Abstract
In the context of ongoing digitalization in educational settings, learning tools are no longer confined to traditional paper-based media but are increasingly shifting toward digital platforms. This transition highlights the significance of selecting appropriate digital layout tools, as these choices play a crucial role in determining the quality of learning portfolios. This study adopted a one-way between-subjects experimental design. A total of 60 students from technical high schools were recruited and randomly assigned to three experimental groups. The independent variable consisted of three representative digital layout tools. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA to examine differences in task performance, System Usability Scale (SUS) scores, and constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted to help address the practical needs of curriculum designers and interface developers in selecting and applying digital tools for instructional purposes. Key findings are as follows: • Usability and User Satisfaction: With its intuitive interface and abundant templates, Tool B consistently received the highest SUS and TAM scores, best meeting students’ learning needs. • Performance vs. Satisfaction: Despite receiving the lowest satisfaction ratings, Tool A’s structured design and robust features led to superior task performance, revealing a potential discrepancy between subjective satisfaction and objective performance. • User Preferences and Feedback: Qualitative findings aligned with the quantitative data. Students found Tool B "intuitive and fast to learn" for novices, while Tool A was "powerful but with a steep learning curve." Tool C was described as "familiar" but with "limited layout control."
Keywords
Digital Learning; Digital Layout Tools; Learning Portfolios; Learning Outcomes
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/iasdr.2025.189
Citation
Wu, H.,and Chen, C.(2025) Interface Usability of Digital Layout Tools and Learning Outcomes in Technical High School Students, in Chang, C.-Y., and Hsu, Y. (eds.), IASDR 2025: Design Next, 02-05 December, Taiwan. https://doi.org/10.21606/iasdr.2025.189
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Conference Track
Track 12 - Design Education
Interface Usability of Digital Layout Tools and Learning Outcomes in Technical High School Students
In the context of ongoing digitalization in educational settings, learning tools are no longer confined to traditional paper-based media but are increasingly shifting toward digital platforms. This transition highlights the significance of selecting appropriate digital layout tools, as these choices play a crucial role in determining the quality of learning portfolios. This study adopted a one-way between-subjects experimental design. A total of 60 students from technical high schools were recruited and randomly assigned to three experimental groups. The independent variable consisted of three representative digital layout tools. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA to examine differences in task performance, System Usability Scale (SUS) scores, and constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted to help address the practical needs of curriculum designers and interface developers in selecting and applying digital tools for instructional purposes. Key findings are as follows: • Usability and User Satisfaction: With its intuitive interface and abundant templates, Tool B consistently received the highest SUS and TAM scores, best meeting students’ learning needs. • Performance vs. Satisfaction: Despite receiving the lowest satisfaction ratings, Tool A’s structured design and robust features led to superior task performance, revealing a potential discrepancy between subjective satisfaction and objective performance. • User Preferences and Feedback: Qualitative findings aligned with the quantitative data. Students found Tool B "intuitive and fast to learn" for novices, while Tool A was "powerful but with a steep learning curve." Tool C was described as "familiar" but with "limited layout control."