SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: 2026

Development of Interactive Videos for Learning Management System Usage and Investigation of Users' Experiences

Öğrenme Yönetim Sistemi Kullanımına Yönelik Etkileşimli Videoların Geliştirilmesi ve Kullanıcıların Deneyimlerinin İncelenmesi

Talha Yıldız(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2553-8777
Erhan Ünal(AFYON KOCATEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5349-4193
Pages
1–14
Publication Date
2026-03-11
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings revealed that the average usability score of the tutorial was 76.8.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Having a support system that provides novice users with quick and practical assistance for navigating learning management systems (LMS) is essential.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The findings revealed that the average usability score of the tutorial was 76.8.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings will provide valuable insights for the literature and inform future research focused on designing and implementing similar systems.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Çevrim içi öğretici · etkileşimli video · kullanıcı deneyimi

Abstract

Having a support system that provides novice users with quick and practical assistance for navigating learning management systems (LMS) is essential. This research aims to develop an interactive, video-based online tutorial with engaging elements for LMS usage at the Afyon Kocetepe University and to examine users' experiences. Despite the availability of a help-support structure for navigating the LMS interface, instructors have faced difficulties in adapting to it. To address this, we created a new modular and flexible online tutorial enhanced with multimedia components to assist users in navigating the LMS.The study employed a formative research method, presenting the tutorial to real users for evaluation. The findings revealed that the average usability score of the tutorial was 76.8. Additionally, the average scores for knowledge retention and transfer testscores related to the interactive video content were 73.2. No significant differences were found in usability scores, retention, or transfer test scores based on gender or field of study. In conclusion, the online tutorial, featuring interactive video content, demonstrated usability scores well above average and had a positive impact on both conceptual and procedural learning. These findings will provide valuable insights for the literature and inform future research focused on designing and implementing similar systems.

Özet

Öğrenme yönetim sistemlerini (ÖYS) kullanırken sorun yaşayan acemi kullanıcıların hızlı ve pratik yardım alabileceği bir destek sistemine sahip olmak çok önemlidir. Bu araştırma, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi’nde ÖYS kullanımı için etkileşimli ögeleri çeren, video tabanlı bir çevrim içi öğretici geliştirmeyi ve kullanıcı deneyimlerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. ÖYS’yi kullanmak için bir yardım-destek yapısı mevcut olmasına rağmen, eğitmenler buna uyum sağlamakta zorluk çekmektedirler. Bu çerçevede ÖYS’ye yönelik çoklu ortam ögeleri ile zenginleştirilmiş, modüler ve esnek bir yapıya sahip yeni bir çevrimiçi öğretici tasarımı gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma sürecinde biçimlendirici araştırma yöntemi temel alınmıştır. Bu kapsamda tasarım otantik kullanıcıların değerlendirmesine sunularak kullanılabilir bir yapıya sahip olmasına çalışılmıştır. Araştırma neticesinde geliştirilen çevrimiçi öğreticinin kullanılabilirlik düzeyi ortalama puanının 76.8 olduğu; hatırda tutma ve transfer testi ortalama puanının ise 73.2 olduğu görülmüştür. Gerek kullanılabilirlik puanlarının gerekse hatırda tutma ve transfer testi puanlarının cinsiyet ve çalışma alanına göre istatistiksel olarak farklılık göstermediği ortaya çıkmıştır. Neticede, etkileşimli video içeriklere sahip çevrim içi öğreticinin kullanılabilirliğinin ortalamanın oldukça üzerinde olduğu, kavramsal ve prosedürel öğrenme üzerinde olumlu katkılarının olduğu söylenebilir. Araştırma sonuçlarının ilgili alanyazınına katkı sunacağı, benzer kapsamda tasarım ve uygulama yürütecek araştırmacılara yapacakları çalışmalarda ışık tutacağı öngörülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yıldız, T., Ünal, E. (2026). Development of Interactive Videos for Learning Management System Usage and Investigation of Users' Experiences. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: 2026, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.1749092

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (92)

  1. Adamo-Villani, N., Wilbur, R. &Wasburn, M. (2008). Genderdifferences in usabilityandenjoyment of vreducationalgames: a study of SMILE™. In2008 International Conference Visualisation (pp. 114-119). IEEE.
  2. Alexander, K. P. (2013). Theusability of printand online video instructions. Technical CommunicationQuarterly, 22, 237–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2013.775628
  3. Angolia, M. G., &Pagliari, L. R. (2016). Factorsforsuccessfulevolutionandsustainability of qualitydistanceeducation. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 19(3). https://ojdla.com/archive/fall193/angolia_pagliari193.pdf
  4. Anthony Jr, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A. E., Abdullah, A., &Ming, G. L. (2022). Blendedlearningadoptionandimplementation in highereducation: A theoreticalandsystematicreview. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(2), 531-578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09477-z
  5. Ardito, C., Costabile, M. F., Marsico, M. D., Lanzilotti, R., Levialdi, S., Roselli, T. &Rossano, V. (2006). An approachtousabilityevaluation of e-learningapplications. Universal Access in TheİnformationSociety, 4, 270-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-005-0008-6 1.6.2024.
  6. Baran, B., & Ata, F. (2013). Universitystudents' web 2.0 technologiesusage, skilllevelsandeducationalusage. EducationandScience, 38(169).https://educationandscience.ted.org.tr/article/view/1166
  7. Başol, G. (2019). Araştırmacılar için istatistik. [StatisticsforResearchers]PegemAkademy.
  8. Bayrak, M., Karaman, A. & Kurşun, E. (2014). Determiningtheusabilityproblems of ınteractivelcd panel whiteboardsused in the fatih project. Mersin UniversityJournal of theFaculty of Education, 10(2), 28-50. https://doi.org/10.17860/efd
  9. Brar, J. &van der Meij, H. (2017). Complexsoftwaretraining: Harnessingandoptimizing video instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 475-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.014
  10. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quickanddirtyusabilityscale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189 (194), 4-7.
  11. Brown, M. (2021). Whatarethe main trends in online learning? A helicopterview of possiblefutures. AsianJournal of DistanceEducation, 16(2).
  12. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi elkitabı. [Handbook of data analysisforthesocialsciences]. Pegem.
  13. Cai, Z., Fan, X. &Du, J. (2017). Genderandattitudestowardtechnologyuse: A meta-analysis. Computers&Education, 105(2017), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.003
  14. Carter, S., Qvarfordt, P., Cooper, M., Komori, A., &Makela, V. (2018). Tools for online tutorials: comparingcapturedevices, tutorialrepresentations, andaccessdevices. arXivpreprint arXiv:1801.08997.
  15. Castro, R. (2019). Blendedlearning in highereducation: Trendsandcapabilities. Educationand Information Technologies, 24(4), 2523-2546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3
  16. Chan, L. P., Patil, N. G., Chen, J. Y., Lam, J. M., Lau, C. S. &Ip, M. S. M. (2010). Advantages of video trigger in problem-basedlearning. MedicalTeacher, 32, 760-765. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421591003686260
  17. Clark, C., Strudler, N. &Grove, K. (2015). Comparingasynchronousandsynchronous video vs. textbaseddiscussions in an online teachereducationcourse. Online Learning, 19(3), 48-69.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1067484.pdf
  18. Clark, J. M. &Paivio, A. (1991). Dual codingtheoryandeducation. EducationalPsychologyReview, 3, 149-210.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01320076
  19. Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2023). E-learningandthescience of instruction: Provenguidelinesforconsumersanddesigners of multimedialearning. John Wiley&Sons.
  20. Conde, M. A., García, F., Rodríguez-Conde, M. J., Alier, M. &García-Holgado, A. (2014). Perceivedopenness of learningmanagementsystemsbystudentsandteachers in educationandtechnologycourses. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 517-526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.023
  21. Çağıltay, K. (2011). İnsan bilgisayar etkileşimi ve kullanılabilirlik mühendisliği: teoriden pratiğe. [Human-computerinteractionandusabilityengineering: fromtheorytopractice] ODTÜ Yayıncılık.
  22. Çelik, A. (2019). Öğretmenlerin eğitim teknolojileri kullanım düzeylerinin belirlenmesi: Sakarya ili örneği [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Sakarya Universitesi.
  23. Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrumentreview: Gettingthemostfrom a panel of experts. Appliednursingresearch, 5(4), 194-197.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
  24. Dumas, J. S. &Redish, J. C. (1994). A practicalguidetousabilitytesting. Portland, OR: IntellectBooks.
  25. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., &Gall, J. P. (1996). Educationalresearch: An introduction.Longman Publishing.
  26. Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Exploringthe video‐basedlearningresearch: A review of theliterature. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 44(6), E191-E195. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12070
  27. Heemsoth, T., Boe, L., Bükers, F. &Krieger, C. (2022). Fosteringpre-service teachers'knowledge of 'teachinggamesforunderstanding'via video-based vs. Text-basedteachingexamples. PhysicalEducationandSportPedagogy, 27(1), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1850668
  28. Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D. &Barron, A. E. (2013). Aregenderdiferences in perceivedanddemonstratedtechnologyliteracysignificant? Itdepends on the model. EducationalTechnologyResearchand Development, 61(4), 639-663.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-013-9304-7
  29. Huang, Z. &Mou, J. (2021). Genderdifferences in userperception of usabilityandperformance of online travelagencywebsites. Technology in Society, 66, 101671.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101671
  30. Huang, Z. & Yuan, L. (2017). Genderdifferences in tourismwebsiteusability: An empiricalstudy. In Design, User Experience, andUsability: UnderstandingUsersandContexts: 6th International Conference, DUXU 2017, Held as Part of HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9-14, 2017, Proceedings, Part III 6 (pp. 453-461). Springer International Publishing.
  31. International OrganizationforStandardization (ISO) (2019).Ergonomics of human-systeminteraction – Part210:Human-centred design for interactivesystems (StandardNo. 9241-210:2019). fromhttps://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:77520:en Accessed11June2024.
  32. Jiang, D., Renandya, W. A. & Zhang, L. J. (2017). Evaluating ELT multimediacoursewarefromtheperspective of cognitivetheory of multimedialearning. ComputerAssisted Language Learning, 30(7), 726-744. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1359187
  33. Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M. &Hannum, W. H. (1998). Taskanalysismethodsforinstructionaldesign.Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602657
  34. Kaarakainen, M. T., Kivinen, A. &Kaarakainen, S.S. (2017). Differencesbetweenthegenders in ICT skillsforFinnishuppercomprehensiveschoolstudents: Doesgendermatter? Seminar.net, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.2304
  35. Kadirhan, Z., Gül, A. & Battal, A. (2015). Sistem kullanılabilirlik ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Systemusabilityscale: a validityandreliabilitystudy]. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 14(28), 149-167.
  36. Kaipio, J., Kuusisto, A., Hyppönen, H., Heponiemi, T. &Lääveri, T. (2020). Physicians'andnurses'experiences on EHR usability: Comparison between the Professional groupsbyemploymentsectorandsystembrand. International Journal of MedicalInformatics, 134, 104018.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.104018
  37. Khairat, S., Coleman, C., Ottmar, P., Bice, T., Koppel, R. & Carson, S. S. (2019). Physicians'genderandtheiruse of electronichealthrecords: findingsfrom a mixed-methodsusabilitystudy. Journal of the American MedicalInformaticsAssociation, 26(12), 1505-1514.https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz126
  38. Khalika Banda, C., &Gombachika, H. (2012). Mobile phonetechnologyacceptanceandusability in thedelivery of healthservicesamonghealthsurveillanceassistants in ruralareas of Malawi. InInternational Conference on e-Infrastructureand e-Services forDevelopingCountries (pp. 249-258). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  39. Khan, H. U., Lalitha, V. M., &Awan, M. A. (2024). Possibleimpact of video lecturecapture as an e-learningtool: a casestudy of highereducation of Republic of Korea. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 45(2), 172-191. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2024.136404
  40. Kokoç, M., IIgaz, H. ve Altun, A. (2020). Effects of sustainedattentionand video lecturetypes on learningperformances. EducationalTechnologyResearchand Development, 68(6), 3015-3039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09829-7
  41. Kormos, E. (2022). A comparison of preserviceteacherperceptions of instructor video andtext-basedfeedback. SN SocialSciences, 2(8), 153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00413-9
  42. Kuśnierz, C., Rogowska, A. M. &Pavlova, I. (2020). Examininggenderdifferences, personalitytraits, academicperformance, andmotivation in UkrainianandPolishstudents of physicaleducation: A cross-culturalstudy. International Journal of EnvironmentalResearchAndPublicHealth, 17(16), 5729.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165729
  43. Lloyd, S. A. & Robertson, C. L. (2012). Screencasttutorialsenhancestudentlearning of statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 39(1), 67-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311430640
  44. Lloyd, S., Long, K., Alvandi, A. O., DiDonato, J., Probst, Y., Roach, J. &Bain, C. (2021). A NationalSurvey of EMR Usability: comparisons between medical andnursingprofessions in thehospitalandprimarycaresectors in AustraliaandFinland. International Journal of MedicalInformatics, 154, 104535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104535
  45. Luo, M., Sun, D., Zhu, L. & Yang, Y. (2021). Evaluatingscientificreasoningability: Student performance and the interactioneffectsbetweengradelevel, gender, andacademicachievementlevel. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100899
  46. Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedialearning. Cambridge UniversityPress.
  47. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applyingthescience of learning: Evidence-basedprinciplesforthedesign of multimediainstruction. AmericanPsychologist, 63(8), 760–769. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.760
  48. McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: evidence-basedinquiry (7th Edition).Pearson Publishing.
  49. Moreno, R. (2006). Does themodalityprincipleholdfordifferent media? A test of themethod-affects-learninghypothesis. Journal of ComputerAssisted Learning, 22, 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00170.x
  50. Moreno, R. (2009). Learning fromanimatedclassroomexemplars: thecaseforguidingstudentteachers' observations with metacognitiveprompts. EducationalResearchand Evaluation, 15(5), 487-501. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610903444592
  51. Naing, M. M. &Hlaing, M. M. (2020). Interactive tutorialframeworkfor online learning. International Journal of AdvanceResearchand Development, 5(4), 20-23. https://www.ijarnd.com/manuscripts/v5i4/V5I4-1142.pdf
  52. Nathoo, A., Gangabissoon, T., &Bekaroo, G. (2019). Exploringtheuse of tangibleuserinterfacesforteachingbasic Java programmingconcepts: a usabilitystudy. In 2019 conference on nextgenerationcomputingapplications (NextComp) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
  53. Neumann, D. L. &Westbury, H. R. (2011). Thepsychophysiologicalmeasurement of empathy. Psychology of Empathy, 119-142. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/143862881.pdf
  54. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usabilityengineering. Boston, MA: AcademicPress.
  55. Nielsen, J. (2000). Whyyouonlyneedto test with 5 users. From https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/. Accessed 13 June 2024.
  56. Oliveira, P. C. D., Cunha, C. J. C. D. A. &Nakayama, M. K. (2016). Learning Management Systems (LMS) and e-learningmanagement: an integrativereviewandresearchagenda. JISTEM-Journal of Information SystemsandTechnology Management, 13, 157-180. https://doi.org/10.4301/S1807-17752016000200001
  57. Ozan, Ö. (2008). Öğrenme yönetim sistemlerinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of learning management systems]. XIII. Türkiye'de İnternet Konferansı, 1(4).
  58. Özdemir, M., & Yıldız, A. (2015). Theeffect of educationalvideospresented in two differentcontentstream on motivationandachievement of students with visual learningstyles. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education,11(1), 104-124. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.96324
  59. Pakdaman, M., Moghadam, M., Dehghan, H. R, Dehghani, A., &Namayandeh, S. M. (2019). Evaluation of thecost-effectiveness of virtualandtraditionaleducationmodels in highereducation: A systematicreview. Health Technology Assessment in Action, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.18502/htaa.v3i1.5715
  60. Plaisant, C. &Shneiderman, B. (2005). Show me! Guidelinesforrecordeddemonstration. Paperpresented at the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languagesand Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC'05), Dallas, Texas.
  61. Ponzanelli, L., Bavota, G., Mocci, A., DiPenta, M., Oliveto, R., Hasan, M.,. &Lanza, M. (2016). Toolong; didn'twatch! extractingrelevantfragmentsfromsoftwaredevelopment video tutorials. InProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 261-272).
  62. Preradovic, N. M., Lauc, T. &Panev, I. (2020). Investigatinginteractivity in instructional video tutorialsfor an undergraduateinformaticscourse. Issues in EducationalResearch, 30(1), 203-223.
  63. Reigeluth, C.M. &Frick, T. (1999). Formativeresearch: A methodologyforimprovingdesigntheories. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-designtheoriesandmodels, Volume 2: A newparadigm of instructionaltheory (pp. 633–651). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
  64. Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). What is instructional-designtheoryand how is it changing?.In C.M.
  65. Rosman, M. R. M., Rosli, N. N. I. N., Shukry, A. I. M., Razlan, N. M. & Alimin, N. A. (2023). Investigatingtheroles of demographicprofiles on usabilityassessment: Case study on CiteGuruapplication. IAES International Journal of ArtificialIntelligence, 12(1), 367.https://doi.org/10.11591/ijai.v12.i1.pp367-373
  66. Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of usabilitytesting: How to plan, design, andconducteffectivetests.John Wiley&Sons.
  67. Sauer, J., Sonderegger, A. &Schmutz, S. (2020). Usability, userexperienceandaccessibility: towards an integrative model. Ergonomics, 63(10), 1207-1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1774080
  68. Sengir C. (2019). Ortaokul öğretmenlerinin bilişim teknolojilerini kullanma düzeylerinin bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi (İstanbul Fatih ilçesi örneği). [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi.
  69. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y. &Preece, J. (2007). Interactiondesign:beyondhuman-computerınteraction.Wiley.
  70. Sırakaya, M. (2019). Technologyacceptance of primaryandsecondaryschoolteachers, InonuUniversityJournal of theFaculty of Education, 20(2), 578-590. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.495886
  71. Stiwinter, K. (2013). Using an interactive online tutorialtoexpandlibraryinstruction. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 18(1), 15-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2013.777010
  72. Stufflebeam, D. L., McCormick, C. H., Brinkerhoff, R. O. & Nelson, C. O. (1985). Conductingeducationalneedassessment. Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
  73. Szczygiel, M. (2020). Gender, general anxiety, mathanxietyandmathachievement in earlyschool-agechildren. Issues in EducationalResearch, 30(3), 1126-1142.
  74. Taqi, F., Batool, S. H., &Arshad, A. (2024). Examiningdifferences in perceivedusability of Google Drive amongpubliclibraryusers. Library HiTech, 42(6), 1956-1976.https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-05-2022-0275
  75. Taşçı, G., Kasapoğlu, F., Kış, A. & Ömür, Y. (2023). Examiningtheuse of technology in education in terms of gender: a meta-analysis. InonuUniversityJournal of theGraduate School of Education, 10(20), 1-14.1-14. https://doi.org/10.29129/inujgse.1149426
  76. Teo, T., Milutinović, V. & Zhou, M. (2016). ModellingSerbianpre-service teachers' attitu destowards computeruse: A SEM and MIMIC approach. Computers&Education, 94, 77-88.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.022
  77. Thuseethan, S., Achchuthan, S. ve Kuhanesan, S. (2014). Usabilityevaluation of learningmanagementsystems in Sri Lankanuniversities. arXivpreprint arXiv:1412.0197.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.0197
  78. Top, E., Yukselturk, E. &Cakir, R. (2011). Genderand Web 2.0 technologyawarenessamong ICT teachers. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 42(5), E106-E109.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01208.x
  79. Torrisi-Steele, G. &Drew, S. (2013). Theliteraturelandscape of blendedlearning in highereducation: The need for better understanding of academicblendedpractice. International JournalforAcademic Development, 18(4), 371-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.786720
  80. Van der Meij, H. & Van der Meij, J. (2013). Eightguidelinesforthedesign of instructional videos for softwaretraining. Technical Communication, 60(3), 205-228.
  81. Van der Meij, H. (2014). Developingandtesting a video tutorialforsoftwaretraining. Technical Communication, 61(2), 110-122.
  82. Van der Meij, H. (2017). Reviews in instructional video. Computers&Education, 114, 164-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.002
  83. Van der Meij, J. & Van der Meij, H. (2015). A test of thedesign of a video tutorialforsoftwaretraining. Journal of ComputerAssisted Learning, 31(2), 116-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12082
  84. Vermeeren, A. P., Law, E. L. C., Roto, V., Obrist, M., Hoonhout, J. &Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2010). User experienceevaluationmethods: current state and development needs. InProceedings of the 6th Nordicconference on human-computerinteraction: Extendingboundaries (pp. 521-530). https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1868973
  85. Vlachogianni, P. &Tselios, N. (2022). Perceivedusabilityevaluation of educational (SUS): A systematicreview. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(3), 392-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1867938
  86. Williams, K., White, S. L. & English, L. D. (2024). Profiles of general, test, andmathematicsanxiety in 9-and 12-year-olds: relationstogenderandmathematicsachievement. Mathematics Education ResearchJournal, 1-26.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-024-00485-1
  87. Yang, S. (2009). Information literacy online tutorials: an introduction torationaleand technologica ltools in tutorialcreation. The Electronic Library, 27(4), 684-693. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470910979624
  88. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri (8. Baskı) [ResearchMethods in theSocialSciences (8th Edition)]. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  89. Yıldız, A. M. (2025). Interactionandachievement in online synchronousdistanceeducation: Is morealwaysbetter? The Erzincan UniversityJournal of EducationFaculty, 27(2), 267-277. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.1641065
  90. Zhang, T., Low, L. C. &Seow, P. S. (2020). Using online tutorialstoteachtheaccountingcycle. Journal of Educationfor Business, 95(4), 263-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2019.1636755
  91. Çağıltay, K. (2011). İnsan bilgisayar etkileşimi ve kullanılabilirlik mühendisliği: teoriden pratiğe. [Human-computerinteractionandusabilityengineering: fromtheorytopractice] ODTÜ Yayıncılık.
  92. Ponzanelli, L., Bavota, G., Mocci, A., DiPenta, M., Oliveto, R., Hasan, M.,. &Lanza, M. (2016). Toolong; didn'twatch! extractingrelevantfragmentsfromsoftwaredevelopment video tutorials. InProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 261-272).