Usability and E-learning
Usability is the basic parameter for the evaluation of
e-learning technologies and systems. Usability means quality and puts the users and their real needs in the center. Therefore investigation of usability and its integration or contribution to the learning process is worthwhile. In this article several questions regarding usability definition and usability evaluation techniques for e-learning are raised. In addition several relevant research works are briefly reviewed and the need for more focused research efforts and empirical validation is stressed. In conclusion it is proposed that a usability evaluation technique for e-learning has to satisfy three basic prerequisites/characteristics in order to be easily adopted and used.
The Concept of Usability in E-learning
The basic inspiration for what follows is an article by Michael Feldstein entitled "What Is 'Usable' E-learning?" published in eLearn Magazine. His article serves as a very good starting point for a discussion regarding usability in e-learning.
Feldstein poses two substantial questions to start with: "How can we define 'usability' for e-learning in a way that can be measured?" and "Can we create meaningful usability tests that will be simple, quick, and cheap enough?"
It is obvious that these crucial and straight-to-the-point questions cannot be answered in an article. Instead, the author would like to extend the relevant discussion initiated by Feldstein and stress the need for orchestrated and systematic initiatives and research—especially since additional questions must also be answered. For instance, it is important to understand how usability contributes (or not) to learning goals.
In order to address the issue of usability one must first define the context of use of an e-learning course. An increase in the diversity of learners, technological advancements, and radical changes in learning tasks (learner interaction with a learning/training environment is often a one-time event) all present significant challenges and render the possibility of defining the context of use of e-learning courses. It's important to point out that unlike users of a traditional software product who return time and again and gradually learn the interface, an instructional interface must make sense quickly since the user is unlikely to use the environment for an extended period of time [4].
Thus, another set of questions emerges: What is the role of usability in the context of e-learning design? Which usability attributes affect learning (if they do)?
It is obvious that major purchasers and consumers of
e-learning have no way of evaluating the degree to which a course is usable. Feldstein tries to define that problem well enough to make it solvable [2]. He argues that it is a challenge to measure the effectiveness of a learning intervention. A "usable" course is one that teaches in the ways that the students need in order to get the value that they were looking for when they signed up. This argument imposes that we have to clearly assess the learners' needs and preferences and further examine the context in which they live, work, and learn. Research and practice must build upon both past experiences and the findings of several fields; most of all human factors, systems design, and instructional design.
For instance, while having to assess learners' needs and apply the most suitable learning and design strategies, we have to reconsider instructional systems design (ISD) theories and models, build upon their strong elements and adjust them for the new e-learning challenge. It has been agued that ISD is "dead" [13]. In a recent interview in eLearn Magazine, Diane Laurillard said that theories of instructional design are inappropriate for the kind of quality of learning that needs to be generated [6]. This is true for the traditional, instructivist type of theories and models, but is not for constructivist and social learning approaches that give power to the learner and support more effectively advanced cognitive (like problem solving or meta-cognition) and collaborative learning processes.
Additionally, Clark [1] has also suggested certain ways of applying cognitive strategies to instructional design and further supports that the basis for the new ISD (as she calls it) is the new models and techniques drawn from cognitive theories of learning. Squires [11] puts it in another way, trying to stress the need for HCI practitioners to take into account the latest developments of learning theories:
"Workers in HCI and educational computing areas rarely speak to each other or take note of each others' work: The educational computing literature is littered with naive and simplistic interpretations of interface design issues, and many writers in the HCI literature appear to be unaware of the significant developments that have been made in theories of learning."
Lohr also supports the constructive combination of instructional design and usability. This helps us to redefine usability, to reconsider the definition of "usability" for e-learning.
It is known that the major dimensions of usability are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. While elaborating on the first question posed by Feldstein, we may refer to Lohr's work, in which usability attributes are refined in order to fit in the instructional interface design process [4]. Conventional usability dimensions as defined by ISO (1993) are presented below along with their refined meanings in the e-learning context, as Lohr asserted:
Usability (ISO, 1993)
- Effectiveness: The user's ability to achieve specific goals in the environment
- Efficiency: The resources used (time, money, and mental effort) when performing a system-supported task
- Satisfaction:The user's comfort level and acceptance of the system overall
Formative evaluation [4]
- Effectiveness: The attainment of instructional objectives
- Efficiency: How quickly and cost-effectively learning objectives were achieved
- Satisfaction: The user's interest in the content and the desire to continue to learn
Definition for the instructional interface design process [4]
- Effectiveness: Learner interprets instructional interface function correctly; instructional interface function performs according to the learner's expectations
- Efficiency: Learner experiences minimal frustration interpreting instructional interface function; learner experiences minimal obstacles in using instructional interface element
- Satisfaction: Learner seems comfortable in the environment overall
As we can see, what Lohr defines as instructional interface design process integrates the basic constituents from the conventional usability definition and formative evaluation definition from instructional design literature. Although it is in quite generic terms, which require further elaboration, this can serve as the first approach, a working definition for usability in e-learning context.
But what about the second question that Feldstein poses? This has to do with usability evaluation methods and techniques.
