An efficient approach to improve the usability of e-learning resources: the role of heuristic evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimizing the usability of e-learning materials is necessary to maximize their potential educational impact, but this is often neglected when time and other resources are limited, leading to the release of materials that cannot deliver the desired learning outcomes. As clinician-teachers in a resource-constrained environment, we investigated whether heuristic evaluation of our multimedia e-learning resource by a panel of experts would be an effective and efficient alternative to testing with end users. We engaged six inspectors, whose expertise included usability, e-learning, instructional design, medical informatics, and the content area of nephrology. They applied a set of commonly used heuristics to identify usability problems, assigning severity scores to each problem. The identification of serious problems was compared with problems previously found by user testing. The panel completed their evaluations within 1 wk and identified a total of 22 distinct usability problems, 11 of which were considered serious. The problems violated the heuristics of visibility of system status, user control and freedom, match with the real world, intuitive visual layout, consistency and conformity to standards, aesthetic and minimalist design, error prevention and tolerance, and help and documentation. Compared with user testing, heuristic evaluation found most, but not all, of the serious problems. Combining heuristic evaluation and user testing, with each involving a small number of participants, may be an effective and efficient way of improving the usability of e-learning materials. Heuristic evaluation should ideally be used first to identify the most obvious problems and, once these are fixed, should be followed by testing with typical end users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.102 | 0.225 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".