mediated instruction., Computers & Education 38, 221-231. Phillips D.C., The good, the bad, the ugly: The many faces of constructivism, Educational Researcher 24 (7) (1995) 5–12. Piccoli G., Ahmad R., and Ives B. (2001). Web-Based Virtual Learning Environments: A Research Framework and a Preliminary Assessment of Effectiveness in Basic IT Skills Training. MIS Quarterly 25, No 4, 401- 426 Ravden, S. J. and Johnson, G. I. (1989). Evaluating usability of human-computer interfaces: a practical method. Chichester, England, John Wiley & Sons Schunk, D. H. Learning Theories (3rd Ed) Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall (2000). Schwier, R. A. Misanchuk, E.R., Interactive multimedia instruction, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational technology Publications (1993). Shneiderman, B. Designing the user interface Strategies for effective Human-Computer Interaction. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley, (1987). SIG –CHI. Notes from E-learning Special Interest Group (SIG) Discussion at CHI 2001 http://www.elearnmag.org/ Slavin, R.E., Educational psychology: Theory and practice (5th ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon (1994). Soloway, E., Interactive learning Environments: Where They’ve Come From & Where They’re Going, In Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction ’96, 384-385 (1996) Soloway, E., Jackson, S. L., Klein, C., Quintana, C., Reed, J., Spitulnik, J., Stratford, S. J., Studer, S., Eng, J., and Scala, N. Learning Theory in Practice: Case Studies in Learner-centred Design, In Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction CHI ’96, ACM Press, 189-196 (1996). Soloway, E. Guzdial, M. and Hay, K. E. Learner-Centered Design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, (April, 1994) 36-48.
-$3,7
Squires, D., Usability and Educational Software Design: Special Issue of Interacting with Computers, Interacting with Computers 11 (5) 463-466, (1999) Squires, D., Preece, J., Predicting quality in educational software: Evaluating for learning, usability and the synergy between them, Interacting with Computers 11 (5) 467-483 (1999). Squires, D. and Preece, J. Usability and learning: Evaluating the potential of educational software. Computers & Education 27, 1 (1996), 15-22. Terrell, S. R. and Dringus, L An Investigation of the Effect of Learning Style on Student Success in Online Learning Environment. Journal of Education Technology Systems, 28 (3), 231-238, (2000). Zaharias P., Vassiliou C., Halamandaris S., Hamodrakas Y., Martakos D. Web-based testing: dynamic construction of assessments over the web, in Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia &Telecommunications, (Denver CO, June 2002)
