Plagiarism Usability Test Plan (Sample)

11 min read

Plagiarism Prevention E-Learning Module: Usability Testing Plan

A. Overview of E-Learning Solution

Module Name: “Academic Integrity Mastery Quest: Plagiarism Prevention & APA Citation Excellence”

Description: An interactive, quest-based e-learning module designed to teach students academic integrity principles through six progressive challenges (C1-C6). The module combines case studies, interactive demonstrations, hands-on practice, and AI-powered analysis tools to create an engaging learning experience that results in a mastery certificate.

Target Audience: High school and college students who need to develop academic writing and citation skills.

B. Purpose of Testing

Primary Purpose

Evaluate the effectiveness, usability, and engagement level of the plagiarism prevention module before full deployment to ensure it meets educational objectives and provides an optimal user experience.

Potential Benefits

Educational Effectiveness: Validate that the quest-based approach successfully teaches plagiarism prevention and APA citation skills
User Experience Optimization: Identify navigation issues, content clarity problems, and engagement barriers
Content Validation: Ensure case studies, examples, and interactive elements resonate with the target audience
Technical Performance: Test functionality of interactive tools, AI analysis features, and assessment mechanisms
Engagement Assessment: Determine if the gamified quest format maintains student interest throughout all six modules

C. Parts of E-Learning Solution to be Tested

Core Modules (Primary Focus)

C1: Plagiarism Case Studies - Real-world consequences and impact scenarios
C2: APA Reference Instruction - Interactive citation tools and Salem’s dilemma
C3: Reference Correction Practice - Error identification and correction exercises
C4: Plagiarism Avoidance Workshop - AI-powered writing analysis tools

Supporting Elements

Navigation System - Module progression, menu usability, breadcrumb navigation
Video Integration - Video playback, quality, and educational value
Interactive Tools - APA citation generator, plagiarism checker interface
Visual Design - Image clarity, layout effectiveness, responsive design
Progress Tracking - Level progression indicators, completion status

Advanced Features (Secondary Focus)

C5: Instructor Assessment - Portfolio review interface
C6: Mastery Certificate - Certificate generation and feedback system

D. Test Objectives

Learning Objectives to Validate

Comprehension Validation: Students can identify plagiarism scenarios after completing C1
Skill Application: Students can create proper APA citations using C2 tools
Error Recognition: Students can spot and correct citation errors through C3 practice
Prevention Mastery: Students can use AI tools effectively to avoid plagiarism via C4

Usability Assumptions to Test

Navigation Intuition: Students can progress through modules without confusion
Content Clarity: Instructions and examples are clear and actionable
Engagement Sustainability: Quest format maintains interest across all modules
Tool Accessibility: Interactive elements work across different devices and skill levels

Technical Assumptions to Validate

Performance: Modules load quickly and function smoothly
Compatibility: Content displays correctly on various devices/browsers
Interactivity: All interactive elements respond appropriately to user input

E. Usability Metrics to be Gathered

Quantitative Metrics

Task Completion Rate: Percentage of students completing each module successfully
Time on Task: Average time spent on each module and specific activities
Error Rate: Number of mistakes made during interactive exercises
Navigation Efficiency: Number of clicks/steps required to complete tasks
Drop-off Rate: Percentage of students discontinuing at each module

Qualitative Metrics

User Satisfaction Scores: Post-module rating scales (1-10) for usefulness and engagement
Perceived Learning Value: Self-reported confidence in applying learned skills
Content Clarity Ratings: Understanding scores for instructions and examples
Visual Appeal Assessment: Ratings for design, images, and overall presentation
Engagement Feedback: Specific comments on what maintains or loses interest

Behavioral Metrics

Help-Seeking Frequency: How often students request assistance or clarification
Replay/Revisit Patterns: Which content students return to review
Interactive Tool Usage: How students engage with citation generators and analysis tools

F. Usability Performance Goals

Completion and Accuracy Goals

Primary Goal: 85% of participants complete C1-C4 modules within the testing session
Accuracy Target: 80% success rate on C3 correction exercises without hints
Efficiency Goal: Average module completion time of 15-20 minutes per module

User Satisfaction Targets

Overall Satisfaction: Average rating of 7.5/10 or higher for module usefulness
Engagement Score: Average rating of 7/10 or higher for “interesting/engaging” content
Clarity Rating: 90% of participants rate instructions as “clear” or “very clear”

Technical Performance Standards

Load Time: All modules and interactive tools load within 3 seconds
Error-Free Operation: 95% of interactive elements function without technical issues
Cross-Platform Compatibility: Consistent experience across desktop, tablet, and mobile devices

Learning Outcome Benchmarks

Knowledge Retention: 75% accuracy on post-module quiz questions
Skill Transfer: 80% of participants can correctly cite a new source using learned APA format
Confidence Increase: Average self-reported confidence gain of 3+ points on 10-point scale

G. Usability Tasks and Scenarios

Pre-Test Scenario Setup

Context: “You’re a student working on a research paper for your English class. You want to learn about academic integrity and proper citation to avoid plagiarism. You’ve heard that this quest-based module can help you become an expert in these skills.”

Module-Specific Tasks

C1: Case Studies Tasks

Scenario: “Review the plagiarism case studies and identify the consequences in each scenario”
Task: Navigate through case studies, watch embedded video, and complete the reflection activity
Success Criteria: Correctly identify 3/4 consequences and provide meaningful reflection

C2: APA Reference Tasks

Scenario: “You need to cite a book and a website for your research paper”
Task: Use the interactive APA citation tool to create proper citations for provided sources
Success Criteria: Generate correctly formatted citations within 10 minutes

C3: Correction Practice Tasks

Scenario: “Your classmate has shared their reference list, but you notice some errors”
Task: Identify and correct 5 citation errors using the practice tool
Success Criteria: Find and fix at least 4/5 errors with explanations

C4: Workshop Tasks

Scenario: “You’ve written a paragraph for your paper and want to check for potential plagiarism”
Task: Submit text to AI analysis tool and implement suggested improvements
Success Criteria: Successfully use tool and understand feedback provided

Quest Progress: “Check your overall progress and navigate back to review C2 content”
Help Access: “Find and use the help or support feature when stuck”
Mobile Transition: “Complete one module on desktop, then continue on mobile device”

H. Test Methodology

Test Type Components

Format: In-person testing with remote follow-up survey
Approach: Exploratory usability testing with assessment elements
Moderation: Moderated sessions with think-aloud protocol

Participant Components

Number of Participants

Primary Group: 12-15 students (allows for 2-3 groups of 4-5 students each)
Rationale: Sufficient for identifying major usability issues while managing logistics

Eligibility Requirements

Currently enrolled high school or early college students (ages 16-20)
Basic computer/internet skills (can navigate websites independently)
Currently or recently enrolled in classes requiring research papers
No prior experience with formal APA citation training

Participant Qualifications

Academic Level: Mix of high school juniors/seniors and college freshmen
Technology Comfort: Comfortable using computers, tablets, and smartphones
Writing Experience: Have written at least one research-based assignment
Motivation: Expressed interest in improving academic writing skills

Required Skills

Basic Digital Literacy: Can navigate websites, click links, fill forms
Reading Comprehension: Can understand high school level instructional text
Task Focus: Able to concentrate on activities for 60-90 minutes
Communication: Comfortable expressing thoughts and feedback aloud

Participant Training

Pre-Test Briefing (10 minutes):

Explanation of think-aloud protocol: “Say what you’re thinking as you work”
Clarification that we’re testing the system, not the participant
Overview of the quest concept and module structure
Practice think-aloud with a simple warm-up task (navigating a sample webpage)
Permission to ask questions and request help during testing
Consent for recording (screen capture and audio for analysis)

Test Procedures

Test Setting

Location: Computer lab with individual workstations
Equipment: Computers with reliable internet, screen recording software, audio recording
Environment: Quiet space with minimal distractions
Duration: 90-120 minutes per session including briefing and debrief

Participant Steps

Arrival & Setup (10 min): Check-in, consent forms, equipment testing
Training & Briefing (10 min): Think-aloud training and context setting
Module Testing (60-80 min): Complete C1-C4 with think-aloud commentary
Post-Test Survey (10 min): Complete satisfaction and feedback questionnaire
Debrief Interview (10-15 min): Open discussion about experience and suggestions

Observer Steps

Pre-Session: Set up recording equipment, prepare observation sheets
During Session: Take notes on user behavior, errors, and comments
Minimal Intervention: Only assist if participant is completely stuck
Post-Session: Review recordings and compile initial observations

I. Roles of Test Team Members

Primary Facilitator (You - Instructor)

Responsibilities: Lead participant briefing, guide think-aloud process, ask follow-up questions
Focus Areas: Educational content effectiveness, learning objective achievement
Skills Required: Experience with educational assessment, familiarity with module content

UX Observer/Notetaker (Student Assistant or Colleague)

Responsibilities: Document user behavior, navigation patterns, error occurrences
Focus Areas: Interface usability, technical issues, user confusion points
Tools: Observation checklist, timing sheets, behavior coding forms

Technical Monitor (Student or IT Support)

Responsibilities: Manage recording equipment, troubleshoot technical issues
Focus Areas: System performance, browser compatibility, interactive tool functionality
Backup Role: Secondary notetaker for user comments and reactions

Subject Matter Expert (Optional - Education Technology Colleague)

Responsibilities: Evaluate pedagogical effectiveness, content accuracy
Focus Areas: Learning design principles, assessment validity, educational value
Contribution: Post-test analysis of learning outcomes and instructional design

J. Problem Ranking and Reporting Framework

Severity Scale (1-4 Point System)

Level 4: Critical (Red Flag)

Task Impact: Prevents task completion entirely
Frequency: Affects 75%+ of users
Examples: Module won’t load, interactive tools non-functional, content completely unclear
Response: Immediate fix required before any deployment

Level 3: Major (High Priority)

Task Impact: Significantly delays task completion or causes multiple errors
Frequency: Affects 50-74% of users
Examples: Confusing navigation, unclear instructions, broken citation tool features
Response: Must be addressed before wide release

Level 2: Minor (Medium Priority)

Task Impact: Causes brief confusion or minor delays
Frequency: Affects 25-49% of users
Examples: Small design inconsistencies, minor text clarity issues, slow loading
Response: Address in next iteration cycle

Level 1: Cosmetic (Low Priority)

Task Impact: Minimal impact on task completion
Frequency: Affects <25% of users
Examples: Color preferences, minor visual alignments, optional feature requests
Response: Consider for future enhancements

Frequency Documentation

Universal (4): Occurs for all or nearly all participants
Common (3): Occurs for majority of participants
Occasional (2): Occurs for some participants
Rare (1): Occurs for few participants

Impact Assessment Matrix

Problems will be ranked using: Severity × Frequency = Priority Score

Scores 12-16: Immediate action required
Scores 8-11: High priority for next sprint
Scores 4-7: Medium priority for future iterations
Scores 1-3: Low priority, monitor for patterns

K. Post-Test Process Framework

Reporting and Describing Results

Quantitative Results Report

Completion Metrics: Module completion rates, task success percentages, time on task averages
Error Analysis: Types and frequency of errors, help-seeking patterns
Performance Benchmarks: Comparison against established goals from Section F
Statistical Summary: Means, medians, standard deviations for key metrics

Qualitative Results Documentation

User Feedback Synthesis: Common themes from comments and suggestions
Observational Insights: Patterns in user behavior, confusion points, engagement levels
Quote Documentation: Representative participant quotes for each major finding
Video Analysis: Key moments showing user struggles or successes

Evaluating Metrics and Goals

Goal Achievement Assessment

Met Goals: Areas where performance targets were achieved or exceeded
Missed Targets: Specific metrics that fell short of established benchmarks
Gap Analysis: Quantify differences between actual and target performance
Context Factors: External factors that may have influenced results

Metric Reliability Review

Data Quality: Assess completeness and accuracy of collected metrics
Measurement Validity: Evaluate whether metrics truly captured intended outcomes
Baseline Establishment: Use results to set realistic benchmarks for future testing

Discussing Subjective Findings

Participant Satisfaction Analysis

Overall Experience: Aggregate satisfaction scores and sentiment analysis
Module-Specific Feedback: Strengths and weaknesses identified for each C1-C4 module
Engagement Patterns: What kept students interested vs. what caused disengagement
Learning Perception: Students’ self-reported confidence and skill development

Observational Insights

Behavior Patterns: Common user strategies, workarounds, and adaptation methods
Emotional Responses: Frustration points, excitement moments, confusion reactions
Unexpected Discoveries: Surprising user behaviors or alternative use patterns

Making Recommendations for Addressing Problems

Immediate Actions (Critical Issues)

Quick Fixes: Simple changes that can be implemented immediately
Content Revisions: Text clarifications, instruction improvements, example updates
Technical Repairs: Bug fixes, performance optimizations, compatibility issues

Short-Term Improvements (Major Issues)

Design Iterations: Interface redesigns, navigation improvements, visual enhancements
Content Restructuring: Module reordering, activity modifications, assessment updates
Feature Additions: New interactive elements, help systems, progress indicators

Long-Term Enhancements (Minor/Future Considerations)

Advanced Features: AI tool improvements, personalization options, adaptive learning
Scalability Planning: Multi-language support, accessibility enhancements, mobile optimization
Integration Opportunities: LMS compatibility, gradebook connections, analytics dashboard

Implementation Priority Matrix

Each recommendation will include:

Effort Required: Time and resources needed for implementation
Impact Potential: Expected improvement in user experience and learning outcomes
Risk Assessment: Potential negative consequences of changes
Success Metrics: How improvements will be measured in future testing

Next Steps for Implementation

Recruit Participants: Identify and schedule 12-15 student testers from your current classes
Prepare Test Environment: Set up recording equipment and testing space
Create Assessment Materials: Develop observation sheets, post-test surveys, and debrief questions
Conduct Pilot Test: Run through the process with 1-2 students to refine procedures
Execute Full Testing: Complete all testing sessions within a 1-2 week window
Analyze and Report: Compile findings and create actionable improvement plan

This comprehensive testing plan will provide valuable insights into both the educational effectiveness and usability of your plagiarism prevention quest, ensuring it truly serves your students’ learning needs while maintaining high engagement levels.

Computer Science Principles