Definition of Usability
Evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability.
Antti Syvänen. antti.syvänen@uta.fi Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, FIN-33014 Tampereen yliopisto, Finland.
Petri Nokelainen. petri.nokelainen@uta.fi Research Centre for Vocational Education, University of Tampere, FIN–13101 Hämeenlinna, Finland.
Attewell & Cavill-Smith (editor). Mobile Learning Anytime Everywhere. A book of papers from MLearn 2004. pg 191-185
The following components of the technical usability criteria were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 accessibility
2 ‘learnability’ and memorability
3 user control
4 help
5 graphical layout
6 reliability
7 consistency
8 efficiency
9 memory load
10 errors.
In addition, the following pedagogical usability components were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 learner control
2 learner activity
3 cooperative learning
4 goal orientation
5 applicability
6 effectiveness
7 motivation
8 valuation of previous knowledge
9 flexibility10 feedback.
Usability Guidelines for Designing Mobile Learning Portals.
Daniel Su Kuen Seong. The University of Nottingham, Malaysia. Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. +603-89248138 daniel.su@nottingham.edu.my
Mobility 06, Oct. 25–27, 2006, Bangkok, Thailand.
The 3rd International Conference on Mobile Technology, Applications and Systems — Mobility 2006.
The term usability is defined as by The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) ISO 9241-11 [16] as ‘the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use.’
According to Nielsen [17], usability means the measure of the quality the users’ experience when interacting interface....usability is not a surface gloss which applied at the last minutes or before the releases of the system or product; but it is deeply affected by every stage of the analysis, design, and development [18].
Usable systems are easy to learn (learnability), efficient to use (efficiency), easy to remember (memorability), not error-prone (errors), and satisfactory in use (subjective satisfaction) [17].
The ultimate goal of usability is meeting the needs of to users’ satisfaction [17]
...advantages of usability encompass increased productivity, enhanced quality of work, improved user satisfaction, and reductions in support and training costs [19]. The reduction in costs has attracted many project managers and interface designers to employ the theory of usability when designing the interfaces as reported in [20, 21].
Cat 1: User Analysis
U1: The user/learner
Cat 2: Interaction
U2: Human-mobile interaction
U3: Map between mobile learning portals and the real world
U4: Help users recognise, diagnose, and recover from errors
U5: Visibility of the status
U6: Minimise human cognitive load
Cat 3: Mobile Learning Interface Design
U7: The small screen display
U8: Do not overuse
U9: Navigation
U10: Consistency.
Katja Karevaara, Media Education Centre, University of Helsinki.From educational usability to context-specific teachability: Development and use of the network-based teaching material contents in higher engineering education.
Pedagogical usability is often focusing on the aspects whether the interface, tools, content, and the tasks of the e-learning environments support learning in various contexts according to certain pedagogical objectives (Silius et al. 2003, Tervakari et al. 2002).
Research in pedagogical usability has been active recently. For example Kukulska-Hulme et al. (2004) conducted a project during 2001-2003 in Open University (UK). During the project it was recognised that "to get to the heart of pedagogical usability, we have to understand more about the impact of requirements in relation to communities, contexts and disciplines." The research group found therefore several layers of usability: contextspecific, academic, general and technical. In detail:
• Context specific usability relates to the requirements of particular disciplines and courses.
• Academic usability deals with educational issues, such as pedagogical strategy.
• General usability issues are common to most websites and include aspects such as clear navigation and accessibility for users with special needs.
• Technical usability addresses issues such as broken links and server reliability.
Definition of Mobile Learning
Usability Guidelines for Designing Mobile Learning Portals.
Daniel Su Kuen Seong. The University of Nottingham, Malaysia. Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. +603-89248138 daniel.su@nottingham.edu.my
Mobility 06, Oct. 25–27, 2006, Bangkok, Thailand.
The 3rd International Conference on Mobile Technology, Applications and Systems — Mobility 2006.
One distinct feature of mobile learning over e-Learning is mobility [6].
Hence, researchers and scholars are becoming enthusiastically in coining the term ‘mobile learning or m-learning’, such as ‘mobile learning as the point at which mobile computing and e-Learning intersect to produce an anytime, anywhere learning experience [7].
According to Nyiri [8], m-learning is fundamentally e-Learning delivered through mobile computational devices such as Palms, Personal Digital Assistants (PDA), Pocket PCs, smart phone, digital cell phones, and any other handheld devices. The use of mobile devices with the wireless network technology flourishes mobile learners to get convenience, expediency and immediacy of mobile learning in appropriate time and accessing the appropriate learning contents [7].
Additionally, mobile learning is the next generation of e-Learning and important instrument for lifelong learning [49].
MOBILE LEARNING FRAMEWORK.
Ali Mostakhdemin-Hosseini. Helsinki University of Technology, konemiehentie 2, Espoo Finland.Jarno Tuimala. Innoforss Research &/ Development Center, Wanherinkatu 11 3 krs., 30100 Forssa, Finland.
Mobile learning is not learning through mobiles phones or learning over a wireless connection even though the capabilities of running multimedia features has increased in recent years. But mobile learning is the evolution of elearning, which completes the missing component of an e-learning solution. Mobile learning most suits for those mobile parties in education institutes. So, utilizing mobile devices in education is mainly considered as enhanced tools.
Showing posts with label Nokelainen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nokelainen. Show all posts
Friday, August 28, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Aug 27 - Syvanen & Nokelainen, Evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability
Evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability.
Antti Syvänen. antti.syvänen@uta.fi Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, FIN-33014 Tampereen yliopisto, Finland.
Petri Nokelainen. petri.nokelainen@uta.fi Research Centre for Vocational Education, University of Tampere, FIN–13101 Hämeenlinna, Finland.
Attewell & Cavill-Smith (editor). Mobile Learning Anytime Everywhere. A book of papers from MLearn 2004. pg 191-185
Abstract
The major goal of the multidisciplinary Digital Learning 2 project is to develop an online tool to evaluate the usability of digital learning materials. This paper concentrates on describing the technical and pedagogical usability criteria and how they are specified in order to take account of the special features of mobile learning materials and environments. This was done by incorporating a ‘components of mobile learning’ (CML) evaluation model, which had been previously developed and empirically tested, into the criteria, after reviewing the other earlier categorisations for evaluation of mobile learning.
The major goal of the project is to develop a tool to evaluate the usability of digital learning materials and environments. In order to reach that goal, numerous concepts and models have been defined; for example, the criteria for technical and pedagogical usability and the Components of Mobile Learning (CML) model.
The following components of the technical usability criteria were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 accessibility
2 ‘learnability’ and memorability
3 user control
4 help
5 graphical layout
6 reliability
7 consistency
8 efficiency
9 memory load
10 errors.
In addition, the following pedagogical usability components were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 learner control
2 learner activity
3 cooperative learning
4 goal orientation
5 applicability
6 effectiveness
7 motivation
8 valuation of previous knowledge
9 flexibility
10 feedback.
The Components of Mobile Learning (CML) model was developed for evaluation of mobile learning. The model (Ahonen et al. 2002) consists of:
1 continuity and adaptability
2 learning as a personal process
3 contextuality in learning
4 accessibility
5 support for time and learning management
6 flexible interaction.
My Comments: This paper is very relevant as a benchmark (reference point) for my PhD research. Syvanen and Nokelainen had developed a usability evaluation tool, and used a set of usability criteria (comprising technical & pedagogical usability).
The criteria for evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability have been
developed in the following stages:
# investigation of the previous research reports dealing with the characteristics of mobility and
mobile learning (2001–2002)
# development of the first version of the CML model (2002–2003; Ahonen et al. 2002)
# development and empirical testing of the criteria (2003; Syvänen et al. 2003, 2004)
# review of earlier categorisations for the evaluation of mobile learning and incorporation
into the technical and pedagogical usability criteria (2004).
Table 1 Summary of the earlier categorisations for evaluation of mobile learning
>>>summarise Technical Usability from various sources
>>>summarise Pedagogical Usability from various sources.
Table 2 Evaluation of mobile learning materials and environments
>>>summarise Questions for each Technical/Pedagogical Usability Criteria.
Conclusions
In this paper we have specified the criteria for evaluation of mobile learning material in detail
and shown how mobile learning materials and environments are evaluated with an online evaluation tool. The real-life empirical testing of the evaluation tool was difficult to conduct as at
the time, there were only a few learning materials or environments defined solely for mobile use. However, the progress of developing such materials all over the world is rapid, and thus we see the mobile evaluation criteria as a meaningful part of the evaluation tool. In the future, we intend to develop the evaluation tool through empirical testing of real-life mobile learning materials and environments.
References that I may want to read further in the future:
Nokelainen P (2004). Conceptual definition of the technical and pedagogical usability criteria
for digital learning material. In Proceedings of ED–MEDIA 2004: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Lugano, Switzerland, 2004(1), 4249–4254.
Antti Syvänen. antti.syvänen@uta.fi Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, FIN-33014 Tampereen yliopisto, Finland.
Petri Nokelainen. petri.nokelainen@uta.fi Research Centre for Vocational Education, University of Tampere, FIN–13101 Hämeenlinna, Finland.
Attewell & Cavill-Smith (editor). Mobile Learning Anytime Everywhere. A book of papers from MLearn 2004. pg 191-185
Abstract
The major goal of the multidisciplinary Digital Learning 2 project is to develop an online tool to evaluate the usability of digital learning materials. This paper concentrates on describing the technical and pedagogical usability criteria and how they are specified in order to take account of the special features of mobile learning materials and environments. This was done by incorporating a ‘components of mobile learning’ (CML) evaluation model, which had been previously developed and empirically tested, into the criteria, after reviewing the other earlier categorisations for evaluation of mobile learning.
The major goal of the project is to develop a tool to evaluate the usability of digital learning materials and environments. In order to reach that goal, numerous concepts and models have been defined; for example, the criteria for technical and pedagogical usability and the Components of Mobile Learning (CML) model.
The following components of the technical usability criteria were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 accessibility
2 ‘learnability’ and memorability
3 user control
4 help
5 graphical layout
6 reliability
7 consistency
8 efficiency
9 memory load
10 errors.
In addition, the following pedagogical usability components were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 learner control
2 learner activity
3 cooperative learning
4 goal orientation
5 applicability
6 effectiveness
7 motivation
8 valuation of previous knowledge
9 flexibility
10 feedback.
The Components of Mobile Learning (CML) model was developed for evaluation of mobile learning. The model (Ahonen et al. 2002) consists of:
1 continuity and adaptability
2 learning as a personal process
3 contextuality in learning
4 accessibility
5 support for time and learning management
6 flexible interaction.
My Comments: This paper is very relevant as a benchmark (reference point) for my PhD research. Syvanen and Nokelainen had developed a usability evaluation tool, and used a set of usability criteria (comprising technical & pedagogical usability).
The criteria for evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability have been
developed in the following stages:
# investigation of the previous research reports dealing with the characteristics of mobility and
mobile learning (2001–2002)
# development of the first version of the CML model (2002–2003; Ahonen et al. 2002)
# development and empirical testing of the criteria (2003; Syvänen et al. 2003, 2004)
# review of earlier categorisations for the evaluation of mobile learning and incorporation
into the technical and pedagogical usability criteria (2004).
Table 1 Summary of the earlier categorisations for evaluation of mobile learning
>>>summarise Technical Usability from various sources
>>>summarise Pedagogical Usability from various sources.
Table 2 Evaluation of mobile learning materials and environments
>>>summarise Questions for each Technical/Pedagogical Usability Criteria.
Conclusions
In this paper we have specified the criteria for evaluation of mobile learning material in detail
and shown how mobile learning materials and environments are evaluated with an online evaluation tool. The real-life empirical testing of the evaluation tool was difficult to conduct as at
the time, there were only a few learning materials or environments defined solely for mobile use. However, the progress of developing such materials all over the world is rapid, and thus we see the mobile evaluation criteria as a meaningful part of the evaluation tool. In the future, we intend to develop the evaluation tool through empirical testing of real-life mobile learning materials and environments.
References that I may want to read further in the future:
Nokelainen P (2004). Conceptual definition of the technical and pedagogical usability criteria
for digital learning material. In Proceedings of ED–MEDIA 2004: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Lugano, Switzerland, 2004(1), 4249–4254.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
