设计教育反馈表问题

问题设计（用于在线学习平台用户反馈表）
- 问题：请基于您最近一次使用体验，评价在本平台上完成典型学习任务（如浏览课程内容、提交作业、参与讨论或完成测验）的总体难易程度。
- 量表：7 点单题易用性量表（Single Ease Question, SEQ）
  1 = 非常困难
  2 = 困难
  3 = 略困难
  4 = 一般
  5 = 略容易
  6 = 容易
  7 = 非常容易
- 额外选项：不适用/我未进行上述任务

理论依据与证据
- 选择单题易用性量表（SEQ）作为反馈表中的核心问题具有方法学依据。SEQ 在人机交互与可用性研究中被广泛验证，可作为对完成任务主观难易度的敏感、低负担指标，能与任务成功率、完成时间及主观满意度等关键指标呈中到高强度相关，从而有效反映平台的可用性水平（Sauro & Lewis, 2012）。
- 在技术增强学习情境中，感知易用性是技术接受的重要前因，显著预测使用意向与持续使用行为；因此，以易用性为单题核心指标具有较强的外部效度与决策价值（Davis, 1989）。该问题可作为平台层面的常模化监测指标，并支持与其他体验维度（如内容质量、互动性）进行后续关联分析。

参考文献（APA 第7版）
- Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
- Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2012). Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research. Morgan Kaufmann.

Proposed feedback item
Overall, how effectively did the course resource repository help you find high-quality resources aligned with your learning objectives?

Response scale
1 = Not at all effective; 2 = Slightly effective; 3 = Somewhat effective; 4 = Moderately effective; 5 = Very effective; 6 = Highly effective; 7 = Extremely effective; Not applicable

Rationale
This single, global item targets perceived effectiveness in locating relevant learning resources, a core outcome for a repository’s pedagogical value. It operationalizes the “effectiveness” dimension of usability as defined in ISO 9241-11:2018, while focusing respondents on relevance to learning objectives rather than generic satisfaction. The phrasing avoids double-barreled constructs (for example, not conflating relevance with aesthetics or navigation) and uses a seven-point response scale, which has demonstrated favorable reliability, validity, and discriminating power in psychometric evaluations. Furthermore, aligning the evaluative focus with relevance to learning objectives draws on the Technology Acceptance Model’s emphasis on perceived usefulness as a predictor of user acceptance and continued use in educational technologies.

References
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 9241-11:2018 Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Usability: Definitions and concepts.

Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104(1), 1–15.

反馈表问题（单题，认知负荷测量）
请评价您在刚才使用互动答题器完成作答时所感受到的总体心理努力程度：
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 = 非常低的心理努力；9 = 非常高的心理努力
作答指引：请在完成每一轮答题后立即选择最能代表您整体体验的数字。

方法学依据与用途
该单题基于Paas提出的单维度心理努力量表，已在认知负荷研究与教学设计评估中广泛使用，能敏感地反映学习者在完成任务时的主观负荷水平（Paas, 1992；Paas et al., 2003）。在互动答题器情境中，心理努力作为认知负荷的主观指标，可用于识别由界面可用性、题干表述、时间限制或反馈呈现方式引发的非本质（外在）负荷，从而为迭代优化题目设计与交互流程提供证据（Sweller et al., 2011）。基于该指标的纵向监测亦可与成绩、答题时长等客观数据联动，形成对教学效率的综合评估。

参考文献（APA第7版）
- Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429
- Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H. K., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8
- Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.