具有集成設計框架的同步在線論證系統用戶界面：重新設計和評估

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：26

、訪客IP：18.221.184.207

姓名

汪塔莉(Ayu Nuswantari) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

網路學習科技研究所

論文名稱

具有集成設計框架的同步在線論證系統用戶界面：重新設計和評估
(The Synchronous Online Argumentation System User Interface with an Integrated Design Framework: Redesign and Evaluation)

相關論文

★ 支援國小科展探究教與學之網路科展探究系統的開發與評估	★ 教師科展專業知識分享社群平台系統開發與評估
★ 科學小論文寫作平台的建置與評估	★ 「探究教學線上教師社群平台」之建置與評估:以知識管理理論為基礎
★ 科學閱讀平台之發展與評估	★ 以鷹架為基礎之科展探究系統平台之開發與評估
★ Improving Novice Teachers’ Instructional Practice Through Online Multilevel Reflection: The Role of Novice Teachers’ Beliefs	★ The Effect s of Video-based Reflection on Preservice Teachers′ Micro Teaching Focusing on Meaningful Learning with ICT
★ Examining Teachers’ Online Video-Based Reflective Practice for Professional Development Regarding Guided-Discovery Learning Instruction	★ 數位教育遊戲之開發與評估：以「Mr.道耳頓的奇幻歷險」為例
★ 應用自然語言處理技術開發基於知識翻新理論之線上非同步合作論證平台與平台初步評估	★ 同步討論與反思系統（SDRS）對小學生知識建構學習環境感知和學習成果的影響
★ 科學探究學習系統之開發與評估	★ 支援科學專題學習之線上學習平台開發與評估
★ 線上合作共同備課平台：開發與評估	★ 歷史影音學習平台之開發與評估

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

一個設計良好的「線上同步合作論證系統」可以有效滿足學習者在資訊時代的學習需求，本研究聚焦於「線上同步合作論證系統」的使用者介面設計。過去的研究並未針對「線上同步論證系統」之使用者介面設計提出一個完整的架構，因此本研究基於認知負荷、使用者介面、使用者經驗，提出9項「線上同步合作論證系統」的使用者介面設計原則。研究者使用研究團隊開發之兩個原型系統，並邀請啟英高級中學48名學生針對兩個原型系統進行測試，其中第二原型系統使用基於9項原則的框架進行設計。本研究透過「網頁學習環境」（Web-Based Learning Environment, WEBLEI）和「系統可用性測試」（System Usability Test, SUS）兩份問卷來進行介面評估。受測者在WEBLEI評估問卷的結果顯示，在第一原型系統中的「解放感」（Emancipatory）比第二原型系統更好（0.60）。而第二原型系統在系統參與度（0.10）、介面體驗（0.25）和資訊結構與設計（0.20）的三個項目中，則比第一原型系統更好；SUS問卷的結果表明，第二原型系統的可用性優於第一原型系統，在SUS問卷評估中具有4.43的差距。最後，本研究進一步提出對「線上同步合作論證系統」的改良建議。

摘要(英)

The Synchronous online argumentation system is highly needed to facilitate learning activity in this internet era. User Interface is an important aspect to design the system, but not many researchers developed an integrated framework. To gain deeper insights about this important issue, a framework was developed in this study. This study developed nine principles based on Cognitive Load, User Interface, and User Experience to redesign a system. With this framework, 48 (forty-eight) students of Chi-Ying High School had tested with two prototypes, and the second prototype used the nine principles. The systems were measured with Web-Based Learning Environment (WEBLEI) and System Usability Test (SUS). The result with WEBLEI measurement that used four dimensions shows that the Emancipatory was better on the first prototype than on the second prototype with (0.6) mean difference, the other was better on the second prototype than on the first prototype with Co-Participatory (0.10), Qualia (0.25), and Information Structure & Design (0.20) mean differences. The result from SUS measurement shows that the usability of the second prototype was better than on the first prototype with (4.43) SUS score difference. The result shows that the use of nine principles that applied to the second prototype does increase the usability and satisfaction of the students. This study also proposed some suggestions to design a better synchronous online argumentation system.

關鍵字(中)

★ 同步系統
★ 線上
★ 論證
★ 使用者界面
★ 設計框架
★ 教育

關鍵字(英)

★ Synchronous system
★ Online
★ Argumentation
★ User Interface
★ Design Framework
★ Education

論文目次

中文摘要 ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
LIST OF FIGURE vii
LIST OF TABLE viii
LIST OF APPENDIX ix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1-1 Background of the Research 1
1-2 Overview of the Study 3
1-3 Purpose of the Research 3
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2-1 Synchronous Online Collaborative Argumentation Learning 4
2-2 Cognitive Load 5
2-2-1 Intrinsic Cognitive Load 6
2-2-2 Extraneous Cognitive Load 6
2-2-3 Germane Cognitive Load 7
2-2-4 Individual Differences in Processing Capability 7
2-2-5 The Effect of Heavy Cognitive Load 9
2-3 User Interface (UI) & User Experience (UX) 11
2-3-1 User Interface Components 12
2-3-2 Existed UI Principles 15
2-4 Reflective, Recursive Design and Development Model (R2D2) 23
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 26
3-1 Research Subjects 26
3-2 Research Instrument 27
3-3 Data Collection and Analysis 32
3-4 Research Framework 33
3-5 User Experiment Activities 34
3-6 R2D2 Design Process 36
3-7 Implementation of 9 Design Principles 38
3-8 Final design of the system. 40
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 57
4-1 Result of WEBLEI measurement 57
4-2 Result of SUS measurement 58
4-3 Interview Result and Discussion 59
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION 61
5-1 Conclusion 61
5-2 Suggestion 62
REFERENCES 63

參考文獻

REFERENCES

Andriessen, J. E. B., Erkens, G., Overeem, E., & Jaspers, J. (1996). Using complex information in argumentation for collaborative text production. Paper presented at the Using complex information systems, Poitiers, France.
Andriessen, J. H. E. (2003). Working with Groupware: Understanding and evaluating collaboration technology. London: Springer.
Azeemi ST, Raza SM. A critical analysis of chromotherapy and its scientific evolution. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2005;2(4):481-8. doi: 10.1093/ecam/neh137
Biernat, Monica; Kobrynowicz, Diane; Weber, Dara L. (October 2003). "Stereotypes and Shifting Standards: Some Paradoxical Effects of Cognitive Load." Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 33 (10): 2060–2079.
Botturi, L., Cantoni, L., Lepori, B. & Tardini, S. (2007). Fast Prototyping as a Communication Catalyst for E-Learning Design. In M. Bullen & D. Janes (eds), Making the Transition to E-Learning: Strategies and Issues. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, pp. 266-283.
Chang, V. (1999). Evaluating the effectiveness of online learning using a new web-based learning instrument. Proceedings Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Forum 1999. http://www.waier.org.au/forums/1999/chang.html
Daft & Lengel. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness, And Structural Design. Texas: JSTOR, p. 560.
Dillenbourg. P (Ed.). (1999). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Elliot AJ, Maier MA, Moller AC, Friedman R, Meinhardt J. Color, and psychological functioning: the effect of red on performance attainment. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2007;136(1):154-68. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.154
Granholm, E.; Asarnow, R. F.; Sarkin, A. J.; Dykes, K. L. (July 1996). "Pupillary responses index cognitive resource limitations." Psychophysiology. 33 (4): 457–461.
Hackman, Daniel A.; Farah, Martha J. (February 2009). "Socioeconomic status and the developing brain." Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 13 (2): 65–73.
Haythornthwaite & Kazmer. (2002). Bringing The Internet Home: Adult Distance Learners and Their Internet, Home, and Work Worlds. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. p. 459
Hotcomm. (2003). Synchronous tools and the emerging online leaming model. Available online at http://www.hotcomm.com/tec/dlwp.pdf
Hrastinski, S. (2007a). Participating in Synchronous Online Education. School of Economics and Management, Lund University. KFS AB: p. 47.
Hrastinski, S. (2007b). Participating in Synchronous Online Education. School of Economics and Management, Lund University. KFS AB: p. 109.
In K. Littleton, & P. H. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 10-23). London: Routledge.
It-analysis (2001) Synchronous vs. asynchronous leaming. Available online at http://www.it-analysis.coni/article.php?articleid=2236
Lebow. D. (1993). Constructivist Values for Instructional Systems Design: Five Principles toward a New Mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development: Springer.
Leidner & Jarvenpaa. (1995). The Use of Information Technology to Enhance Management School Education: A Theoretical View. Society for Information Management (U.S.); University of Minnesota. Management Information Systems Research Center; Society for Management Information Systems (U.S.), University of Minnesota, Management Information Systems Research Center.
Littleton. K & Häkkinen. P., (1999). Learning together: Understanding the processes of computer-based collaborative learning. Dillenbourg. P (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford: Elsevier.
Molich, R., and Nielsen, J. (1990). Improving a human-computer dialogue, Communications of the ACM 33, 3. 338-348.
Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. (1999). "Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity." Journal of Educational Psychology. 91 (2): 358–368.
Murphy, Gregory L.; Wright, Jack C. (1984). "Changes in conceptual structure with expertise: Differences between real-world experts and novices." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 10 (1): 144–155.
Nielsen, J., and Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. 249-256.
Nielsen, J. (1994a). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. 152-158.
Nielsen, J. (1994b). Heuristic evaluation. In Nielsen, J., and Mack, R.L. (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Paas, Fred G. W. C.; Van Merriënboer, Jeroen J. G. (1993). "The Efficiency of Instructional Conditions: An Approach to Combine Mental Effort and Performance Measures." Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 35 (4): 737–743.
Scandura, Joseph M. (1971). "Deterministic Theorizing in Structural Learning: Three Levels of Empiricism." Journal of Structural Learning. 3 (1): 21–53.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Eds.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 76-98). Chicago: Open Court.
Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., Jacobs, S., and Elmqvist, N., Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction: Sixth Edition, Pearson (May 2016) http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/DTUI6
Skulmowski, Alexander; Rey, Günter Daniel (2017). "Measuring Cognitive Load in Embodied Learning Settings." Frontiers in Psychology. 8.
Sodiya, A. S et al. (2009). User Interface Design, And Ergonomics. The National Open University of Nigeria. Lagos. (p.19)
Sweller, J (June 1988). "Cognitive load during problem-solving: Effects on learning." Cognitive Science. 12 (2): 257– 285.
Tullis & Stetson. (2004). A Comparison of Questionnaires for Assessing Website Usability. Human Interface Design Department, Fidelity Center for Applied Technology Fidelity Investments. Boston: 82 Devonshire St., V4A.
Underwood, J., & Underwood, G. (1999). Task effects on co-operative and collaborative learning with computers.
Willis, J. (2009). A General Set of Procedures for C-ID: R2D2. In J. Willis (Ed.), Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, Models, and Examples (pp. 313-355). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

指導教授

吳穎沺(Ying-Tien Wu)

審核日期

2019-7-17

推文