The
acquisition of communication and information technology (C&IT) skills
presents Universities with significant challenges (NCEHE 1997 8:5) and since
the integration of nurse training into higher education in the early 1990’s
(Callander-Grant 2000), the
problems associated with computer literacy and nurse education have been
particularly hard to solve.
These
problems are well documented not only in the United Kingdom but also in other
countries (Austin, 1999: Chambers & Coates, 1990: Gassert & McDowell,
1995: Graveley, Lust and Fullerton, 1999: Kiat, & Chia, 1999: Topp &
Kinn, 1999).
According
to a study in the U.S.A. by Gassert & McDowell (1995), who investigated
whether nursing students already possessed a sufficient level of computer
literacy, they found that their results suggest that both undergraduate and
graduate nursing students possess low levels of computer literacy skills.
This
project has been undertaken to elevate some of the computer and information
skills problems faced by a large group of nursing students involved in
part-time educational studies with the Department of Health Studies at the
University of York. A software artefact called the ‘Computer Literacy and
Skills System’ (CLaSS) has been developed to assist these students with their
computer and information literacy (C&IL).
This
report considers the institutional implications of computer literacy by
outlining what the University of York’s current computer skills provision is
and why the identified students cannot gain access to this provision.
An
overview of the Department of Health Studies is used to describe the
differences between the target student group and other health studies students
forming a comparative student profile between the target students and the
national averages for university undergraduate students to show the
inequalities that exist.
The
literature review first considered in DMZ041 is updated and revised with the
contextual issues of computer and information literacy (C&IL) being
revisited. This includes a look at the definitions of C&IL and the
comparative requirements of the UK’s key skills (NCEHE 1997) and the USA’s
‘fluency with Information Technology’ (NRCCST 1999).
The
outcomes of the background research that was undertaken in DMZ041 are briefly
reviewed with the results summarised to show the learning needs of the target
students.
Discussion
continues regarding the learning issues of age, gender and attitude to computer
use along with an outline of the learning model that the software is based
upon.
The
project development methodologies are examined in each stage of the software
engineering process and the considerations of the ‘user-centered’ design
approach (Norman & Draper 1988) are described by the use of examples.
The
software evaluation was undertaken using three methods, a student evaluation, a
usability evaluation team and a cognitive walkthrough. The student and
usability team evaluations were completed by the use of self-assessment
questionnaires while the cognitive walkthrough evaluation was videotaped and
summarised. The data from these questionnaires and the walkthrough is analysed
and discussed with conclusions and recommendations for software changes to be
made.
The
developers’ consideration section discusses the use of software constraints,
colour and other design principles to enhance the usability of the software. It
also considers the implementation of an audit cycle and upgrade plans to
improve the software’s usability. An outline of how best to market the product
to the staff and students of the Department of Health Studies is considered
with a list of tasks to be undertaken in an effort to fully promote the
software.
The
conclusion section of the report discusses the objectives and achievements of
the project.
Software Product Overview:
The
‘Computer Literacy and Skills System’ (CLaSS) software is an interactive
computer training package to assist nursing students improve specific areas of
computer and information literacy, it covers the following criteria:
·
Understanding what the keys do on the keyboard.
·
Learning to use a mouse.
·
Navigating Windows 2000 and basic word processing.
·
How to use a bibliographic database.
·
How to search the Internet and use e-mail.
The
package consists of five individual tutorials, one for each of the above
criteria with the software to be made available across the Department of Health
Studies wide area network (WAN).
The
rationale for undertaking the project is based on the difficulty a large
proportion of the target students have with computer and information literacy
(C&IL) (see background research) and the problems the institution has of
providing the 62% of the Department of Health Studies students with computer
skills training (see institutional considerations).
Institutional & Student Background:
Institutional
Considerations:
The University of York takes the
abilities of its students to use computers very seriously and in an effort to
provide computer literate students the University provides a specialised
training course titled ‘Information Literacy In All Departments’ (ILIAD). The
course is designed for first year undergraduate students and is presented as
four two-hour sessions. The criteria for the programme is shown as table one:
The ILIAD programme is delivered
between weeks three and six of the autumn term and is successfully evaluated by
the majority of participants (Hodges 2001).
Although this course is successful
there are a large number of part-time students within the Department of Health
Studies who cannot attend these sessions because of the differing start times
of their courses throughout the year. It is for these students that the CLaSS
project has been developed in an attempt to provide equity of opportunity
within their learning experience.
|
Unit 1 |
Computing at York |
An introduction to
software on the University of York network |
|
Unit 2 |
Researching and
Evaluating Information Sources |
Development of
strategies for searching the Library’s catalogue, databases and the Internet |
|
Unit 3 |
Word Processing for
Academic Purposes |
Development of
skills required for typing essays and reports to University standard |
|
Unit 4 |
Presenting
Information using a Computer |
Creation of visual
aids for seminars, tutorials and other oral presentations |
Table 1: lLIAD Course Programme (UoY ILIAD 2001)
The Department of Health Studies (DoHS)
is a large complex multi-sited department within the University of York, with
1642 undergraduate nursing students in the 2000/2001-year (OSMIS 2001).
These 1642 undergraduates are split
into two defining groups (see table 2).
Pre-registration students who undertake
a full-time diploma in nursing studies and will qualify as a nurse upon
completion of a three years training programme (UoY-CNS 2001) and
post-registration students who are qualified nurses and health care
professionals returning to educational study usually on a part-time basis
(UoY-DoHS 2001)
|
Year 2000/2001 |
Number of Students |
|
Pre-Registration Students |
629 |
|
Post-Registration Students |
1013 |
|
Total |
1642 |
Table 2: DoHS Student Population 2000/01 (OSMIS 2001)
The pre-registration student intakes
are twice yearly (April and October) and these students have the ILIAD computer
training course timetabled within the first year of their course. It is not
possible for the post registration students to attend these ILIAD courses for
three main reasons:
1.
The ILIAD course can only be delivered at certain times of
the year.
2.
The post-registration courses start at various times
throughout the year.
3.
The post registration course structure consists of 207
modules covering twelve main areas of health care (UoY-DoHS 2001).
With such a diverse range of courses
and varying course times throughout the academic year it has not been possible
for the University to accommodate these students on the ILIAD courses.
It is important to compare the DoHS
post registration student with other students, to see where their needs and
differences lie. By comparing the UK national averages of undergraduate
students with the post-registration students, it soon appears clear that the
post registration students do not fit the standard student model.
The national averages state that 66% of
higher education enrolments[1]
are full-time with 55% of students being female and 86% of undergraduate
students being aged under 25 (HESA 2001). In comparison 93% of post
registration students are part-time, 92% of students are female with 12% of
students being under the age of 25 (OSMIS 2001). There are other considerations
to take into account when developing a model of the post registration student
body.
1.
These students have the external pressure of being employed
while undertaking their study.
2.
Their courses are not usually delivered on the main
University campus[2] so the
student experience is not the same as campus based students.
3.
The courses they undertake may only last a number of weeks
or months.
There is a wide age range in the post
registration student population (24 to 61 with an average age of 38) and very
few of these students would have had the opportunity to use computers at
school. This makes it even more important that these students receive computer
and information literacy (C&IL) training and yet over 90% of the 1014 post
registration students do not receive any computer skills training while
undertaking a healthcare course with the University of York.
It is hoped that the CLaSS software
will help balance the inequality in computer skills training that exists. It is
planned that the CLaSS software will be used in conjunction with teaching
sessions and as a self directed learning pack, accessible to the students
anytime they wish to work through the tutorials.
Defining
Computer & Information Literacy:
The
initial literature review undertaken as part of module DMZ041 concluded that a
working definition for computer and information literacy is:
“ Computer literacy is defined as the skills required to undertake basic computer tasks such as mouse control, word processing and file management and information literacy is defined as the use of computerised databases, the use of the Internet/e-mail and electronic library catalogues”(Cole 2000 p3).
In
updating and redefining these definitions there has been an attempt to separate
computer literacy from information literacy and define what the differences
between these two terms are.
Mackey
(1992) defined computer literacy as an attempt to spread the use of computers
beyond specialist areas such as computer science and relied heavily on Bork’s
(1985) definition.
“Computer
literacy can be considered to mean the minimum knowledge, know-how,
familiarity, capabilities and abilities about computers.” (Boak 1985, p33).
Since
Boak’s and Mackey’s definitions, computers have moved into all specialist areas
of society including nursing and the contentious issue is ‘what is minimum
knowledge?’ when applying it to computer literacy. It seems that there are many
institutional assumptions of what ‘minimum knowledge’ is considered to be.
A
study of academics by Grant (1995) from the University of South Australia,
indicated that:
“Universities in general assumed a level of computer literacy but did not define the level of competence required” (Grant 1995).
Reid
(1997) also found that there is an assumption that students already have
computer literacy skills, which is often mistaken. He argues that institutions
attempt to define computer literacy to ensure that their students are computer
literate. It can be shown how serious some institutions consider this problem
to be. The Western Illinois University have a Senate Committee on Computer
Competency (CCC), who has drafted computer literacy competences (minimum
knowledge) that are considered necessary for academic success.
CCC’s
basic competencies are defined as:
“Using word processing programs effectively; use of library databases and catalogues to locate print materials; finding information on the Internet and evaluate its reliability and usefulness; being able to write email effectively and appreciating the ethical issues of computing.” (Leland 2000).
These
competencies were the result of a cross-University study into computer
literacy. The study also outlines what are described as professional-level
competences which includes the use of spreadsheets, databases, graphics
programs, desktop publishing, writing web pages and other discipline specific
applications. (Leland 2000).
The
Western Illinois Universities basic competencies can be considered as
information literacy competencies rather than computer literacy competencies.
Information literacy can be viewed as a
broader concept that includes computer literacy. An example of this would be,
it is very difficult to undertake a CD-Rom database search (information
literacy) on a computer if the student is unable to log on to the computer and
use a mouse (computer literacy).
In
Brevik’s (1991) definition of Information literacy she states that it is a
fundamental skill:
“Information
literacy is, in fact, the first component on the continuum of critical thinking
skills” (p226).
She
continues
“it includes the ability to identify a lack of
information, and decide what information is needed as well as the ability to
evaluate and organise the available information”
(p226).
She
considers that information literacy also includes a knowledgeable use of print
and media resources.
Specific
nursing considerations of computer and information literacy came from Burnham
and Blythe in the early 1990’s. Blythe (1993 p433) argues that nurses must be
provided with information literacy skills and they must have the opportunity to
use these skills in the work environment.
Burnham
(1994) identified the ability to access, organise and evaluate information as
essential to information literacy.
Burnham
also gives some detailed objectives for nursing students at each stage of their
professional development. These objectives included the use of on-line database
catalogues, use of the Internet and formulating search strategies along with
non-computer based objectives such as major nursing textbooks and referencing.
In balancing these observations, the
San Francisco State University (SFSU) School of Nursing have evaluated their
integrated programme of information literacy and found that in comparing a
nursing cohort in 1992 to one in 1996, the 1996 cohort of students expressed a
‘significantly greater lack of knowledge’ regarding the use of information
resources (Verhay 1999 p258). These findings have implications for the
development of an information literacy curriculum, as the expectations from the
SFSU study were an improvement in knowledge gained and not the reverse.
In
1997 the National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education commonly known as
The Dearing Report identified that the key to the future success of graduates
lay in four key skills.
These
skills are identified as:
- Communication
skills.
- Numeracy
- The use
of information technology
- Learning how to learn. (SKSAIHE 2001)
The report clearly outlined that
“Students
will expect to leave higher education competent and confident in the use of
Communication & Information Technology so that they can use it in their
future careers and personal learning”
(CTI 2001)
These
key skills are being integrated into University programmes with varying degrees
of success. At the University of York, the Department of Health Studies will be
integrating all four key skills into their undergraduate Foundation of Academic
Nursing Studies programme (UoY 2001) from October 2001.
At
the University of Strathclyde, Johnson & Webber (2000) have integrated a
credit bearing elective class in information literacy, drawing on three of the
four key elements from the Dearing report. Johnson & Webber (2000) excluded
numeracy from their information literacy course because they considered that it
didn’t explicitly cover the aims and objectives of their class.
In the USA a comprehensive account of
the skills and abilities needed to exploit information literacy is provided in
a document from the American National Research Council Computer and
Telecommunications Board (1999).
Their document describes the concept of
‘fluency with information technology whereby “fluency” is defined thus:
“Fluency
with information technology…entails a process of lifelong learning in which
individuals continually apply what they know to adapt to change and acquire
more knowledge to be more effective at applying information technology to their
work and personal lives” (p2)
Fluency
with information technology requires three types of knowledge:
1.
Foundational concepts – underpinning principles of
computing.
2.
Contemporary skills – include the ability to use software
applications.
3. Intellectual capabilities – include the ability to apply information technology in complex situations. (NRCCST 1999)
These types of knowledge have a synergy
with the concepts of computer and information literacy whereby the foundational
concepts are equal to the concepts of computer literacy. The contemporary
skills marry with the application of information literacy and the intellectual
capabilities match the concepts of critical thinking (Wilkingson1996), the
concepts of critical thinking can only be applied to C&IL skills once they
are sufficiently developed.
It
has become clear in this revision that there is no single defining definition
but depending on the institution and learning context, C&IL is an
ever-changing concept that can be moulded to the institutional needs. The
initial definition can now be revised to ‘computer literacy is defined as the
skills needed to undertake Information literacy objectives’.
Summary of
DMZ041 Research:
The research project for module DMZ041
was to discover what levels of computer and information literacy the post
registration students had already gained and whether there was a need for a
software package such as the CLaSS product.
Quantitative research was carried out
via a questionnaire that was designed to elicit the students’ own assessment of
their computer skills and knowledge. The questionnaire (see appendix 1)
included a five-point Likert-type scale with scale descriptors: excellent,
good, adequate, poor and very poor.
The use of the five-point scale made it
possible for students to choose a median response although it was considered
that the students’ concerns about computer and information literacy were such
that to provide “Poor” alone as a descriptor might result in some students
failing to answer the question because their own assessment would be
inadequately expressed by such a category. Thus “Very Poor” was also provided,
although in the analysis “Poor” and “Very Poor” were considered together as
both less than “Adequate”.
It was decided to distribute the
questionnaire throughout the month of June 2000 when there was a post
registration population of 497. Questionnaires were distributed and collected
by lecturers within teaching sessions, which gave a high response rate of 69%
(n=342). Only students who did not want to participate or were missing from the
teaching sessions when the questionnaires were distributed made up the 31%
(n=155) non-respondents.
Summary
of DZM041 Questionnaire Results:
The
results were analysed in the two main categories of computer literacy and
information literacy. The computer literacy category is concerned with the
knowledge and ability to use computers whereby the information literacy
category is concerned with the knowledge and ability to perform searches and
communicate electronically.
The
full questionnaire results are shown as appendix 1.
92%
of students were female giving a ratio of 12 female students to every male
student
The
youngest student was 24 years old and the oldest was 61.
The
arithmetic mean average of age is 38 year old.
21%
felt their ability to use a mouse or keyboard was below adequate.
39%
felt their knowledge of file management (i.e. how and where to save work) was
below adequate.
58%
felt their understanding of disk drives (floppy A and C drives) was below
adequate.
46%
felt their knowledge of 'what a CD-ROM is' was below adequate.
36%
felt their ability to navigate through Windows 95 was below adequate.
26%
felt their ability to use a word processor was below adequate.
25%
did not know how to search for a book or journal article in a library.
48%
were not able to use the University electronic library catalogue.
40%
felt their ability to request journal articles through the University library
was below adequate.
34%
didn't know how to access information on the Internet and 46% felt their
knowledge of the Internet was below adequate.
50%
of the students did not use electronic mail
46%
felt their understanding of 'what a database is' was below adequate.
57%
felt their ability to access databases through the University of York was below
adequate.
85%
of the students felt their understanding of 'keyword mapping' was below
adequate (61% did not know what keyword mapping is).
72%
did not know what 'Boolean searching' was and only 16% felt their understanding
was adequate or above.
When
asked if a computer skills system was a good idea 94% felt it was and 87% said
they would use the system occasionally or frequently.
In
response to the question ‘Is there
anything apart from the seven areas covered that you would like to see in a
Student Computer Skills system?’.
One
student felt compelled to write:
" everyone expects you to have IT skills knowledge
already!!! It has made my course twice as difficult, and I feel more inadequate
when everyone else seems to have IT skills”.
This
student felt very inadequate when using a computer and the perception that the
course is made harder by a lack of computer experience is a real concern. One
possible problem with self-evaluation questionnaires is that the students may
be competent in the use of computers and they are lacking in confidence.
Whether the problem is a lack of confidence or a real lack of computer skills
is not the issue. The important factor as the quote from the student shows is
that a large number of these students perceive themselves as being unskilled in
the use of computers and it is that issue that the software has been developed
to address.
Age
& Gender Issues:
The questionnaire data reveals there
are deficiencies in the computer and information literacy of this group of
students. These problems are awkward to resolve and the student’s age, gender
and attitude to computers can play a large part in any potential success. The
inhibition of the learning of computer and information skills for the post
registration students could also be an issue of time management coupled with
their attitude to technology.
Finding the time needed to learn
computer skills can be difficult when balancing a job, a home and a nursing
course. Learning to use a computer can be seen by nursing students as something
else to learn that’s not relevant to the course they are taking. The
responsibility for communicating the importance of these skills lies with the
course facilitators and if nursing institutions don’t try to fully integrate
computer and information learning skills into the curriculum, nursing students
will see computer skills as unnecessary.
The age of the student can be an
affecting issue when trying to teach computer and information skills. The lack
of computer experience and age related cognitive changes were found by Mead et
al (2000 p122) to inhibit the learning of older adults and that the
difficulties experienced are not due solely to a lack of computer experience.
Balancing this Dyck & Smither (1996) examined the relationship between
cognitive ability and older students who were learning to word process. They
found that greater computer experience was associated with a positive attitude,
so as the students’ confidence and abilities grew their attitude to performing
tasks on computers increased.
Attitudes
to computer learning may also be gender related. Nielsen et al (1998) suggested
that female students (in Australia) are significantly affected by the way they
perceive computing ..as a masculine area.
This
is echoed by Sharon Schuster (2001), president of the American Association of
University Women Educational Foundation (AAVE) who argues:
‘there is clear evidence that girls and women lag in interest and participation in the use of technology”.
(Schuster 2001).
Dyck
& Smither (1996) also noted gender differences when observing attitudes
towards computers, with females having a less positive attitude then males.
One
explanation of this problem could be how the different sexes view spatial
orientation and visualization. Contreras & Colom (2001) undertook tests of
602 University graduates of both sexes by using a computer simulation program
and although both males and female were equally educated and computer literate
spatial performance was still higher in males.
In developing the CLaSS product there
has been sensitivity to the problems surrounding gender, age and attitude to
the use of computers and a female gender bias has been considered throughout
the software development process.
Patricia Dennis (2000) of the American
Association of University Women (AAUW) has called for the transformation of the
so-called ‘Pink Software’ to non-gender specific software.
“Software does
not need to be specifically designated for girls or boys. Software for both
classroom and home should focus on the many design elements and themes that
engage a broad range of learners”
(AAUW
2000)
The learning model that the software is
based on is David Ausubel’s subsumption theory (Bowen 2001). Ausubel’s work was
concerned with verbal/textual lessons in schools and it is possible to apply
his theory to the implementation of the CLaSS software.
Ausuble argued that when learning, the
learner needs to link background knowledge (knowledge the student already has)
to the foreground knowledge (what is being taught to the student) and to do
this he advocated the use of ‘organisers’
“to bridge the
gap between what the learner knows and what s/he needs to know before s/he can
successfully learn the task in hand”
(Curzon1985
p64)
In applying Ausuble’s theory to the
CLaSS project, the background knowledge is computer literacy and the foreground
knowledge is information literacy. A large proportion of the students have
limited background knowledge (computer literacy) and because of this factor the
computer literacy tutorials (keyboard, mouse and Windows) can be views as
Ausuble’s organisers preparing the way for the foreground knowledge in the form
of information literacy (Internet and database searching). Once the background
knowledge has been attained this leads on the information literacy foreground
knowledge and so completing the process.
Figure 1: A System Development Life Cycle (Parsons & Oja
1996).
Software
Engineering Methodology:
Throughout the project development
process Strauss’s (1997) design criteria of Analysis, Planning, Design,
Implementation and Testing has been applied. This criteria has also been
applied as a ‘system development life cycle’ (Parsons & Oja 1996) see
figure 1.
Analysis:
The project
analysis began as part of module DMZ041 with the problem statement that over
50% of the undergraduate students of the DoHS do not receive any computer
skills training. The user population was identified as the post registration
student group. Technical and environmental issues such as software requirements
were also identified and discussions with DoHS staff ensued as to the viability
and requirement of the project.
Planning:
Project
planning continued with the submitting
of an initial project timetable as part of DMZ041 assignment and a revised and
updated project timetable as part of the ‘review point report’ for DMZ053. The
usability evaluation team were identified and recruited (see appendix 2)
The choice of
a predominantly female usability evaluation team (2/3rds female to 1/3rd male)
was taken to give the evaluations a female bias due to the large number of
female students who would potentially use the software.
It was decided
by the software developer that the software would be created in the Macromedia
Director authoring package with Macromedia Flash software used for most
animation. Other software tools were highlighted for specific image
manipulation tasks, such as Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia Freehand, Corel
Painter, and Macromedia Fireworks.
Design:
The design of
each tutorial began with a storyboard prototype version created in Microsoft
PowerPoint presentation software. The rationale for using PowerPoint for each
prototype was that it was possible to get a feel for how the CLaSS software
would look and run. It was also possible to create and evaluate many of the
images that could be used in the finished product. The use of PowerPoint as a
‘rapid prototyping tool’ (Kreitzberg 1996) made the prototyping cheap, quick
and easy to create.
The navigational model used has been designed with letters A to E representing each of the five tutorials. The user can start at tutorial A and work sequentially through each one. Alternatively the system is flexible enough for the user to choose which tutorials to work though in which order.
The design of each tutorial was broken down into separate software creation tasks and then if a tutorial was particularly complex, sub tasks were created.
Particular
problem areas were:
·
Programming certain keys and the interactive exercises in
the keyboard tutorial,
·
Programming the complex multi-layered image of the syringe
for the ‘click and drag’ action in the mouse tutorial.
·
Programming the interactive database in the database tutorial.
All of these
problems were solved in isolation and integrated into each tutorial after the
tutorial had been created. The design metaphor used is a
fixed sized
window with predominantly two different sized and slightly different coloured
panels to carry text and images. This metaphor continues throughout the
software with the only exception being the Windows section where the metaphor
changes to represent the Windows 2000 desktop.
Implementation:
During the
implementation of the software a ‘bug’ was found that at present is unresolved,
as is typical of problems of this type it only appears with a particular
sequence of events.
The problem
appears in the mouse tutorial and concerns the ‘click and drag’ images. When
the tutorial is progressed through the ‘bug’ does not appear, it only causes
problems if the user chooses to click a back button while on the screen
containing ‘click and drag’ images. The images stay on screen and some text and
buttons disappear for the main menu and other screens.
Because of this problem it was decided
to remove back buttons from the two ‘click and drag’ screens until the problem
can be resolved.
Testing:
Initial
testing by the usability evaluation team was undertaken in March and April
2001; it concentrated on the three completed tutorials:
·
How to use a Keyboard.
·
How to use a Mouse.
·
Searching a Database.
The software
was installed onto the DoHS computer network to see if there were any
networking implementation problems. The network installation was successful and
the evaluation team where asked to test the software and feedback initial
comments. It was also possible to allow two groups of study skills students to
evaluate the keyboard and mouse tutorials (see appendix 3).
The formal
evaluation by the usability evaluation team was undertaken by the completion of
an 85-question questionnaire (see appendix 4). As a result of the feedback from
these questionnaires, the ‘system development life cycle’ (Parsons & Oja
1996) was re-implemented again. The feedback and software changes required and
implemented are discussed in the evaluation section of this dissertation.
User-Centered Design Methodology
|
1 |
Use both knowledge in the world and
knowledge in the head. |
|
2 |
Simplify the
structure of tasks. |
|
3 |
Make things visible:
bridge the gulfs of Execution & Evaluation. |
|
4 |
Get the mappings
right. |
|
5 |
Exploit the power
of constrains, both natural and artificial |
|
6 |
Design for error. |
|
7 |
When all else
fails, standardize. |
Table 3: Seven Principles of User-Centered Design’ (Norman 1988)
A user-centred design approach (Norman
& Draper 1986) has been utilised throughout
the project, incorporating Norman’s ‘Seven Principles of User-Centered Design’ (1988) see
table 3.
Examples of applying the principles of
user-centered design are:
- Recognising
the difference between inexperienced and experienced users and the
awareness of implicit knowledge (visual cues) and explicit knowledge
(labels on interfaces and instructions) that have been applied throughout
the design processes.
- Simplifying
the structure of some of the tasks has been difficult, feedback from the
usability evaluation team showed problems in the procedural content of the
copy and paste task in the ‘Navigating Windows’ tutorial (see appendix 4)
requiring this task to be simplified.
- Visibility
throughout the CLaSS software project has been of great concern and the
acquisition of high quality images has been very problematical. Some of
the computer screen images were hard to see when reduced in size leading
to slices of images being used to keep the quality high. One particular
image problem was reading the text on the keyboard image in the ‘How to
use a Keyboard’ tutorial, this was solved by overlaying text to make it
easier to read.
- Every
effort has been made to insure that the mapping models[3]
of the software are accurate.
- The
‘power of constrain’ was used to particular effect in the ‘How to use a
Keyboard’ and ‘How to Use a Mouse’ tutorials. In the keyboard tutorial the
user is constrained from using a mouse in an effort to make them use the
keyboard and this constraint continues throughout the mouse tutorial until
the user is required to practice mouse tasks.
- Back
buttons were integrated into the software to help reverse the error of
clicking on the wrong link or button and irreversible operations have been
eradicated as much as possible.
- There has
been as much standardisation as possible in the form of text, buttons,
links and images throughout all five tutorials.
The synergy of the two methodologies,
User-Centered Design and Software Engineering has been a consideration
throughout the design process. It was Shneiderman (1998) who stated:
‘any user-centered design methodology must
also mesh with software-engineering methodology used’. (Shneiderman 1998 p104).
Shneiderman also outlines that the
relationship between software engineering and user-centered design hasn’t
always been smooth but the relationship may now be considered to have arrived
at a ‘second-generation business-oriented design approach’ (p104).
It has assisted the development of the
CLaSS project that budget and marketing objectives were not a major constraint
to the implementation of the project and throughout the process of development
the project has been based upon business ethics with regard to the viability,
planning and scheduling of the project.
Validity
testing of the CLaSS software has been performed using three formal methods,
two questionnaires and a videoed cognitive walkthrough (Shneiderman 1998 p126)
of the software.
The
questionnaires were devised for two separate groups of evaluators, the
usability evaluation team and a student group.
Student
Evaluation:
In May 2001 the opportunity arose to
have two groups of study skills students evaluate the keyboard and mouse
tutorials of the CLaSS software (see appendix 3). These students were the ideal
candidates to ‘user test’ the software, as nurses undertake a study skills
course prior to taking other vocational modules and courses. The CLaSS software
was integrated into a taught basic computer literacy session with the students
being asked to complete a short quantitative questionnaire. The questionnaire
was based on Brooke’s (1986) ‘System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire that
had been developed for the Digital Equipment Corporation.
“It is a
five-point Likert-type scale that yields a single number representing a
composite measure of the overall usability of the system”
(Brooke
1986)
The scale descriptors used were
‘Strongly Disagree’ through to ‘Strongly Agree’. The questions were designed in
such a way that ‘Strongly Agree’ is not always the positive answer to liking
the software.
The two groups of students totalled 19
and were 100% female; the questionnaires were anonymous and were only
catalogued when the data was inputted into SPSS software for analysis.
The
full questionnaire results are shown as appendix 3.
Summary of Student
Evaluation:
1. 100% of students agreed or strongly agreed that they liked
the introductory animation.
2. 100% of students agreed or strongly agreed that they found
the software easy to navigate.
3. 84% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed that the
software was unnecessarily complex.
4. 74% of students agreed or strongly agreed that they would
like to use the software frequently.
5. 95% of students agreed or strongly agreed that the various
tasks in the software were well integrated.
6. 90% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed that there
was too much inconsistency in the software.
7. 95% of students agreed or strongly agreed that the images
used were appropriate.
8. 89% of students thought the software was easy to use.
9. 100% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed that the
software is very cumbersome to use.
10. 68% of students agreed or strongly agreed that they felt
confident using the system.
11. 79% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed that they
thought they would need help to use the software.
12. 95% of students agreed or strongly agreed that the learning
information was appropriate.
13. 90% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed that it was
hard to read the text in the Mouse tutorial
14. 89% of students agreed or strongly agreed that it was easy
to follow the on screen instructions in the mouse tutorial.
15. 68% of students disagreed or strongly disagreed that it was
hard to read the text in the Keyboard tutorial.
16.
84% of students
agreed or strongly agreed that it was easy to follow the on screen instructions
in the keyboard tutorial.
17. 84% of students agreed or strongly agreed that it was easy
to see the colour coded boxes in the Keyboard tutorial.
The
overall results from this group of students were very good but it is important
to note that these students only evaluated two of the five tutorials and the
results may have been different if the complex Navigating Windows tutorial had
been included[4].
The
two questions with the lowest responses questions 10 and 15 are worth further
comment.
Question
10: Only 16% of students didn’t feel very confident using the software that
equates to three students and not to diminish how these students felt using the
software but it is possible their confidence could be a problem of general
computer use rather than the CLaSS software.
Question
15: Equates to 21% of students who found it hard to read the text in the
keyboard tutorial, this is an unacceptable percentage. This has been
re-examined and changed, it will be re-evaluated in the next round of validity
tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table
4: Usability Team Questionnaire Main Areas.
Section Title |
Mean Average |
Descriptors |
|
Introduction and Main Menu. |
6.14 |
Terrible to Wonderful |
|
|
6.57 |
Dull to Stimulating |
|
|
6.43 |
Difficult to Easy |
|
|
6.43 |
Frustrating to Satisfying |
|
Keyboard Tutorial. |
7.00 |
Terrible to Wonderful |
|
|
6.67 |
Dull to Stimulating |
|
|
7.33 |
Difficult to Easy |
|
|
7.00 |
Frustrating to Satisfying |
|
Mouse Tutorial. |
7.86 |
Terrible to Wonderful |
|
|
7.57 |
Dull to Stimulating |
|
|
7.43 |
Difficult to Easy |
|
|
7.86 |
Frustrating to Satisfying |
|
Navigating Windows |
5.57 |
Terrible to Wonderful |
|
|
6.00 |
Dull to Stimulating |
|
|
4.86 |
Difficult to Easy |
|
|
5.57 |
Frustrating to Satisfying |
|
Database Tutorial. |
7.14 |
Terrible to Wonderful |
|
|
7.43 |
Dull to Stimulating |
|
|
6.86 |
Difficult to Easy |
|
|
7.29 |
Frustrating to Satisfying |
|
Internet Tutorial. |
6.86 |
Terrible to Wonderful |
|
|
7.29 |
Dull to Stimulating |
|
|
6.00 |
Difficult to Easy |
|
|
6.43 |
Frustrating to Satisfying |
|
Overall CLaSS Software |
7.00 |
Terrible to Wonderful |
|
|
7.14 |
Dull to Stimulating |
|
|
6.00 |
Difficult to Easy |
|
|
6.71 |
Frustrating to Satisfying |
|
|
6.43 |
Rigid to Flexible |
|
|
6.57 |
Learning to use – Difficult to Easy |
Table 5: Usability Team Reactions to CLaSS
Software.
Summary of the
Usability Team Evaluation:
The
usability evaluation team questionnaire was a very detailed 85 question ‘mixed
method’ (Brannen 1995) questionnaire that aimed to combine qualitative and
quantitative methods. After each question and at the end of a section there
were comment boxes for the question or section just completed (see appendix 4).
These comment boxes gave the questionnaire a quantitative data approach
required.
The
rationale for this mixed method approach was to elicit as much information as
possible from the usability team so that these comment boxes worked like open
questions, which according Brannen (p70) makes it possible to modify the
conclusions of a study where it wouldn’t be possible with a quantitative only
method. This is certainly the case with these questionnaire results, whereby
the comments have had a direct affect upon the implementation and improvement
of the software, resulting in the comment boxes leading the team members to
explain their poor scoring of a particular question.
The
quantitative approach was for a 10-point scale using multiple descriptors (see
appendix 4) ranging from:
- 0 =
Terrible, Dull, Difficult, Pointless, Confusing, Frustrating, Ridge.
·
9 =
Wonderful, Stimulating, Easy, Appropriate, Clear, Satisfying, Flexible.
The questionnaire was based on Chin’s
(1988) development of the Questionnaire for User Interface Satisfaction (QUIS
5:0). The questionnaire was divided into 7 main areas (see table 4).
One
of the nine members of the usability evaluation team (see appendix 2), the male
computer technician was excluded from completing the questionnaire due to staff
shortages and workload. Out of the eight other members of the team only one
failed to return their questionnaire by the deadline.
A lot of the questions in the questionnaire
were duplicated so that team members could do small sections of the
questionnaire when time and workload permitted. It was designed for the team to
work through a numbered section of the software and then complete that sections
comments on the questionnaire directly after, while the information was still
fresh to them. Working through the software and questionnaire took on average
two hours to complete.
The mean averages for the ‘overall
reactions to each section of the software have been compiled into table 5 with
the highest and lowest scores hgnlighted in bold. The mean ratings varied
between 4.86 and 7.85. It is clear that the low scores centered on the
Navigating Windows tutorial, where the highest scores were around the Mouse
tutorial results. These results also show that the lowest mean score is on the
‘Difficult to Easy’ descriptor scale. This was a clear indicator that more work
was needed on the usability of the Windows tutorial.
Summary of the
cognitive walkthrough:
By
using a walkthrough technique it was possible to analysis a user working
through each tutorial within the software for the first time. Newman &
Lamming highlighted the benefits of this process:
“Walkthrough analyses often tells us a
great deal about the design, the ease of learning and the likelihood of user
errors (p83)”.
User team member J (A qualified female
nurse with no computer skills) agreed to undertake the walkthrough and
consequently was not given access to the software in March 2000 when the rest
of the team were evaluating the first three tutorials. The rationale for this
member’s exclusion from access to the software prior to the walkthrough was to
see how a user deals with the software when seeing it for the first time.
The software developer monitored the
session, making section notes and numbering (for video purposes) where the user
was in the software environment. It was made clear to the user that the
software developers’ role was purely to monitor event and not to guide the user
through the software.
It was decided to videotape the
walkthrough session and although the user was initially nervous at being filmed
she soon settled into her role.
There were several important issues
raised by the cognitive walkthrough that hadn’t arisen from the self-assessment
questionnaires (for complete list see appendix 5).
Issues
relating to the cognitive walkthrough:
1: Introduction:
·
The user was confused with one element of the keyboard
tutorial introduction as to whether she should press the spacebar on screen
with the mouse or press the spacebar on the real keyboard to navigate to the
next screen. This is the type of problem that wasn’t picked up in any of the
questionnaires.
2: Keyboard
Tutorial:
·
The interactive exercise to use Alt and Tab together to
toggle between programs didn’t work for the user because the CLaSS software was
the only program open.
3: Navigating
Windows Tutorial:
- The user
found working through the Navigating Windows tutorial very confusing and
frustrating. The tutorial asks the user to switch between the CLaSS
software and Windows, which is confusing. Some of the tasks need to be
simplified or possibility removed. These problems were hinted at by some
members of usability evaluation team in their questionnaires but the scale
of the problem can only be seen ‘first hand’ when a user is trying to
perform specific tasks.
4:
Database Tutorial:
- The timed
screens jumped or changed before the user was ready, causing confusion.
5:
Internet Tutorial
·
The user felt there was too much information on some screens
and that the information is too technical.
6: Overall Reaction to CLaSS software
·
The user felt the software succeeded in its aims but would
not recommend completing all five tutorials in one session as she felt
‘information overload’ set in towards the end of the session. She felt the leap
in skills ability from the mouse tutorial to the Windows tutorial was too large
and would certainly ‘put some people off’. She felt that she would use the
Internet tutorial and ‘bits of’ the Windows tutorial again but not the mouse
and keyboard tutorials as she now felt competent in theses.
Although all of the users comments are
viable and useful some of the comments may be personal and they must to combine
with all other forms of evaluation already completed to arrive at a holistic
view. The one issue that cannot be ignored is the problems with the Navigating
Windows tutorial and much more evaluation of this tutorial will be needed. What
must not happen was outlined by Hix and Hartson (1993 p38) when they commented
that ‘if the usability of the interface is really poor, at some point, “escape”
may appeal to a user’.
Evaluation Conclusions
and Recommendations:
All of the comments from the usability
team’s questionnaires and the cognitive walkthrough session have been collated
into an initial list of recommendations (table 6). This list will be modified
as further evaluations are completed.
Most of these recommendations have been
implemented into the software since collating the data. The only exceptions
that still remain on the list (table 6) affect the database tutorial where it
was recommended that an information section about how to cope with unsuccessful
searches and what to do if a user gets to many or too few results should be
included within the tutorial. Due to the amount of time it would take in
implement these changes these issues will be resolved for the next update of
the software.
Evaluation Recommendations |
Y/N |
Action taken |
|
Each tutorial needs to have the introduction page changed;
it needs to contain information about how to navigate the tutorial. |
Yes |
Each
tutorial now has it’s own ‘How to navigate this tutorial’ page. |
|
In
the keyboard tutorial make the text easy to read on the keyboard image. |
Yes |
Different
coloured text has been overlaid important keys and enlarged images used. |
|
Explain the use of
the pause key. |
Yes |
Explanation added. |
|
Wherever
possible make the text larger and easier to read. |
Yes |
Point 14 text size
has been used wherever possible.
Point 12 is used as an alterative. |
|
Replace the mottled
grey background. |
Yes |
Replaced with a
solid blue background that matches the Windows tutorial. |
|
Change position of
the back to submenu links in the Windows, Database and Internet tutorials. |
Yes |
All submenu links
are now placed at the top of the screen next to tutorial heading. |
|
Back buttons or
back keys needed. |
Yes |
Back keys placed in
Keyboard and mouse tutorials. Back keys placed in all others. |
|
Clearer
instructions in the Windows tutorial. |
Yes |
Instructions
reworded but needs evaluating. |
|
Try to make the
Windows tutorial easier and less in-depth. |
Yes |
Changes implemented
but needs evaluating. |
|
Remove the blue
text backgrounds in the Internet tutorial. |
Yes |
Replace be grey
background to match standard Windows menu backgrounds. |
|
In the database
tutorial replace the older nurse (with cap) image. |
Yes |
Replaced with
younger image without a cap. |
|
In the database tutorial no mention of Mesh heading
searching. |
Yes |
Basic Mesh
information added but more needed in the next update. |
|
In the database tutorial:
There’s no mention of what types of nursing databases are available. |
Yes |
A complete list has
been added with explanations of terminology. |
|
In the database
tutorial: Needs information about how to cope with unsuccessful searches. |
No |
Implement in the
next software update. |
|
In the database
tutorial information is needed about what to do if a search receives too many
or too few results. |
No |
Implement in the
next software update. |
Table
6: Evaluation Recommendations
Software
Constraints:
The
aim within the CLaSS software has been to “keep the locus of control with the
user” (Hix & Hartson 1993 p32). It is particularly important that the user
feels in control at all times and this has been maintained by several methods.
The
first constraint of choosing the software window to be 640 x 480 screen size
instead of full screen was chosen to help the inexperienced user not feel ‘lost
in the software’. The user will be able
to see the start button, task bar and the desktop behind the software window
giving the feeling they are only partially immersed in the software
environment.
According
to Hix & Hartson (p33) a timed screen can also make the user feel as if
they are not in control. Timed screens have been used sparingly within the
CLaSS product. The first timed screen is towards the end of the ‘Navigating
Windows’ tutorial and is used purely to show the user how Windows will shut
down. There were other timed screens in the Database and Internet tutorials and
feedback from the usability evaluation team suggested that the users perception
of the locus of control might be slipping at these points. Alterations have
been made to these sections and the inclusion of navigation buttons should
alleviate the problem Progress at these points will be monitored in future
evaluations.
The
removal of mouse control from the keyboard tutorial is another constraint that
has been implemented. The rationale for this is that the user might not be
proficient with the use of a mouse. This constraint is removed partway through
the mouse tutorial once the user is required to learn mouse control.
Some
members of the usability team commented on the use of colour within the
software and changes have been made throughout the software to give clarity to
the use of colour. A specific blue colour has been used for all major
navigation buttons, important text and instructions.
Macaulay
(1995) commented that:
“there
are no hard and fast rules in the use of colour and perhaps the software
designer can only expect to develop some empathy with the subject” (p58).
To
comply with the teams’ comments, the design recommendations by the RNIB (2001
p29) have been adopted (see appendix 6) throughout the revised software.
The
RNIB also comment on the use of capitalisation for the disabled.
“Capitalisation
of whole sentences should be avoided, as it is not easy to read sentences
written in capitals” (p30).
This
problem has implications for dyslexic students and has been avoided throughout
the software except in the use of speech bubbles whereby the comic book
convention of using capitalisation has been maintained. To solve any potential
problems users may have with the use of capitalisation, whenever important
information is being delivered by capitalisation the text is duplicated so that
the dyslexic user may read the text more easily.
Visibility, affordance
and feedback:
Don
Norman’s (1988) general design principles of ‘visibility, affordance and
feedback’ have been applied with differing degrees of success within the
software. One good example of these design principles is the round blue
navigation button used throughout the software. The button was created in
Macromedia Flash 5 authoring software, it is raised, it has a colour change
when the mouse rolls over it and has another colour change and slight movement
when pressed, all of these properties follow Norman’s principles. In contrast
the coloured hypertext ‘submenu’ links in the Windows, Database and Internet
tutorials fail to comply with Normans principles and consequently the user
needs to be told that it is a link.
Usability
Audit:
It
is planned that a usability audit cycle based on the (SDLC see figure 1) System
Development Life Cycle (Parsons & Oja 1996) will be implemented once the
software becomes live and in use. This audit cycle will initially involve
quarterly student evaluations and upgrades for the first year, changing to half
yearly evaluations and upgrades in subsequent years.
Upgrade Plans:
It
is planned to include the database recommendations that were outlined in table
6 and an intention for ‘a software upgrade’ that includes live Internet links
from the Internet and database tutorials. This development will be explored and
considered once the software is in use. Another possible upgrade consideration
is the possible removal of the word-processing elements from the Windows
tutorial and the addition of another tutorial specifically relating to the use
of word-processing. It is hoped that feedback from the future evaluations and
the audit cycle will guide the future development of the software.
Marketing
the product
Internal Marketing of the product is
particularly important to get students to use the software and there are
several methods planned to advertise the product.
1.
Initially as the software ‘goes live’ it will be made
available on all computers used by members of staff and students. All
departmental staff will be asked to try the software and recommend it to their
students.
2.
The software developer will be asking all post registration
course leaders for a 30-minute time slot to deliver a presentation about the
CLaSS software to students at pre-course briefing days.
3.
The software developer will design a poster campaign and
distribute posters to all of the departments’ student notice boards.
These methods would hopefully advertise
the software sufficiently to both staff and students of the department and
although the CLaSS software has been developed for a specific group of students
to use, it will not be exclusively only for post registration students. It is
hoped that any student who feels the need to use the software will get the
opportunity, irrespective of the healthcare course they are taking.
The initial objectives of this project
were to identify the level of computer skills that the target student group had
and whether a software package such as CLaSS would be of benefit. The research
resulting from DMZ041 clearly showed that these students needed computer skills
training in some form.
The institutional considerations
outlined that conventional training sessions were very difficult (if not
impossible) for these students to attend and the creation of a software system
could be seen as a potential solution to the problem.
The literature review revised the
definitions of ‘computer and information literacy’ and explored the skills,
attitude, age and gender issues surrounding C&IL.
In an attempt to balance the student
learning experience between the pre registration and the post registration
students of the Department of Health Studies, the CLaSS software artefact has
been designed, developed and rigorously tested according to the strict
development protocols outlined within this report. Both staff and students of
the department have successfully evaluated the resulting software and the
analysed data formed conclusive proof of where software improvements were
needed.
What
has been achieved and appears clear from the evaluation process is that the
CLaSS product is a well-developed software artefact that with continuing
development and the monitored audit cycle will improve, grow and assist the
Department of Health Studies problems of computer and information
literacy.
Anthony,D.,
(1997), Computer networks in the NHS and
academic sector. Nursing Standard [on-line]. 11(18). p34-38.
Available
from: http://www.nursing-standard.co.uk/archivesfr.htm [Accessed 30th July
2001].
Ausuble,
David P., (1968) Educational Psychology, A Cognitive View.In: Bowen, B., (2001). Educational
Psychology - David Ausubel [online],
Available
at: http://web.csuchico.edu/~ah24 ausubel.htm/
[Accessed 21-7-2001]
Austin,S.I., (1999), ‘Baccalaureate Nursing Faculty Performance
of Nursing Computer Literacy Skills and Curriculum Intergration of These Skills
Through Teaching Practice’. Journal of Nursing Education, Vol 38. no 6
p260-266.
Blythe,J., & Royal, J,A., (1993).’Assessing Nurses – Information Needs in the
Work Environment’. Bull Medical Library Association, Vol 81, No 4, p433-435.
Bork,
A., (1985), ‘Personal Computers for
Education’ New York, Harper & Row, p33.
Bowen,
Barbara., (2001),Educational Psychology-
David Ausubel
[online],
Available at: http://web.csuchico.edu/~ah24 ausubel.htm/
[Accessed
21-7-2001]
Brannen.J., ed.(1995).’Mixing Methods: Qualitative and
Quantitative Research’.
Aldershot:Ayebury.
Brevik, P.S., (1991). ‘Information Literacy’, Bull Medical
Library Association, Vol 79, No:2, p226-229.
Burnham,J.F., (1994). ‘Information Management Education for
Students in the Health Care Professions: A Co-ordinated Integrated Plan’,
Medical Reference Services Quarterly, Vol 13(2). The Haworth Press, p45-62.
Brooke,J., (1986). ‘SUS – A “quick and dirty” usability scale’.
User information Architecture A/D Group. Digital Equipment Co.Ltd.
Available
from: http://www.cee.hw.ac.uk/~ph/sus.html [Accessed 8th Aug 2001].
Callander-Grant,
S., (2000). ‘Enrolled Nurses – Second
Level but not Second Rate’ [online]. Available at:
http://hnta.homestead.com/files/Enrolled_Nurses.htm
Accessed
30 July 2001 via The History of Nurse Education web site. Available at:
http://www.nursinghistory.co.uk/
Chambers,M.,& Coates,V.E., (1990). ' Computer training in nurse education: a
bird's eye vew across the UK' , Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol 15, p16-21.
Chin,J.P., Diehl,V.A., &
Norman,K.L., (1988). ‘Development of an
Instrument Measuring User Satisfaction of the Human-Computer Interface’.
Proceeding of Computer-Human
Interaction 88 Conference. p213-218.
Cole, I.J., (2000). Research into the validity of the CLaSS
Project, Citation of unpublished document, See MSc Multimedia & Education DMZ041 essay, (University of
Huddersfield).
Contreras,M.J., & Colom,R., (2001).
‘Dynamic Spatial Performance: Sex &
Education Differences’. Personality & Individual Differences. 30 (1).
P117-126.
Curzon, L.B., (1985). Teaching in Further Education: An outline of
principles and practice. 3rd Ed. London. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston Ltd.
Dennis,
P., (2000) ‘Tech-Savvy: Educating Girls in the new computer Age:
[online] American Association of University Women web site, Available at:
http://www.aauw.org/2000/techsavvy [Accessed 10th Aug 2001]
Dyck,J.L., (1996). ‘Older adults’ acquisition of word processing: The contribution of
cognitive abilities and computer anxiety’. Computers in Human Behaviour. 12
(1), p107-119.
Gassert CA & McDowell (1995) ‘Evaluating graduate and undergraduate
nursing students computer skills to determine need to continue teaching
computer literacy’. In Greenes RA
Peterson HE & Protti DJ (Eds) Medinfo’95 Proceedings of the Eighth World
Congress on Medical Informatics, Vancouver. pp.1370. Edmonton Healthcare
Computing & Communications Canada Inc.
[Accessed 28 July 2001].
Graveley,E.A., Lust,B.L., and
Fullerton,J.T., (1999). 'Undergraduate
Computer Literacy - Evaluation and Intervention'. Computers in Nursing,
Vol17, No 2, p166-170.
http://www.hesa.ac.uk/Press/sfr48/sfr48.htm Accessed 4th
August 2001.
Hix,D.,& Hartson,R.X., (1993). ‘Developing user interfaces: ensuring
usability through product & process’. New York: Wiley.
Hodges.S., (2001).‘Report on Iliad for University Programme 2000’, [online].
The University of York Computer Service Web site. Available
at:
http://www.york.ac.uk/services/cserv/iliad/00report.htm#intro
Accessed 30th July 2001.
Johnson,B., & Webber,S., (2000) ‘Towards the Information Literate Graduate:
Rethinking the Undergraduate Curriculum in Business Studies.’ In:
Appletion, K., Macpherson, C. & Orr, D. (eds). Lifelong Learning
Conference: Yeppoon, Queensland Australia: 17-17 July 2000. p194-202.
Rockhampton: Lifelong Learning Conference Committee.
Kiat,T.K., Chia, C., (1999). 'Literacy in Information Technology Among
Nurses in a Degree Conversion Programme'. Singapore Nursing Journal, Vol
26, No.1. p31-34.
Kreitzberh, C., (1996). ‘Managing for usability’. In Alber,F.R.,
(Ed), Multimedia: A Management Perspective, Wadsworth, Belmont,CA, p65-88.
Leland, B., (Chair),et al., (2000). ‘Report of the Computer Competency Committee’,
[online]. Western Illinois University.
Available
at: http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfbhl/report.htm [Accessed 28 July 2001].
CTI,
Law Technology Centre, Information
Technology Summary, [online].
Centre
for Legal Education, University of Warwick.
Available
at: http://www.law.warwick.ac.uk/cti/itsum.html
[Accessed
20th Aug 2001].
Macaulay,
L., (1995). ‘Human-Computer Interaction
for Software Designers’. London. International Thomson Publishing.
Mead,S.E.,
Sit,R.A., Rodgers,W.A., Jamieson,B.A., & Rousseau,G.K.(2000) ‘Influences of general computer experience
and age on library database search performance’, Behaviour &
Information Technology, Vol19 No.2 p107-123.
Mackey,
H., (1992). ‘From Computer Literacy to
Technology Literacy’, in Beynon,J., & Mackay,H,. (Eds). Technological
Literacy & the Curriculum. London. The Falmer Press.p125-147.
National Committee of Enquiry into
Higher Education, (1997) [online], 'Higher Education in the learning
society',(The Dearing Report)
Available
at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe [Accessed 30 July 2001].
National
Research Council Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, (1999). ‘Being Fluent with Information Technology’,
Washington,D.C. National Academy Press.
Newman,
W.M., and Lamming, M.G., (1995). ‘Interactive
System Design’. Harlow. Addison-Wesley Publishers Ltd.
Nielsen,
S.H., et al,(1998). ‘Conceptualising the
Influence of Cultural and Gender factors on Students’ Perceptions of IT Studies
and Careers’. Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on Computer Personnel
Research. 26-28 March, 1998, Boston. United States. p86-95.
Norman,
D. A. (1988). ‘The psychology of everyday
things’. New York: Basic Books.
Norman,
D. A. ‘Visibility, affordance and
feedback’. IN ‘M206 Computing: An
Object-oriented Approach’ (1998). The Open
University. Chapter 5 p10 –11. Norwich. Page Bros Ltd.
Norman,
D. A., & Draper, S. (Eds.), (1986). ‘User
Centered System Design: New
Perspectives on Human-Computer
Interaction’. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
OSMIS.
(2001) Open Systems Information Management System. University of York,
Department of Health Studies Database.
Parsons,J.J.
& Oja,D (1996). ‘New Perspectives on
Computer Concepts’. Cambridge, MA. CTI.
Reid,
I., (1997). ‘Computer Literacy in Higher
Education’. ASCILITE97 (The Australian
Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education) conference
proceedings. [online] Perth, Western
Australia. 7-10 December,1997. Available at
http://www.curtin.edu.au/conference/ASCILITE97/papers/Reid/Reid.html
[Accessed
28 July 2001].
(RNIB), Royal National Institute for
the Blind,. (2001). ‘Get the message
online: Making Internet shopping accessible to blind and partially sighted
people’. Campaign Report 15. ISBN 1 85878 450 6.
Sarento,K.,
and Leino-Kilpi,H.(1997), ' Computer Literacy in Nursing: developing the
information technology syllabus in nursing education', Journal of Advanced
Nursing, Vol 25, p377-385.
Schuster, S., (2001). Educating Girls in the Tech Age:
[online]. Education World web site, Available at
http://www.education-world.com/a_tech/tech028.shtml
[Accessed
29 July 2001
Shneiderman,B.(1998).’Designing the User Interface’. Reading,
Massachusetts. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
SKSAIHE
(2001) [online] Supporting Key Skills Achievement in Higher Education web site,
Available at: http://www.keyskillsnet.org.uk/supportpack/foreword.html#intro_1
[Accessed
28 July 2001].
Topp,H., and Kinn,S., (1999), ‘The use of learning technology in nurse
education - a survey of Scottish and Welsh nurse educators’. ITIN, Vol11,
No4, December, p6-9.
University
of York, Department of Health Studies web page, (2001), ‘Diploma of Higher Education in Nursing Studies’ [0nline].
Available at http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/hstd/ [Accessed 29 July 2001].
University of York. Center for Nursing
Students. (2001) ‘Diploma of Higher
Education in Nursing Studies’. Department of Health Studies. Recruitment
Leaflet.
University of York. Department of
Health Studies. (2001) Prospectus.
University
of York, ILIAD web page, (2001), ‘Iliad
for University’. [0nline]. Available at:
http://www.york.ac.uk/services/cserv/iliad/university.htm
[Accessed 30 July 2001].
Verhey, M.P., (1999).’Information
Literacy in an Undergraduate Nursing Curriculum: Development, Implementation,
and Evaluation. Journal of Nursing Education, Vol 38, No 6, p252-259
Wilkinson,
J. M., (1996) ‘Nursing Process - A
Critical Thinking Approach’. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Appendix 1
- Student Computer Skills Questionnaire
This
questionnaire is concerned with the development of a computer based student
computer skills system.
The
information system will be designed specifically for the Department of Health
Studies students and is to help guide the students through the following areas:
· Basic computer
skills (using the mouse and keyboard)
· Navigating
Windows 95
· Word
Processing skills
· Electronic
Library Services (electronically searching the library catalogue)
· Navigating the
Internet
· Using E-mail
· Using
Databases
The
system will be designed so that the students can access any areas they want to
study in any order - leaving out areas where those skills have already been
acquired.
Please answer
all question - Thank you
Section 1 -
Student information – Results in blue
Student’s
age at the start of course_____Average Age 38______________
Male Female (please tick the
appropriate box)
92% of students were female giving a ratio of 12 female students to every male student
Section 2 -
basic computer skills
How
do you rate your ability to use a mouse and keyboard?.
Excellent
8.1%
Good 29.8%
Adequate 40.8%
Poor 16.5%
Very Poor 4.9%
How do you rate your
knowledge of File Management (saving Work,
finding files)?
Excellent 4.9%
Good 23.4%
Adequate 32.4%
Poor 26.6%
Very Poor 12.7%
How do you rate your
understanding of disk drives (A drive, C drive)?
Excellent 5.5%
Good 12.4%
Adequate 23.7%
Poor 35.8%
Very Poor 22.0%
0.6% didn’t answer
How would you rate
your knowledge of what a CD-ROM is?
Excellent 5.5%
Good 19.7%
Adequate 28.3%
Poor 34.1%
Very Poor 11.8% 0.6% didn’t answer
How would you rate
your ability to navigate around Windows 95?
Excellent 5.5%
Good 22.5%
Adequate 35.8%
Poor 23.1%
Very Poor 12.4% 0.6% didn’t answer
How would you rate
your ability to use a word processor?
Excellent 6.6%
Good 29.2%
Adequate 37.3%
Poor 17.9%
Very Poor 8.4% 0.6% didn’t answer
Section 3 - Electronic Library Services
Do you know how to search for books and
Journals articles in a Library catalogue?
Yes 74.9% No 24.3% 0.9% didn’t answer
Are you able to use
the University of York electronic Library catalogue?
Yes 48.3% No 51.2% 0.6% didn’t answer
If the answer to the
last question was yes, how would you
rate your ability to use the University of York electronic Library catalogue?
Excellent 0% (48.0% didn’t
need to answer because of previous question)
Good 11.6%
Adequate 30.6%
Poor 6.4%
Very Poor 2.6% 0.9% didn’t answer
How would you rate
your ability to request Journal articles through the University of York
Library?
Excellent 3.2%
Good 20.2%
Adequate 29.2%
Poor 26.0%
Very Poor 8.7% 12.7% didn’t answer
Section 4 -
Using the Internet and e-mail
Do you understand
what the Internet is?
Yes 93.6% No 6.4%
Have you ever used
the Internet?
Yes 71.7% No 28.3%
Do you know how to access information on the
Internet?
Yes 65.3% No 33.8% 0.9%
didn’t answer
How do you rate your
knowledge of the Internet?
Excellent 3.2%
Good 15.6%
Adequate 34.7%
Poor 32.1%
Very Poor 13.0% 1.4%
didn’t answer
Do you use e-mail?
Yes 49.1% No 49.4% 1.5% didn’t answer
If your answer to the
last question was yes, how would you
rate your ability to use e-mail?
Excellent 3.5%
(45.1% didn’t need to answer because of previous
question)
Good 17.3%
Adequate 23.4%
Poor 6.1%
Very Poor 4.3% 0.3%
didn’t answer
Section 5 -
Databases
How would you rate
your understanding of what a Database is?
Excellent 2.9%
Good 13.9%
Adequate 37.0%
Poor 34.4%
Very Poor 11.3% 0.6% didn’t answer
How would you rate
your ability to use the Databases accessed through the University of York (ARC,
Cochrane databases, York Datanet)
Excellent 1.2%
Good 9.2%
Adequate 31.2%
Poor 31.4%
Very Poor 24.0% 4.3% didn’t answer
Which Databases do
you use? (Maximum 3).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.
Cochrane 6.1%
2.
Medline 4.8%
3.
Cinahi 3.1%
4.
ARC 1.8%
5.
DataNet 0.7%
6.
BNI 0.4% (British Nursing Index)
7.
ENB 0.4% (English National Board)
8.
PsycLit 0.4%
9.
Athens 0.2%
10.
AMED 0.2%
11.
Embase 0.2%
12.
HAD 0.2% (Health Authority Database)
13.
OVID 0.2%
14.
PubMed 0.2%
Total: 18.87%
Missing 81.23%
(didn’t answer)
Do you have an Athens
account for accessing databases?
Yes 3.8%
No 58.7%
Don’t Know 36.4% 1.2% didn’t answer
Do you know what
‘keyword mapping’ is?
Yes 17.3%
No 60.1%
Don’t Know 21.7% 0.9% didn’t answer
How would you rate
your understanding of ‘keyword mapping’?
Excellent 0.6%
Good 4.9%
Adequate 8.7%
Poor 19.1%
Very Poor 58.4% 8.4% didn’t answer
How would you rate
your understanding of Boolean searching?
Excellent 0.3%
Good 2.3%
Adequate 4.3%
Poor 6.9%
Very Poor 13.6%
Don’t know 71.4% 1.2% didn’t answer
Section 6 -
Student Information System
Do you consider it a
good idea for the Department of Health Studies to have a Student Computer
Skills System?
Excellent 45.1%
Good 44.8%
Adequate 4.0%
Poor 1.2%
Very Poor 0.3% 4.6% didn’t answer
Would you use a
Student Computer Skills System?
Frequently 30.3%
Occasionally 54.9%
Never 3.5%
Don’t
Know 9.5% 1.7%
didn’t answer
Is
there anything apart from the seven areas covered that you would like to see in
a Student Computer Skills system?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank
you for taking the time to fill in this questionnaire.
Ian
Cole Media Resource Officer E-mail: ijc4@york.ac.uk
Appendix
2 - Usability Evaluation Team:
- The CLaSS
software developer
- A female
nursing tutor with expertise in software development (replaced October
2000 with person K).
- A female
Librarian who teaches database use and information literacy.
- A female
administrator with expertise in general computer use.
- A female
nursing tutor with average computer skills (uses only word processing and
e-mail).
- A male
nursing tutor with a high level of computer ability (replaced June 2001
with person J).
- A
qualified nurse with no computer skills. (Cognitive walkthrough approach)
- A male
Computer technician who will be responsible for loading the completed
software onto the department network.
- A female
nursing tutor with intermediate computer skills (uses only word
processing, statistics and e-mail).
- A male
manager with a high level of computer ability.
- A female
senior nursing tutor with high computer skills (uses word processing,
desktop publishing and e-mail).
Appendix
3 - Student Software Evaluation Questionnaire: Results in blue
Please circle the answer you feel is the most appropriate.
Thank-you for completing this evaluation form – it will help improve the CLaSS software.
|
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neither Agree or Disagree |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
About the Software |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
1.
I liked the introductory animation |
0% |