At the Usability test conducted last week and previously posted yesterday, I’ve got an opportunity to look at the data and
some stats and for the ratings variable these are the numbers I got from 4 tested students.
Task 1 [Logging in] (measures if users were able to log into the system and access the proper course by with provided
instructions)
Blackboard [ 94 % ]
Angel [ 100 % ]
Moodle [ 100 % ]
eCollege [ 100 % ]
Task 2 [Content Access]  (measures if users were able to access syllabus, welcome letter and learning unit)
Blackboard [ 88 % ]
Angel [ 94 % ]
Moodle [ 94 % ]
eCollege [ 88 % ]
Task 3 [Discussion]  (measures if users were able to access discussion and reply to a topic)
Blackboard [ 100 % ]
Angel [ 100 % ]
Moodle [ 94 % ]
eCollege [ 94 % ]
Task [4] Assignment (measures if users were able to access assignment area and submit it with an attachment)
Blackboard [ 42 % ]
Angel [ 92 % ]
Moodle [ 79 % ]
eCollege [ 46 % ]
Task [5]  Quiz (measures if users were able to access quiz area and take it)
Blackboard [ 75  %]
Angel [ 94 % ]
Moodle [ 94 %]
eCollege [ 94 % ]
Task [6] Grades (measures if users were able to access and understand their grades)
Blackboard [ 75 % ]
Angel [ 100 % ]
Moodle [ 100 % ]
eCollege [ 100 % ]
Task [7] eMail (measures if users were able to access the email area, compose a message, add recipients and send it)
Blackboard [ 75 % ]
Angel [ 90 % ]
Moodle [ 100 % ]
eCollege [ 100 % ]
Task [8] Help (measures if users were able to access a help topic)
Blackboard [ 100 % ]
Angel [ 100 % ]
Moodle [ 25 % ]
eCollege [ 88 % ]

In continuing the  Usability test results series one of the variables looked at measuring if students were successful (able to) completing daily student-tasks. 4 students were tested.

Thank you Larry and Ray for your comments on previous postings. We are looking to usability-test more students. It was quite of a challenge to have students to participate in this tests because in community college reality we couldn’t offer much rewards for their participation. They would say “I don’t want to participate because your rewards is too low”.

I’m also looking forward to our accessibility test in a few weeks. The plan is to have special needs users to test each LMS – Angel, Moodle, Blackboard and eCollege. And again… I’ll be postings each result in here.

In the usability test, we gave students a set of 8 tasks listed below and measured their success of completing each task. The numbers point the percentage rate they could complete a given task in each LMS.

Task 1 [Logging in] (measures if users were able to log into the system and access the proper course by with provided  instructions)

Blackboard [ 94 % ]

Angel [ 100 % ]

Moodle [ 100 % ]

eCollege [ 100 % ]

Task 2 [Content Access]  (measures if users were able to access syllabus, welcome letter and learning unit)

Blackboard [ 88 % ]

Angel [ 94 % ]

Moodle [ 94 % ]

eCollege [ 88 % ]

Task 3 [Discussion]  (measures if users were able to access discussion and reply to a topic)

Blackboard [ 100 % ]

Angel [ 100 % ]

Moodle [ 94 % ]

eCollege [ 94 % ]

Task [4] Assignment (measures if users were able to access assignment area and submit it with an attachment)

Blackboard [ 42 % ]

Angel [ 92 % ]

Moodle [ 79 % ]

eCollege [ 46 % ]

Task [5]  Quiz (measures if users were able to access quiz area and take it)

Blackboard [ 75  %]

Angel [ 94 % ]

Moodle [ 94 %]

eCollege [ 94 % ]

Task [6] Grades (measures if users were able to access and understand their grades)

Blackboard [ 75 % ]

Angel [ 100 % ]

Moodle [ 100 % ]

eCollege [ 100 % ]

Task [7] eMail (measures if users were able to access the email area, compose a message, add recipients and send it)

Blackboard [ 75 % ]

Angel [ 90 % ]

Moodle [ 100 % ]

eCollege [ 100 % ]

Task [8] Help (measures if users were able to access a help topic)

Blackboard [ 100 % ]

Angel [ 100 % ]

Moodle [ 25 % ]

eCollege [ 88 % ]

At the Usability test conducted last week and previously posted yesterday, I’ve got an opportunity to look at the data and some stats and for the ratings variable these are the numbers I got from 4 tested students.
In a scale of 1 to 5, how easy do you think it was to perform the tasks? [1 = not easy at all; 5 - very easy]
Blackboard [ 3 ]
Angel [ 3.75 ]
Moodle [ 4.75 ]
eCollege [ 3.5 ]
In a scale of 1 to 5, how comfortable would you feel to use this system to take your online classes?  [1 = not comfortable at all; 5 - very comfortable]
Blackboard [ 2.75 ]
Angel [ 4 ]
Moodle [ 4.75 ]
eCollege [ 3.5 ]
In a scale of 1 to 5, how likely are you to recommend this content management system to your friends?  [1 = not likely at all; 5 - very likely]
Blackboard [ 2 ]
Angel [ 3.25 ]
Moodle [ 5 ]
eCollege [ 3.5 ]

At the Usability test conducted last week and previously posted yesterday, I’ve got an opportunity to look at the data and some stats and for the ratings variable these are the numbers I got from 4 tested students.

In a scale of 1 to 5, how easy do you think it was to perform the tasks? [1 = not easy at all; 5 - very easy]

Blackboard [ 3 ]

Angel [ 3.75 ]

Moodle [ 4.75 ] *best rate

eCollege [ 3.5 ]

In a scale of 1 to 5, how comfortable would you feel to use this system to take your online classes?  [1 = not comfortable at all; 5 - very comfortable]

Blackboard [ 2.75 ]

Angel [ 4 ]

Moodle [ 4.75 ] *best rate

eCollege [ 3.5 ]

In a scale of 1 to 5, how likely are you to recommend this content management system to your friends?  [1 = not likely at all; 5 - very likely]

Blackboard [ 2 ]

Angel [ 3.25 ]

Moodle [ 5 ] *best rate

eCollege [ 3.5 ]

Overall, between the 4 CMS that you’ve seen so far tell me which one you liked better? First, second, third or fourth?

Participant 1 responded:

Out of the 4 systems, I’d suggest Angel and Moodle. Moodle was a little better but Angel has different features.

Participant 2 says:

[1st] Moodle, [2nd] Blackboard, [3rd] Angel, [4th] eCollege

Participant 3 says

[1st] Moodle, [2nd]  Angel,[3rd] eCollege, [4th] Blackboard. Moodle is easy to use for new students because it looks exactly like Facebook.

Participant 4 says:

Of the 4 systems I prefer the one that resembled Facebook, Moodle.

Success rates of completion and Time required for task completion data will be posted tomorrow.

It all started in 2005 when I read Jakob Nielsen’s widely known Designing Web Usability book. The years went by, I did
graduate school and I still kept my interest in usability. Eventually, I would google here and there searching for other
opinions on the matter.  Then I found Steve Krug. I bought his book: “Don’t make me think”. I read his book. Finally I
decided to make it a practice. At the College I currently work as a course developer, I developed a USability Test plan
for LMS’s (Angel, Blackboard, eCollege and Moodle) previously posted here but also updated a new version there.
We usability-tested 4 students. And the winner is … [roll the drums] Moodle.Angel was in second place, Blackboard and
eCollege come paired on the next position.
3 students pointed Moodle as their prefered LMS for two main shared reasons:
- it’s easy to use because it looks like Facebook [The skin utilized in Moodle is called Foodle (downloaded from Moodle
forum) developed by UVCMS. thank you UVCMS for your support!]
- the content structure is entirely is open and laid out at the course’s home page. So it doesn’t require navigation
through other menus to reach content, excessive amount of clicks
Development guidelines in Moodle using Foodle theme:
- all menus were set to stay on the left side
- weekly view was selected.
- the only menu items on the left menu are: email, grades, profile, unenroll, participants.
- assignments, discussions, quizzes are visualized within content structure.
The data is still being analyzed and I’ll be working in charts, spreadsheets to help data visualization.
Our next step is to conduct an accessibility test where we will have the same handful number of students, hopefully, with
special needs to test the same LMS’s. We are looking to use screen readers, magnifiers and other assistive technologies to
test LMS accessibility.
Sources:
Melton, J.(2006) “The LMS Moodle: A Usability Evaluation”. In Languages Issues 11/12(1), 1-24. Retrieved 4/24/2009
Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines. Retrieved from http://usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines_book.pdf on
4/24/2009

It all started in 2005 when I read Jakob Nielsen’s widely known Designing Web Usability book. The years went by, I went graduate school and I still kept my interest in usability. Eventually, I would google here and there searching for other opinions on the matter.  Then I found Steve Krug. I bought his book: “Don’t make me think”. I read his book. Finally I  decided to make it a practice. At the College I currently work as a course developer, I developed a USability Test plan for LMS’s (Angel, Blackboard, eCollege and Moodle) previously posted here but also updated a Usability Test Script [updated]version there.

We usability-tested 4 students. And the winner is … [roll the drums] Moodle.Angel was in second place, Blackboard and eCollege come paired on the next position.

3 students pointed Moodle as their prefered LMS for two main shared reasons:

- it’s easy to use because it looks like Facebook [The skin utilized in Moodle is called Foodle (downloaded from Moodle forum) developed by UVCMS. thank you UVCMS for your support!]

- the content structure is entirely is open and laid out at the course’s home page. So it doesn’t require navigation through other menus to reach content, excessive amount of clicks Development guidelines in Moodle using Foodle theme:

- all menus were set to stay on the left side

- weekly view was selected.

- the only menu items on the left menu are: email, grades, profile, unenroll, participants.

- assignments, discussions, quizzes are visualized within content structure.

The data is still being analyzed and I’ll be working in charts, spreadsheets to help data visualization.

Our next step is to conduct an accessibility test where we will have the same handful number of students, hopefully, with  special needs to test the same LMS’s. We are looking to use screen readers, magnifiers and other assistive technologies to  test LMS accessibility.

Sources:

Melton, J.(2006) “The LMS Moodle: A Usability Evaluation”. In Languages Issues 11/12(1), 1-24. Retrieved 4/24/2009

Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines. Retrieved from http://usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines_book.pdf retrieved on 4/24/2009

This morning Campus Technology brought some breaking news on Blackboard-Angel piece. It seems the US Department of Justice is acting up on the Angel acquisition transaction. The source of David Nagel,  who writes the article, is no more no less than Desire2Learn – but confirmed by Blackboard themselves.

Initially DOJ’s intentions are to investigate the merger grounds.  The question then asks: Does it violate the antitrust requirements?

At the Antitrust division from US DOJ site, an antitrust law is a tool for:

prohibit a variety of practices that restrain trade, such as price-fixing conspiracies, corporate mergers likely to reduce the competitive vigor of particular markets, and predatory acts designed to achieve or maintain monopoly power.

Blackboard could argue that it doesn’t have that intent. But what about Angel’s clients or former Angel-clients-ought-to-be?

The biggest challenge for some higher education institutions is, according to ASTD’s last study, customization requirements. Content integration , employee buy-in, and system administration come in 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectivtely in the challenge ranking. Moodle, for some institutions, requires so much customization that some community colleges can’t take. I guess the designers of Angel were the closest to reach higher ed portfolio of needs.

If you are a Angel client or were looking to be, who will you turn to now?

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Indiana University:

held about a 25-percent stake in Angel Learning when Blackboard acquired the company this month for $95-million.

That leaves a little less than $ 24 million to Indiana U. and it’s ROI (return on investment)  was of $ 135,000. Indiana U.’s vice president for engagemen, Bill Stephan, says that the sale “was not at all a case of needing cash in a hurry but a prudent act,” since they apparently had the sale plan since last year.

Ali Jafari, the architect of Angel, is now working on Epsilen a new LMS whose largest stakeholder is the New York Times – and who also appointed new Epsilen’s CEO Jim Bowler.

A number of educators, instructional designers, course developers and other Angelusers have expressed theur apprehension or skepticism in regards to the Blackboard merger. In  It seems Blackboard is working at its best PR to convince Angel clients according to The Chronicle’s  Blackboard and Angel Learning Officials Try to Reassure Skeptical Clients. eSchoolNews also had previously published an article highlighting some concerns from educators about the BB-Angel mergehttp://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/news-by-subject/technologies/?i=58675

Jared Stein publishes in his post … a very interesting note:

What once looked like good news for Angel has become a nightmare for an CMS consumer market in need of diverse and innovative choices, and a looming shadow for other CMS producers, as Blackboard continues to thwart and denigrate healthy competition in the field of e-learning.

I’ve been sharing some thoughts with peers and colleagues, additionally to the college institution I work with. Many who were WebCT clients bear a remembrance of what Blackboard-acquisition and migration processes meant to them. System support, customer service, program conflicts…and so on.

Blackboard has made a number of past acquisitions of which most of these previous tools are no longer supported after about 3 years – in average. The predatory strategy has reached Angel’s board committee where an apparently “successful” negotiation has led the Indianapolis-based company to decide for selling its rapidly-growing business for $95 mi. Angel must’ve been somehwat a “burden” for its committee board [in debt or its profit was not meeting its expectations - or any other deep reason]. The real reason behind the scenes we will never know. But for a greater audience the acquisition was a disappointment.

Some say that if your institution is undecisive about a new LMS purchase due to Angel purchase by Blackboard, they will go to Moodle. However, how would institution that needs support would move with the open source tool? They could hire a Moodle partner for servicing.

What are other LMS’s around? eCollege has a different focus from Angel and Blackboard. Its focus is in large, massive online course distribution as opposed to faculty-student personalized interaction. It doesn’t have as many features as Angel,  Blackboard and Moodle.  I have not had the opportunity to try D2L yet. Can’t really say much about it. Ideas anyone? Is this the end of competitive market? Is it monopoly?

Some folks suggest that as opposed to improving their own systems or innovating with their own and proper ideas, they are trying to get it from somewhere else, like Angel. it could be. But Blackboard is not the only character in this plot. Angel “agreed” with the acquisition.

http://intelligentdistancelearning.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/blackboard-buys-angel-competition-what-competition

http://economicalthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/the-death-of-competition-in-learning-management-systems/

http://centraliacollege.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/blackboardangel-update/

http://rmostell.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/blackboard-buys-angel-learning/

http://randallcase.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/blackboard-buys-angel/

The e-Learning Accessibility
and Section 508 Report

Yesterday, May 12th 2009, I had one of the most eye opening experiences in my entire career. It all started when planning a usability testing for a new LMS (Moodle, Blackboard, eCollege or Angel) which I decided to include an accessbility testing. After a fairly extensive search,  I found Web Content Accessibility Guidelines from W3C and also Accessibility compliance with section 508.  At first, reading about accessibility guidelines led my curiosity a little further on my search for free screen readers (www.satogo.com). During my ’scavenging hunt’, I spoke with a few colleagues at the College I work at and had the opportunity to meet a very interesting person who is visually impaired and utilizes JAWS as a means to connect to the Internet and perform his professional duties. He then showed to me what it is to login into WebCT and the College’s website using JAWS. Seeing, and actually more of a hearing experience, how a visual impaired user access webct or any other regular website was overwhelming. It struck me enough to open my eyes and understand a world that I’ve never witnessed before.

JAWS is an application that reads out loud all texts [ I mean ALL of them even "dash", "backslash", "dot dot dot" ] displayed in a certain screen to its user. As the special needs user utilizes the keyboard (not the mouse) to move within the online content, JAWS reads every command selected, for example: “Open Link”, “Website open”, “Page Title is….”, and so on. However, if a webpage or any online application or content isn’t designed to be read by a screen reader such as JAWS, nothing will be read to the user. Or if the designer structures the content without making any sense, special need users will be unable to understand its content.

From this day on, my focus now is on analyzing how I can help to improve special need users elearning experiences by working collaboratively with them and for them. I invited this same person that I had just met to work together on a daily basis everytime I would develop online courses.

I’m really looking forward to work with special need users to make all courses accessible. At one of my navigations within the cloud, searching for “elearning accessibility” I found this  e-Learning Accessibility and Section 508 Report from The eLearningGuild. Here are some interesting facts:

20% of Americans have a disability that may interfere with the use of a computer for educational purposes

Screen readers cannot read most visual content, such as pictures, animation, and word art. Audio content is inaccessible to deaf users unless a transcript is inserted onto the page.

According to this survey, most respondents (a majority of instructional designers, course developers and managers)  have little knowledge in elearning accessibility. And a high number reported 3 main barriers to accessible elearning development and devliry is: lack of expertise, low organizational priority and costs.

Deciding to “change the world” is a great challenge. But working towards making online learning more accessible is a lot easier and I’ll surely do my best towards this goal.

Search Learning and you will find countless references. Search Web2.0 and you may find as many , maybe less, maybe more, references on this subject. Search Social Networking and you may get caught up so much reading that you couldn’t possiblsayyBouiy take at one time. Now… search Learning “and” web2.0 oand/or Learning “and” Social networking you might notice your findings display two opposite tones: one that “overrates” and other that “underestimates” the “ohh” great power of Web2.0.

What caught my attention to come to this reflection was this article published by The Chronicle of Higher Education ” Should Computer Scientists Make Social-Networking Research a Higher Priority?”. It looks like there’s a combined initiative to push research on social networking forward – which in my opinion could have a positive impact, or not. Forecasting isn’t my best vote. However, outline expectations such as The Chronicle mentions:

unite far-flung participants to help track disease outbreaks, revolutionize neighborhood-watch programs, encourage energy conservation, and serve other civic and community goals, according to a group of researchers calling for greater government and university investment in social networking. xx

Although I could guess it might be a little overrated, they are on their role [and we should have someone acting on this role] of advocating for better and faster research.  Gsiemens from eLearnSpace puts his concerned notes on how will [or already is] social networking be incorporated into education. And this is the point where I have a strong opinion on. The Internet is a vehicle, a means to an end. Social networking is a variation of how we socialize physically, not the same but originated from. We play web2.0 and social networking somewhat different than face-to-face because we have different purposes, certain freedoms that we wouldn’t have if face-to-face, and of course many other factors influencing our behavior online. s

Education, or better, learning takes place formally and informally. Formally – happens at school, at work [training], college, university, workshop, conferences. Informally, at home, online. The condition for informal learning to take place the individual needs to have a motivation, to be seeking for something to learn. The Internet is a great place to look for answers – it’s easier than accessing school or professors, it’s on-demand, more convenient, independent, free. It doesn’t mean that we can guarantee 100% overall quality like in formal settings. But it happens that this ocean of information inputed by other human beings is there and once we find it… we may associate that piece of information with our questions… and maybe get an answer. Whether of good or bad quality.

In my profession, I observe many faculty members criticizing Facebook and Wikipedia – I never heard them mention Twitter… yet. They might like Facebook or even Wikipedia. But when I hear them “talking” about it… it’s to point out negative aspects.  These web2 .0/ social networking applications exist and are popularly used because people like them. The idea isn’t to fight AGAINST it. But I’d recommend to work with it in terms of foster awareness of how the use of these applications in your learning process can have a positive or negative impact.

Have you ever thought of getting back to your rusty French on Facebook? Maybe that’s not your primary goal when you log into this social networking app but the creators of LiveMocha definitely had social learning in mind. In some countries where learning English is part of a mandatory curriculum, they use “pen pals” activities that now can be greatly enhanced this new app. Renee Evans writes an extensive review on LiveMocha.com:

In exploring some of the features and functionality of the site it was interesting to note that both Rosetta Stone and Livemocha.com are guided by similar learning principles. They both advocate that total immersion into a language is the best way to master it.

Other web applications also offer Social Language Learning Resources:

It looks like Blackboard is still strong in its predatory purchasing strategy. It acquired Angel Learning for $ 95 million. Looking back at Blackboard history of acquisitions

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/05/04/daily63.html

If you’re are a Blackboard client by “acquisition” you probably noticed how these mergers has an impact in customer service.

If you’re looking to implement a new LMS/CMS into your institution you’ll notice you’re shorter in options now. Either Moodle or Blackboard… maybe eCollege or Desire2Learn – although they don’t leverage.

Read more about this topic in:http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-06-2009/0005020869&EDATE=

News in Angel’s website :http://www.blackboard.com/Company/Angel.aspx

In my opinion, eCollege and Desire2Learn don’t leverage with Moodle and Angel [in response to Kenneth Chapman's question] because of, in my elearning developer and instructional designer point of view, 4 [four] main aspects:

  • Designer GUI – Moodle and Angel [now Blackboard] are a lot more intuitive and user-friendly to use than others.
  • Usability
  • Simplicity and easiness of use
  • Costumer Service – Angel is surely a lot better in CS than Blackboard and eCollege.

After a careful reading on Steve Krug’s “Don’t Make Me Think“, Jay Melton’s “LMS Moodle: A Usability Evaluation” andUsability.gov, I have finally finished a usability testing plan. The idea is to test how easy Angel, Moodle, Blackboard and eCollege are to use but it’s not confirmed yet. I just thought I would share this idea. Also in the usability plan is Accessibility compliance testing which guidelines I got from Section 508 [§ 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications.] and W3 Web Content Accessibility. This should provide access to all users with most of special needs in accordance to the Section 508 of the Disabilities Act.

The resulting usability testing plan is a compilation of Krug’s book, Melton’s research methodology and Usability.gov guidelines. If they are copy they are referenced in the document.

1. Overall goal

Through usability testing [we] will assess “how easy user interfaces are to use” (Nielsen, 2003) and how compliant to section 508 the LMS/CMS being trialed by the committee. For that purpose, a small number of currently enrolled students will be selected as participants and assigned certain tasks to be performed in the LMS/CMS. Our goal is to help the CMS committee perceive the extent of helpfulness an LMS/CMS can contribute to the learning process.

2. Specific Questions

· How easy is the LMS to use?

· What is the overall impression of the GUI [interface]?

· Does this LMS/CMS contribute or enrich, in any fashion, the learning process?

3. Tasks rubric and techniques

Participants of the usability test will be assigned certain tasks that represent the most performed activities students currently do in [current LMS]. These tasks are of high frequency, priority and of great importance to the learning process.  A list of eight tasks to be performed by participants is composed below:

1.             Join a course in [LMS being tested] [find it, Enroll in course using enrollment key]
2.             What’s this course about? Find syllabus, handouts, projects.
3.             Discuss a topic in forum
4.             Submit an assignment with attachment
5.             Take a test
6.             Email your instructor
7.            Check your grades
8.             Find help [specific topic in help info] 

Accessibility

Section 508 of the Disabilities Act and W3 provide content guidelines that GUI’s (user interfaces) should follow in order to provide accessibility to all users whether they have special needs or not.

·                Section 508
·                W3 – Web Content Accessibility
In addition to the guidelines above, the LMS/CMS should follow the accessibility rules below: 
·                Enable online content to be read without requiring style sheets.
·                All images should contain “alt”  tags
·                Pick a LMS that doesn’t require installation or use of applets, plug-ins, or active X
·                All files and forms should be accessed by Assistive Technology users – such as information, field   elements, and functionality required for completion and submission of the form. 
·                Links should be carefully described to allowing special needs users to navigate through online content.
·                Whenever a timed activity is  present let the user know that there is a time limit / frame for this  activity to be completed.

4. Practical issues

Number of Participants

If 1 or 2 systems are tested, 4 participants should work well in which 2 have to be regularly matriculated and 2 matriculated students with special needs that utilize 508-compliant software. 
If 3 or 4 systems are being tested, then you’ll need at least 5 or 6 participants where 2 of them are of special needs. Be careful on the time each student spends on Student selection criteria: 
Participant A 
·                Previous experience with word processing 
·                Have past experience with [current LMS] 
·                Taken at least one course in [current LMS] 
·                Submitted one assignment in [current LMS] 
Participant B
·                Have as little [current LMS] experience as possible if none 
Participant C
·                Special needs user (use one type of specific software) – the special need is to be determined by the   Office of Special Services of your institution.
·                Have past experience with [current LMS] (minimum) 
Participant D
·                Special needs user (use another  different type of specific software) – the special need is to be  determined by the Office of Special Services of your institution.
·                Have past experience with [current LMS] (little minimum) 

Recruitment

[Discuss with the Dean of the College or your department on how participants can be recruited. Whether public posting, mass emails, reaching out to student governments]

Compensation for participants

[Discuss with your department or your supervisor on some options for participant’s compensation]

Testing Environment (Melton, 2006)

·                No interruptions 
·                One Video camera 
·                Adequate lighting 
·                Adequate temperature 
·                Low noise 
·                One computer connected to the Internet

Evaluator (Melton, 2006)

The evaluator will take notes on participants’ success in completing the tasks, rating task completion by using the following terminology: 

( + ) easy
( √ ) medium
( – ) difficult

Trial run

Prior to test day, Evaluators will be called for a usability test trial run. At this event, a usability test will be simulated where each evaluator receives a script they can follow to run the test.

5. Ethical Issues

Participant’s identity and privacy will be protected. The focus of this test is the system and not the student. Participants may terminate the test at anytime. Their image will not be recorded. The camera’s point of view should be on screen, 
mouse and keyboard. (Melton, 2006) 

6. Evaluation, interpretation and presentation of Data

On test day

Each participant will be provided with three documents: Two consent forms (to be written) and one demographic questionnaire. 
Consent form – two copies, one for the student and one for the project

Questionnaire:

·                Name
·                E-mail
·                Year (1st / 2nd)
·                Do you have experience with [current  LMS] (Yes / NO)
·                If yes, in what context did you experience [current LMS]  (online / Hybrid / I don’t know / NA)
·                In these experiences with [current LMS]  what activities have you  performed (email, upload assignments, view grades, find information about the course, do a test)
·                Do you have experience with  other Content Management Systems (LMS/CMS) (Yes / No)
·                If yes, in what context did you experience CMS (online / Hybrid / webenhanced / I don’t know / NA)
·                In these previous experiences with CMS what activities have you performed (email, upload assignments, view grades, find information about the course, do a test.

Duration of test (to test 1 system) (Melton, 2006, p. 348)

Time Range between 35 to 45 minutes

Test steps (copied from Krug, 2006 and adapted)

· Step 1. Read Instructions aloud

Introduce yourself and explain your role in the project.  Describe the purpose of the participant’s in the project. Make sure the participant knows that he/she is not being tested.  Ask participant to think out loud and that you might not be able to answer all questions – so the data collected isn’t contaminated. ASk for participant’s permission to record thehis/her  computer screen and audio.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

· Step 2. Are you ready?

· Step 3. Start recording

· Step 4. Begin test

Show the CMS/LMS home page and ask the participant for some feedback on his/her impression of what strikes the most.

Ask the participant not to click but just observe and tell.

Tell the student that you’re moving onto the tasks testing per se. and that the student should think aloud. (Krug, 2006)

· Evaluator worksheets – one evaluator fills the tables below during the test timing each completion and determining the success and satisfaction of the user on using the LMS.

Tasks sheet for usability testing

Tasks sheet for usability testing

del.icio.us [resourceful]

Twitter Updates

Blog Stats

  • 2,797 hits