Quality In Computer Supported Collaborative eLearning by Lambropoulos Romero
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Quality In Computer Supported Collaborative eLearning by Lambropoulos Romero

on

  • 943 views

Quality In Computer Supported Collaborative eLearning by Lambropoulos & Romero in Madrid at the Quality eLearning Workshop coordinated by Dr. Margarida Romero http://www.expoelearning.com/

Quality In Computer Supported Collaborative eLearning by Lambropoulos & Romero in Madrid at the Quality eLearning Workshop coordinated by Dr. Margarida Romero http://www.expoelearning.com/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
943
Views on SlideShare
942
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
15
Comments
1

1 Embed 1

http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • The first HCI-Ed stage is the understanding of the context, key concepts and tasks prior to their translation into design. The understanding of the context is attained by identifying issues within it and the key factors that are at play with the associated learning values.  
  • The second HCI-Ed stage is iterative design based on reflections upon processes and outputs from the previous stage. The design can be defined as an individual and collective activity, finalized by a project to develop a physical and symbolic artefact. The problem is rarely well defined.

Quality In Computer Supported Collaborative eLearning by Lambropoulos Romero Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Quality Assurance in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environments Euro-CAT Ergonomic Evaluation Dr. Niki Lambropoulos * Dr. Margarida Romero
  • 2.
    • What is Quality?
    • Utility, usability, acceptability
      • Case study : Toll staff training (learning situation + ergonomic criteria)
    • CSCL ergonimic evaluation
      • Case study : Euro-CAT Ergonomic Evaluation
    • 5 quality criteria
    Quality Assurance in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Environments Agenda
  • 3. What is quality?
  • 4.
    • Fit of purpose
    • Bergman and Klefsjö (1994):
    • “ The quality of a product (article or service) is its ability to satisfy
    • the needs and expectations of the customers”
    • European Foundation for Quality in eLearning (EFQUEL)
  • 5. 1. Utility, usability, acceptability Case study : Toll staff training (learning situation + ergonomic criteria)
  • 6. Tooll staff training needs
    • USA Toll Tariffs:
    • No training is necessary, even children can became toll staff !
    • European Toll Tariffs:
    • Intensive training needs to achieve 2 main learning objectives
      • Vehicle category identification
      • Angry management
  • 7. Where and when can a toll worker could follow an elearning course? During the work hours? During the coffee break? At home?
  • 8. As if the learning situation were not enough complex.... we will consider the usability criteria Is the course useful ? Is the course easy to use ? … mmmh, if the course is not useful, compatible to my workplace and out of the work life, reliable… and my colleagues don’t like the course, will I accept the course ?
  • 9.
    • As if the learning situation was not complex enough.... we will consider the ergonomics criteria
      • UTILITY
      • USABILITY
      • ACCESSIBILITY
  • 10. As if the learning situation were not enough complex.... we will consider the usability criteria
    • UTILITY
    • Relevance and efficacy (Tricot, 2007) for the performance in academic settings or the workplace
    Is the course useful ?
  • 11. As if the learning situation were not enough complex.... we will consider the usability criteria Is the course easy to use ?
    • USABILITY
    • Computer Learning Environments easy to learn and easy to use (Preece et al, 1994)
  • 12. As if the learning situation were not enough complex.... we will consider the usability criteria
    • ACCEPTABILITY
    • Not only consider the usefulness and usability, but also robustness, cost and reliability of ICT applications
    … mmmh, if the course is not useful, compatible to my workplace and out of the work life, reliable… and my colleagues don’t like the course, will I accept the course ?
  • 13. As if the learning situation were not enough complex.... we will consider the usability criteria
    • SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY
    • Not only consider the usefulness and usability, but also robustness, cost and reliability of ICT applications
    Joel says the course is nuts; for me, is quite boring, and you? No, Joel is nuts, the course is just not enough challenging and interactive [Joel] The course don’t work in my computer… I needed to use my son computer to follow the course…
  • 14. Nielsen’s Taxonomy of System Acceptability
  • 15. Toll staff training – Case study Conclusions
    • In addition to pedagogical criteria we need to consider the utility, usability and (social) acceptability criteria
    • All these criteria need to be considered for a successful elearning course
  • 16. 2. CSCL ergonomic evaluation Case study: Euro-CAT Ergonomic Evaluation
  • 17. HCI-Ed in 7 Steps
    • Context & Learning Values - Hypothesis
    • (Iterative) Design – Requirements
    • Evaluation with user groups/experts
    • Development
    • Evaluation with user groups
    • Re-Design & Development
    • Study & Research - Tool Release
    1CH 2DR 3E 4D 5E 6D 7RTR
  • 18. Research Problem
      • Distributed learning teams in team-based learning situations aim to achieve organisational convergence.
      • However, there are collaboration problems due to mediated distance & time flexibility.
    1CH 2DR 3E 4D 5E 6D 7RTR
  • 19.
    • Key CSCeL concept: Collaboration Awareness
      • Students’ difficulties
      • Group Awareness
      • Time convergence
    • Learners’ Intentions (learning goals): Task Convergence
    • Users’ operations (actions/tasks): Pedagogical Usability
    Step1a: Context & Learning Values 1C H 2DR 3E 4D 5E 6D 7RTR
  • 20. Collaboration Awareness
      • Students’ difficulties: In addition to f2f Collaborative Learning difficulties, CSCeL situation adds Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) and ILE difficulties (Kirschner, 2009)
      • Group Awareness: understanding of the activities of others, which provides context for your own activity (Dourish & Bellotti, 1992)
      • Group time awareness: Distributed learning students need to develop an awareness of their team-mates’ temporal patterns in order to regulate the Time-on-Task efficiently in the collective level (Romero, 2010)
    Being Human 1C H 2DR 3E 4D 5E 6D 7RTR
  • 21.
      • 3C Model:
      • C ommunication,
      • C oordination & knowledge
      • C onvergence (Ellis et al, 1991)
    How? 1C H 2DR 3E 4D 5E 6D 7RTR
  • 22.
    • If group awareness is a prerequisite for convergence then increase of group awareness will result in increase of organisational convergence and thus, collaboration awareness.
    Step1b: Hypothesis 1C H 2DR 3E 4D 5E 6D 7RTR
  • 23.
    • Euro-CAT…
    • C ollaboration A wareness T ool
    • Task-independent
    • Supports 3C via
      • Mirroring capabilities
      • Awareness cues
    • Does not replace other 3C tools
    Step2: (Iterative) Design - Requirements 1CH 2DR 3E 4D 5E 6D 7RTR
  • 24. Step2: (Iterative) Design - Requirements The design can be defined as an individual and collective activity, finalized by a project to develop a physical and symbolic artefact. The artefact is rarely well defined in this step. 1CH 2DR 3E 4D 5E 6D 7RTR
  • 25. Key Concepts for Design Users Now 1CH 2DR 3E 4D 5E 6D 7RTR Group Progress Scheduling Trail tracking Awareness Cues
  • 26. Euro-CAT Screenshot 1CH 2DR 3E 4D 5E 6D 7RTR
  • 27. Step3: User/Expert Evaluation @ this workshop
    • Euro-CAT Ergonomic Evaluation
      • Pedagogical Utility/Usability/Accessibility Questionnaire & System Usability Scale (SUS)
      • Experts/users evaluation
      • Think aloud protocol
    1CH 2DR 3E 4D 5E 6D 7RTR
  • 28. Results 1a/3: Questionnaire
  • 29. Results 1b/3 Questionnaire EuroCAT Ergonomics Mean Std. Deviation Walk up Usability 4.4000 .54772 Ease of Use 4.0000 .70711 Functionality Integration 3.6000 .54772 Learnability 4.2000 .44721 Interface Attractiveness 2.4000 1.14018 Originality 3.6000 1.51658 Collaboration 3.0000 .70711 Navigation 4.8000 .44721 Task Regulation 3.8000 1.48324 Message Legibility 4.0000 1.22474 Observe Availabilities 4.2000 .83666 Facilitate Group Work 3.2000 .83666 Overall Satisfaction 3.8000 .83666 Overall Enjoyability 3.6000 1.14018 Overall Usability 3.0000 .70711 Overall Score 3.706/5.00
  • 30. Results 3a/3
  • 31. Results 3b/3
  • 32. Results 3c/3
  • 33. Solutions
  • 34.
    • Ask the e-tutors/e-learners for solutions!
    • Direct fit between educational task and the method chosen to pursue it
    • Iterative Design
      • Engaging different user/expert groups
    • Next step: Evaluation in context
    Conclusions & Insights
  • 35.
    • Utility
    • Usability
    • Acceptability
    • Learner/user-centred design (HCI-Ed)
    • Adaptive eLearning:
    • - Diverse Teaching/Learning Styles
    • - Learning Alone/Learning Together
    • - Learning anywhere/anytime
    5 criterios de calidad en E-learning Ergonomics
  • 36. Thank you! Questions? Dr. Niki Lambropoulos [email_address] Dr. Margarida Romero [email_address]