Jan Stage, Aalborg Universitet: Interaktionsdesign - IT-Vest
Jan Stage, Aalborg Universitet: Interaktionsdesign - IT-Vest Jan Stage, Aalborg Universitet: Interaktionsdesign - IT-Vest
Results (2) Teams Student (N=36) Professional (N=8) Test description Data quality Clarity of problem list Report Executive summary Clarity of report The students did well on describing the test and providing underlying data in appendices Layout of report 3.03 (0.94) 3.19 (1.33) 2.53 (1.00) 2.39 (0.80) 2.97 (0.84) 2.94 (0.89) 4.00 (1.31) 2.13 (0.83) 3.50 (0.93) 3.38 (1.06) 4.25 (0.71) 3.25 (0.71) The worst student performance was in clarity of the problem list and executive summary 16
Team Results (3) Student (N=36) Professional (N=8) Number of problems Problem categorization Practical relevance Qualitative results overview Results Quantitative results overview Use of literature The students did poorly on problem identification and description Conclusion Evaluation of test 2.56 (0.84) 2.06 (1.22) 3.03 (1.00) 3.03 (1.00) 2.28 (1.14) 3.08 (0.81) 2.64 (0.90) 2.44 (1.08) 4.13 (1.13) 3.25 (1.75) 4.25 (1.49) 3.75 (1.16) 2.00 (1.51) 3.13 (0.35) 3.88 (0.64) 2.88 (1.13) All did poorly in describing the quantitative results (efficiency and effectiveness) 17
- Page 1 and 2: Interaktionsdesign Jan Stage Resear
- Page 3 and 4: Agenda • Baggrund • Min baggrun
- Page 5 and 6: Human-Computer Interaction Research
- Page 7 and 8: Usability: Hvad er det og hvad er d
- Page 9 and 10: Usability: Hvorfor er det vigtigt?
- Page 11 and 12: Agenda • Baggrund • Usability o
- Page 13 and 14: Training Course Teach software deve
- Page 15: Results (1) Teams Student (N=36) Pr
- Page 19 and 20: Interaktionsdesign Aktiviteter og s
- Page 21 and 22: Udfordring: Tidsforbrug til usabili
- Page 23 and 24: IDA: Experiment We studied the use
- Page 25 and 26: Afslutning • Baggrund • Min bag
- Page 27: IT-Vest: Master i IT for IT-lærere
Team<br />
Results (3)<br />
Student<br />
(N=36)<br />
Professional<br />
(N=8)<br />
Number of<br />
problems<br />
Problem<br />
categorization<br />
Practical<br />
relevance<br />
Qualitative<br />
results<br />
overview<br />
Results<br />
Quantitative<br />
results<br />
overview<br />
Use of<br />
literature<br />
The students did poorly on problem identification and description<br />
Conclusion<br />
Evaluation<br />
of test<br />
2.56 (0.84) 2.06 (1.22) 3.03 (1.00) 3.03 (1.00) 2.28 (1.14) 3.08 (0.81) 2.64 (0.90) 2.44 (1.08)<br />
4.13 (1.13) 3.25 (1.75) 4.25 (1.49) 3.75 (1.16) 2.00 (1.51) 3.13 (0.35) 3.88 (0.64) 2.88 (1.13)<br />
All did poorly in describing the quantitative results (efficiency and effectiveness)<br />
17
Change language