Скачать презентацию Quest Atlantis Homepage Tutorial Project Min-joung Kim Ming Скачать презентацию Quest Atlantis Homepage Tutorial Project Min-joung Kim Ming

cb5e90d5c0b20b36f2b09aebd63ad490.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 23

Quest Atlantis Homepage Tutorial Project Min-joung Kim Ming Ma Pil-Won On Quest Atlantis Homepage Tutorial Project Min-joung Kim Ming Ma Pil-Won On

Project Description Project Description

Target Audience n n Language n English Age n 9 to 12 year-old Gender Target Audience n n Language n English Age n 9 to 12 year-old Gender n Boys : Girls = 5: 1 Pre-requisite knowledge n Minimum pre-experience of using the 3 -D interface (logging in the QA) n Starting a computer and a program, using a mouse and a keyboard

Context n n Mainly in a local Boys and Girls Club with fast internet Context n n Mainly in a local Boys and Girls Club with fast internet connection. Users should be registered in QA.

Objectives Banner o Name of Quester o Emoticon Email o. Link to pop-up email Objectives Banner o Name of Quester o Emoticon Email o. Link to pop-up email page o. Message for any new mail Navigation Links to other side-bar pages Side-bar Contents Title and summary information Pop-Up Link Opens content in pop-up window with complete details for reviewing or editing

Objectives After going through the QA Home Page tutorial, learners will be able to: Objectives After going through the QA Home Page tutorial, learners will be able to: n Identify each feature on the side-bar page n Banner n n n Email n n n Pop-up link n n Identify the label of email. Identify the number of new email. Navigation links n n Identify the owner of home page. Identify what the emoticon is. Identify what “home” is for. Identify what “friends” is for. Identify what “quests” is for. Identify the link to a pop-up. Utilize the function of “home” page editing. in 80% of successful completion without any help from mentors.

Merrill’s 5 Stars Instructional Design n Problem: Utilize the function of the side-bar (ex) Merrill’s 5 Stars Instructional Design n Problem: Utilize the function of the side-bar (ex) n Activation: Use analogy of a “ House ” (ex 1, ex 2) n n n Demonstration: Show as a movie, guided practice (ex 1, ex 2) Application: Practice part - skateboarding game (ex 1) Integration: The learners actually apply their learning for the real side-bar.

QA training team’s 6 th star n Motivation Talking head n Familiar environment n QA training team’s 6 th star n Motivation Talking head n Familiar environment n Skateboarding game n Use one of the avatars in QA n Visual reinforcement n Award: 4 points for completion n Animation: flash movies n

Expert review of paper prototype n n n Conducted expert review with Lauryl and Expert review of paper prototype n n n Conducted expert review with Lauryl and Dr. Frick After the review, added different words for feedback. For example, “good job”, “great”, “excellent”, etc. Changed “friends, quests, and home” in the questions with other words to avoid giving hints to learners.

Paper Prototype usability test n Information of the subjects Leaner 1 Learner 2 Learner Paper Prototype usability test n Information of the subjects Leaner 1 Learner 2 Learner 3 Learner 4 Age 12 9 9 12 Gender Male Nationality American Pre-experience with QA 1 year A few months 3 times

Scale of reactionnare 5. I will tell my friends to play with this tutorial. Scale of reactionnare 5. I will tell my friends to play with this tutorial.

Paper Prototype usability test Instructional Effectiveness (n=4) Learner Satisfaction with Instruction (n=4) Pre-assessment Post-assessment Paper Prototype usability test Instructional Effectiveness (n=4) Learner Satisfaction with Instruction (n=4) Pre-assessment Post-assessment Reactionnaire Mean Score (3 point scale) Score #1 8 out of 9 9 out of 9 2. 8 #2 8 out of 9 9 out of 9 2. 8 #3 6 out of 9 7 out of 9 2. 8 #4 4 out of 9 7 out of 9 2. 4 Novice learners (#3 and #4) Mean SD 5 (56%) 1. 41 7 (78%) 0 2. 6 (87%) 0. 3 Overall Mean SD 6. 5 (72%) 1. 91 8 (89%) 1. 15 2. 7 (90%) 0. 2

Paper Prototype usability test n Comparison of pre-test and post-test results Paper Prototype usability test n Comparison of pre-test and post-test results

Paper Prototype usability test n Comparison of pre-test and post-test results: individual performance Paper Prototype usability test n Comparison of pre-test and post-test results: individual performance

Paper Prototype usability test n Revisions on improving instructional effectives Problem Improvement Learners failed Paper Prototype usability test n Revisions on improving instructional effectives Problem Improvement Learners failed the question about Explain more effectively and in “home” page detail what “home” is about Learners failed the question about Explain the navigation function navigating to different pages of the buttons more effectively, with simulated animation Learners failed the question about Teach how to edit “home” editing the “home” page procedure more effectively: review the sequence one more time after a movie, and let learners practice one more time

Paper Prototype usability test n Revision on improving learner satisfaction Problem Learners were easily Paper Prototype usability test n Revision on improving learner satisfaction Problem Learners were easily distracted when there was only audio (read by the testers) but no visual character in the tutorial Improvement Use a talking head

Paper Prototype usability test n Revisions on improving usability Problem Improvement Learners did not Paper Prototype usability test n Revisions on improving usability Problem Improvement Learners did not know where they Use consistent “Go” button to were expected to go between lead learners scenes Learners found reading difficult Reduce the amount of text – use more audio Learners were confused by some wording in the tutorial Change misleading wording

Computer prototype usability test n Information of the subjects Leaner 1 Learner 2 Learner Computer prototype usability test n Information of the subjects Leaner 1 Learner 2 Learner 3 Age 12 12 11 Gender Male Female Nationality American Pre-experience with QA 2 months Less than a month

Computer prototype usability test n Results Instructional Effectiveness (n=3) Learner Satisfaction with Instruction (n=3) Computer prototype usability test n Results Instructional Effectiveness (n=3) Learner Satisfaction with Instruction (n=3) Preassessment Score Postassessment Score #1 0 out of 8 7 out of 8 3 #2 0 out of 8 6 out of 8 3 #3 1 out of 8 8 out of 8 3 Overall Reactionnaire Mean Score Mean SD 0. 3 (4. 2%) 0. 6 7 (88%) 1 3 (100%) 0

Computer prototype usability test n Comparison of pre and post test results Computer prototype usability test n Comparison of pre and post test results

Computer prototype usability test n Comparison of pre and post test results: individual performance Computer prototype usability test n Comparison of pre and post test results: individual performance

Computer prototype usability test n Revision Problem Improvement Hesitation on the action of clicking Computer prototype usability test n Revision Problem Improvement Hesitation on the action of clicking Make the objects more prominent the small objects which is linked to. in such ways: Making the object bigger, providing an instant effect. Confusion between links and nonlinks Get rid of unnecessary links which make the appearance of a mouse cursor a pointing finger Frustration with limited choices on practice part. Provide more options of choices.

Questions or Comments? Questions or Comments?