Enriching the E-learning Experience in the Framework of Web 2.0 Using Usability 2.0

1. Enriching the E-learning Experiencein the Framework of Web 2.0Using Usability 2.0 Ariel Frank Dept. of Computer Science Bar-Ilan University David GallulaDept. of Information SciencesBar-Ilan University A.Frank & D. Gallula

2. Content • The E-learning Experience • Research Methods • Research Outcomes • Discussion • Conclusions A.Frank & D. Gallula

3. Relevant Domains WEB 2.0 E-learning Human-Computer InteractionUsability 2.0 Usability User Experience A.Frank & D. Gallula

4. Parameters of E-learning Experience • Internal motivation – Intrinsic factors: satisfaction, challenges, etc… • Perception of control of learning process –Sense that choices and achievements depend just on the learner and own capabilities. • Flow state –Continuous state of involvement with task without disruption. • Self-assessment –Process of the learner assessing his level of knowledge and comprehension in the learned subject. • Self-adaptation –Efficacy of the learner to reach an expected level of learning. A.Frank & D. Gallula

5. Enriching the E-learning Experience • Hypothesis: working in an interface that is designed based on Usability 2.0 principles will bear fruit in two ways (regarding the aforementioned parameters): • Enrichment of the educational experience: • Increase of internal motivation relative to external motivation. • Perceived feeling of control of learning process. • Creation of as many flow states as possible. • Learning outcomes that relate to: • Improving the perception of self-assessment. • Improving the perception of self-adaptation. A.Frank & D. Gallula

6. Content • The E-learning Experience • Research Methods • Research Outcomes • Discussion • Conclusions A.Frank & D. Gallula

7. Research Methods: Quantitative • Questionnaires were named so that the individual change process that each learner had experienced could be uniquely identified. • At the start of learning process, the participants where asked about the specific parameters, so from that point on it was considered the "state zero" of each participant. • At the end of learning process, the participants where re-asked about those parameters and the results where compared to their"state zero". A.Frank & D. Gallula

8. Research Methods: Qualitative • Participants were instructed to write down their personal comments regarding the process they were experiencing. • Informal discussions was carried out with the participants in order to absorb the aura of learning during the learning process, with oral quotations being recorded throughout. • Several observations were taken on the learners' activities both within the learning systems and physically with the learners themselves, with personal impressions noted. • At the end of the learning process several short interviews were conducted with the students. A.Frank & D. Gallula

9. The Research Population • To set the research sample a selection was made of sixty e-learning students in IT professions from different colleges in the northern region of Israel that were studying various courses in the 2008/9 academic year. • It was assumed that this population is normative and represents a general e-learners' population, having no unique characteristics, since it is dispersed between several colleges, and is from different age ranges, community types, and nationalities. • This population was assembled from separate learning groups but they all studied under the same instructor. A.Frank & D. Gallula

10. The Research Procedure • As part of the class recitation, each learner experienced the two different facets of (textual) exercise submission: • Writing and publicizing of learning content – individual writing of the solution to the exercise and its publication. A personal blog-like page was setup for each student that produced content and publicized to all other learners. • Shared generation of learning content via interaction between learners and teacher – shared writing of the exercise solution by groups in the course and its publication. Personal pages for shared work were opened in a wiki-like environment. That was how the written page was shared, leading to interaction that produced the final learning content. A.Frank & D. Gallula

11. Usability1.0 Interface – MediaWiki • An interface in which shared learning was carried out in a classic Wiki environment resembling a Web site, enabling just weak interaction between the learners. A.Frank & D. Gallula

12. Usability 2.0 Interface – Google Docs • An interface in which shared learning was carried out at a Web site resembling a desktop application that enables strong interaction between the learners and a richer user experience. A.Frank & D. Gallula

13. Capabilities of Usability 2.0 Interface • Continued saving– use of AJAX technology to continually save the contents, with no data loss, generating a feeling of flow during the work. • Intuitive editing– design of specific, simple to understand, editing options with support for both the keyboard and mouse. • Compatibility with existing applications –design of a consistent interface that is similar to desktop applications, while enabling easy transfer of content in common formats to the application and back. • Presence awareness and sharing –support for making each learner aware of others working on a document at same time, and enabling concurrent editing. A.Frank & D. Gallula

14. Content • The E-learning Experience • Research Methods • Research Outcomes • Discussion • Conclusions A.Frank & D. Gallula

15. Theory vs. Practice?! A.Frank & D. Gallula

16. Research Outcomes regarding Personality Groups • The results that classify the learners by the two parameters – thinking style and type of learner – show similar distribution. • In both groups there is a partitioning of the learners into nearly two equal groups (old learner vs. the new learner, those with conservative thinking style vs. ones with liberal thinking style). • Further checks showed that the overall outcomes by the parameter of type of learner correlated highly to the overall outcomes by the parameter of thinking style. • Consequently, we refer here to outcomes of type of learner. A.Frank & D. Gallula

17. Analysis of the Outcomes • There are significant differences between the results of the two usability groups in the parameters of flow state and feeling of control. • There are no significant differences between the results of the two usability groups in the parameters of perception of self-adaptation and of perception of self-assessment. • For perception of self-adaptation, both reported stagnation in their state and even a minor decline (in Usability 1.0 group) from the start of the learning process until its end. • For perception of self-assessment there was a major decline in perception. That is, even though they thought that they understood the study area, the learning process proved to them that they don't know as much as they have initially thought. A.Frank & D. Gallula

18. Comparison of Measures between Usability Groups A.Frank & D. Gallula

19. Hypotheses Analysis • Confirmation with statistical significance of the hypotheses: • Interface design using Usability 2.0 enhances the e-learning experience in providing many flow states and better perceived feeling of control of the learning process. • The new learner would be more influenced from a Usability 2.0 interface relating to the learning outcomes considering perception of self-adaptation. • Tendency to confirm the hypothesis: • Usability 2.0 interface enriches the learning experience for the parameter of internal motivation and more so in the new learner group. • No confirmation of the hypothesis: • A Usability 2.0 interface would cause better perception of self-assessment. A.Frank & D. Gallula

20. Content • The E-learning Experience • Research Methods • Research Outcomes • Discussion • Conclusions A.Frank & D. Gallula

21. Flow States • In a state of flow, all the senses of the learner are active and concentrated in learning; Any distraction can disturb the flow and turn the qualitative learning to a lesser one. • A learning environment that supports continuous work, with no interruptions in saving data, does generate more flow states. • A Usability 2.0 interface saves the content in the background (using AJAX), with no work blockage waiting for data to be saved, leads to continuity in the line of thought of the learner, resulting in a flow state. • On the contrary, a Usability 1.0 interface causes the learner to disrupt his line of thought, waiting for the content to be saved and the page to be refreshed, hindering the flow state. A.Frank & D. Gallula

22. Perceived Feeling of Control of Learning Process • Web 2.0 was used as the learning environment, so the learners had to assume larger responsibility in advance. • They were required to publish the learning content they created as part of the course. • Consequently, the learners were willingly (the new learner) or unwillingly (the old learner) made responsible for learning how to generate content. • Here comes into play the importance of the Usability 2.0 interface design that employs ways of increasing the user perception that he controls the learning process. • The system provides persistent feedback on each step it carries out and on the completion of the learner tasks, (e.g., explicit saving, changing file names). A.Frank & D. Gallula

23. Internal Motivation • This research placed responsibility upon the learner and encouraged sharing by design of a technology that supported varied characteristics that are important for creating a richer user experience. • However, no statistical significance was discovered between the Usability 2.0 and Usability 1.0 interfaces in raising the learners' level of internal motivation. • A possible explanation for this is that internal motives are influenced by the environment but also by other important factors in creating a higher internal motivation for learning: • attitude of the teacher • the way he teaches • the level of teaching • the initial connection of the learner to the study area. A.Frank & D. Gallula

24. Perception of Self-adaptation • There is a significant statistical difference in the perception of self-adaptation between the 2 usability groups – from the start of learning process until its end: • Usability 2.0 interface – a new learner feels an increase • Usability 1.0 interface – a new learner feels a decline • The new learner is sharply influenced by the perception that he can learn and succeed depending on working interface. • If he arrives with an initial state of perception that he can master the study area then the probability of feeling a perception of self-adaptation at the end of the learning process is high. • However, even such a new learner can encounter an impassable barrier – the interface (unfamiliar, no presence awareness indicators, content not continuously saved, no advanced editing options); might not be able to rise and realize potential. A.Frank & D. Gallula

25. Perception of Self-assessment • The research has discovered that there is a phenomenon of decline in the learners' perception of self-assessment from the start of the learning process until its end. • Most of the learners that reported a certain level of perception of self-assessment at the start of learning, reported at the end a lower level of self-assessment. • Whoever thought at the start of learning that he knows the study area – discovers with time that he does not know. • This phenomenon turned out to be steady and is not influenced by the interface type, the way it is designed, and the learner type. A.Frank & D. Gallula

26. (1) Type of Learner • In any discussion on the influence of the design of the e-learning environment on the learners, there should be a partitioning between the two types of learners groups: • The old learner • The new learner • The claim that an e-learning environment can cater to different types of learners, is partially true. A.Frank & D. Gallula

27. (2) Type of Learner • For the new learner type, this technology apparatus is welcome and even beneficial. • New learners find it hard to learn without utilizing some computerized process, but contrary to common thinking, their dependence on the teacher designed e-learning environment is not high. • Their learning process crosses boundaries and enables them to learn from countless sources: • sites • e-mail • forums • wikis • books • etc… A.Frank & D. Gallula

28. (3) Type of Learner • The second group, of the old learner type, is the one that hesitates when facing an e-learning environment and does not make much use of it. • They require preparation and guidance in adapting to the learning environment. • This group, because of its unfamiliarity with the e-learning environment, will stick to the learning process as designed by the teacher, and will develop a higher dependence on the learning material supplied by such an environment. A.Frank & D. Gallula

29. User Feedback Compatibility with existing applications Wiki doesn’t usually save my work and I prefer not to work with it but work in Word and then copy over… Wiki was bad – GoogleDocs was much of an improvement compared to it although some problems were left … because there is an option to load a Word file and an option to share … Continued saving Each writing in Wiki is complicated… you need to know HTML! Presence awareness and sharing In wiki you can’t write together – each to his own – in GoogleDocs you see who is writing with you … Intuitive editing A.Frank & D. Gallula

30. Content • The E-learning Experience • Research Methods • Research Outcomes • Discussion • Conclusions A.Frank & D. Gallula

31. So much to detail?! A.Frank & D. Gallula

32. Conclusions (to be covered) • It is possible to enrich the e-learning experience via a well-designed interface. • An interface wrongly designed can cause a decline in the perception of self-adaptation. • Experiencing the Usability 2.0 interface enriches the e-learning experience, especially for the new learner. • Empowering the learner in Web 2.0 is beneficial for the new learner but causes hardship for the old learner. • The Usability 2.0 designed interface enables the new learner to experience an innovative flow experience. • It is better to use existing computerized tools designed with Usability 2.0 for use of the new learner. A.Frank & D. Gallula

33. (1) Conclusions • It is possible to enrich the e-learning experience via a well-designed interface – • The design of the learning interface enriches the e-learning experience, but up to a certain level. • In nearly any parameter, the learner can realize his learning potential via use of a well-designed interface, but may not reach full abilities if the interface is not well designed. A.Frank & D. Gallula

34. Conclusions (2) • An interface wrongly designed can cause a decline in the perception of self-adaptation – • When the system is designed in a way that doesn't support the needs of the learner and does not provide a qualitative experience, the learner might, despite a good starting point, feel that he is losing his abilities, leading to a decline in his perception that he can succeed. A.Frank & D. Gallula

35. Conclusions (3) • Experiencing the Usability 2.0 interface enriches the e-learning experience, especially for new learner – • Most learners experience a rich learning experience using a Usability 2.0 interface, even more so for the new learner. • In no parameter, was an advantage for Usability 1.0 found, but all considered, it should be remembered that not all learners are new learners. • Systems that are designed using Usability 2.0 might turn out to be too complicated for an old learner that has difficulties learning in a computerized environment. A.Frank & D. Gallula

36. Conclusions (4) • Empowering the learner in Web 2.0 is beneficial for the new learner but causes hardship for the old one – • In general, the new learner does find the process of e-learning and the passing of responsibility important as an empowering process. • But as a old learner with a conservative thinking style finds himself passing the responsibility for learning to someone else, instead of just clinging to the teacher, he finds an additional source to be assisted by – new learners that are empowered and have become opinion leaders and tone setters in the group. A.Frank & D. Gallula

37. (5)Conclusions • The Usability 2.0 designed interface enables the new learner to experience an innovative flow experience – • The flow experience of the new learner turns out to be innovative. • The learner keeps distributing his attention between several parallel activities, but simultaneously, as the e-learning system supports these abilities – he has many flow states without disruption to his line of thought. A.Frank & D. Gallula

38. Conclusions (6) • It is better to use existing computerized tools designed with Usability 2.0 for use of the new learner – • There is no need to develop dedicated tools for constructive learning for the new learner, since it is possible to adapt existing systems and dedicate them for learning. • Nonetheless, it should be insisted that the systems use Usability 2.0 principles, so as to enable the learner to realize his potential. • For the sake of the old learner, e-learning systems should be designed to take more responsibility over the learning process. A.Frank & D. Gallula

39. Still on time :-?) A.Frank & D. Gallula