Effect of improving the usability of an e-learning resource: A randomized trial

Advances in Physiology Education

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 155-160

  Davids, Mogamat Razeen ^a   Chikte, Usuf M E ^b   Halperin, Mitchell L ^c  

^a STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

^b STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY   (South Africa)

^c ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

E learning; Multimedia; Simulation; Usability

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIOLOGY; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ELECTROLYTE BALANCE; HUMAN; INTERNAL MEDICINE; INTERNET; LEARNING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MULTIMEDIA; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECALL; TASK PERFORMANCE; TEACHING; VIDEORECORDING; WATER-ELECTROLYTE IMBALANCE;

ANESTHESIOLOGY; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, GRADUATE; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HUMANS; INTERNAL MEDICINE; INTERNET; INTERNSHIP AND RESIDENCY; LEARNING; MENTAL RECALL; MULTIMEDIA; QUESTIONNAIRES; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TEACHING; VIDEO RECORDING; WATER-ELECTROLYTE BALANCE; WATER-ELECTROLYTE IMBALANCE;

EID: 84922482242     PISSN: 10434046     EISSN: 15221229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00119.2013     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Abran A, Khelifi A, Suryn W, Seffah A. Usability meanings and interpretations in ISO standards. Software Qual J 11: 325-338, 2003.
2. Avouris NM, Dimitracopoulou A, Daskalaki S, Tselios NK. Evaluation of distance-learning environments: Impact of usability on student performance. Int J Educ Telecommum 7: 355-378, 2001.
3. Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int J Hum Comput Interact 24: 574-594, 2008.
4. Brooke J. SUS: a "quick and dirty" usability scale. In: Usability Evaluation in Industry, edited by Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland IL. London: Taylor & Francis, 1996, p. 189-194.
5. Bygstad B, Ghinea G, Brevik E. Software development methods and usability: perspectives from a survey in the software industry in Norway. Interact Comput 20: 375-385, 2008.
6. Chalmers PA. The role of cognitive theory in human-computer interface. Comput Hum Behav 19: 593-607, 2003.
7. Davids MR, Chikte U, Grimmer-Somers K, Halperin ML. Usability testing of a multimedia e-learning resource for electrolyte and acid-base disorders. Br J Educ Technol; doi:10.1111/bjet.12042.
8. Davids MR, Chikte UME, Halperin ML. Development and evaluation of a multimedia e-learning resource for electrolyte and acid-base disorders. Adv Physiol Educ 35: 295-306, 2011.
9. Davids MR, Chikte UME, Halperin ML. An efficient approach to improve the usability of e-learning resources: the role of heuristic evaluation. Adv Physiol Educ 37: 242-248, 2013.
10. Dawson-Saunders B, Feltovich PJ, Coulson RL, Steward DE. A survey of medical school teachers to identify basic biomedical concepts medical students should understand. Acad Med 65: 448-454, 1990.
11. Diemand-Yauman C, Oppenheimer DM, Vaughan EB. Fortune favors the bold (and the italicized): effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition 118: 111-115, 2011.
12. Gould JD, Lewis C. Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun ACM 28: 300-311, 1985.
13. Hahne AK, Benndorf R, Frey P, Herzig S. Attitude towards computerbased learning: determinants as revealed by a controlled interventional study. Med Educ 39: 935-943, 2005.
14. Hancock PA, Pepe AA, Murphy LL. Hedonomics: The power of positive and pleasurable ergonomics. Ergonom Design 13: 8-14, 2005.
15. Hollender N, Hofmann C, Deneke M, Schmitz B. Integrating cognitive load theory and concepts of human-computer interaction. Comput Hum Behav 26: 1278-1288, 2010.
16. Holzinger A, Errath M, Searle G, Thurnher B, Slany W. From extreme programming and usability engineering to extreme usability in software engineering education (XP+ UE→ XU). In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society, 2005, p. 169-172.
17. Kalyuga S, Ayres P, Chandler P, Sweller J. The expertise reversal effect. Educ Psychol 38: 23-31, 2003.
18. Kanuka H, Szabo M. Conducting research on visual design and learning: pitfalls and promises. Can J Learn Technol 27: 105-123, 1999.
19. Khalid HM. Embracing diversity in user needs for affective design. Appl Ergonom 37: 409-418, 2006.
20. Levy Y. Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Comput Educ 48: 185-204, 2007.
21. Liaw SS, Huang HM. Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in elearning environments. Comput Educ 60: 14-24, 2013.
22. Mao JY, Vredenburg K, Smith PW, Carey T. The state of user-centered design practice. Commun ACM 48: 105-109, 2005.
23. Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning to medical education. Med Educ 44: 543-549, 2010.
24. Mayer RE. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In: The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by Mayer RE. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005, p. 31-48.
25. Meiselwitz G, Sadera W. Investigating the connection between usability and learning outcomes in online learning environments. J Online Learn Teach 4: 9, 2008.
26. Myers BA, Rosson MB. Survey on user interface programming. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Monterey, CA: ACM, 1992, p. 195-202.
27. Nielsen J. Nielsen Norman Group. 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design (online). http://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usabilityheuristics/ [27 January 2014].
28. Nielsen J. Iterative user-interface design. Computer 26: 32-41, 1993.
29. Nielsen J. Nielson Norman Group. Severity Ratings for Usability Problems (online). http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-to-rate-the-severityof-usability-problems/ [27 January 2014].
30. O'Brien HL, Toms EG. The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 61: 50-69, 2010.
31. Oviatt S. Human-centered design meets cognitive load theory: designing interfaces that help people think. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ACM, 2006, p. 871-880.
32. Renkl A. The worked-out examples principle in multimedia learning. In: The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by Mayer RE. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005, p. 229-245.
33. Sandars J. The importance of usability testing to allow e-learning to reach its potential for medical education. Educ Prim Care 21: 6-8, 2010.
34. Sohaib O, Khan K. Integrating usability engineering and agile software development: a literature review. In: International Conference on Computer Design and Applications. Qinhuangdao, China: IEEE, 2010, p. 32-38.
35. Sweller J, Chandler P. Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn (online). http://ammonwiemers.com/IdetPortfolio/articles/Instructional%20 Design%20Theory/Why%20Some%20Material%20is%20Difficult%20to %20Learn.pdf [27 January 2014].
36. Sweller J, van Merrienboer JJG, Paas F. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev 10: 251-296, 1998.
37. Zaharias P. Usability in the context of e-learning. Int J Technol Hum Interact 5: 37-59, 2009.
38. Zaharias P, Poylymenakou A. Developing a usability evaluation method for e-learning applications: beyond functional usability. Int J Hum Comput Interact 25: 75-98, 2009.