Heuristics Discovered from Prototyping an Interactive System
Etymologically, the term “heuristics” is derived from a Greek term “heuriskein” which means “to discover”. Heuristics refer to the specific “rules-of-thumb” discovered from knowledge or experience in order to solve a problem. In this study, a set of heuristics had been discovered by end-users while developing a series of prototypes of an interactive system called web-based test blueprint system. The heuristics are considered as minimum requirements that are deemed essential for a usable system.
This study suggests that the design process of an interactive system should cater to its technical domain as well as to its specialized domain. Thus, apart from proficiency in technical skills (e.g. user interface design), the designer of an interactive system must also demonstrate appropriate knowledge within the realm of the specialized domain (e.g. classroom assessment). Throughout the design process of the test blueprint, the underlying classroom assessment standards, theories, principles, and concepts had been highly considered while in consultation with the intended users and double experts. The end-users and the double experts have the strong knowledge and experience about the specialized domain and are also well-versed about the business processes, policies, standards, and organizational structure. The intended users from whom requirements are best captured should always be positioned at the center of the interactive system’s development.
KeywordsHeuristics Test blueprint User-centered development Prototypes
- 1.Singun, A.: Application-based test blueprint for a summative classroom assessment. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Management Conference “Challenges of Modern Management”, November 3-4, 2016, Bucharest, Romania (2016)Google Scholar
- 2.Houde, S., Hill, C.: What do prototypes prototype? In: Helander, M., Landauer, T., Prabhu, P. (eds.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam (1997)Google Scholar
- 3.Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)Google Scholar
- 4.Maughan, P.D.: Focus groups. In: Dupuis, E.A. (eds.) Developing Web-Based Instruction: Planning, Designing, Managing, and Evaluating for Results. Facet Publishing, London (2003)Google Scholar
- 5.Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T.: Nursing Research: Principles and Methods, 7th edn. Lippincot, William, & Wilkins, Philadelphia (2004). ETS Assessment Training Institute, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
- 6.Cronbach, L.: Test validation. In: Thorndike, R. (ed.) Educational Measurement, 2nd edn. pp. 443–507. American Council on Education, Washington, DC (1971)Google Scholar
- 7.George, D., Mallery, P.: SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. 11.0 Update, 4th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
- 8.American Educational Research Association: American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC (2014)Google Scholar
- 9.Mehrens, W.A., Lehmann, I.J.: Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3rd edn. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1991)Google Scholar
- 10.Nortar, C.E., Zuelke, D.C., Wilson, J.D., Yunker, B.D.: The table of specifications: insuring accountability in teacher made tests. J. Instr. Psychol. 31, 115–129 (2004)Google Scholar
- 11.Linn, R.L., Gronlund, N.E.: Measurement and Assessment in Teaching. Merrill, Columbus, OH (2000)Google Scholar
- 14.Gronlund, N.E.: Assessment of Student Achievement, 8th edn. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, Boston (2006)Google Scholar