The Praxis of User Experience (UX) in the Design of Undergraduate Online Classes: Framing the Perceptions of Engineering and Social Sciences Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A sustainable educational design that derives from a user experience (UX) frame does not only represent the praxis of online class design(s), but also empowers students to take an active part in their educational journey. The purpose of the study is to promote user experience (UX) measurements for the design of online classes. An online survey based on the criteria of user experience, UX, derived from the literature is administered in two higher educational contexts in Saudi Arabia and the USA with 890 participants from both genders and diverse fields of study. User experience is identified within usability, educational context, and the emotional or hedonic aspects of the experience, which are measured from thirty-six items from the survey constituting the independent variables. Reframing of students’ perceptions into UX offers a sustainable model of technology design that ensures a student-centered model by filling the gap between theoretical use of students’ perceptions and the praxis of online class design. The findings reveal that a working educational model should be centered around human values in addition to usability. This model can be replicated in various educational online contexts, but it has to be an ongoing process accompanying online design where student satisfaction is the outcome from variable measurement.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".