Usable and Useful Help in Literature Database Search? A Pedagogical Implementation and the Evaluation of an Interactive Screencast for Iraqi University Students

The screencast ‘How to Systematically Find Scientific Literature’ was developed with Adobe Captivate 7 and consists of five main parts with practical relevance. The main parts are structured through five guiding questions which are as follows:

This structure reflects the incorporation of the segmentation principle which emphasizes that a topic chosen for the purpose of skills acquisition and training must be pedagogically divided into different parts (Chen and Yang 2020).

The questions presented in Sect. 2.4.1. are shown at the beginning of the screencast in a table of contents (Fig. 1). Including a table of contents at the beginning and, in this way, providing the students with an overview of the topic covered, the screencast implements three essential learning theory principles. First, it reflects the principle of “expository organizers” (Ausubel 1968, 149), which are emphasized by the approach of expository teaching. Expository organizers are needed at the beginning of each learning process to implement two procedures. First, these organizers address the students prior knowledge by representing questions which students had encountered in their everyday academic life. Accordingly, the questions are familiar to the students to some extent. Secondly, these organizers prepare students for what they should focus on in the screencast without cognitively overloading them with too much detailed information at once. This is connected to the implementation of a second important learning theory principle called progressive differentiation.

Progressive differentation is another constituent in the concept of expository teaching. The idea of pro-gressive differentation emphasizes that knowledge should be presented to students step by step. According-ly, procedures should be presented on a superficial level first. Subsequently, details should be provided on a deeper level (Ausubel 2000).

Finally, the table of contents ensures a personalized diffferentiated instruction, as each student can select the content focus which he or she prefers. Individual students are not bound by a fixed order in which they must cover the questions. In this way, the easiness of the screencast is increased and the screencast enables the students to overcome the problems described in Sect. 2.3. (Ausubel 2000; Landrum and McDuffie 2010).

The display of the table of contents is preceded by an introductory sequence which is problem-oriented. In this context, the analogy between literature search and a detective’s work ethic is used to establish a problem in a humourous way in order to raise curiosity among the learners. The students are presented a problem which can be solved and answered with the different sequences in the screencast. The incorpor-ation of this introductory sequence is based on John Dewey and his pragmatic five-step learning model which is considered the foundation of the problem based learning concept. Concretely, the first step of the model emphasizes that skills acquisition and skills development are initiated by a scenario in which learners realize a necessity for knowledge acquisition through a problem (Dewey 1966; Reich 2002, 2004; Neubert 2012). According to the ARCS model, the learner’s attention can be effectively drawn to problem when surprising or humorous events are presented to the learner (Keller and Kopp 1987). This idea is reflected in the introductory part which shows humorous misunderstandings between a detective and her detective colleague.

While the screencast is based on an understanding of interactivity which is limited to degree of navi-gation manipulation, it reflects an innovative interactivity approach by increasing the extent of navigation manipulation and, in this way, allowing students to authentically exercise steps they are instructed to do and to have control over their learning pace. This, in turn, means that the screencast can overcome the challenges in terms of the connection between instruction and tasks through several steps and elements. This means that Iraqi students can counteract their perception of a low CSE in the following way. The instruction part consists of two parts. First, the students are shown an interface procedure on PubMed. This coincides with scaffolding elements which can guide the learner. A white cursor and green highlight boxes point to important elements and information on the interface. This is accompanied by green text boxes which provide written meta-information or a written explanation of the functions. Secondly, a blue highlight box points to the focus of action, after the interface was explained by the green elements. This is accompanied by a written instruction in an orange speech bubble which tells the student what to do. This is were the exercise part starts. The students complete the interface procedure by imitating what the orange speech bubble tells them to do. This can either be a click on elements or typing a written text in an input screen on the PubMed interface. As students cannot manipulate the interface in the screencast in a way which would completely change the setting of the computer, for example, their fear connected to task completion can be reduced. In this way, they can focus on the acquisition and the development of ICT-skills (Fig. 2).

This design and sequence succession is based on theoretical and empirical considerations. First, the design can be derived from three essential constituents of the ‘Cognitive Apprenticeship’ concept. In the so-called modelling phase, the teaching part demonstrates how a problem can be solved or how a particular procedure is implemented. The subsquent coaching sequence allows the learner to carry out the procedure steps previously shown. The coaching is characterized by scaffolding and an emphasis on concrete actions taken by the learner. The former constitutes elements which support the learner by giving hints or cues, for example. These constituents are incorporated in the screencast in the following way. Recorded interface procedures reflect the modelling. The moving cursor, blue highlight boxes and green as well as orange text boxes reflect scaffolding. The sequence in which the learner has to navigate and click can be considered coaching (Collins et al. 1989). This goes hand and hand with the “Conceptualization Cycle” (Mayer 2009, 53) in which the learning process is constituted through three phases. The first phase is the infromation transfer which consists of instruction and the presentation of procedures. The second step is the implementation of actions or imitation of procedures. The third step ist the feedback given to students. The effectiveness of this cycle has been proven empirically in the context of the introduction to new inter-faces (Mestre 2012).

Moreover, the immediate completion of the interface procedure right after the instruction has been incorporated in the screencast because of an observation called the paradoxon of the active user and because of possible time losses. The former occurs very frequently when screencasts are used. According to this observation, users want to start or complete the task immediately without reading the instruction properly. The latter refers to experiences from workplaces where the introduction of new softwares and interfaces caused considerable time losses. The design ‘instruction and immediate task completion through action followed by feedback’ is supposed to encounter the coincidence of ICT-skill acquisition and significant time losses (Caroll and Rosson 1987; Fu and Gray 2004; Baker 2014; Lazar et al. 2006).

Finally, this sequence succession in the screencast addressess Iraqi university students and their needs to acquire skills, which are needed to fulfill academic and professional requirements, in combination with a practical approach (Sect. 2.1). Likwise, this sequence succession considers and incorporates academic postulates from theoretical and empirical studies emphasizing that learners must be involved through meaningful exercises which are authentic and connectd to the student’s academic everyday life (Oud 2009; Tekinarslan 2014; 2.3.).

Apart from the exercise sequences, the navigation elements in the screencast increase the degree of interactivity, allowing the students more flexibility and control in different ways. In this way, the navigation elements contribute to a higher easiness of the screencast. First, flexibility in the screencast is increased through the orange navigation buttons in the table of contents. They allow the students to skip a focus which they are not interested in or which they are already familiar with, enabling the students to quickly get to the content focus which they prefer most. Within this particular focus, students can navigate back to single previous steps of this focus by hitting the orange ‘go back’ button. Additionally, the presentation and instruction of the screencast does not move on to the next step, unless the students perform the necessary action by implementing the instruction expressed in the orange speech bubble. This means that the screencast instructions cannot move too fast for the students, as the presentation stops at some point at which students are given the control by being able to choose between performing the necessary action or waiting and scanning the interface. If the students wish to leave a particular focus at any time, they can hit the orange ‘home button’ which leads them back to the table of contents. In this way, the students can experience both, navigation flexibility in terms of content selection as well as content focus and control over their individual learning pace (Fig. 3).

The easiness of the screencast is increased through scaffolding, such as the written texts in the green text boxes and the orange speech bubbles which mark the transitions between the different screencast sequences and provide meta-information, explanations of the interface functions, instructions to be implemented and feedback. This study considers the exclusive use of written texts preferable to auditive language support for two reasons. First, declarative knowledge which includes knowledge of particular actions and procedures has been found to be transported to learners more effectivley through written language. Secondly, studies on the modality effect have shown that written information is advantageous, as it is permanently available for the learners. Accordingly, this kind of information can be found or retrieved more easily than spoken information which the learner might have missed. In this way, information is likely to be lost, as cognitive load is reduced, which, in turn, allows learners to invest more parts of the limited overall cognitive capacity to learning foci in the screencast (Leathy and Sweller 2016; Chen and Yang 2020).

Predominantly, the screencast presented in this study shows features of an instructional manual. This manual is characterized by learning theory principles which reflect cognitive-behavioral characteristics. These characteristics, in turn, coincide with essential limitations. The cognitive-behavioral focus on action guidance has been critisized for its production of inflexible education environments characterized by a rigid learning structure (Roblyer 2015). Despite these essential observations, the focus on characteristics of an instructional manual in the screencast is based on three aspects. First, this focus can be seen as a reduction in complexity. This, in turn, can be considered synonymous with the reduction in fear that the students cannot complete the task because they are confronted with a perceived technical complexity (Al-Azawei et al. 2016). Secondly, the screencast is not meant to cause the students to explore the medium of the literature search database but to show the students how they can use it as efficiently as possible to meet academic requirements. In this way, it enables them to learn the function of a tool without considerable time losses. This is particularly important for the MASPP participants and, in general, to students who study and train to become psychotherapists, as they face several types of workload and time constraints due to their practical psychotherapeutic training which takes place in addition to theoretical lectures at the same time (Bride 2007; Norcross and VandenBos 2018). Finally, the focus on action guidance adresses the learning style which Iraqi students are used to. Despite some attempts to establish discussions and critical thinking as essential compoments of the learning process, Iraqi students have been particularly familiar with direct instruction (Mohammed-Marzouk 2012).

The evaluation is intended to present a conclusion. For this reason, it is summative. Concretely, it aims at a conclusion in terms of the reaction level by asking how learners evaluate a particular measure, the interactive screencast (Stockmann and Meyer 2014; Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick 1995; Schaumburg 2004).

Furthermore, the implementation of an evaluation is based on two imperatives from research literature. First, studies, for instance the one by Mery et al. (2014), have emphasized that research on screencast should increasingly focus on the user of digital learning tools. In contrast to studies which determine the effectiveness of literature search screencasts by using external objective data (Emanuel 2013; Gravett and Gill 2010), empirical studies which focus on the subjective learners ‘perspective in connection to screencasts on literature database search are comparatively rare (Baker 2014; Tekinarslan 2014). The evaluation aims at determining the MASPP students’ perspective on the reusasbility of the screencast for academic and professional requirements. In the context of this study, reusability is understood as the opportunity for long-term applicability of the screencast to learning contexts for practical training which prepares students for academic and professional requirements (Leacock and Nesbit 2007).

Additionally, the necessity for this evaluation is derived from the imperative that the sample spectrum considered for the assessment of literature search screencasts must become more diverse in terms of cultural aspects. In connection to this, Morris and Chikwa (2014), for instance, point out that it is necessary to widen the scope of demographics at a university level. Most findings on the learners ‘perspectives on the use of screencasts have been generated in the so-called Western part of the world, more precisely mostly in the Anglo-Saxon area. For this reason, it is crucial to evaluate the screencast in a non-Western environment, as digital learning tools, which have been implemented succesfully in a Western context, are not automatically accepted by students with a different cultural background in the same way (Kundi and Nawaz 2014). So far, there are no empirical findings on the medium of the screencast in connection to literature database search. Accordingly, a research gap is closed through this evaluation.

The two main criteria are ‚easiness, 'which is treated synonymously with ‚usability’ in this study, and, usefulness’. Analogous to the research questions, the criteria are derived from TAM. In general, TAM provides an explanation of why people use (digital) technology, while not necessarily explicitly refering to technology with learning purposes. Accordingly, these criteria are relatively abstract. For these reasons, the Learning Objective Review Instrument (LORI) developed by Leacock and Nesbit (2007) is used to specify these criteria. Accordingly, ‘usability’ is expressed and measured through ‘Presentation Design’ and ‘Interaction Usability’. ‘Usefulness’ is expressed and measured through ‘reusability’ which has been defined in Sect. 3.2.1. Section 3.3 shows how these concepts are specified in questionnaire items for measurement.

Quantitative Data were collected for this evaluation study. The collection of quantitative data is based on the current state of research and methodological considerations. Those findings on screencasts with a focus on literature search, which were generated in mostly Western countries, are predominantly based on quantitative data. By collecting quantitative data, this study generates an opportunity for a comparison between its findings and the findings in previous studies on learners ‘perspectives on screencasts’.

An online survey was implemented to collect data. The use of an online survey was considered advantageous in connection to four aspects. First, online surveys have proved to be reliable in research which draws on quantitative data collection for determining the attitudes of learners. Secondly, an online survey is a particularly time-efficient approach to obtain a large amount of information from different learners at the same time (data collection) and to compare this information (data analysis). Additionally, the use of an online survey can counteract an unintended method effect which can occur when surveys are used at different times. Finally, the use of an online survey allows a local independence. This was particularly relevant to the evaluation as the head of the evaluation lives and works in Germany while the students constituting the sample live and work in Northern Iraq. The head of the evaluation and the students do not know each other. In this way, the local distance and the use of an online survey ensure that the assessment behavior of the sample is not influenced through acquaintances (Reinders 2015; Reinders and Ditton 2015; Blasius and Brandt 2009; Wagner and Hering 2014).

An online questionnaire was developed to gather data. Details of the development of the questionnaire can be seen in Sect. 3.3. The sample was recruited with a list-based approach. In this way, the issue of coverage error became irrelevant, as all students on the list were considered. The students know each other through the MASPP-program. For this reason, the assessment behavior of the sample can possibly be influenced by social desirability within the sample. After the screencast had been made available to the students on the internal Moodle-platform of the university, the students were sent an email which informed them about the evaluation and which contained the questionnaire URL with a personalized ID at the end. In this way, overcoverage could be avoided (Couper and Coutts 2006; Baur and Florian 2009).

The operationalization of the constructs ‘easiness’, which is synonymous with ‘usability’ in the context of this study, and ‘usefulness’ is implemented through the evaluation instrument LORI. It treats the constructs of (perceived) ‘easiness’ and ‘usability’ synonymously (Leacock and Nesbit 2007, 49). According-ly, the construct ‘easiness’ can be described through the dimensions ‘presentation design’ and ‘interaction usability’. In connection to the screencast, ‘presentation design’ is expressed through the visibility of scaf-folding and navigations elements, like the green or blue highlight boxes and the green text boxes or orange speech bubbles.‘Interaction usability’ can be expressed through the degree of predictability of interface manipulation and changes (Leacock and Nesbit 2007).

The construct 'usefulness’ can be described through the dimension ‘reusability’ which is understood as the opportunity for long-term applicability of the screencast to learning contexts for practical training which prepares students for academic and professional requirements (Leacock and Nesbit 2007). In this study, it is differentiated between reusability with regard to content and reusability in terms of learning approach. The content focus ascribes importance to how relevant the contents are for students and how approprioate the way of the content depiction is. In connection to this, the authenticity of the contents themselves and their depcition is crucial. The learning approach focus emphasizes questions such as the following: To what extent do the students experience control? To what extent does the screencast enable the students to authentically practice and simulate situations which reflect academic requirements in real life? To what extent does the screencast address the student’slearning preferences? (Leacock and Nesbit 2007).

The operationalization process is presented in a detailed way in Appendix 1.

The original version of the questionnaire was formulated in the English language, as English is the official langauge of the MASPP-program. The students had also been selected for the program, based on their proficiency in English. Consequently, a language translation was not necessary. This means that the original version of the questionnaire could be used in the survey. The questionnaire consists of five main parts. The first part (items 1–3) is the introduction. The second part (items 4–13) inquired about aspects related to the dimensions 'presentation design’ and ‘interaction usability’. The third part (items 14–18) inquired about aspects related to the dimension ‘reusabiliy—content’. The fourth part (items 19–23) inquired about aspects related to the dimension ‘reusability—practice approach’. The fifth part was used to collect sociodemographic information.

Overall, 29 items were included in the questionnaire. This amount is based on two considerations. First, the motivation to participate in a survey and to complete the questionnaire is closely connected to a short questionnaire with a low amount of questions. Moreover, the low amount of items is derived from the principle of data economy expressed in the General Data Protection Regulation (Porst 2014; Schöneck and Voss 2013; Council of the European Union 2016).

The study by Nagy (2018) was considered as a basis and template for the development of the questionnaire, as its focus and constructs were similar to those used in this study. Moreover, the questionnaire used in the study by Nagy showed validity of 0.5. It was examined in terms of content validity, convergent validity and discrimantn validity. The results showed that the AVE value of each construct was above 0.5. For this reason, the condition convergent validity was fulfilled, the discriminant validity between variables was also satisfactory. However, the questionnaire by Nagy was expanded and adapted to the evaluation focus in this study. For this reason, the excellent validity demonstrated in the study by Nagy is not ensured in this evaluation. This is addressed again and identified as limitation of this study in part 6.

Only closed-ended questions were included in the questionnaire. This is based on considerations connected to objectivity (Atteslander 2010). The Likert scale was used to incorporate response choices for two reasons. First, it allows a comparatively quick analysis of objective data. Secondly, data which are analyzed through the use of the Likert scale can be compared to qualitative data in an insightful way (Wilson 2005). In the face of a necessary comparison between the results of this study and those from previous and future studies, the use of the Likert scale seems to be particularly promising.

In the questionnaire, the Likert scale is reflected in verbal response choices. The scale ranged from 1 to 5. The value 1 was converted into the response choice I disagree’. The value 2 equaled the response choice ‘I tend to disagree’. ‘I cannot decide’ reflected the value 3. Value 4 was ascribed to the response choice ‘I tend to agree’ and the value 5 was converted into ‘I agree’.

Prior to the survey in the second student cohort, the questionnaire was tested by 15 MASPP-students from the first student cohorte in a pretest. On average, it took the students 13 min to complete the questionnaire. This duration was within the time range recommended for online surveys (Schöneck and Voss 2013). Moreover, Cronbach α values of the questionnaire scales were calculated in the prestest in order to determine reliability. The scale ‚presentation design and interaction usability ‘showed a Cronbach α of 0.942. The Cronbach α of the scale ‘reusability—content’ amounted to 0.866, while Cronbach’s α in the scale ‘reusability—practice approach’ showed 0.915. Thus an excellent reliability could be assumed, which means that the questionnaire was used in this form for data collection (Häder 2015; Mazher et al. 2015).