Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Ergonomics can help instructional designers to develop projects compatible with students’ needs, capabilities, and limitations.
OBJECTIVE:
We intend to verify the application of ergonomics in instructional design methods, methodologies, techniques, and recommendations.
METHODS:
We searched journal articles in the following databases: Compendex, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science. Based on two inclusion criteria: (1) whether the article presents methods, methodologies, techniques, or recommendations for the instructional design; (2) whether the article addresses issues of ergonomics, we found 17 studies published from 1988 to 2013 in 16 journals.
RESULTS:
The main ergonomic concept addressed in the reviewed studies was usability, followed by accessibility, and user-centred design. Most articles suggest guidelines for embedding ergonomics in instructional design.
CONCLUSIONS:
We found that future research could explore topics, such as user experience, design thinking, service design, and organisational ergonomics to improve instructional design practice. The number of studies found in this review demonstrates that scientific research should explore the application of ergonomics in instructional design methods.
Introduction
Ergonomics can improve instructional projects. It is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data, and methods to optimise human well-being and overall system performance [1]. We believe it is necessary to know students’ characteristics to develop an instructional project compatible with their needs, capabilities, and limitations. Ergonomics can help instructional designers to achieve this goal.
‘Instructional design is the process by which the content is presented to the learner so that it can produce the maximum impact on learning’ [2]. According to Brown and Green [3], the most popular approach to designing instruction is to follow a three-step process: 1) analyse the situation to determine what instruction is necessary and what steps are needed to deliver it; 2) produce and implement the instructional design; and 3) evaluate the results of implementing the instructional design. Many scholars and professionals describe this process as ADDIE, an acronym of the following actions: analyse, design, develop, implement, and evaluate.
Morrison et al. [4] have defined four fundamental components of instructional design: 1) learners (i.e., For whom is the programme developed?); 2) objectives (i.e., What do you want the learners to learn or demonstrate?); 3) methods (i.e., How is the subject content or skill best learned?); and 4) evaluation (i.e., How do you determine the extent to which learning is achieved?). According to Merrill [5], instruction promotes learning when: (a) it engages learners in solving real-world problems; (b) it activates existing knowledge as a foundation for new knowledge; (c) it demonstrates new knowledge to the learner; (d) the learner applies new knowledge; or (e) it integrates new knowledge into the learner’s world.
Smith [6] states that the educational community needs to recognise the contributions that ergonomic science might make to improving student learning and the performance of educational systems. There is an existing body of research which has combined different aspects of ergonomics and education (e.g. musculoskeletal discomfort/disorders in students caused by incorrect posture, laptop use, sedentary behaviour, or carrying overweight schoolbags [7–13], potential health risks in students using digital textbooks [14], visual discomfort in students caused by computer use [15]).
Within the domain of instructional design there are researchers who are concerned with ergonomic aspects. For example, Crowther, Keller, and Waddoups [16] state that instructional designers have the moral, ethical, and pedagogical obligation to create usable applications, and Smith states that ergonomics can contribute to instructional design [6] but it is necessary to know how this contribution can be made.
In this project we searched the scientific literature for papers that present instructional design methods, methodologies, techniques, or recommendations combined with ergonomic issues. This paper presents a literature review on the application of ergonomics in instructional design and identifies research opportunities that aim to extend the links between these two areas.
Method
The review was limited to journal papers written in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. A study was included if it met the following two inclusion criteria: 1) whether the study presented instructional design methods, methodologies, techniques, or recommendations; and 2) whether the study addressed ergonomic issues.
Three main steps were followed: 1) establish search areas (i.e., ergonomics and instructional design) to find papers that correlate; 2) define keywords based on a previous search on papers (see Table 1); and 3) select papers from the following databases: Compendex, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science.
Keywords used in the literature review
Keywords used in the literature review
a*Was used as a wild card character in the searches.
We combined keywords from both search areas using the Boolean operator ‘AND’, and keywords within each area were combined using the Boolean operator ‘OR’. We conducted the search on December 2015. After removing duplicates, we identified 133 papers and conducted the screening in two stages.
During the first stage, we reviewed the title and abstract of each paper and excluded 77 papers, because they did not meet the two inclusion criteria. During the second stage, we retrieved full-text articles for the remaining 56 papers to analyse if they met the inclusion criteria based on the reading of their introduction and conclusion sections. It was not possible to find 2 full-texts on the internet. Therefore, we reviewed the introduction and conclusion sections of 54 papers. In this stage, we found 18 articles that met the two inclusion criteria. After a full reading of the 18 remaining papers, we found 17 studies that met the two inclusion criteria of the review. We excluded one paper during this stage because it did not present the details of the methodology cited in the title, abstract, introduction and conclusion sections. A total of 17 studies were included in the systematic review reported in this paper.
Several papers retrieved in the databases search present “usability” as a keyword because researchers had carried usability tests in their work. However, in most cases, these papers do not present instructional design methods, methodologies, techniques, or recommendations, or address ergonomic issues. We excluded these from the review because they did not meet inclusion criteria.
We created a data collection form to extract the following data from each study: 1) author(s), 2) title, 3) year of publication, 4) journal, 5) study aim, 6) contribution for instructional design, 7) link with ergonomics, and 8) the category of contribution on ergonomics (i.e., design, correction, awareness, and participation). Ergonomics can contribute from the beginning of the design process or after the project is already concluded for solving problems and correct aspects that need an intervention. Awareness ergonomics is concerned with showing to the professionals that they have competences for identifying and solving everyday problems of the projects, while participatory ergonomics involves the user in problem solving, assuming they have knowledge that the designer may not have [32].
The majority of the studies included in this review were published in journals from the educational field (i.e., British Journal of Educational Technology, Internet and Higher Education, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, and Journal of Science Education and Technology), followed by journals from the computing field, medicine and information sciences (see Table 2).
Journals of publication for the 17 studies
Journals of publication for the 17 studies
The year of publication range of the papers included in this review is from 1988 to 2013. We found studies applied to: online learning [2, 17–25], classroom-based learning [26], mobile learning [27], blended learning [28], embedded learning [29], computer-based/mediated learning [16, 29–31], and hypermedia development [22, 25].
The studies included in the review cover particularly the following ergonomics concepts: usability (70%), accessibility (35%), and user-centred design (29%) (see Table 3). Besides these concepts, we also found the application of standards and customisation on instructional design. Six studies use standards on instructional design to base the applications on solid design principles [25]; to improve usability and navigation on courses [17]; to facilitate re-usability and inter-change of educational resources among technology-supported leaning environments [22]; and to guarantee accessibility on instructional materials [17, 23]. Huang [24] suggest the application of web-style standards, human factors, and principles as a phase to develop multimedia modules.
Ergonomic concepts most cited in the review
Thomson, Greer, and Cooke [25] and Papanikolaou et al. [22] study adaptation and customisation, moving from standardization to a focus on meeting learners’ needs. The authors present a method and a framework to design adaptable and adaptive hypermedia applications for instruction. This concept emphasises the need for personalised instructional solutions.
Most of the papers present guidelines, principles, suggestions, tips, and recommendations to instructional design. We organized them according to the instructional design phases: analyse, design, develop, implement, and evaluate (see Table 4). Recommendations from Wang and Shen [27] and Ozdilek and Baltaci-Goktalay [28] studies are not presented in Table 4 because they are specific to the contexts of mobile learning and blended learning, respectively.
We found several contributions for instructional designers to apply ergonomics in their work. According to Iida [32], these contributions can be made in four ways: design, correction, awareness, and participation. The first one represents the best situation, because it occurs during the design process. All studies reviewed (except Könings et al. [26]) deal with ergonomics during the design phase, since they are concerned with the interaction between systems and users from the beginning of the instructional design process. They intend to provide designers with ways to consider ergonomic aspects from the outset of the design process, either through models and methodologies, or through recommendations.
Ergonomic intervention can also be made through problem solving from real situations, what we call correction ergonomics. However, in this case, the solution is often not satisfactory, because its implementation can be costly [32]. Planning for access, as instructional projects are being developed is easier and less expensive than quickly developing accommodation strategies each time a student with a disability enrols in a course, for example [33]. However, the approach suggested by Könings et al. [26] can be considered as correction ergonomics, because it happens during the classes. Author showed that this approach is of great value to gather student’s opinions on lessons design and is not costly and human resource intensive.
The third way of ergonomic intervention is awareness ergonomics, which seeks to empower workers to identify and correct everyday problems or emergencies [32]. It occurs when instructional designers maintain a user and learner focus during the entire design process, for example [2]. In this case, the designers themselves become aware of the importance of incorporating ergonomic aspects into their work.
Participatory ergonomics involves the user in ergonomic problem solving, assuming they have knowledge that the designer may not have [32]. At least seven reviewed papers emphasized the importance of student participation in instructional design [2, 28]. Sandars and Lafferty [2] suggest that a participatory approach for usability testing on e-learning, places users at the heart of product development. Wang and Yang [18] also believe it is necessary to discuss the design (i.e., interface design) with the teachers and the target users in the design and development phase, and make sure the design enables users to interact with the learning activities effectively. They suggest that when the prototype is finished, usability tests with representatives of the end users are essential to eliminate potential future operational problems.
Crowther et al. [16] suggest instructional teams should address usability issues at the beginning of the project development, even if instituting early user testing into the development process is difficult and requires a significant change in the culture of quality within the instructional design team. Meyen et al. [17] believe in the participation of students on usability tests of online courses. Students can adequately describe problems they encounter or features missing on an online course, and if a problem is major, they will be consistent in identifying the problem and offering proposals for changes.
Könings et al. [26] found that teachers underlined the need for student participation in the design process of lessons and that they were predominantly positive about the usefulness of student suggestions. On blended learning context, Ozdilek and Baltaci-Goktalay [28] suggest learners should provide feedback to the facilitator about the page and content design.
Guidelines for designers
Table 4 shows most of the guidelines, principles, suggestions, tips, and recommendations presented on the papers are organized according to the instructional design phases.
Instructional design recommendations related to ergonomic aspects
Instructional design recommendations related to ergonomic aspects
Wang and Shen [27] give guidelines to designers of mobile learning content. The given guidelines are related to audio, captions, icons, and colours in messages (e.g., application of speech recognition). They recommend that designers should minimise the learner difficulty when using miniature keyboards for inputting content or applying commands; use captions suitable for almost all users, at any time or place; and increase hue and value contrast to help people with colour deficiency.
Ozdilek and Baltaci-Goktalay [28] summarise the following recommendations for blended learning design: 1) Facilitators should ensure that the knowledge transfer in the online environment is as effective as face-to-face learning, which can be done through adequate planning; 2) Instructors should provide constructive and timely feedback to learners’ problems and questions; 3) Either synchronous or asynchronous tools should be included in the online learning environment to sustain effective communication; 4) Facilitators are also responsible for the validity and accuracy of the content, which should appropriately meet the learners’ expectations; 5) Concrete content, examples from daily life, animation, visualisations, and videos of experiments, pictures, figures, and graphics should be included in instructional materials; 6) A search engine should be included to provide easy access to specific topics; 7) Facilitators should know the importance of update regularity, particularly with page design and content; 8) Learners should interact with their peers and the instructor regularly, provide feedback to the facilitator about the page and content design, and do their research and homework on the topics; and 9) Learners should have skills and knowledge, necessary to use blended learning.
We also found models, methodologies, and frameworks on the studies. Thomson et al. [25] developed a method to the analysis and design process on hypermedia design. They applied patterns in designing adaptable and flexible hypermedia applications. Uden [31] developed the Courseware Engineering Methodology (CEM) to guide novices in designing effective courseware, based on integrating various disciplines such as instructional design theories, software engineering principles, human-computer interaction, and multimedia.
The Intelligent System for Personalised Instruction in a Remote Environment (INSPIRE), developed by Papanikolaou et al. [22], generates lessons tailored to the learning style and knowledge level of each learner by making use of information gathered through learner-system interaction. According to the authors, INSPIRE allow learners to intervene in the lesson generation process; express their opinion about their own characteristics or about the lesson contents; and offers instructional control over the system.
Zaharias [20] developed a usability framework for e-learning applications based on the effective learning dimension, ‘motivation to learn,’ and integrated usability and instructional design parameters. Wang, Doll, and Deng [21] developed a model of pedagogical usability of Course Management Systems from a faculty perspective.
Between these studies, we found three that offer approaches based on user-centred design. Könings, Brand-Gruwel, and Merriënboer [26] suggest a student-centred design approach for student participation in instructional design of lessons on secondary education context. They found that participatory design is well suited to education, and that listening to students enables teachers to see the lessons through their students’ eyes. In Liang et al. [27] research, regarding the user-centred design, teachers are considered the user. They propose a model divided into two sides: one side representing the content of instructional resources and teacher users; and the other side representing the resource system and digital media designers. Both sides follow six stages of process tasks including: 1) clarification, 2) analysis, 3) design, 4) development, 5) implementation, and 6) evaluation. Unlike the traditional ID model that usually begins with learner and task analyses, Liang et al. [27] model starts with the stage of clarification, due to a need to narrow the gap between teachers and media designers. Huang [29] also emphasise user-centred design. According to the author, it is important to consider the user’s perspective and learning method when designing an educational media module. During the entire process, designers should keep the user’s voice in their head. The author suggests a list of questions that should be answered by and for the user: 1) ‘Show me what I will learn.’; 2) ‘Why should I care to learn this?’; 3) ‘What can I do on the page?’; and 4) ‘Tell me how I’m doing!’.
Usability
As shown in Table 3, usability is an important concept to ergonomic instructional design. It is the most cited in our sample and papers deal with it in different ways. Merrill [30] consider human factors as usability. The author defines human factors as those characteristics of the software that make it easy for the student to use. The author also presents human factors as a class of instructional design techniques and suggests guidelines related to it. Meyen et al. [17] present lessons learned on a formative evaluation process of online instruction, some of them related to the usability and navigation topic. Crowther et al. [16] offer instructional design recommendations based on usability tests with students. Kovacs [23] gives seven usability and accessibility principles for Web-based instructional materials. Wang and Yang [18] suggest practical applications in the design of instructional software’s user interface. Sandars and Lafferty [2] give tips on usability testing to develop effective e-learning.
Zaharias [20] presents the following parameters of a usability framework: 1) learnability, 2) accessibility, 3) consistency, 4) navigation, 5) visual design, 6) interactivity and engagement, 7) content and resources, 8) instructional feedback, 9) instructional assessment, 10) media use, 11) learner guidance and support, and 12) learning strategies design. Liang et al. [19] view usability as a pervasive element of the entire design process. Uden’s [31] methodology is iterative incremental. Such methodology it is based on the successive enlargement and development of a system through multiple development cycles of analysis, design, development, and evaluation, which allows requirements to be adjusted to match user needs as the product proceeds.
Wang et al. [21] find that content and interaction re-configurability are significant predictors of pedagogical usability. Content re-configurability enables instructors to upload course material in multiple formats, which affects the learning and ways of learning for individuals with different talents. Interaction re-configurability allows users to manipulate the content itself and sometimes add their own content.
Some of these studies cited navigation and feedback, both related to usability. Meyen et al. [17] consider navigation as the feature and process for moving through the instructional programme. Crowther et al. [16] and Kovacs [23] find that students want to move forward and backward through the content easily, and that the design should allow such movement. Studies cite feedback as an important requirement for instructional design, while it is a way to communicate with students and help students communicate with instructors. Ozdilek and Baltaci-Goktalay [28] suggest feedback should be given through either synchronous or asynchronous tools. Zaharias [20] presents intrinsic and extrinsic feedback. Intrinsic feedback takes place when the e-learning intervention shows the learner, while he or she is completing a task, the consequences of performing an act. Extrinsic feedback does not occur within the learner’s immediate action.
Accessibility
Accessibility is another concept identified in this review (Table 3). Sandars and Lafferty [2] define it as the possibility of any learner, irrespective of their disability, to use the intervention. Kumar and Owston [34] define an accessible e-learning environment as one in which all students have an equitable opportunity to succeed. Authors state that this definition acknowledges the role that human factors may play in determining accessibility of a learning scenario. Their definition goes beyond that from Sandars and Lafferty [2], because it considers the opportunity to succeed, not just the use of intervention.
Meyen et al. [17] design online modules to be Bobby compliant, for access by persons with disabilities. Bobby was a free public service launched in 1996 to automatically analyze accessibility features of web sites. Kovacs [23] and Wang and Yang [18] consider accessibility as a priority on web-based instruction. Zaharias [20] defines accessibility as a usability parameter for e-learning. Sandars and Lafferty [2] believe accessibility relates to screen design (e.g., avoidance of certain colours in colour blindness, and use of keystrokes instead of mouse clicks for navigation). Wang and Shen [27] consider accessibility, usability, and learning as aspects of mobile learning message design.
User-centred design
User-centred design was another concept that stood out on the review. A human-centred design ‘aims to make systems usable and useful by focusing on the users, their needs and requirements, and by applying human factors/ergonomics, and usability knowledge and techniques. This approach enhances effectiveness and efficiency; improves human well-being, user satisfaction, accessibility, and sustainability; and counteracts possible adverse effects of use on human health, safety and performance’ [35]. Wang and Yang [18] suggest principles for the user-centred design. Liang et al. [19] give suggestions of planning, designing, and developing a web-based instructional resource system for the homeland education upon the basis of a user-centered design approach. Huang [24] view user-centric design approach as a way of makes design decisions based on human factors and match them to the user’s needs and expectation. Wheeler and Carey [29] state that there is a need for different types of training and help because there are different types of users. They suggest designers should create user frameworks to develop adequate training.
Limitations
The review was likely limited, because we searched for papers published in scientific journals, excluding conference papers and other publications. However, it was possible to find several contributions for instructional designers to apply ergonomics in their work.
Conclusion
In a review of the literature on the application of ergonomics in instructional design, we identified 17 studies published between 1988 and 2013. Journals from several research fields, mainly educational, have published studies that use ergonomics on instructional design. This shows the outreach of ergonomics and instructional design and its application and relevance for multiple domains. On the other hand, the reduced number of identified papers show that researchers have many opportunities to explore ergonomics applied to instructional design.
Among the terms used for the search, certain concepts achieved a small amount of results (e.g., design thinking, user experience design, and service design), which shows the lack of application of these concepts in instructional design. These concepts can enrich instructional design projects, representing opportunities for future research.
Usability was the theme that stood out in the review. This research field arose due to the increasing use of computers [36], which justifies its relevance in instructional design research. Beyond usability, we observed the application of accessibility, and user-centred design in instructional design. Accessibility is applied mainly with the international standards of web development.
Based on Liang et al. [19] and Crowther et al. [16], we identified an opportunity for future researches on the relations of professionals involved in the e-learning development (e.g., teachers, instructional designers, graphic designers). Studies on organisational ergonomics can represent important advances to the area.
Conflict of interest
None to report.