You are here:

ELearning Usability Instruments What is being Evaluated? PROCEEDINGS

, , , , , University of Missouri, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-66-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

The process of evaluating the usability of e-Learning has included the use of varying instruments. These instruments have myriad factors and foci when attempting to provide an appropriate review of an e-Learning product. The variety of instruments and their embedded definitions creates some ambiguity when there is a need to review a particular e-Learning “unit”. The purpose of this paper is to initially provide a guide towards the development of an appropriate instrument to review the usability of an e-Course. This is en route to an instrument that can be manipulated to produce specific guides for the usability of any type of e-Learning product. As e-Learning products may have varying goals, instruments that can be manipulated would prove to be much more appropriate to the usability of all e-Learning products.

Citation

Moore, J.L., Dickson-Deane, C., Galyen, K., Vo, N. & Charoentham, M. (2008). ELearning Usability Instruments What is being Evaluated?. In C. Bonk, M. Lee & T. Reynolds (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2008--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 430-435). Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 13, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Benson, L., Elliott, D., Grant, M., Holschuh, D., Kim, B., Kim, H. (2001). Heuristic evaluation instrument and protocol for eLearning programs. Retrieved September 21, 2008, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves/edit8350/heureval.rtf.
  2. Clark, R. (2002). Six principles of effective e-Learning: What works and why. The e-Learning Developer’s Journal.
  3. Dringus, L.P., & Cohen, M.S. (2005). An adaptable usability heuristic checklist for online courses. Frontiers in Education,
  4. Feldstein, M., & Neal, L. (2006). Designing usable, self-paced e-Learning courses: A practical guide. Elearn, 2006(8), Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=tutorials & Article=24-1
  5. Garrison, D.R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction, 4, 47-58.
  6. Koohang, A. (2004). Expanding the concept of usability. Informing Science Journal, 7(0), 129-141.
  7. Krauss, F., & Ally, M. (2005). A study of the design and evaluation of a learning object and implications for content development. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 1-22.
  8. Nesbit, J, Belfer, K, Leacock, T. (2003). Learning object review instrument (LORI) manual 1.5. E-Learning Research and Assessment Network. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://www.elera.net/eLera/Home/Articles/LORI%201.5.pdf.
  9. Nichols, M. (2003). A theory for elearning. Educational Technology& Society, 6(2), 1-10.
  10. Nyhof-Young, J., Walsh, L., & Stewart, P. (2002). Let ’ s ask the users! Development and implementation of an evaluation strategy for multimedia teaching software. Proceedings of the 2003 International Slice of Life Conference, University of Toronto, ON.
  11. Reeves, T.C., & Hedberg, J.G. (2003). Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.
  12. Relan, A., & Gillani, B.B. (1997). Web-based instruction and the traditional classroom: similarities and differences. In B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 41-46). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.
  13. Tavangarian, D., Leypold, M.E., Nölting, K., Röser, M., & Voigt, D. (2004). Is e-Learning the solution for individual learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2(2), 273-280.
  14. Triacca, L., Bolchini, D., Botturi, L., & Inversini, A. (2004). Mile: Systematic usability evaluation for e-Learning web applications. Usability Professionals Association. What is Usability? Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.upassoc.org/usability_resources/about_usability/definitions_of_usability.html
  15. Vargo, J., Nesbit, J.C., Belfer, K., & Archambault, A. (2003). Learning object evaluation: Computer-Mediated collaboration and inter-rater reliability. International Journal of Computers and Applications, 25(3), 198-205.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.