Heuristic Evaluation on Augmented Reality Basic Reading Courseware (AR BACA-MV-SindD) for Down Syndrome Learner
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53840/myjict5-1-123Abstract
The development of Augmented Reality (AR) courseware for down syndrome learner should not only take advantage of the technological advances, but also pay close attention to the usability of the product that meet the target user’s requirement. In this paper, we describe the heuristic evaluation of AR BACA-MV-SindD; a courseware for down syndrome learner in learning basic reading by using Augmented Reality technology. This study employs heuristic evaluation (HE), which is one of the inspection methods. Heuristic evaluation was chosen because it does not involve the end user. Previous studies have shown that more problems can be identified using this kind of evaluation. Several experts from different fields were involved in this evaluation. Based on the evaluation made, several disadvantages of AR BACA-MV-SindD have been identified. In addition, experts have provided some feedbacks to further improve the courseware. This paper includes a report of a heuristic evaluation which used a five point Likert scale. A questionnaire for this heuristic evaluation consists of three constructs: interface, education and augmented reality technology. As conclusion, the heuristic evaluation can be an effective and efficient way to identify usability problems in the early stage of software development. Thus, usability should be given high priority in the development of AR courseware especially for special needs students like down syndrome learner
Downloads
References
J. Trelease, The read-aloud handbook. 5th Edition. New York: Penguin Books, 2001.
Roslinda Ramli and Halimah Badioze Zaman, “Augmented Reality Basic Reading Courseware for Down Syndrome Learner: A Preliminary Analysis,” Malaysian Journal of Information and Communication Technology (MyJICT), vol. 1, pp. 1-14, 2009.
K. E. Forgrave, “Assistive technology: Empowering students with learning disabilities,” The Clearing House, vol. 75, no. 3, pp. 122-127, 2002.
S. L. Judge, “Computer applications in programs for young children with disabilities: current status and future directions,” Journal of Special Education Technology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 29-40, 2001.
Megat Aman Zahari Megat Zakaria, Norliah Saman.: Pembangunan dan penilaian perisian berbantukan komputer bertajuk ”promosi” menggunakan elemen motivasi ARCS. Fakulti Pendidikan, UTM. (2005)
W. Howard, H. Ellis, K. Rasmussen, “From the arcade to the classroom: Capitalizingbof students’ sensory rich media preferences in discipline-based learning,” College Student Journal, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 431-440, 2004.
M. L. Manzoni, “To what students attribute their academic success and unsuccess,” Education, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 699-708, 2004.
C. J. Chen, “The design, development and evaluation of a virtual reality based learning environment,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol.22, no. 1, pp. 39-63, 2006.
N. N. Kostaras, and M. N. Xenos, “Assessing the Usability of Augmented Reality Systems,” in Proc. 13th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI 2009),10-12 Sept 2009, p. 197-201.
J. Nielsen (2003) Usability 101: Introduction to usability. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. [Online]. Available: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.
T. Jokela, N. Livari, J. Matero, and M. Karukka, ”The standard of user-centered design and the standard definition of usability: Analyzing ISO 13407 against ISO 9241 11,” in Latin American Conference (CLIHC 03): Human-computer Interaction, ACM, 2003, p. 53-60.
A. Dunser, R. Grasset, and M. Billinghurst, “A Survey of Evaluation Techniques Used in Augmented Reality Studies,” Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, HitlabNZ Tech. Rep. TR-2008-02, 2008.
C. Pribeanu, and D. D. Iordache, Evaluating the Motivational Value of An Augmented Reality System for Learning Chemistry, A. Holzinger, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2008.
H. W. Desurvire, 'Faster, cheaper!! Are Usability Inspection Methods as Effective as Empirical Testing'? Nielsen, J. and Mack, R.L., Ed. Usability Inspection Methods, New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 173–202, 1994.
J. Nielsen, and R. Mack, Usability Inspection Methods, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1994.
S. Demetriadis, A. Karoulis, et al. "Graphical" Jogthrough: expert based methodology for user interface evaluation, applied in the case of an educational simulation interface,” Computers & Education, vol. 32, pp. 285–299, 1999.
A. Holzinger, “Usability Engineering Methods for Software Developers,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 48, no. 1, January 2005.
S. Riihiaho, “Experiences with Usability Evaluation Methods,” Licentiate’s thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, 2000.
A. Lepisto, and S. Ovaska, “Usability Evaluation Involving Participants with Cognitive Disabilities,” in Nordi CHI’04, 2004.
M. Vaisanan, S. Mylly, and K. Anttila, “Cognitive Walkthrough Report for Project FreeDroid’s Level Editor,” Univ. of OULU, Cognitive Walkthrough Rep. 08-05-05, 2008.
J. L. Gabbard, D. Hix, and E. J. Swan, “User Centered Design and Evaluation of Virtual Environments,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 51-59, 1999.
D. Hix, and J. L.Gabbard, “Usability Engineering of Virtual Environments” K. Stanley, Ed. Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation and Applications, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 681-699, 2002.
Norhasbiah Ubaidullah, “Perisian Kursus Multimedia Dalam Literasi Matematik (D-Matematika) Untuk Pelajar Disleksia,“ PhD IT. thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia, 2007.
Rahmah Lob Yussof, “Perisian Kursus Multimedia Untuk Murid Sindrom Down (MEL-SindD),” PhD IT. Thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia, 2010.
N. Bevan, “Measuring Usability as Quality of Use Software,” Quality Journal, vol. 4, pp. 115-130, 1995.
M. Theofanos, and W. Quesenbey, “Towards the Design of effective Formative Test Reports,” Journal of Usability Studies, vol. 1 (1), pp. 27-45, 2005.
