moodle usability

8/12/2019 Moodle Usability

1/24


2/24

2 LANGUAGE ISSUES: HCI

learning material, take quizzes, and submit assignments, all using thepower of the Internet (Ko and Rossen; Preece, 2000; Waterhouse).

Well-known commercial LMSs are WebCT (2005) and Blackboard (2005).These systems are very powerful, but they require high fees, which may be

prohibitive for educators and institutions working with limited budgets.Educators restricted by these scal limitations are searching for packagesin other areas, such as open source software. One promising LMS is moodle(Dougiamas, 2004), a robust, fully-featured package incorporating not onlythe technologies discussed above, but many others (i.e., journals, quizzes,assignments, glossaries, surveys, polls, wikis). Due to the nature of opensource software, moodle (modular object-oriented dynamic learningenvironment) is under constant revision and feature-enhancement.

It is not enough, however, to just pick a package based on its price or

feature list. Educators considering implementing educational technologymust carefully evaluate it before putting it to use with a student population(Colace, Santo, & Vento, 2002; Iding, Auernheimer, Crosby, & Klemm,2002). Research into human-computer interaction (HCI) tells us that amajor design element is a technologys usability (Preece, Rogers, & Sharp,2002; Rozanski & Haake, 2003). Usability pioneer Nielsen (2003) refers tousability as, a quality attribute [his emphasis] that assesses how easy userinterfaces are to use ( 3).

Nevertheless, useful tools for evaluating software have traditionally

been the domain of HCI specialists. HCI techniques are used in thedesigning, planning, and programming of software and hardware to ensurethat products not only work as intended, but that they work well, too. Whyshould those involved in design have all the fun? Those of us working withvarious educational technologies would like to have access to these tools aswell. Indeed, some cross-disciplinary cooperation could do everyone a bitof good. Those involved in the design of tools could bene t from a broaderscope of testing, and those using the tools should have better knowledgeof what to look for when preparing for their courses. An attempt at the

latter was made at an HCI-themed computer assisted language learningconference about the same time this study was conducted (Melton, 2004).This study is a preliminary one to determine if moodles registration

system and assignment submission module have suf cient levels ofusability in the study of English writing for Japanese science graduatestudents. Therefore the number of participants, four, is considered toosmall to make any sweeping claims. However, as Nielsen (1994) haswritten, a clear picture of a software packages usability can be quicklydetermined with three to ve users.

Although moodles usability is made possible because that is one of theprimary goals of its designers, the design process is not of concern to thepresent work. The author is not involved in the design process of moodle.However, it is hoped that readers will be able to get a better idea of how to


3/24

MOODLE: A USABILITY EVALUATION 3

evaluate software and ensure that the software we choose for our studentshas a high level of usability.

METHODOLOGY

Planning and DesignA rst step in the planning stage of conducting a usability evaluation

was to adopt a framework with which to design the usability evaluation.Preece et al. (2002) describe the D E C I D E framework which is suitablefor the evaluation under consideration here (p. 348). The six components ofthe DECIDE framework are:

1. Determine the overall goals that the evaluation addresses.2. Explore the speci c questions to be answered.3. Choose the evaluation paradigm and techniques to answer the

questions.4. Identify the practical issues that must be addressed, such as

selecting participants.5. Decide how to deal with ethical issues.6. Evaluate, interpret, and present the data. (p. 348)

This framework served as the basis for the design of the evaluationconducted in this study.

Determine the GoalUsing computer technology in teaching and learning environments,

although nothing new, can still be a daunting task, especially whenthe computers or the software are dif cult to learn (Kluge, 2002). It isimperative, then, that the interfaces to which we expose our students be aseasy to understand and as simple to use as possible. Moodles developersappear to have taken account of design guidelines such as those delineatedin Krugs (2000) very readable tome on Web usability. Moodle has a simple

interface, uses a minimum of words, features rollovers, and often includessimple icons with the words to aid users.The goal of this evaluation was to determine if participants in the study

could complete the steps to create a simple text le, sign up for an accountin moodle, log in to moodle, join a course, and, nally, submit the text leinto an online assignment in moodle. Because another preliminary studyshowed that there were no signi cant differences when using English inthe quiz interface in moodle, all instructions for the tasks were in English(Melton, 2006).


4/24


5/24


made approaching them with the request easier for both participants andevaluator. Second, all were known to be Macintosh users; using participantsunaccustomed to that platform could raise issues unrelated to the usabilitytest. Finally, and most importantly, all four were potential students in an

English-language graduate writing course starting in the same academicyear; students taking that course would be using the moodle system formuch of their coursework. These considerations established them as primecandidates for this study.

The two male and two female participants were Japanese, middle-class, and had a mean age of 22.75. All were students in the Divisionof Environmental and Ecological studiestwo other divisions studyFood and Health, and Human Habitat. The data from the questionnaire(Appendix A) show that two students specialized in forest ecology, one

in environment and plant pathology, and one in marine biology. Threestudents had experience with both Macintosh OS 9 and OS X, and the otherOS 9 only. In addition, three of the students had experience with Windowssystems. All four noted previous experience with word processing,spreadsheet, browser, presentation, and digital photo software; threenoted email software. All remarked they thought computers were useful,all use them for their research, one used them during free time, and allnoted that they were okay with computers. None had used moodle before, but one had used a BBS before. It can be concluded from this data that

the four participants had experience with computers, but that experiencewas varied and might have been limited to several speci c tasks related toscienti c research. From this information, a set of instructions (Appendix B)was prepared for the usability test.

To record the actions of each of the participants, a DV camera was set upon a tripod behind the participants. The point of view was the screen, thekeyboard, and the mouse; participants were told about this camera angleand that they themselves would not be recorded.

Decide How to Deal with Ethical IssuesParticipants identity and privacy were protected during this study.

They were informed that they were not being tested, but rather it was a testof the system. Moreover, participants were told that they could terminatethe test at any time for any reason. Every attempt was made to keeppersonal data con dential.

Evaluate, Interpret and Present the Data

Because the size of the samplefour participantswas too small to usequantitative analysis, qualitative analysis of the data was conducted (Gay &Airasian, 2003). However, since this was a preliminary study, it is believedthat it provides insights into the usability of moodles registration system,


6/24


course enrollment procedure, and assignment submission. Preece et al.(2002) describe two methods for analyzing qualitative data, one of which isappropriate for this study: qualitative analysis for categorization (p. 381).Under the three techniques detailed by Preece et al. for this type of analysis,

looking for incidents and patterns was the method used for this study (p.381). This technique is designed to allow evaluators to look for patterns inthe data collected during various testing protocols.

The participants were observed while performing a series of tasksdesigned to simulate the online submission of a homework assignment onthe moodle LMS. The data for each task were collected by the evaluatorwriting notes on a worksheet mirroring each of the tasks. In addition, avideotape was made of each participants actions for review to ensurethat all actions were recorded. In addition to the note-taking and the use

of a video camera and tape to record the participants actions, Eriksonand Simons Think-Aloud technique was employed (as cited in Preeceet al., 2002, p. 365). In this technique, participants are encouraged to tellevaluators what they are doing and thinking about as they work throughthe various steps of an evaluation; this can help evaluators to have an ideawhat is going through participants minds during the test.

Since this was a small, preliminary study, its reliability is unknown.However, special efforts were made to choose participants with a similar background in both academic and computing skills, and the instructions

for the tasks selected for the usability test were consistently articulatedto each of the four participants. For validity, it is assumed that the testwas an adequate one because it was designed to see if participants couldcomplete the ultimate task: submitting an assignment online. Since theparticipants were asked to merely complete the tasks for the usability test,it was assumed that there is very little chance for bias to apply in this test.Potential biases were ill feelings toward the evaluator or the use of Englishduring the test, but neither of these were detected during the test itself. Thescope of the results were assumed to be limited to the kinds of tasks the

participants were asked to complete, as well as to the kinds of participantswho participated in the study. However, since common tasks were part ofthe test and the participants might be considered typical science students,the results should have a scope representing that set of tasks and thatpopulation. Ecological validity, especially the Hawthorn effect (Preece etal., 2002), may have been a concern because of the setting of the testing andthe presence of the evaluator and a video camera. This could not be helped because of the need for a quiet, interruption-free environment.


7/24


The Usability TestTask One

In order to examine the usability of registering and uploading anassignment in the moodle system, participants were asked to perform threemain tasks (Appendix B), each of which had several subtasks. The objectsin Task One were to log in to the target computer (see Figure 1), open atext-editing program called TextEdit, create a simple text le, and save it ina speci c area.

Figure 1. Login Screen

This task was designed to simulate writing an assignment which would be later turned in electronically. Since the usability test was for the moodlesystem, somewhat detailed instructions on how to complete this task wereprovided, including into which directory the le should be saved.

Task TwoThe second task was to create a new account on the moodle system and

write the necessary information in the pro le page in order to completethe registration. In order to test the usability of the moodle system, speci c

instructions, such as which buttons to click on to complete the registrationprocess or how to get to the main moodle page, were not provided in thesecond task. At the login screen, participants needed to type in a username


8/24


9/24


10/24


To avoid confusion, the participants were provided with speci cinstructions to ll in only those ve pieces of data, the latter being a one-sentence description. The next direction was that the button to nish was atthe bottom of the page; this direction did not include the label of the button

(see Figure 4). Figure 4. Update Pro le

After successfully completing this subtask, the participants were taken toa page giving them a synopsis of their account information. It was fromhere that they had to navigate to the main moodle page. Either of two links,located at the top-left or the bottom of the page and both labeled moodle ,would take participants to the main page (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Pro le Synopsis

The nal subtask was to join the course created for the participants andthen upload the text le that was created in the rst task into the correctarea of the moodle course. The instructions for this task were kept to aminimum so as to determine the usability of joining a course and uploadinga le in the moodle system.

Task ThreeThe third task was to submit the text le into a prepared assignment area

in the moodle installation. First, from the main moodle screen, participantsneeded to click on the link to access the appropriate courses (see Figure 6).


11/24


Figure 6. Course Categories

The next subtask was to join the course that the participants might betaking in their graduate program. This could be accomplished by clickingon the Graduate Writing link (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Join Graduate Writing

After clicking on the Graduate Writing link, participants were taken to ascreen where a message to con rm joining the course was displayed: Youare about to enroll yourself as a member of this course. Are you sure you wish to do

this? The two possible responses were linked as Yes and No. A click on theYes link took them to the Graduate Writing course page (see Figure 8), anda click on the No link returned them to the main page of the moodle site.


12/24


Figure 8. Graduate Writing Course Page

From this page, the instructions were to go to the Introductions assignment.Clicking on that link would take them to the page for that assignment (seeFigure 9).

Figure 9. Upload Assignment

Then they were to upload the le that was written and saved in TaskOne. This was a two-step process which required them to click on ChooseFile and then click on Browse to locate the le. These speci c instructions

were not provided by the moodle system, nor were they provided in theinstructions. The only instructions provided by moodle were: Submit yourassignment using this form:. Completing this task took the participants backto the assignment page where they had to click on the Upload this le button.The nal steps were to log out of both moodle and the computer.

Test Administration

At the beginning of the usability test, the instructions were read slowlyand carefully, and Japanese was used to clarify any instructions that werenot understood by the participants. Participants were allowed to askquestions at any time during this instruction phase. After this phase wascompleted, and the participants acknowledged that they were ready, the


13/24


video camera was started, and the testing began. In order to make theparticipants feel at ease with the test, words of encouragement, such asgood or okay, were given at the completion of some of the tasks if theparticipants were experiencing dif culty.

Participants were asked to make a mark next to each subtask as theywere completed. A + mark was to indicate that the subtask was easy, a indicated that the task was okay to do, and a - mark denoted a subtaskthat was dif cult. At the end of the usability test, each participant wasencouraged to make any comments about their experience or feelingsduring the test. All four were forthcoming with comments when they werenished.

This test was simulated by the evaluator before its administration tothe four participants. The test itself was estimated to last between 15 and

25 minutes, with the entire period, including instructions and posttestdiscussion, to last between 25 and 40 minutes. One nal note about thetesting environment: after each test, the applications were reset to theiroriginal settings, so that participants would have identical starting points.For example, the save path for TextEdit was changed each time to the rootof the English Guest account. That way all the participants had to nd theStudents folder on their own.

RESULTS

Length of TimeTo complete the usability test, the four participants required differing

amounts of time based on their success with each subtask. The timerequired for each usability test can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Time Required for Test

Participant Instruction

Time

Usability

Test

Posttest

DiscussionTotal Time

A 7 min. 20 min. 4 min. 31 min.B 8 min. 15 min. 4 min. 27 min.C 15 min. 33 min. 3 min. 51 min.D 12 min. 18 min. 5 min. 35 min.Average 10.5 min. 21.5 min. 4 min. 36 min.

User Ratings and Success

The ratings for each subtask given by the participants were occasionallyquite subjective. For example, tasks that were observed to be simple tocomplete may have been marked with a or even a -. In addition,


14/24


some subtasks that were marked with a + occasionally took more than ashort amount of time or required participants to navigate back and forthto nd the proper location. The results of these user ratings and whetherparticipants were successful can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2. User Ratings and Success

Participant A B C DTask OneLog in + + + +Start TextEdit - + + Type in information + + + Save document + + + Check the folder + + - +Quit TextEdit + + - Task TwoSafari + + + moodle URL + + Register + + Five bits of information + + + Update pro le button - + -

Go to main moodle page + + Task ThreeGo to Mr. Meltons course + + + Join the course + - + -Introductions assignment + - Upload the le + - Log out of moodle + + + Log out of the computer + + - Successfully uploaded le No Yes No Yes

Very few of the ratings were deemed easy by the participants. In fact,only the common actions such as opening programs, typing text, savingles, and logging out of programs and the computer were fairly consistentlyfound to be easy to do.

Task OneAlthough the rst task was not a test of the usability of the moodle

system, its successful completion was necessary in order for a majorportion of the third task to be possible. All of the participants loggedinto the correct account on the target machine. Although they proceeded


15/24


in different ways, none of the participants had trouble starting TextEditor adding in the three items of information. Saving the document in thecorrect folder was similarly easy, but participants often took some time tocheck that the folder was the correct one (as per the instructions). None of

the participants had problems quitting TextEdit.Task Two

Similarly to starting TextEdit, none of the participants had troublesstarting up a browser. One did, however, use a browser other than Safarifor the text. Participant C used Internet Explorer for the usability test. Theonly noticeable difference from this change was the page for uploading thetext le. The button for choosing the le was on the right side and had adifferent label: Browse (see Figure 10).

Figure 10. Internet Explorer Upload Page

All of the participants correctly went to the Address Bar of their browsersto type in the URL. Two of the participants saved time by noticing the autoll-in feature of Safari and went directly to the site. The Internet Exploreruser had to type the entire URL, and the fourth participant had to retypethe URL because of a typo early in the process.

All of the participants were able to easily complete the initial portion ofthe registration procedure, but completing the second part proved dif cultfor one. Since the instructions were clear on which ve items of informationwere needed, those did not, for the most part, cause any problems. Oneparticipant did input an incomplete address, so that had to be addressed ina subsequent update of the pro le. Two participants correctly selected theUpdate pro le button and moved to the next subtask. One seemed to havetrouble with the nomenclature in the instructions; bottom and buttoncaused some confusion, but this was overcome. The fourth participant didnot choose the Update pro le button, but rather the moodle link at the bottom on the rst try and the Logout link on a subsequent attempt. In bothof these cases, the ve items of information input on the pro le page werelost and had to be rewritten. During this phase, the participant needed to be made aware of the fact that the data had been lost. On the third attempt,the participant appeared to be at a loss on how to proceed, so the evaluatorintervened by asking questions about which task to complete next and


16/24


which links had already been explored. These questions helped to guidethe participant to the Update pro le button.

The nal subtask in Task Two was to move to the main moodle page;this was accomplished by all four. Two completed it easily; one explored

the Personal pro le page somewhat and arrive at the main page via the Edit pro le page; and the fourth, rather than using one of the links, retyped themain moodle page URL by hand in the Address Bar of the browser.

Task ThreeFrom the main moodle page, all four participants were able to move

to the correct course page. Although all were successful, none of theparticipants were able to easily join the course Graduate Writing. One wasable to join the course after approximately 1 1/2 minutes. Another wasunsure of the place to go from the start but after some time noticed therollover saying Click to enter this course; this process took approximately2 1/2 minutes. The two other participants used the back button severaltimes to check to see if they were in the correct place. One retyped theURL and returned to the main page. This participant also clicked on themoodle logo at the bottom of the main page at one point and was taken tothe moodle.org site (Dougiamas, 2004); this window was quickly closedand the participant navigated to the correct area. The entire process took 21/4 minutes. The other participant noted during this phase that the coursecould not be found. However, once the participant took some time to readwhat was on the screen, it was possible to join the course. This took 4 1/4minutes to complete.

None of the four participants had much trouble moving to theIntroductions assignment. Three went there by way of the Introductionslink. The fourth participant rst noted not knowing what to do, but thensuccessfully used the Assignments link on the left side of the GraduateWriting course page.

The nal main test of the usability of moodle was for participantsto upload the le created during Task One. Two successfully uploadedtheir les to the correct area on their own, one did so after interventionfrom the evaluator, and the fourth was unsuccessful. The two who weresuccessful were able to complete the subtask in less than a minute. Thethird participant went rst to the Upload this le button, and then to theChoose File button; the le was not uploaded using this sequence. Thefourth participant rst tried the Upload this le button. After some time,the participant clearly was at a loss for what to, so the evaluator intervened by explaining the meaning of browse. This explanation was enough toprompt the participant to click on the Browse button. The le was locatedand quickly uploaded.


17/24


None of the participants had trouble logging out of moodle; all simplyquit their browsers to nish their sessions. Only one had trouble loggingout of the computer; this participant was prompted on how to proceed.

Participants CommentsAt the end of each session, participants were asked what they thought

about the experience, whether using Japanese in the moodle system wouldhave been helpful, and if they had any additional comments. Predictably,the subtasks that were problematical for each participant were considereddif cult, and those that were simpler to accomplish were deemed easy todo. Particular mention was made of the process for joining a course. Oneparticipant noted that more explanation or some instruction on joining acourse would have been helpful; another alluded to the same need forhelp. Three participants noted that the use of Japanese would have madethe entire process easier, one even noting that the problems encounteredduring the test were due to the use of English in the moodle system. Fromthe evaluators perspective, all the participants seemed upbeat after theusability test was over, and one even noted that the experience was fun.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONSThere were varying rates of success and amounts time required to

complete the tasks in this usability test. Based on observations, commentsfrom the participants, and information provided through the questionnaires,these results can be attributed partially to the level of computer skills of theparticipants, partially to the moodle system, and partially to the choice ofEnglish as the moodle system language.

An examination of the intermediate tasks reveals that the participantswere mostly comfortable with tasks such as starting and quitting programs,writing and saving documents, and entering necessary information. Theseskills can be attributed to their experience with tools that are alreadyfamiliar to them. However, when it came to working with the features of anew tool such as the LMS moodle, there were varying levels of success. Itis important to note that the variety of strategieslike retyping the URL ofthe site or clicking on a link unralated to the speci c taskemployed areundoubtedly the result of a lack of experience with Web-based tools. Thisshould be a clear signal that our students need more practice with a broadrange of tools in order to ensure their success during their years in schooland beyond.

With a 50% success rate on the ultimate goal of submitting the simulated

homework assignment, there is obviously a need for improvement. Studentswill need to be able to accurately and con dently submit assignments usingeducational (and other) tools such as moodle. Similarly, instructors need toknow that their students work will arrive in a secure and timely manner.


18/24


To accomplish these needs, users of these systems will need to have morethan a basic set of skills and knowledge. Although users will need to betaught how to use the technology, that time will need to be balancedandkept in checkwith the time required for course content (Kluge, 2002). We

will need to know exactly what our students need to do, and show them,perhaps more so than we think, exactly what it is we want them to do.Moodle often follows many of the conventions for usability which are

de ned in Krug (2000): it has a simple interface, uses a minimal number ofwords, features rollovers providing extra information, and often includessimple icons with the words to aid users. These features should help newusers accomplish the basic tasks of registering new accounts, accuratelynavigating to the proper area of moodle and speci c courses, and completingtasks such as submitting assignments for instructor evaluation. The results

of the ultimate goal of this preliminary study, to submit an assignment tothe LMS moodle, however, were mixed. It should be noted here that moodledoes not feature the standard purple color for visited links; links in moodleremain blue at all times. The lack of a colorized visited-links feature mayaccount for the numerous repeated clicks by participants during periods ofapparent confusion on links which had already been visited. UnfortunatelyErikson and Simons Think-Aloud technique (as cited in Preece et al., p.365, 2002) did not yield this information. The participants were varied intheir readiness to talk during the usability test. The information gleaned

from this technique was not enough to evaluate whether the persistence ofthe blue links was a factor in navigation.Krug (2000) notes that users do not want to read information on web

pages; they want to quickly scan for what they are looking for and moveon. This detail was supported in the observations of this study. In the twopages required to join the Graduate Writing course, for example, merelyscanning the information on the two pages proved dif cult for all theparticipants. In one case it took several minutes, and much unsuccessfulnavigation, before a participant took the time to read the information on the

con rmation page. In another case it was not until a participants discoveryof the rollover on the Introductions assignment link that the participantwas successful. Although Krug (2000) notes that there are potential pitfallswith using rollovers, in this case, the rollover was vital to the success of thesubtask.

This leads to the issue of language choice for the interface. Since allthe participants are required to do research in English, that language waschosen for the moodle system. However, as noted in the comments aftereach usability testing session, three of the participants stated that the use

of Japanese in the moodle system would have made it easier to accomplishthe tasks. For the two participants who could not easily identify the Updatepro le button and the two who had trouble with the Choose le/Browseand Upload this le scenario, information in their native language may


19/24


20/24


Iding, M. K., Auernheimer, B., Crosby, M. E., & Klemm, E. B. (2002).Guidelines for designing evaluations of web-based instructionalmaterials. Paper presented at the 36th Hawaii International Conferenceon System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii.

Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Introduction: Theory and practiceof network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern(Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practices (pp. 1-19).Cambridge: Cambridge.

Kluge, D. (2002). Tomorrows CALL: The future in our hands. In P. Lewis(Ed.), The changing face of CALL: A Japanese perspective (pp. 245-267).Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2004).Teaching online: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Boston:Houghton Mif in.

Krug, S. (2000).Dont make me think! A common sense approach to web usability.Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.Lavin, R. & Tomei, J. (2006). Wikis in EFL: An evaluation.Language Issues

(11/12)1, 35-47.Matsuda, T. (Ed.). (1999). Kenkyushas English-Japanese dictionary for the

general reader (2nd ed.). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.McArthur, D., Parker, A., & Giersch, S. (2003). Why plan for e-learning?

Strategic issues for institutions and faculty in higher education. Planning for Higher Education, 31(4), 20-28.

Melton, J. (2004).The CMS moodle: A heuristic evaluation. Paper presentedat JALTCALL2004, Mito, Japan. Retrieved December 2, 2005, from http://jklmelton.net/2004/jaltcall/

Melton, J. (2006). The effect of a native-language interface vs. a target-language interface on students performance. In P. Zaphiris & G.Zacharia (Eds.), User-centered computer aided language learning (pp. 234-56). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Nielsen, J. (1994). Guerrilla HCI: Using discount usability engineering topenetrate the intimidation barrier. Retrieved December 2, 2005 from

http://www.useit.com/papers/guerrilla_hci.htmlNielsen, J. (2003). Usability 101: Fundamentals and de nitionswhat, why,how? Retrieved April 24, 2004 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html

Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in thedevelopment of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern(Eds.), Networked-based language teaching: Concepts and practices (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge.

Peyton, J. K. (1999). Theory and Research: Interaction via Computers. In J.

Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practiceand critical issues (pp. 17-26). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English toSpeakers of Other Languages.


21/24


Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supportingsociability. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002).Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Rozanski, E. P., & Haake, A. R. (2003). Curriculum and content: The many facets of HCI. Paper presented at the 4th Conference on InformationTechnology Curriculum on Information Technology Education,Lafayette, Indiana, USA.

Ward, J.M. (2004). Blog assisted language learning (BALL): Push buttonpublishing for the pupils. TEFL Web Journal, (3)1, (1-16).

Waterhouse, S. (2005).The power of elearning: The essential guide for teaching inthe digital age. Boston: Pearson.

WebCT (2005). WebCT. Retrieved December 2, 2005 from http://

webct.com/


22/24


APPENDIX A

Some Questions about You and Computers

Please answer these questions about you and your use of computers (please useEnglish or Roman letters for all of your answers):

1. What is your name? ____________________________________________________

2. How old are you? _____________________________

3. What do you study here at PUK? _______________________________________

4. What kind of computer system do you usually use (Windows, Mac OS 9, Mac

OS X, Linux, other)? ______________________________________________________

5. What other kind(s) of computer system can you use? _______________________

_________________________________________________________________________

6. What kinds of programs do you use with your computer (check all that you

use)?

Word processor (Word, etc.) _____ Spreadsheet (Excel, etc.) _____

Browser (Internet Explorer, Safari, etc.) _____

Email program _____ Text editor _____

Presentation (PowerPoint, etc.) _____ ftp _____

Chat (AIM, Yahoo! Messenger, etc.) _____ Photo _____

Video _____ Scheduler _____

Other (please write some examples) ________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

7. What do you think of using computers (check all that apply to you)?

They are useful. _____ They are dif cult to use. _____I use computers for my research. _____ I use computers in my free time. _____

8. How would you rate your computer skill (check the one closest to your skill)?

I am very good at computers. _____ I am good at computers. _____

I am just okay with computers. _____ I have trouble with computers. _____

9. Have you used the moodle system before? Yes _____ No _____

10. Have you used a BBS before? Yes _____ No _____


23/24


APPENDIX B

Test of the moodle SystemThank you for offering to help me with my research. This is a test of themoodle system that you may use for your graduate writing course. You are notbeing tested. You may decide to stop the testing at any time. The instructionsare in English, so that I can explain them to you. You may speak Japaneseduring the test because I am interested in your honest feedback (comments)during this test, but English is okay, too. You will be videotaped, so that I canreview the test again later. This videotape will used only for this research,and will not be shown in a public forum. I may use the results of this test in apresentation or research paper, but I will not use your names or any personalinformation about you.

Instructions: I would like to ask you to complete three tasks. One of them is tocreate a short text le and save it. The second task is to register on the moodlesystem. The third is to join a course and upload the text le from Task One intothe correct area of moodle. As you work through each task, please talk out loudand say what you are doing and thinking. That way I will know better how thesystem works. I may remind you to tell me what you are thinking or doing. Asyou complete each task, write a mark next to the task (+ was easy to do, wasokay to do, - was dif cult to do).

Your name (in Roman letters) _______________________________________

Task One

[ ] Log into English Guest.

[ ] Start TextEdit.

[ ] In the TextEdit window that opens, type in the following information: your name (please use your own name) the date (please write todays date)

Introduction (just type the word Introduction)[ ] Save the document, changing the name of the le from Untitled.rtf to

your family name.rtf (for example, my les name would be: melton.rtf).

[ ] Check that the le will be in the Students folder. The path is english/Documents/Students/yourfamilyname.rtf

[ ] Quit TextEdit.

Turn over, please


24/24