進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-0109201612255500
論文名稱(中文) 地球科學行動學習之使用者介面流程設計之評估
論文名稱(英文) An Evaluation of A User Interface Flow Design on Earth Science for Mobile Learning
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 工業設計學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Industrial Design
學年度 104
學期 2
出版年 105
研究生(中文) 杜雨德
研究生(英文) Yu-Te Tu
學號 p36031113
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 119頁
口試委員 指導教授-謝孟達
口試委員-蕭世文
口試委員-楊智傑
口試委員-徐芳真
中文關鍵字 行動學習  使用者經驗  使用性評估  地球科學  使用者介面流程設計 
英文關鍵字 Mobile Learning  User Experience  Usability Evaluation  Earth Science  User Interface Flow Design 
學科別分類
中文摘要 隨著智慧型手機的進步和普及,行動網路的傳輸速度和覆蓋率的提升,趨向數位化的環境發展,使用者能夠隨時攜帶智慧型手機已成為常態。數位教育的趨勢始於2006年,許多研究開始探討數位的科技產品結合學習、學習成效、改變傳統學習的方式、定義行動學習的樣貌,多著重於功能性創新上。在平日生活中,點與點之間移動過程中,有許多等待的空白零碎時間,大約為五至十分鐘的使用情境,選擇行動應用程式(App)作為研究主題,冀望應用零碎時間進行學習,不僅可提高學習的彈性,且可養成隨時隨地學習的習慣。
本研究目的在於評估符合使用者介面流程的行動學習原型,參照行動學習的開發流程高等分布式學習教導系統設計(Advanced Distributed Learning Instructional System Design,縮寫為 ADL ISD)前二步驟,主要探討地球科學領域知識的資訊傳達框架。本研究分為四階段進行,第一階段以問卷調查探索行動學習App設計需求,依文獻整理行動應用程式(App)之設計方針及蒐集蘋果商店(iOS Apple Store)中,與地球科學知識相關的行動應用程式(App)並予以分類,再分別歸納其使用者介面流程的核心概念,以作為本研究中用以進行研究分析的行動應用程式(App)之參考樣板,並依此發展出三款行動學習App的可操作原型。第二階段,邀請專家,利用啟發式評估十項原則修正第一階段的三款原型。第三階段,以(POP2.0)軟體輔助實體介面呈現,讓受試者模擬實際操作情形完成操作後,以使用者互動滿意度問卷及SUS問卷作為三可操作原型評估。第四階段,以ANOVA及Tukey HSD test數據進行分析,由操作介面設計可知對受試者而言,樣本二以圖卡式的介面設計,對於各種使用者較為容易操作且容易引起興趣,因此欲學習探究地質現象或其形成原因時,樣本二的操作流程較符合大眾(不論是否具地科背景)的學習習慣,作為結論與未來研究參考之根據。
英文摘要 With the progress and popularity of smartphones, the promotion of transmission rate and coverage of mobile network, and the development of digitalization environment, people carrying a smartphone has become a normalcy. The trend of digital education began in 2006. Many researchers began to explore the combine digital technology products with learning, learning effectiveness, the way to change the traditional learning, and definition of the appearance of learning, with more emphasis on functional innovation. In daily life, in the process of moving from one point to another, there are much fragmented waiting time about 5 to 10 minutes for usage. This study selects the application program (App) as the research topic, hoping the fragmented time for learning can not only improve the flexibility of learning, but also develop the habit of learning whenever and wherever possible.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the mobile learning prototype which is compliance with the user interface process; referring to the first two steps in the development process of mobile learning of Advanced Distributed Learning Instructional System Design (abbreviated as ADL ISD). This study mainly explores the information conveying framework in Earth Sciences field. This study is divided into four stages, wherein the first stage is to discuss design requirements for mobile learning App by questionnaires, to systemize Apps, to collect and classify the Apps related to the knowledge of Earth Sciences in iOS Apple Store. On the whole, it separately summarizes the core concepts of the user interface flow, so as to be as a reference sample of App for analysis, and to develop three operational mobile learning App prototypes accordingly. The second stage is to invite experts to correct the three prototypes of the first stage by using of the ten principles of heuristic evaluation. The third stage is to assist the entity interface rendering by POP2.0 software. After the subject simulates the actual operating and completes the operation, three sets of operational prototypes will be evaluated based on the Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction (QUIS) and System Usability Scale (SUS). The fourth stage is to analyze the ANOVA and Tukey HSD test data. According to the operation interface design, Sample II with the design of graphic interface is easy to operate and easy to arouse the interest of a variety of users. Thus, in order to study and explore the geological phenomena or its formation, the operational processes in Sample II is more in line with the public’s study habits, whether they have the geographical science background or not. This conclusion is a reference for the future researches.
論文目次 摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
誌謝 IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
LIST OF TABLES VII
LIST OF FIGURES VIII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Background 1
1.3 Purpose 5
1.4 Research framework 6
1.5 Scope 9
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1 Mobile learning 10
2.1.1 Attitude towards mobile learning 12
2.1.2 The Advantages and disadvantages of mobile learning 13
2.1.3 The design process of mobile learning 16
2.1.4 The success factors of mobile learning app 20
2.1.5 Regional geological knowledge content 22
2.2 User experience 23
2.2.1 User interface flow 24
2.2.2 User-centered design (UCD) 27
2.2.3 The evaluation towards user interface 30
2.2.4 Paper Prototype 34
2.3 Smartphone and App Analysis 35
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHOD 44
3.1 Method of questionnaire 44
3.2 Heuristic evaluation 47
3.3 Paper Prototype – Interactive Prototype 48
3.4 ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD 50
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH PROCESS 53
4.1 Preliminary research 54
4.2 App operational user interface type 58
4.3 Research sample 68
4.3.1 Preliminary Design of user interface flow 69
4.3.2 Heuristic evaluation applied to user interface flow design 77
4.3.3 Operable user interface flows of the revised samples 85
4.3.4 Operable samples to final test 90
4.4 Usability testing and analysis 92
4.4.1 Background information of participants 92
4.4.2 Questionnaire Result 95
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 103
5.1 Research conclusion 103
5.2 Research Limitations and Future Work 104
References 106
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
參考文獻 Ali, A., Alrasheedi, M., Ouda, A., & Capretz, L. F. (2014). A study of the interface usability issues of mobile learning applications for smartphones from the users perspective. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE), 3(4), 1-16.
Ally, M., & Palalas, A. (2011). State of mobile learning in Canada and future directions. Athabasca University, 3-52.
Avraamidou, L. (2008). Prospects for the use of mobile technologies in science education. AACE Journal, 16(3), 347-365.
Berking, P., Haag, J., Archibald, T., & Birtwhistle, M. (2012). Mobile learning: Not just another delivery method. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference (I/ITSEC), 1-10.
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194), 4-7.
Castle, R. (2014). Five mobile learning mistakes to avoid. Training & Development, 41(2), 21.
Chen, H. R., & Huang, H. L. (2010). User Acceptance of Mobile Knowledge Management Learning System: Design and Analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 70-77.
Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054-1064.
Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, K. L. (1988). Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. The Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 213-218.
Chiu, P. S., & Huang, Y. M. (2015). The development of a decision support system for mobile learning: a case study in Taiwan. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1-13.
Corbeil, J. R., & Valdes-Corbeil, M. E. (2007). Are you ready for mobile learning? Educause Quarterly, 30(2), 51.
Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. Handbook of mobile learning, 3-14.
Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K. H., & Gräbe, C. (2016). The Use of Mobile Learning in Science: A Systematic Review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-12.
Dhir, A., Gahwaji, N. M., & Nyman, G. (2013). The Role of the iPad in the Hands of the Learner. J. UCS, 19(5), 706-727.
Dirin, A., & Nieminen, M. (2013). State-of-the-art of m-learning usability and user experience. The Fourth International Conference on e-Learning (ICEL2013), 130-139.
Domingo, M. G., & Garganté, A. B. (2016). Exploring the use of educational technology in primary education: Teachers' perception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications' use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 21-28.
Driscoll, M., & Van Barneveld, A. (2015). Applying Learning Theory to Mobile Learning: American Society for Training & Development.1-14.
Duncan-Howell, J. A., & Lee, K. T. (2007). M-Learning–Innovations and Initiatives: Finding a place for mobile technologies within tertiary educational settings. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007, 223-232.
Goodall, J. R. (2011). An evaluation of visual and textual network analysis tools. Information Visualization, 10(2), 145-157.
Hanson, V. L. (2004). The user experience: designs and adaptations. The 2004 international cross-disciplinary workshop on Web accessibility (W4A), 1-11.
Hartmann, J., De Angeli, A., & Sutcliffe, A. (2008). Framing the user experience: information biases on website quality judgement. The SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 855-864.
Huang, Y. M., & Chiu, P. S. (2015). The effectiveness of a meaningful learning‐based evaluation model for context‐aware mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 437-447.
Hwang, G. J., Yang, T. C., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. J. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for conducting complex science experiments. Computers & Education, 53(2), 402-413.
ISO, I. (1999). 13407: Human-centred design processes for interactive systems. Geneva: ISO,1999.
Jones, M., & Marsden, G. (2006). Mobile interaction design (pp. 91-119). Chichester,UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Kim, G. M., & Ong, S. M. (2005). An exploratory study of factors influencing m-learning success. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(1), 92-97.
Kim, S. H., Mims, C., & Holmes, K. P. (2006). An introduction to current trends and benefits of mobile wireless technology use in higher education. AACE Journal, 14(1), 77-100.
Kinash, S., Brand, J., & Mathew, T. (2012). Challenging mobile learning discourse through research: Student perceptions of Blackboard Mobile Learn and iPads. Australasian journal of educational technology, 28(4), 639-655.
Ko, E. H., Chiu, D. K., Lo, P., & Ho, K. K. (2015). Comparative Study on m-Learning Usage Among LIS Students from Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(5), 567-577.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007). Mobile usability in educational contexts: what have we learnt? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(2), 1-16.
Law, E. L.-C., Van Schaik, P., & Roto, V. (2014). Attitudes towards user experience (UX) measurement. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(6), 526-541.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social Media & Mobile Internet Use among Teens and Young Adults. Millennials. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1-37.
Little, B. (2013). Issues in mobile learning technology. Human Resource Management International Digest, 21(3), 26-29.
Little, G. (2011). Keeping moving: Smartphone and mobile technologies in the academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(3), 267-269.
Liu, Y., Han, S., & Li, H. (2010). Understanding the factors driving m-learning adoption: a literature review. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(4), 210-226.
Maniar, N., & Bennett, E. (2007). Media influence on m-learning. The Proceedings of VideoFunet Conference, Tampere, Finland.
Mao, J. Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P. W., & Carey, T. (2005). The state of user-centered design practice. Communications of the ACM, 48(3), 105-109.
Martini, M. C., Smith, M. A., & Youmans, R. J. (2014). A Comparison of Prototyping on Paper (POP) Software and Traditional Paper Prototyping for Developing Mobile Products with Optimal User Experience. The Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58(1), 1849-1853.
McHugh, M. L. (2011). Multiple comparison analysis testing in ANOVA. Biochemia medica, 21(3), 203-209.
Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581-596.
Neil, T. (2014). Mobile design pattern gallery: UI patterns for smartphone apps (pp. 8-33): O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. The Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 249-256.
Norman, D. A. (2002). Emotion & design: attractive things work better. interactions, 9(4), 36-42.
Nunes, I. L. (2006). Ergonomics and Usability–key factors in Knowledge Society. Enterprise and Work Innovation Studies, 2, 87-94.
Olmsted-Hawala, E. L., Romano, J. C., & Murphy, E. D. (2009). The use of paper-prototyping in a low-fidelity usability study. The 2009 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 1-11.
Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78-102.
Piaget, J. (1954). Language and thought from a genetic perspective. Acta Psychologica, 10, 51-60.
Plaisant, C. (2004). The challenge of information visualization evaluation. The Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, 109-116.
Pozzi, F. (2007). The impact of m-learning in school contexts: An “Inclusive” perspective Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Applications and Services (pp. 748-755): Springer.
Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. The Internet and higher education, 13(3), 134-140.
Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J., & Tepper, M. (2007). Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. netWorker: The Craft of Network Computing, 11(4), 34.
Sefelin, R., Tscheligi, M., & Giller, V. (2003). Paper prototyping-what is it good for?: a comparison of paper-and computer-based low-fidelity prototyping. The CHI'03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, 778-779.
Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning. Technology-enhanced learning, 233-249.
Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (1987). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. ACM SIGBIO Newsletter, 9(1), 6.
Snyder, C. (2001). Paper prototyping, IBM developerWorks. URL:(http://www-106. ibm. com/developerworks/library/uspaper.
Suanpang, P. (2012). The Integration of m-Learning and Social Nework for Suporting Knowledge Sharing. Creative Education, 3, 39-43.
Teri, S., Acai, A., Griffith, D., Mahmoud, Q., Ma, D. W., & Newton, G. (2014). Student use and pedagogical impact of a mobile learning application. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 42(2), 121-135.
Tory, M., & Moller, T. (2004). Human factors in visualization research. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 10(1), 72-84.
Vermeeren, A. P., Roto, V., & Väänänen, K. (2015). Design-inclusive UX research: design as a part of doing user experience research. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1-17.
Wagner, E. D. (2008). Realizing the promises of mobile learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(2), 4-14.
Wang, Y. S., Wu, M. C., & Wang, H. Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92-118.
Yang, B., Zhou, S., & Ju, W. (2013). Learning English Speaking through Mobile-Based Role-Plays: The Exploration of a Mobile English Language Learning App Called Engage. The EUROCALL Review, 21(2), 27-38.
Yang, C. C., Hwang, G. J., Hung, C. M., & Tseng, S. S. (2013). An Evaluation of the Learning Effectiveness of Concept Map-Based Science Book Reading via Mobile Devices. Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 167-178.
李德河, 蔡百祥, & 吳建宏. (2016). 0206 地震台南土壤液化災區之地層特性. 土木水利, 43(2), 17-23.
沈中偉. (2004). 科技與學習: 理論與實務. 台北: 心理學出版社.
陳銘鴻. (2002). 土壤液化成因、災害與復健. 臺灣之活動斷層與地震災害研討會, 107-123.
蔡錦松, 張家齊, & 徐聰榮. (1995). 台南地區設計振譜研擬與土層液化潛能總評估. 行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2021-09-01起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw