skip to main content
10.1145/3472714.3475816acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Designed for Equitable Learning: A Study of UCD and Liquid Syllabus in an Online Synchronous Course

Published:12 October 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Syllabi as an academic genre used by students and instructors should not only be primarily focused on its content, but also the modality. This study investigates students’ experience of using web-based liquid syllabus through a questionnaire in an online synchronous technical communication service class and evaluates the usefulness of liquid syllabus through usability testing after the semester ends. Findings from the pre-study survey and usability testing show students’ self-reflection on using the two types of syllabi, reveal the problem of liquid syllabus design, and address their experience. The paper discusses the study limitation and suggests that instructors could use a liquid syllabus to improve students’ learning experience.

References

  1. Shanna S. Jaggars, Di Xu. 2016. How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education, 95(Apr. 2016), 270-284. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.014Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. George P. Landow. 1994. Hypertext/text/theory. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Richard Lanham. 1992. Digital rhetoric: Theory, practice, and property. In M. yron Tuman (Ed.), Literacy online: The promise (and peril) of reading and writing with computers (221-243). University of Pittsburgh Press , Pittsburgh, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jakob Nielsen. 2000. Why you only need to test with 5 users Retrieved from. Norman Nielsen Group. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jakob Nielsen. 2012. Thinking aloud: The #1 usability tool Retrieved from. Norman Nielsen Group. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/thinking-aloud-the-1-usability-tool/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Don Norman. 2013. The design of everyday things. Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Michelle Pacansky-Brock, Michael Smedshammer, Kim Vincent-Layton. 2020. Humanizing online teaching to equitize higher education. Current Issues in Education 21, 2(Jun. 2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jay Parkes, Mary B. Harris. 2010. The purposes of a syllabus. College Teaching 50, 2(Mar. 2010), 55-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550209595875Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Di Xu, Shanna S. Jaggars. 2014. Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. Journal of Higher Education 85, 5(Sept. 2014), 633-659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777343Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  1. Designed for Equitable Learning: A Study of UCD and Liquid Syllabus in an Online Synchronous Course

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGDOC '21: Proceedings of the 39th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication
      October 2021
      402 pages
      ISBN:9781450386289
      DOI:10.1145/3472714

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 12 October 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)30
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format