Value for Learning as a Measure of Educational Software Effectiveness
PROCEEDINGS
Tracey L. Leacock, Margarita Karpilovsky-Aharon, Simon Fraser University, Canada
E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Vancouver, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-76-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA
Abstract
The use of educational software in formal learning contexts has become mainstream, yet there are still no clear methodologies for determining the value of such software to learners or of predicting whether learners will use the software effectively. This paper presents a conceptual overview of how several diverse fields of research can contribute to our theoretical understanding of what it means for educational technology to be both usable and useful. We draw on work in software usability and interaction design, which has already had significant impacts on the design of educational software. However, usability analyses fall far short of addressing questions of how software can support learning. If software is easy to use but does not add any value in helping the users to learn more effectively or more efficiently, it will not meet the goal of being educational software. In this paper, we look beyond ease of use to issues of Value for Learning (VfL).
Citation
Leacock, T.L. & Karpilovsky-Aharon, M. (2009). Value for Learning as a Measure of Educational Software Effectiveness. In T. Bastiaens, J. Dron & C. Xin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2009--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2823-2831). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 28, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/32885/.
© 2009 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
References
View References & Citations Map- Berke, W.K. & Wiseman, T.L. (2003). The e-learning answer. Nursing Management: IT Solutions Supplement, October, 2003, 26-29.
- Butler, D.L. & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.
- Cho, V., Cheng, T.C.E., & Lai, W.M.J. (2009). The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of selfpaced e-learning tools. Computers and Education, 53, 216-227
- Davenport, R. (Ed.) (2005). A training investment with strategic rewards. Training& Development, December, 2005, 70-71.
- De Villiers, R. (2004). Usability evaluation of an e-learning tutorial: Criteria, questions, and case study. Proceedings of SAICSIT 2004. 284-291.
- Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G.D., & Beale, R. (2004). Human-computer Interaction (3rd ed.). Toronto: Pearson.
- Dunlosky, J., Serra, M.J., Matvey, G., & Rawson, K.A. (2005). Second order judgments about judgments of learning. Journal of General Psychology, 132, 335-346.
- Jereb, E. & Smitek, B. (2006). Applying multimedia instruction in e-learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 15-27.
- Jones, A., Scanlon, C., Tosunoglu, E., Morris, S., Ross, S., Butcher, P., & Greenberg, J. (1999). Contexts for evaluating educational software. Interacting with Computers, 11, 499-516.
- Kornell, N. & Metcalfe, J. (2006). Study efficacy and the region of proximal learning framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 609-622.
- Leacock, T.L., Code, J., & Weatherby, M. (2007). Usability in self-regulated learning software. Paper to be presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, USA.
- Leacock, T.L., & Nesbit, J.C. (2007). A framework for evaluating quality of multimedia learning resources. Educational Technology and Society, 10(2), 44-59.
- Leacock, T.L. & Nesbit, J.C. (2006). Cognitive tools for self-regulated eLearning. In M. Bullen& D.P. Janes (Eds). Making the Transition to E-learning: Strategies and Issues.
- Leacock, T., Richards, G., & Nesbit, J. (2004). Teachers need simple, effective tools to evaluate learning objects: Enter eLera. Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education, 7, 333-338.
- Learning Kit Team (2006). Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Retrieved March 28, 2007 from http://142.58.195.208:16080/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
- Mayes, J.T. & Fowler, C.J. (1999). Learning technology and usability: A framework for understanding courseware. Interacting with Computers, 11, 485-497.
- McVay-Lynch, M. (2001). Effective student preparation for online learning. The Technology Source, November/December. Retrieved January 3, 2006, from http://technologysource.org/article/effective_student_preparation_for_online_learning/
- Metcalfe, J. & Kornell, N. (2003). The dynamics of learning and allocation of study time to a region of proximal learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 530-542.
- Metcalfe, J. & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 463-477.
- Moon, H. (2001). Looking forward and looking back: Integrating completion and sunk-cost effects within an escalation-ofcommitment progress decision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 104-113.
- Nesbit, J.C. & Leacock, T.L. (2009). Collaborative argumentation in learning resource evaluation and design. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennet, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning Objects: Issues, Applications, and Technologies (pp. 574-588). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
- Nicolau, C.T., Nicolaidou, I.A., & Constantinou, C.P. (2005). The e-learning movement as a process of quality improvement in higher education. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 605-622.
- Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic Evaluation. In J. Nielsen& R.L. Mack (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods (pp. 25-62). New York:
- Parlangeli, O., Marchigiani, E., and Bagnara, S. (1999). Multimedia systems in distance education: Effects of usability on learning. Interacting with Computers, 12, 37-49.
- Pintrich, P.R. (2000). The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 452-502). New York: Academic Press.
- Pintrich, P.R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41, 220227.
- Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2007). Interaction Design: Beyond Human Computer Interaction (2nd ed). Etobicoke, ON: Wiley.
- Squires, D. & Preece, J. (1999). Predicting quality in educational software: Evaluating for learning, usability and the synergy between them. Interacting with Computers, 11, 467-483.
- Thiede, K.W. & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Delaying students’ metacognitive monitoring improves their accuracy in predicting recognition performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 290-302.
- Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
- Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59(4, pt 2), S251-S278.
- Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177.
- Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Towards a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.
- Winne, P.H. (2006). How software technologies can improve research on learning and bolster school reform. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 5-17.
- Winne, P.H. & Hadwin, A.F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277-304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Winne, P.H., Hadwin, A.F., Nesbit, J.C., Leacock, T.L., Kumar, V., & Beaudoin, L. (2006). GStudy: A toolkit for developing computer-supported tutorials and researching learning strategies and instruction (version 3.1) [computer program]. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.
- Winne, P.H. & Jamieson-Noel, D.L. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self-reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 551-572.
- Zhou, M, Leacock, T.L., & Winne, P.H. (2009) Content-vs. Process-based instructional objectives: A critical review. Manuscript in preparation.
- Zimmerman, B.J. & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 241-250.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References