Pedagogical Usability

Learning is a largely un-observable and uncontrollable process that happens all the time. Attributes attached to learning such as ‘effectiveness’ or ‘informality’ are both difficult to understand and measure. The term education, on the other hand, is easier to analyse because it is more often bound to observable artifacts such as books or computer programs that are related to a curriculum. Some researchers term education that is tied to a set curriculum as ‘formal,’ and education that is more conversation based in nature as ‘informal’ (Livingstone, 2000). Although we will go no further with this topic, one may ask what portion of measurement error of the pedagogical aspects of usability is related to the difference between the formal and informal aspects of education.

Education can be provided in groups or according to individual needs as teacher directed, cooperative, or

individual practice. When computers and digital learning material are used in a learning situation, it is expected that this is done to introduce identifiable added value to the learning in comparison to, for example, printed material, and material produced by the teacher or the students themselves. The expectation of “added value,” not merely “reaching the same level,” is demonstrated by the fact that each group of students is under the charge of an educational expert who has primary responsibility for the provision of education that agrees with the general goals, and further supported by computers and software that require not only capital investment but also continuous maintenance. In the case of distance education, the equation is different and so it may be that reaching the same level as in contact teaching is considered acceptable. In this context, the level of educational quality desired is at least that of the average performance in a good quality contact teaching context – it is unlikely that one would want to match digital material with poor learning materials and teaching practices! 

Many of the “innovations” that have been executed in computer environments have their equivalents in the

world of traditional education. For example, instead of a “mind map” type of computer application that collects arguments and counter-arguments, cooperative knowledge construction can be achieved with large pieces of paper on the walls of a classroom, on which various points and opinions that have been raised during a week can be recorded. The added value of computers in this case is technical, because it gives the students a chance to work simultaneously on several different things (for example in different subjects) and save each phase of their work on their own work space. In a classroom, the activity is more limited and inflexible because the space on the walls of the classroom is limited. Then again, if the unfinished work and problems were visible at all times, the students could work on them in the background for the whole time that they spend in the classroom. A counter argument to this is the Sartre an thought about comprehensive thinking that follows the learner from school to home. In this case, a computer-based application allows the learners to continue their work at home, in a library or in a coffee shop with the help of a computer network.