October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

More documents

Recommendations

Info

By considering the literature on the e-learning systems quality (briefly reported in the previous section), the experience of human-computer interaction experts and the results of observing real users interacting with elearning systems, a new framework called TICS (Technology, Interaction, Content, Services), has been developed. It focuses on the most important aspects to be considered when an e-learning system is designed or evaluated (Figure 2). TICS primarily focuses on the quality dimensions recommended by the Italian Ministry of Education in (Montedoro and Infante, 2003), integrating them with the interaction dimension that, as we have discussed above, plays a crucial role in the fruition of the e-learning material. In the following each TICS aspect is described. Technology The technology aspect is specialized in the dimension hypermedial technology, that refers to the technological problems that can obstruct or make difficult the use of the e-learning system and to the hypermedia characteristics of e-learning systems i.e., compatibility with different operating systems; performance; monitor resolutions; hardware and software for system accessibility. By technology we also refer to the hypermedia characteristics of e-learning systems, such as selecting and integrating the media made available by current technology. In fact, when designing an e-learning system, we must accurately choose media that are really complementary and may enrich the contents without overloading the user’s perceptual and cognitive systems. Interaction The explicit inclusion of the interaction aspect is one of the novelty of our approach. We believe it is crucial for technology-based learning. This aspect involves presentation of the educational material and of the provided services and tools, and user activity performed during the interaction with the system. In particular, user errors should be prevented as much as possible. If an error occurs, the e-learning system should provide appropriate support to manage it. Learners not only interact with their educational material but they consider comments provided by other users. In fact, according to other researchers (Ewing and Miller, 2002; Moore, 1989), a great contribution to learning comes from interaction among learners and their lecturers. Researchers who neglect the importance of user-system interaction implicitly assume that the e-learning system interface does not influence user activities. People who have experience in e-learning know the problems that users have when interacting with an interface that is not usable. In some studies performed with users (Ardito et al., 2006, Lanzilotti, 2006), we have seen that if an e-learning system interface is not usable, learners spend more time learning how to use the software rather than learning the content, which is their main goal. Content The content aspect is more closely related to education. It refers to the educational process that happens during the interaction with the e-learning system. It focuses on the appropriateness and quality of the educational material that could be achieved through an accurate learner-centered design. This aspect also refers to the way the material is taught and to the capability of the e-learning system to propose study activities to the learner, who should also be free to autonomously choose his/her learning path (e.g. alternating moments of study, exercises, and verifications). Besides, the learner must have the possibility to go more deeply into the course content and the system must provide concrete, real, and helpful examples to facilitate understanding of the educational content. Services The services aspect refers to the application proactivity, that involves the tools that facilitate and support the user during the navigation through the system and the fruition of the educational material. It is necessary to provide users with communication tools, auto-evaluation tools, help services, search engines, references, scaffolding, and so on. Ease of learn and ease of use of such tools permit users to concentrate their efforts on the learning paths without being required to spend too much time trying to understand the way the e-learning system works. 47
eLSE methodology Designers and evaluators can focus on TICS dimensions, for providing what is required for good quality system. As a further contribution we have derived guidelines that address the TICS aspects and an evaluation methodology, called eLSE (e-Learning Systematic Evaluation), which prescribes a structured flow of activities. The main idea of eLSE is that the most reliable evaluation results can be achieved by systematically combining inspection with user-based evaluation. Several studies have outlined how two such methods are complementary and can be effectively coupled to obtain a reliable evaluation process (Nielsen, 1993). In line with those studies, eLSE suggests coupling inspection activities and user-testing, and precisely indicates how to combine them to make evaluation more reliable and still cost-effective. eLSE derives from a usability evaluation methodology, called SUE (Systematic Usability Evaluation), originally developed for evaluating hypermedia systems (Matera et al., 2002). eLSE shares with SUE three important characteristics. First, eLSE couples inspection and user testing, to make the evaluation more reliable and still cost-effective. Each evaluation process starts by having evaluators inspecting the application and identifying possible problems and troubles. User testing is then conducted, whenever necessary, to validate some inspection findings with real users. Second, eLSE suggests to analyze an application along the TICS dimensions (i.e. hypermedial technology, presentation, user activity, educational process, application proactivity) that address the appropriateness of design with respect to the peculiar nature and purposes of the e-learning systems. Finally, eLSE proposes an inspection technique based on the use of Abstract Tasks (ATs) that are specifically defined for e-learning systems. For this reason, it is called AT inspection. ATs precisely describe which objects of the application to look for and which actions the evaluator must perform in order to analyze such objects. eLSE phases According to eLSE methodology, the activities in the evaluation process are organized into a preparatory phase and an execution phase. The preparatory phase is performed only once for each analysis dimension; its purpose is to create a conceptual framework that will be used to carry out actual evaluations. The output of the preparatory phase can be easily shared among different evaluators, or different evaluation laboratories that have similar interests and evaluate such applications from similar points of view. The preparatory phase consists of the identification of guidelines to be considered for the given dimensions and the definition of a library of ATs. The execution phase is performed every time a specific application must be evaluated. It mainly consists of inspection, performed by evaluators. If needed, inspection can be followed by user testing sessions, involving real users. At the end of each evaluation session, the evaluators must provide designers and developers with an organized evaluation feedback. The activities in the two phases are described in the following sections. The preparatory phase In the preparatory phase, a number of decisions must be taken and the definition of a specific set of Abstract Tasks must be carried out. Abstract Task formulation By considering TICS dimensions, the literature on e-learning, the experience of human-computer interaction experts, and the results of observing real users interacting with e-learning systems (Ardito et al., 2006), a number of specific guidelines have been identified, to be taken into account during the initial design phase. Then, a set of Abstract Tasks focusing on these guidelines is identified to support the evaluators in their inspections; an AT addresses one or more TICS guidelines. In this way, the defined set of ATs allows inspectors to verify that all the design aspects that must be considered for developing a good e-learning system are taken into account. An AT is a description of what an evaluator has to do when inspecting an application. ATs guide the evaluator’s activities by describing which elements of the application to look for, and which actions the evaluators must perform in order to analyse such elements. In this way, even novice evaluators, with lack of expertise in usability and/or application domain, are able to come out with more complete and precise results. We use the term abstract task since it describes a task that an inspector performs when is evaluating an application, but this description is provided in general terms and abstracts from a specific application to be evaluated. 48
Page 1 and 2: October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4
Page 3 and 4: Guidelines for authors Submissions
Page 5 and 6: How Does Educational Technology Ben
Page 7 and 8: Adaptivity is one of the most impor
Page 9 and 10: 3. Ease of editing and updating: wh
Page 11 and 12: Accessible and personalized Learnin
Page 13 and 14: From this definition, we figured ou
Page 15 and 16: Verifying contents Figure 3. The pa
Page 17 and 18: Figure 7. The ISA on line interface
Page 19 and 20: Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
Page 21 and 22: World Wide Web Consortium (1999a).
Page 23 and 24: guiding and supporting environment
Page 25 and 26: As an example, to improve the acces
Page 27 and 28: option). Although this finding migh
Page 29 and 30: of eLearning content and enhance th
Page 31 and 32: Hodgings, W. & Duval, E. (2002). IE
Page 33 and 34: the entire course of study. This sy
Page 35 and 36: information useful for the contextu
Page 37 and 38: Nr of student 25 20 15 10 5 0 a - w
Page 39 and 40: Vincenzo, a second year student, ne
Page 41 and 42: Evaluation Recently embodied conver
Page 43 and 44: The interaction may be performed on
Page 45 and 46: Poggi, I., Pelachaud, C., & de Rosi
Page 47 and 48: Lanzilotti, R., Ardito, C., & Costa
Page 49 and 50: quality in use, which is measured b
Page 51: process of designing high quality c
Page 55 and 56: Execution phase Execution phase act
Page 57 and 58: on the inspection process and, cons
Page 59 and 60: Piccinini, N., & Scollo, G. (2006).
Page 61 and 62: Answers and reinforcement A.1: Use
Page 63 and 64: potential project ideas (from pure
Page 65 and 66: For each column in Table 2, the sum
Page 67 and 68: educational goals and the various r
Page 69 and 70: A new computerized Records Manageme
Page 71 and 72: eflected in artifacts and other str
Page 73 and 74: any distributed community include b
Page 75 and 76: message in order to obtain a respon
Page 77 and 78: Figure 3. Social network after intr
Page 79 and 80: increased face-to-face collaboratio
Page 81 and 82: References Bogenrieder, I. (2002).
Page 83 and 84: Donoghue, S. L. (2006). Institution
Page 85 and 86: contemplate part-time, rather than
Page 87 and 88: espective institutions. The primary
Page 89 and 90: greater flexibility in course selec
Page 91 and 92: Cost-benefit One distinct benefit o
Page 93 and 94: Resources The development of online
Page 95 and 96: courses where it is has little pote
Page 97 and 98: A fellowship programme, such as the
Page 99 and 100: Moore, M.G. (1998). Introduction. I
Page 101 and 102: Software reuse has two dimensions,
Page 103 and 104:
Courseware development process mode
Page 105 and 106:
Didactics analysis This phase consi
Page 107 and 108:
Process didactics design We focus o
Page 109 and 110:
The repository is organized into co
Page 111 and 112:
the analysis and the design phase o
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 12. Weaving content and dida
Page 115 and 116:
complete user-specific (author, ins
Page 117 and 118:
References ADL (Advanced Distribute
Page 119 and 120:
Bender, D. M., & Vredevoogd, J. D.
Page 121 and 122:
(see Figure 2). The incorporation o
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 4: Example of Summary Image
Page 125 and 126:
The competitive nature of design cl
Page 127 and 128:
Dias, L. B. (1999, November). Integ
Page 129 and 130:
materials built into the system. Th
Page 131 and 132:
This theory of multimedia learning
Page 133 and 134:
E-Tutor (with video). Two weeks aft
Page 135 and 136:
empirically tested in TML environme
Page 137 and 138:
Rieber, L. P., (1990). Animation in
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix B The following 44 items r
Page 141 and 142:
Appendix C A Sample of Exam Questio
Page 143 and 144:
Appendix D Perceived Usefulness Que
Page 145 and 146:
Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001) have a
Page 147 and 148:
2001). The system thus aims to assi
Page 149 and 150:
a strong agreement between the two
Page 151 and 152:
of the dynasty. 3. Information on
Page 153 and 154:
Comparing works designed using the
Page 155 and 156:
Tselios, N., Stoica, A., Maragoudak
Page 157 and 158:
strategies during their interaction
Page 159 and 160:
P(B|D) is the probability of a netw
Page 161 and 162:
Online help adaptation using Bayesi
Page 163 and 164:
AUSM that will return the most prob
Page 165 and 166:
direct experimentation with a new s
Page 167 and 168:
Figure 7. An example of use of the
Page 169 and 170:
Cooper, J. & Herskovits, E. (1992).
Page 171 and 172:
Goldberg, A. K., & Riemer, F. J. (2
Page 173 and 174:
In addition to convenience, propone
Page 175 and 176:
members increased flexibility. They
Page 177 and 178:
Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The c
Page 179 and 180:
The basis of reform in science educ
Page 181 and 182:
technology and are not confident in
Page 183 and 184:
participants that learning as a gro
Page 185 and 186:
A hierarchy of Systems Identifying
Page 187 and 188:
the change agents to recognize the
Page 189 and 190:
Nonis, A. S., & O’Bannon, B. (200
Page 191 and 192:
maintaining the interest levels of
Page 193 and 194:
Focus group interviews with our stu
Page 195 and 196:
course and again at the end of the
Page 197 and 198:
second phase of valuing, commitment
Page 199 and 200:
Kinzie, M. B., Whitaker, S. D., Nee
Page 201 and 202:
Although this work is based on a st
Page 203 and 204:
Website Design The MTP website (www
Page 205 and 206:
Researchers, for review and coding
Page 207 and 208:
quality that are the focus of the M
Page 209 and 210:
Kelley, M. A., Whitaker, S. D., Nee
Page 211 and 212:
or underserved populations. For exa
Page 213 and 214:
2004 Baruch College Computer Center
Page 215 and 216:
professional-level tools and resour
Page 217 and 218:
Third, with the exception of the Om
Page 219 and 220:
Hepp, P., Hinostroza, E., Laval, E.
Page 221 and 222:
The AccessForAll strategy complemen
Page 223 and 224:
of people with special needs, or di
Page 225 and 226:
(including where their search for r
Page 227 and 228:
international standard. The ISO pro
Page 229 and 230:
information will be expressed using
Page 231 and 232:
DC Metadata Terms: http://dublincor
Page 233 and 234:
Choquet, C., & Corbière, A. (2006)
Page 235 and 236:
TEL Standards, Specifications and P
Page 237 and 238:
The Resources Management Process ma
Page 239 and 240:
Step 1: Instantiation of the enterp
Page 241 and 242:
Step 5: Instantiation of the techno
Page 243 and 244:
correlation of the different viewpo
Page 245 and 246:
Hummel, H., Manderveld, J., Tatters
Page 247 and 248:
Karagiannidis, C. (2006). Book revi
Page 249 and 250:
Glenn, L. (2006). Book review: Visu
show all

October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?