An investigation on the role of multimodal metaphors in e-feedback interfaces

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the usability (effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction) of e‐feedback interfaces. The experiment compares a traditional visual approach with a multimodal approach in order to determine the impact of multimodal metaphors upon the user's understanding, reasoning and engagement with the e‐feedback. Design/methodology/approach – The empirical investigation involved visual (text with graphical illustrations) and multimodal (audio‐visual with expressive avatars and recorded speech) experimental e‐feedback platforms. Both experimental platforms provided the same e‐feedback but used different interaction metaphors to convey the information. The evaluation approach measured effectiveness, efficiency and user satisfaction. Findings – The results showed that the multimodal approach increased usability in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and engagement of users with the e‐feedback. There is a very clear prima facie case that combining different communication metaphors to convey information involved in the e‐feedback simultaneously does not increase the information overload on users. This however was observed to be the case when the visual channel was used. Originality/value – This paper introduces a unique approach that uses specific combinations of multimodal metaphors to communicate information about e‐feedback simultaneously. This approach increased the usability of e‐feedback and user's engagement in interfaces for e‐learning applications.

[1]  J. Garvey Pyke,et al.  A Closer Look at Instructor-Student Feedback Online: A Case Study Analysis of the Types and Frequency , 2010 .

[2]  Murray Crease,et al.  GUIDELINES FOR AUDIO-ENHANCEMENT OF GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE WIDGETS , 2002 .

[3]  Meera Blattner,et al.  Earcons and Icons: Their Structure and Common Design Principles , 1989, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  When is Less More? Attention and Workload in Auditory, Visual, and Redundant Patient-Monitoring Conditions , 2001 .

[5]  Nicu Sebe,et al.  Multimodal Human Computer Interaction: A Survey , 2005, ICCV-HCI.

[6]  R. Ferretti,et al.  Authenticity In Learning , 1996, Journal of learning disabilities.

[7]  Som Naidu,et al.  Designing and evaluating instruction for e-learning , 2002 .

[8]  Lon Barfield.  Design for New Media: Interaction design for multimedia and the web , 2004 .

[9]  Ingrid Nix,et al.  Exploring design features to enhance computer-based assessment: Learners' views on using a confidence-indicator tool and computer-based feedback , 2011, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[10]  Stephen Brewster,et al.  Using non-speech sound to overcome information overload , 1997 .

[11]  Dimitris I. Rigas,et al.  A Toolkit for Multimodal Interface Design: An Empirical Investigation , 2007, HCI.

[12]  Thanos Hatziapostolou,et al.  Enhancing the Impact of Formative Feedback on Student Learning through an Online Feedback System. , 2010 .

[13]  Cheri Toledo,et al.  Online Feedback and Student Perceptions. , 2006 .

[14]  Brad Hansen.  The Dictionary of Multimedia Terms & Acronyms , 1996 .

[15]  Nadine Sarter,et al.  Multimodal information presentation: Design guidance and research challenges , 2006 .