4.3 Article

A Usability Study of Users' Perceptions Toward a Multimedia Computer-Assisted Learning Tool for Neuroanatomy

期刊

ANATOMICAL SCIENCES EDUCATION
卷 1, 期 4, 页码 175-183

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ase.36

关键词

usability study; neuroanatomy; e-learning; multimedia; computer assisted instruction

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [1R41NS40588]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This usability study evaluated users' perceptions of a multimedia prototype for a new e-learning tool: Anatomy of the Central Nervous System: A Multimedia Course. Usability testing is a collection of formative evaluation methods that inform the developmental design of e-learning tools to maximize user acceptance, satisfaction, and adoption. Sixty-two study participants piloted the prototype and completed a usability questionnaire designed to measure two usability properties: program need and program applicability. Statistical analyses were used to test the hypothesis that the multimedia prototype was well designed and highly usable, it was perceived as: (1) highly needed across a spectrum of educational contexts, (2) highly applicable in supporting the pedagogical processes of teaching and learning neuroanatomy, and (3) was highly usable by all types of users. Three independent variables represented user differences: level of expertise (faculty vs. student), age, and gender. Analysis of the results supports the research hypotheses that the prototype was designed well for different types of users in various educational contexts and for supporting the pedagogy of neuroanatomy. In addition, the results suggest that the multimedia program will be most useful as a neuroanatomy review tool for health-professions students preparing for licensing or board exams. This study demonstrates the importance of integrating quality properties of usability with principles of human learning during the instructional design process for multimedia products. Anat Sci Ed 1:175-183, 2008. (C) 2008 American Association of Anatomists.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据