Based on the findings from a final checklist comprising 44 items, a needs assessment questionnaire was developed. Following approval from the supervisory team, this questionnaire was utilized in the design of the educational application (
Table 1). The analysis of the responses revealed that out of 30 academic board members, 26 fully completed the researcher-designed questionnaire. Of these respondents, 14 (53.8%) were male, and 12 (46.2%) were female. In terms of academic ranks, 11 (42.3%) were associate professors, 7 (26.9%) were assistant professors, 7 (26.9%) were lecturers, and 1 (3.8%) was an instructor. The range of faculty members' work experience spanned from 3 to 33 years, with an average of 13.2 years.
| Educational Needs | Software Requirements |
|---|
| Explore diverse e-learning methods. | Notifying the news in the specialized field as notification. |
| Familiarity with e-learning theories | Viewing the course calendar |
| Getting to know the principles of e-learning | Access to the digital library |
| Familiarity with e-learning standards | Providing feedback from the course or program |
| Familiarity with content management systems and learning management systems | Connecting cultural-educational centers to the navigation system |
| Familiarity with multimedia and their production | Publication of educational content as a link |
| Familiarity with content authoring software and tools | Access to your emails from within the application and website |
| Familiarity with tools and technologies in e-learning | Receiving educational announcements as notifications |
| Getting to know the evaluation process and its methods in e-learning | Filtered display of educational content (based on criteria such as the newest, most visited, most relevant, etc.) |
| Familiarity with electronic tests (design, execution, and analysis) | Ability to download and save educational files as PDF or PowerPoint |
| Familiarity with the process of designing an electronic learning environment | Displaying professors' information (name, education, resume, photo, contact information) |
| Getting to know the models and design patterns of electronic learning environments | Notifying you of the nearest eLearning training courses or conferences related to this field |
| Familiarity with individual differences and adaptive learning in electronic learning | Giving a pre-test before starting each course |
| Getting to know the types of interactions in e-learning | Having your favorite list and saving your favorite contents and courses in it |
| Getting to know the skills needed by professors and students | Note-taking through the application |
| Getting to know the principles of professional ethics in e-learning | Displaying frequently asked questions (FAQ) as a searchable (search bar) |
| Getting to know how to support the teacher and the learner in e-learning | Displaying programs related to each day as notifications on the home page of the app |
| Familiarity with teaching methods and techniques in electronic learning | Displaying information related to the educational goals of the courses |
| Providing content in the form of written texts, audio files, short clips, working games, simulations |
| Communicate with your classmates through text messages, voice messages, and video messages. |
| Having these items in your personal profile: first and last name, educational qualifications, position, work history, and photo. Displaying your university profile information as QR. |
Table 2 showcases the educational needs of faculty members, emphasizing their familiarity with the principles and foundations of electronic learning. The highest level of familiarity was observed with models and design patterns in electronic learning environments, methods and techniques of teaching in electronic learning, and electronic testing. On the contrary, the least familiarity was noted with software and content development tools, as well as with multidisciplinary areas, their production, and content and learning management systems.
| High Familiarity | Medium Familiarity | Low Familiarity | Very little Familiarity | No Need | Total | Average |
|---|
| The principles of e-learning | 8 | 60 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 25 (100) | 2.4 ± 0.85 |
| Various electronic learning methods | 8.7 | 31.9 | 31.9 | 16 | 0 | 23 (100) | 2.57 ± 0.82 |
| Various e-learning theories | 8.7% | 56.5 | 21.6 | 4.3 | 0 | 23 (100) | 2.39 ± 0.87 |
| E-learning standards | 8.7 | 34.8 | 52.2 | 4.3 | 0 | 23 (100) | 2.52 ± 0.71 |
| Content management system and learning management system | 8.7 | 34.8 | 43.5 | 8.7 | 4.3 | 23 (100) | 0.91 ± 2.65 |
| Multimedia and its production | 4.3 | 31.9 | 30.4 | 21.7 | 4.3 | 23 (100) | 2.83 ± 0.96 |
| Content creation software and tools | 4.3 | 30.4 | 43.5 | 16 | 8.7 | 23 (100) | 2.91 ± 0.97 |
| Tools and technologies in e-learning | 8.7 | 48.7 | 30.4 | 8.7 | 4.3 | 23 (100) | 2.52 ± 0.93 |
| The evaluation process and its methods in e-learning | 17.4 | 34.8 | 31.9 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 23 (100) | 2.43 ± 0.97 |
| Electronic tests | 27.3 | 36.3 | 36.3 | 9.1 | 0 | 22 (100) | 2.18 ± 0.94 |
| The level of familiarity with the design process of the e-learning environment | 16 | 52 | 20 | 12 | 0 | 25 (100) | 2.28 ± 0.87 |
| The level of familiarity with models and patterns of designing electronic learning environments | 16 | 56 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 25 (100) | 2.12 ± 0.65 |
| Individual differences and flexible learning | 13 | 43.5 | 34.8 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 23 (100) | 2.43 ± 0.92 |
| The types of interactions in e-learning | 16.7 | 45.8 | 29.2 | 4.2 | 4.2 | 24 (100) | 2.33 ± 0.94 |
| The level of familiarity with the skills needed by professors and students for optimal use of electronic education | 11.5 | 42.3 | 42.3 | 3.8 | 0 | 26 (100) | 2.38 ± 0.74 |
| The principles of professional ethics in e-learning | 12 | 44 | 40 | 4 | 0 | 25 (100) | 2.36 ± 0.74 |
| The level of familiarity with how to support the teacher the learner in electronic learning | 16 | 36 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 25 (100) | 2.32 ± 0.73 |
| Teaching methods and techniques in electronic learning | 20 | 48 | 28 | 4 | 0 | 25 (100) | 2.16 ± 0.78 |
a Values are expressed as No. (%) or mean ± SD.
The results of the study highlight the preferences of educators regarding the application environment, as demonstrated through their yes-or-no responses about UI/UX design. The preferences, in order of priority, include the dissemination of educational content links, clarification of the course's specialized field, creation of a wishlist, notification of conferences, pre-course awareness assessment, storage of content in PDF or PowerPoint format, display of course objectives, access to a digital library, educational announcements, an FAQ section, feedback on the course and app, display of personal information, notifications for daily programs, a navigation system for access to cultural-educational centers, content filtering (most viewed, newest, most relevant), and access to a personal website and email within the application.
The findings reveal that respondents display a strong preference for consultation and support through the application, favoring text messages (31%), social networks (15%), phone calls (12%), and email (4%) for communication. Additionally, half of the faculty members express a preference for addressing their inquiries personally or via email, while the other half prefer using discussion forums in courses to post their questions. In terms of course evaluation, a majority of 65.4% opt for "all options," indicating a preference for a combination of online and offline exams and class activities, whereas 15.4% specifically choose online and offline exams.
When considering the mode of teaching delivery, 65% of respondents show a preference for asynchronous teaching methods, in contrast to the 35% who favor synchronous teaching. The analysis indicates that written text (PDF) is the most preferred type of educational content, with an average ranking of 1.96, whereas gamification ranks lowest with an average ranking of 4.42.
Furthermore, a significant 88.5% of respondents (23 individuals) express an interest in having their academic degrees displayed in their profile. Conversely, the least interest is shown in displaying profile photos, with only 46.2% indicating such a preference.
Table 3 shows the professors' priorities regarding the essential features that should be considered in the design of the application environment.
| Application Feature | The Percentage of Interest in Embedding This Feature in the Application Environment |
|---|
| Publication of educational content in the form of links | 100 |
| Explanation of the specialized field of each training course | 100 |
| Favorites list | 100 |
| Frequently Asked Questions | 96.2 |
| Pre-test to measure the level of awareness | 96.2 |
| Information about upcoming courses and conferences | 96.2 |
| Information related to educational purposes | 96.2 |
| Ability to download educational files in PDF and PowerPoint format | 96.2 |
| Access to the digital library | 95.8 |
| Provide feedback from the application course | 95.5 |
| Notification of educational announcements | 95.5 |
| Ability to take notes | 92 |
| Calendar of daily programs | 91.3 |
| Announcement of daily plans | 88.5 |
| Display personal information | 87.5 |
| navigation | 87 |
| Educational content filtering | 84 |
| Ability to access personal email and website | 82.6 |
| News | 69.2 |
The design of an e-learning course application is divided into two principal components: Instructional design and user interface design. In this context, the instructional design phase, guided by the Ashur model, encompasses several steps: Identifying needs, defining educational objectives, selecting course topics and content, determining required media, choosing teaching-learning methods, strategizing for learner participation, and implementing formative and summative assessments.
The identified needs encompass topics such as the principles and concepts of e-learning, familiarity with standards and learning tools, and recognizing individual differences in e-learning. Based on these needs, educational objectives are established, and course topics and content are developed around principles of e-learning, contemporary technologies, and professional ethics in online education.
Various teaching and learning methods, including assignments, discussions, final exams, and addressing issues through online classes, are incorporated. Additionally, student participation engagement programs have been devised.
In the user interface section of the application, features like sharing educational links, providing information on courses and conferences, downloading educational materials, educational notification alerts, and content filtering are highlighted.
Overall, this application is designed to be a comprehensive and dynamic e-learning tool, utilizing the Ashur model as the foundational guide for instructional design.