Texts and Technologies: Entry #3

The Role of Perceived User-interface Design in Continued Usage Intention of Self-paced e-Learning Tools

Cho, V., Cheng, T.C.E., & Lei, W.M.J. (2009). The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools. Computers and Education 53: 216-227. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.014

In this quantitative study, Cho, Cheng, and Lei investigate the impact of perceived user-interface design (PUID) on the perceived usefulness (PU) of e-learning technologies in order to predict the continued usage intention (CUI). 

Situating their study in the field of Human Computer Interactions (HCI), Cho, Cheng, and Lei identify the importance of understanding user-interface design (UID) to contribute to the still-maturing field of HCI. Defining interface as “a point of contact that enables interaction between user and system” (p. 216), they argue the importance of understanding how effective UID can facilitate HCI. 

Through a literature review, Cho, Cheng, and Lei establish a need for generalized research on PUID. The majority of current research, they illustrate, has focused primarily on case studies of particular interface designs and techniques using an experimental approach to gauge user reactions. Only a small percentage of studies have conducted extensive surveys and described the more general influence of PUID on information technology systems.

To address the need for a more generalized description of the impact of PUID on CUI, they focus on e-learning technologies because of the importance of interface design in education. Good user interface design, they argue, can increase motivation by providing control while poor design impairs students’ overall motivation (p. 217). As a result, the quality of education software is directly related to the quality of the interface (p. 217).

To assess the impact of PUID on CUI, Cho, Cheng, and Lei designed a 27-item survey to test a series of hypotheses: 

H1: Perceived user-interface design has a positive effect on perceived usefulness

H2: Perceived functionality mediates the impact of perceived user-interface design on perceived usefulness

H3: Perceived user-interface design as a positive effect on perceived ease of use

H4: Perceived system support mediates the impact of user-interface design on perceived ease of use

H5: Perceived ease of use has a positive effect on perceived usefulness

H6: Perceived usefulness has a positive effect on continued usage intention

H7: User satisfaction has a positive effect on continued usage intention.

Cho, Cheng, and Lei surveyed a random sample of 100 Hong Kong university students using a 27-item questionnaire to assess PUID (perceived user-interface design), PSS (perceived system support), PF (perceived functionality), PEOU (perceived ease of use), PU (perceived usefulness), USat (user satisfaction), and CUI (continued usage intention). Responders rated their satisfaction with e-learning technologies and continued usage intention above 3.0 (on a 5-point Likert scale), indicating a positive overall user satisfaction rating.

Using correlational and regression statistical analyses, Cho, Cheng, and Lei found statistically significant correlations to support each of the seven hypotheses. They conclude that their findings corroborate with previous findings on the influential role of perceived user-interface design on continued use of technology. Additionally, this influential relationship is not direct—rather it is mediated by perceived functionality and perceived system support while perceived usefulness and user satisfaction serve as indicators for continued use.

This study offers an additional approach to considering user interface design and usability. In class, we have focused on the graphic and rhetorical nature of interface design. This study helps to further our understanding of the complexity of the relationship, especially in light of our focus on interactivity as described by Porter, Carnegie, and Bolter and Grusin.

This study also contributes to my research on Blackboard. While this study targets the perceived user-interface design and continued usage of self-paced e-learning technologies, the findings are applicable to my understanding of how Blackboard’s design encourages or discourages participation. Additionally, it provides another approach for analysis as well as a language for discussing the interactions and design of Blackboard.

Texts and Technologies: Entry #2 (Redo)

 Effective uses for Blackboard: Do Students and Faculty have a Shared Vision for how Blackboard should be used to Support Instruction?

Sutton, S. R., McCoy, S., & Pfaffman, J. Effective uses for Blackboard: Do students and faculty have a shared vision for how Blackboard should be used to support instruction? In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3361-3366). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved November 8, 2013 from http://www.editlib.org/p/33894

In this conference paper, Sutton, McCoy, and Pfaffman present the results of a mixed-methods study on student perceptions of the effectiveness of Blackboard on their learning. Beginning with a focus group of five students, the researchers developed and piloted a survey that combined both Likert-scale items and open-ended questions to answer two primary research questions: 

1) What faculty uses of Blackboard do students value as the most effective/least effective in enhancing their learning?

2) From a student’s perspective, which uses of Blackboard are helpful and which are bothersome? (p. 3362).

The final version of the survey was administered to 8,000 undergraduate students at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville of which 1109 students (14%) responded.

The survey consisted of six sections: demographic information, features rating, helpful uses of Blackboard, not helpful uses of Blackboard, use of the Discussion Board, use of Blackboard vs. non-use of Blackboad. The combination of Likert-scale items and open-ended questions allowed researchers to corroborate the ratings of the features with students’ more detailed responses.

Sutton, McCoy, and Pfaffman found that the students value access to information as the primary feature of Blackboard. Students indicated access to grades, course documents, course notes, and course announcements as the most helpful features of the course management system. Likewise, they preferred faculty use of these features to be timely and proactive—specifically, they distinguished between faculty who posted course notes and announcements with sufficient time for access and review and those who posted course notes and announcements right before or after class. Overall, Sutton, McCoy, and Pfaffman found that “students liked professors who used Blackboard, were cognizant of students’ time, and posted promptly, consistently, and in a timely fashion” (p. 3365).

As a result of focus group discussions, the survey featured a section on the Discussion Board feature of Blackboard and responses to the use of forums were varied. The results indicate that students’ value of Blackboard discussions were dependent on faculty’s use of the feature. Students found discussions less helpful when they were perceived as busy work, redundant to class discussions, and ignored by faculty. Conversely, students found discussions more helpful when they were structured as introductions to or extensions of in-class discussions and when faculty were heavily involved in moderating the discussions.

While not directly related to our class discussions, this study does offer a unique perspective on user perception of a practical interface design that, in fact, ignores the design. By surveying Blackboard’s secondary audience of students, Sutton, McCoy, and Pfaffman evaluate the primary audience’s (instructors’) ability to effectively use the interface to enhance learning. Realizing that many faculty do not use Blackboard despite students’ preference for it, especially for timely access to course materials, raises questions about access and accessibility for both students and faculty.

Unlike other studies that focus on faculty’s perceptions, likes, and dislikes of Blackboard, this study’s focus on students indicates that students’ feelings toward Blackboard are dependent on the faculty’s ability to take advantage of the affordances of the software. This information is helpful for my own research in that it confirms that students view Blackboard and its Discussion Board as tools for class rather than as a site for the community-building and democracy that Feenburg argues can result from communication technologies. 

Because the study focused on students’ perceptions of the effectiveness with which faculty used the course management software, it does leave me with unanswered questions regarding students’ perception of the interface design, especially in regards to the Discussion Board and whether it encourages or discourages engaged discussions.