Running head: GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 1

Evaluation of Google Slides Basics Module on Adults

Shay Herr

California State University, Monterey Bay

July 23, 2019

IST622 Assessment and Evaluation

Dr. Bude Su
GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 2

Table of Contents
Introducton .................................................................................................................................... 3

Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 3

Prototype ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Learners....................................................................................................................................... 4

Tryout Conditions and Process ................................................................................................... 5

Results ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Entry Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 5

Instruction ................................................................................................................................... 6

Outcomes .................................................................................................................................... 6

Statistical Data ............................................................................................................................ 9

Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 10

Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 12

Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 14

Appendix C .................................................................................................................................. 16
GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 3

Evaluation of Google Slides Basics Module on Adults

The Google Slides module was developed for the Capstone project to train individuals

who have little or no knowledge of Google Slides. Originally, the module was designed for

younger learners with special needs, either learning or ability, to provide an avenue for learning

the basics of Google Slides in an interactive way. The intent was to help learners increase their

technical skills to be better prepared for higher education and the professional world. This report

will look at the transferability of the module for adult learners who have little to no knowledge of

Google Slides, but do not have special needs or learning ability requirements. Six participants

were evaluated through a pre and post-test to examine if learning occurred. Each participant was

observed while taking the module and asked to evaluate the usability of the prototype.

Methodology

Prototype

The prototype, Using Google Slides is Easy, was developed using Captivate

software and was estimated to be completed in ten minutes on average. All effort was made to

lessen cognitive overload, this included the interface navigations, such as the next, previous,

home, and repeat buttons (see Table 1.1) which were specially created and explained at the

beginning of the module. Screen captures and video demonstrations were taken directly from

Google Slides to provide an authentic learning experience (see Table 1.2). Only six basic Google

Slides functions were reviewed in this first module of the series. Throughout the module learners

are asked to follow along with the narrator, clicking on the proposed function. This allows

learners to work through the module interactively before being asked to practice the function on

their own. If learners became stuck at any point while taking the module, even the practice

portions, a prompt would appear providing corrective feedback.

GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 4

Table 1.1

Table 1.2

Learners

The purpose of this report was to evaluate adult learners using the prototype to

provide evidence to support the learning transferability of the module. Six adults, all over the age

of 21, were asked to participate. Occupations of the participants varied; of the six, two work in,

or retired from, the medical field, two had Associate Science degrees, one is employed by an

electrical company, and the last participant had a High School diploma. Out of the six, one

agreed to be strongly familiar with Google Slides before taking the eLearning module. The rest

of the participants reported only being somewhat familiar or not familiar at all. All participants

had previous computer skills and some technical knowledge (i.e. turn computers on and off, able

to access email on their own, etc.).

GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 5

None of the participants were told of the modules original intended target

audience. They were only told the subject matter. It was anticipated the participants would

improve their knowledge by reviewing the module and would provide supportive evidence of the

prototypes versatility for all learners not just those with special disabilities.

Tryout Conditions and Process

Five separate observational tryouts were conducted, all in homes of the participant

or the designer. One tryout included observation of two participants at the same time, but all

other observations where conducted individually. Each participant was first asked to take a pre-

test to assess their current knowledge of the basic Google Slides functions addressed in the

module. The pre-test was accomplished through Google Forms showing learners the same

visuals and questions as the post-test. See Appendix A. Participants were then observed while

taking the module which included the post-test assessment. After completion of the post-test,

participants where asked one question from the observational checklist to assess whether being

observed changed the way they proceeded through the module. See Appendix B. Finally,

participants were asked to fill out a usability survey, also created using Google Forms, to gather

information about the usability of the module. See Appendix C.

Results

Entry Conditions

All but one entry conditions and observations were as expected. The learners did

not encounter any problems while accessing the module, however one participate didn’t realize

the module was interactive and began following the instructions by opening a new browser

window. This appeared to be a fault by the designer’s set up as the computer had two monitor
GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 6

screens and didn’t clearly state the module was interactive. The participant was able to move

forward with the module after figuring out the interactive features.

Instruction

The intended instruction was as expected, each participant moved easily through

the module and received a 100% on their post-test. Observations noted an eagerness to move

more quickly through the instructions, even before the narration was finished. Participants were

observed waiting until the narration was complete, instead of selecting the next button which

would have allowed them to continue through the module more quickly. When asked whether

the observer was a factor in their choice two participants replied “yes” and one said “no”. One

participant replied that, even though they could have skipped through module, they wanted to

hear all the instruction and that the observer did not play a factor in their decision. Another

participant stated that they were able to read the closed captioning faster than the narrator,

making them more eager to continue, but declined because they were being observed. The last

participant, familiar with eLearning modules, stated that in the past when they had skipped

through the narration, they were unable to pass the test because they missed a certain portion of

instruction. This made them hesitant to use the next button.

Outcomes

The Usability test (see Appendix A) received positive response from participants.

A 100% agreed that the learning objectives were clear and the embedded prompts were a helpful

feature. All but one gave the highest rating for easy navigation of the module. When asked to

give an overall rating of the module, from ‘Too Easy’ to ‘Difficult’, 50% responded that the

module was easy (see Table 2.1). Two reported the module to be ‘Just Right’ and one reported

the module was ‘Too Easy’.

GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 7

Table 2.1

When asked to rate what ages would be appropriate for the module all but one reported

‘All Ages’ (see Table 2.2). The other participant thought that the module should be used for

those that are completely new to Google Slides.

Table 2.2

The Usability test also asked participants to rate their familiarity with Google Slides

before taking the module (1 strongly agreeing they were familiar and 5 strongly disagreeing they

were familiar). Most participants agreed to be only somewhat or not familiar with Google Slides

(see Table 2.3).

GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 8

Table 2.3

Pre-test results were high for participants (see Table 2.4), averaging 51.67 points out of

60, with three participants receiving a 100% on both the pre and post-test scores. Both the pre

and post-tests asked the same six questions. The pre-test was delivered through Google Forms

using the same visuals as the post-test. The post-test was included in the module. Some of the

function questions on the test are similar to those found in other software applications, such as

the Undo and Redo buttons, and could have played a factor in the high pre-test scores.

Google Slides Basics

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
5 5

1 2 3 4 5 6

Pre-Test Post Test

Table 2.4
GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 9

Statistical Data

Originally, the module was designed for learners with special needs or abilities, and

for age’s ten to twelve. Since the module is a learning experience for those who are unfamiliar

with Google Slides would evidence support the versatility of the eLearning module? The

hypothesis was to provide evidence for the transferability of the module to be appropriate for all

ages. The null hypothesis would then be that there is no evidence or not enough statistical

evidence to support the modules transferability to include all ages.

Data was collected from a dependent sample and a paired two sample t-test was

conducted (see Table 2.5). As the hypothesis was directional, statistical significance would be

evaluated in the one-tail results. The critical value of 2.01 was greater than the t-stat of 1.74 and

the p-value result of .07, greater than the alpha level set at .05. Therefore the null hypothesis

must be excepted as the data show little evidence to report statistically significant findings.

Because the null hypothesis was accepted, calculating the difference between the standard means

(Cohen’s d) would be trivia.

Table 2.5
GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 10

Recommendations

Even though most participants reported the module could be appropriate for all

ages, the data does not show significant evidence. To create a module that could show a greater

level of significance the designer would recommend the following:

Improve the learner objectives. The learning objectives for the module were too easy for

learners with higher cognitive ability. Many of the functions learned in the module can also be

found in other systems or have a similar styles to other presentation software such as

PowerPoint. More advance objectives for higher cognitive learners would be advised.

Use less interactivities. Though interaction should still play a part in the eLearning, these adult

learners didn’t require the multiple repetition opportunities used in the module. A quick

demonstration and one practice item would have been sufficient. Providing faster demonstrations

would also improve the time allotted for the module.

Shorter narrative. All the participants were observed to be eager to advance more quickly

through the module. The narrative should be more succinct and stick to the main points without

boring the learner. To improve motivation, the dialog included unnecessary comments such as

“Nice job!” and “You’re doing great on this lesson”, these comments would often be followed by

a laugh from the participants as it was unnecessary for their level of ability.

Tell the participant how long the module should take. Each of the participants were told the

module should take about ten minutes, but several suggested that the estimated time for the

eLearning be added to the modules narrative. This could improve learner motivation to review

the module, if they are aware it will not take too much of their time.

Evaluate participants within the original target audience. The module has not yet been tested on

its’ intend learners, those with lower cognitive ability or physical disabilities. Results from these
GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 11

learners could provide evidence that the eLearning, while not suitable for adults, could be better

suited for those to whom it was intended for.

Summary

The data from the paired two sample t-test did not show statistically significant findings

for the modules transferability to all ages. Substantial revisions would need to be made to

improve the level of performance and skills suitable for adult learners. While some learners may

find the eLearning helpful when first starting Google Slides, it would be more advisable to create

an instruction suitable for adult level understanding and comprehension. Should further

development of the module be revised for adult learners, the recommendations listed previously

should be fully examined and applied.

GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 12

Appendix A

Usability Survey
GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 13
GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 14

Appendix B

Pre and Post Test

GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS 15
GOOGLE SLIDE BASICS
Appendix C
Observational Checklist
How long did it take to go through the
module?
Did the user get seem to get stuck/stop at any
point?
Was the user able to continue the module
after getting stuck?
Did the user ever ask for assistance while
taking the module?
Did the user ever need an embedded prompt
to continue?
Asked after taking the module
Did you want to go faster through the
module? What stopped you?
Any other notable observations
16
Participant 1 – 15:53
Participant 2 – 13:42
Participant 3 – 12:13
Participant 4 – 11:37
Participant 5 – 12:41
Participant 6 – 14:52
One user got stuck when they didn’t know the
module was interactive. User opened a new
browser and tried to follow the instruction.
Yes
No
Only one user needed the prompt to continue.
Participant 1 – Yes, wanted to hear the dialog
Participant 2 – Yes, being under observation
stopped them
Participant 3 – No
Participant 4 – Yes, could read the text faster
than the narrator was speaking, didn’t move
forward because they were being observed
Participant 5 – Yes, being under observation
stopped them
Participant 6 – Yes, had previously skipped
all the way through other eLearning modules
and missed vital information.
Users would laugh at the narrations
sometimes. They found the “Nice Job!”
comments and the repetitive “Click the next
button” humorous.