Structure

Posts relating to planning decisions for the project

Trust considerations

Niko Leave a comment

In Online Social Networks (OSNs), trust is a key element, serving a connecting function between (initial) strangers. ‘Lessonplan’ has many OSN elements, and, therefore, issues of trust- and rapport-building should be considered.

Web 2.0 environments and social media platforms can cause situations of uncertainty, as they usually provide some level of anonymity. Even though this topic is the subject of a large volume of literature,[1] for the scope of this post we will only look at how trust serves as a mechanism to reduce the uncertainty of users in online interactions, e.g. in disclosure of personal opinions.

Continue reading →

User Experience

Ahmed Al-Brashdi Leave a comment

To add the value for game theory and interface design, some elements for user experience and engagements are considered when developing LessonPlan 2.0. These elements will include for example:

  1. Simplicity and speed of loading and navigation. By designing a simple landing page, the browser will load the page for the user very quickly.
  2. Use of customized and representative logo and brand for LessonPlan 2.0.
  3. Progress bar for the percentage of completion of reviews and engagement in module.
  4. Using eye-tracking technique and following F shape style [1], the main navigation for ratings, review, courses are set on the first horizontal line of F. The main contents will be on the left side on the main panel as users spend 69% of their time of the left side of a page [2]
  5. Each time a user complete a review, he/she will get a score. When scores gets to certain level, a batch will be awarded to the user.
  6. Using RSS and letting the students subscribe for fees.
  7. Search box at the start with drop down list for registered courses.

By doing so, we ensure user engagement with rich experience in LessonPlan 2.0. Some of these elements are illustrated clearly in mockup figures.

———–

[1] Nielson Jakob, “F-Shaped Pattern For Reading Web Content”: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/f-shaped-pattern-reading-web-content/, Apr 17, 2006 [Apr. 29, 2015].

[2] Porter, Joshua, “Testing the Three-Click Rule”: http://www.uie.com/articles/getting_confidence/, Apr 16, 2003 [Apr. 29, 2015]

Non-Functional Requirements

Tun-Ya Yu 2 Comments
ID Description Rational
01 The system should be available and operable for at least 99% of the time. Availability
02 The database of the system should be protected. Security
03 The system should be backed up every 24 hours. System Backup
04 The system should be designed with direct and indirect accessibility consideration. Accessibility
05 The system should support the most common browsers and also be able to be used from a mobile device. Platform compatibility.
06 The system should meet the legislation of this kind of application. Legal and licensing issues
07 The system design should be clear to understand. User Friendliness
08 The system should respond in under 5 seconds for every request. Effectiveness

Functional Requirements

Tun-Ya Yu Leave a comment
Id Description Rational
01 User should be able to view the module description and review without login. User can view the module information without login, in case the user does not have a university account yet.
02 User should be able to login with their university id.
03 A logged in user should be able to have a nickname or to be anonymous. A user shall login with the particular university id, but could have a nickname for rating and posting to preserve privacy.
04 Logged in users should be able to leave feedback and ratings on modules which they have taken. Users can only leave feedback on the modules they have been enrolled in to ensure accurate ratings.
05 Each module page should include four aspects: Module description, rating of lecture, rating of marking, and communication board.
06 Rating criteria of lectures should include a scale of difficulty, engagement, size of class, helpfulness and clarity. Rating criteria of lectures should help users understand how the modules are taught.
06 Rating criteria of marking shall include a scale of scores, difficulty of coursework, and difficulty of exams. Rating criteria of marking should help users understand how to achieve better results and the coursework requirements.
07 Module description shall include the syllabus, type of coursework, and size of coursework group. Module description should help user to have an understanding of the overview of the module.
08 The system should be able to suggest suitable modules for users. The system should be able to suggest modules from users’ enrollment status and their scores in previous modules.
09 The system should provide a platform for student communication in module sections. The platform for communication shall help students to develop greater engagement with the module materials, opportunities for peer support/peer learning.
10 User should be able to give feedback on the system. This function will ensure user satisfaction.

Survey conducted on Module Feedback opinions and interests

Niko Leave a comment

In order to confirm interest in the suggested platform, as well as any inefficiencies of the outlets already out there by the University of Southampton, we have conducted an online survey.

The survey was introduced by a short text, informing the participants on what the survey’s goals where, which aspects of module feedback they would be asked to give their opinions on, as well as a brief description of the suggested project and its aims.

The questions were, therefore, divided into three different parts. Questions in part one aimed to discover opinions and satisfaction about the official module feedback forms that the University provides. Users were asked to rate both its usefulness and its effectiveness on module planning. Part two was designed to discover which factors are considered when students select an optional module. Some of those factors are informed by the module feedback forms (such as Coursework style or Student satisfaction, for example), while others were additional (such as the reputation of the lecturer). Participants were given the option to include any additional factors in an ‘Other:’ free text field. Finally part three was investigating interest in the suggested platform (‘Lessonplan 2.0’) and opinions on its features and ambitions.

The results of the survey re-affirmed our assumptions about the deficiencies of the current model and the need for an alternative solution. In summary, the survey highlighted that while half of the students are willing to provide feedback to the University, the majority of them would like some access to the results and does not trust that it has any significant impact on module shaping. All of the participants also agree that ‘Lessonplan’ would be a valuable addition, who could assist them in choosing optional modules, meeting the module requirements and co-ordinating better with their fellow classmates.

Continue reading →