The integrity of the research relies on a strong approach to the way in which participants are dealt with. The anonymity and confidentiality of participants are maintained in the questionnaire, as there is no way in which participants may be physically identified. Before starting the interview, participants sign a statement of informed consent, which assures that their identity will remain private. They also have the opportunity to withdraw from the interview at any time, should they wish to. Lastly, an email is sent to the listserv, notifying potential participants they any feedback may be used as part of the research, however they will not be identifiable in any way. This information is replicated on the splash information page of the courseware.
3.12 Conclusion
Research is a system of investigation to find answers to a problem (Burns, 1994). Good academic research relies upon a strong data methodology to frame the research problem, and seeks to answer their sub-problems whilst maintaining a strong consideration of the validity, reliability and ethics of the approach utilised. This chapter has discussed the research methodology that will be utilised within this research. It has provided details on the quantitative and qualitative tools utilised by the researcher, and the rationale behind the use of these tools. The following chapter will detail the courseware design, whilst the next two chapters will discuss the analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data, based on the questionnaire and the courseware evaluation data.
Chapter 4: Courseware Design
4.1 Introduction ... 864.2 Design Guidelines ... 88
4.2.1 Learner-Centered Design ... 88
4.2.2 User-friendly Design ... 89
4.2.3 Learner-Friendly Design ... 94
4.3 Courseware Design... 98
4.3.1 User-Friendly ... 98
4.3.2 Learner-Friendly... 100
4.4 Courseware Prototype ... 105
4.4.1 Introductory Pages... 105
4.4.2 Login Page... 108
4.4.3 First Time Tutorial Pages... 108
4.4.4 Homepage ... 113
4.4.5 Navigational and Learning Aids ... 115
4.4.6 Learner and Instructor Screens ... 119
4.4.7 Course Information Screen ... 121
4.4.8 Activities Screen ... 128
4.4.9 Communicate Screens... 130
4.4.10 Resources Screens... 132
4.4.11 Exit ... 134
4.5 Conclusion ... 135
4.1 Introduction
Thus far we have covered the Introduction and Literature Review chapters. These gave us an overview of the issues this thesis deals with, and the existing research framing the area of courseware design for teaching and learning online. The preceding Research Methodology chapter covered mixed-methods research methodology utilised within this thesis, including both quantitative and qualitative modes of data collection. The qualitative mode of data collection included an evaluation of a prototype courseware, on the example topic Intercultural Communication. This chapter covers the design of the courseware, and it is divided into two main parts. The first part of this chapter includes a brief discussion of some of the literature and ideas that framed the design of the courseware. The second part of this thesis provides an overview of the main screens in the prototype courseware developed for this research, and a discussion of these screens. A particular focus will be given to the user- friendly and learner-friendly aspects of design, as they pertain to effective teaching and learning online. As Karen Swan (2003) says:
“The goal, the raison d^etre, the stuff of education is learning. Thus, learning effectiveness must be the first measure by which online education is judged. If we can’t learn as well online as we can in traditional classrooms, then online education itself is suspect, and other clearly critical issues, such as access, student and faculty satisfaction, and (dare we say it) cost effectiveness are largely irrelevant.” (p.14). In this vein, the aim of this research is to design and evaluate a prototype courseware, in order to gain further insights into its effectiveness. The aim is not to evaluate whether online education is better than face-to-face to education, or vice versa, although this research’s line of inquiry may uncover feedback from a range of participant groups in regards to this issue. To further frame the purpose of this chapter, the research objective discussed in chapter three and relating to this chapter is repeated below:
“Construct an undergraduate fully-online courseware prototype for a first year university course based on the example topic Intercultural Communication. Design and document the prototype to reflect the current literature and practices on effective user-friendly and learner-friendly design. Design a user-friendly courseware based predominately on constructivist philosophies. Invite students, academics, and professionals to evaluate the courseware, and present a range of perspectives on the user-friendly and learner-friendly design”.
In referring to ‘what the research says’, this thesis refers specifically to the research on user- friendly and learner-friendly design, which is further examined below. The courseware prototype will be designed based on learner-centered principles of user-friendly and learner- friendly design, including a consideration of technological features of courseware, usability and screen design, and the educational features including the application of constructivist principles. Specifically, its purpose is to serve as a working example of a learner-friendly courseware that combines a constructivist-based pedagogy and interactive games along, with web design and usability principles. The courseware is designed to be flexible to learners, to enable them to learn what, when and how they want, whilst facilitating this process. Before describing the theoretical approach to the courseware design, it is relevant to briefly discuss the participants whom the courseware is aimed towards, the researcher’s definition of courseware, and lastly her definition of learner-friendly design.
4.1.1 Participant Users
Up to sixteen participants users including students, academics and professionals in Education and Other Disciplines from Tasmania and Victoria in Australia, have been selected to assess the courseware. Thus, potentially providing more insight into the effectiveness of the design methodology through their evaluation. Guest users were also invited - via various educational technology listservs, to assess the courseware, and provide feedback via ‘private’ email to the researcher or ‘public’ discussion board/listserv posting on the user- friendly and/or learner-friendly design.
Users were informed that the researcher uses the term ‘courseware' or ‘educational media' to refer to a course (academic unit or module) that is delivered predominately online using electronic media and which is Internet-dependent. It is designed to encourage learning, and it generally contains learning content, activities, resources, the ability to interact with instructor(s) and student(s) and often includes links to support services integrated with the courseware provider.
4.1.3 Learner-Friendly
I use the term ‘learner-friendly’ to refer pedagogical environments that are developed to enhance the delivery and use of online learning. These entail a consideration of both the learning design, and the user-friendly design as it is applied to learning. For instance, it involves a consideration of the pedagogical philosophy that frames the design (such as behaviourism or constructivism), a consideration of how this philosophy can be framed towards a design methodology that enables learning, and considering other features which enable learning. For instance, considering the aspects of traditional user-friendly design as they’re applied specifically to learning. For example, thinking about how multimedia objects like graphics and videos may be designed and implemented in a way that enhances learning.
4.2 Design Guidelines
This section details some of the design guidelines that frame the development of the prototype courseware that was evaluated in this study. An in-depth review of the user-friendly and learner-friendly literature on courseware design was provided in the Introduction and Literature Review chapters. This section reaffirms some of the beliefs from this literature, and provides a more practical approach to describing the guidelines, which contributed towards the design of the thesis. Thus, whilst the literature review tended to focus on the conceptual issues on courseware design, this component provides a more specific list of requirements on its design and development.
4.2.1 Learner-Centered Design
There has been a move in the last decade from a teacher-centered to learner-centered pedagogy within Higher Education. This shift sees a move from the role of the educator as a didactic instructor encouraging recall and memorisation, to a facilitator of the learning process (Jacobs and Farrell, 2001). In this vein, the role of the educator must be to facilitate students’ construction of meaning, as opposed to instructing students in what to learn. The learner-centered framework philosophically underpins both user-friendly and learner-friendly courseware design, and the overall framework for the design of the courseware. It is relevant to note here, that there are a range of learner-centered design principles, amongst them the APA’s Learner-centered Psychological Principles and the AAHE’s Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. The main focus of these principles, are to consider the ways in which individual learners learn, taking into consideration that: for learning to occur it
must be meaningful to the learner; that learning is influenced by ‘environmental factors’ such as culture, technology and instructional practices; that what and how much is learnt is influenced by learners’ motivation; that learning is influenced by social interactions; and that learners have different learning strategies and styles.
This thesis appropriates learner-centered principles, and applies them to courseware design. It is worth noting here, the relationship of learner-centered design to user-centered design. Firstly, both focus the methodological approach on the user/learner in order to enhance usability/learning. As McCracken and Wolfe (2004) say “User-centered development is user centric not data centric. It involves users in the process as much as possible with the goal of creating an interface that meets user expectations” (p.5). Likewise, Hatton et al. (1997) notes, “To be truly learner-centered, post-secondary institutions must be responsive to the needs of their students, outside as well as inside the classroom” (www, abstract). Secondly, the role of user-friendly design traditionally refers to the individual using the software as a ‘user’. In the context of courseware design however, the user is actually a ‘learner’, and the guidelines on user-friendly design must apply specifically to learning.
This thesis noted earlier that there is generally a consensus around the principles of user- centered design. It is these principles that this courseware will utilise, and which are briefly discussed below. Some researchers however, believe that usability as it applies to eLearning is rarely considered, and that there is a lack of collaboration between instructional designers and usability experts (Zaharias 2004, Squires 1999). As Squires (1999) states:
“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 naïve 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” (1999, p.463).
Usability expert Jakob Nielson and Hoa Loranger (2006) believes that specific usability design and evaluation should occur for specific/niche area websites, which would include web based courseware. Where possible, this courseware will attempt to utilise the principles of user-centered design as they apply to courseware design. The following section will detail the general user-friendly guidelines, followed by the guidelines as they apply specifically to courseware design. It is relevant to note however, that it is not the intention of this thesis to create a cohesive set of usability guidelines as they apply to online teaching and learning. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that the evaluation of the courseware and the feedback from the external questionnaire may result in an improved understanding of some of the usability issues as they apply to web-based courseware.
4.2.2.1 UF Design for Websites
As a web-based educational software, courseware should be user-friendly. This section provides an overview of the usability design literature and features considered by the researcher in the design of the example courseware prototype. Usability expert Jared Spool (2004) asks “Why go to the effort to make something usable? For some designers, it is because a more usable site means that their site will capture and retain users from sites that are less usable. For others, their reason might be that they like the challenge of eliminating frustration from the user’s experience” (p.xiv). One of the unique features of this courseware design, are its attempts to utilise user-friendly design within an educational setting. The user- friendly design factors considered include technological features, screen design, and interaction design. These issues are details below:
4.2.2.2 Technological Factors
Lauson (2005) lists six factors, which impact upon usability for software systems (websites). These include: functionality – the ability for the system to support real-world tasks; ease of learning – how easy the system is to learn; task efficiency – how efficient it is for the frequent user; ease of remembering – how easy it is to remember for the occasional user; subjective satisfaction – how satisfied is the user with the system; and understandability – how easy is it to understand what the system does?The technological issues that may compromise these factors are those that arise from software and hardware limitations. This is highlighted by Galitz (1997) whom believes that a well-designed screen should be developed within the physical constraints imposed by the hardware – such as a consideration of compatibility issues with other hardware, and effectively utilise the capabilities of the controlling software – such as style guides and graphical display features.
4.2.2.3 Interface Design and Visual Organisation
McCracken and Wolfe (2004) highlight the importance of the visual screen design:
“Appearance matters with Web pages, just as it does with many other situations. […] On the web, good visual organization (sic) lets users know what content items are related and helps them find pages they want. Content organization and visual organization go hand-in-hand. An effective layout reinforces a site’s content organization, and the result is easy navigation” (p.82).
McCracken and Wolfe (2004) point to four principles of visual organization based on Gestalt psychology: proximity – placing items close together to signify a relationship; alignment – placing related items on an imaginary line; consistency – making related items look the same; and contrast – making different items look different. Likewise, in the chapter “Understand the Principles of Good Screen Design” Galitz (1997) makes the following suggestions for good screen design, which the courseware attempts to follow:
• Each screen element must have meaning to screen users and serve a purpose in performing tasks;
• Provide real-world consistency in regards to users’ work and cultural conventions, and internal consistency in regards to following the same conventions across all screens – unless there is a clear benefit in deviating;
• Assist in navigation through alignment and grouping of elements;
• Provide visually pleasing composition through:
Balance – providing equal weight of screen elements left right, top and bottom,
Symmetry – replicating elements left and right of the screen center line,
Regularity- establishing standard spaced horizontal and vertical aligned points,
Predictability – be consistent and follow conventional orders or arrangements,
Sequentiality – arrange elements to guide the eye through the screen, for instance the eye is attracted to graphics before text, colour before monochrome, dark elements before light, and big objects before little objects,
Economy - Unity, Proportion, Simplicity Groupings. 4.2.2.4 Typeface
McCracken and Wolfe (2004) believe words are the most basic element of a webpage, and that to “communicate effectively with an audience, it is important that these words be easy to read” (p.171). They provide the following guidelines for displaying type on the web, which the courseware design attempts to apply:
• Use any typeface that is legible,
• Use 10 point or 12 point type for text,
• Avoid bold or italic text within bodytext,
• Use uppercase only for first letter of sentences and names,
• Use left alignment, and
• Never underline for emphasis.
4.2.2.5 Colour
Colour provides an important aesthetic dimension to web sites, and if used appropriately it can make a page aesthetically pleasing, provide a prompt for navigation, indicate a site’s quality and reliability, and enhance usability. If used incorrectly however, it may distract and fatigue the user (McCracken and Wolfe 2004; Nolan 2002; Galitz 1997). McCracken and Wolfe (2004) believe that the question of what combination of colours looks attractive is a “complex amalgam of theory, personal preference, experience and cultural influences”
(p.157). Likewise, Nolan (2002) notes that whilst individual colours are linked to specific cultural meanings, they are also capable of much variation that it makes making absolute statements about their meaning difficult. The courseware design attempted to follow Galitz’s (1997) guidelines for the use of colour, as follows:
• Use only enough colours to achieve the design objective,
• Choose harmonious colours, and
• For older viewers or extended viewing choose brighter colours.
4.2.2.6 Interactivity and Navigational Aids
There are three forms of interactivity within courseware: student-computer, student-student and student-teacher. All forms of interaction however, take place through the courseware interface. Kristof and Satran (1995) believe that successful interaction means “a person telling the computer what to do, and not the other way around” (p.34). They believe that this means providing users with clear guidance and options, a clear path through the information, giving the controls that allow users to go where they want and do what they want, and making the experience as easy and intuitive as possible. The theory into practice component of this thesis attempts to follow the author’s suggestions for ways in which to do this. These include:
• Ensuring the first screens tell users what they’re going to do, see or experience,
• Providing enough balance of images and words for guidance without being overwhelming in detail,
• Utilising effective navigation through minimizing travel between any two points; minimizing depth to avoid unnecessary travel between points; and minimizing redundancy to avoid creating multiple paths to the same place from the same screen.
4.2.2.7 User-Friendly Design for eLearning
So far, the user-friendly guidelines have related specifically to generic web and software design. One of the reasons for this is that this researcher has found only a small body of literature relating specifically to usability guidelines for courseware design. Panagiotis Zaharias (2004) points out that although innovations in eLearning technology proliferate in learning, education and training, there is a need for the evaluation of the technology, and a need to put users and their needs at the center of the development of educational technology. With this in mind, another innovative aspect of the courseware is that its design is also informed by user-friendly approaches as they refer specifically to courseware design. Zaharias (2004) quotes Squires and Preece’s (1999) research, which he says adapts Nielsen’s (1994) heuristics to take into account socio—constructivist tenets. According to Zaharias, the ‘learning with software’ heuristics were created in order to address the specific challenges of learner-centered interface design, as well as the integration of usability and learning. They include:
• “Match between designer and learner models
• Navigational fidelity
• Appropriate levels of learner control
• Prevention of peripheral cognitive errors
• Understandable and meaningful symbolic representations
• Support personally significant approaches to learning