In recent decades, electronic devices have been used increasingly for many purposes such as studying and working.
Objective
This research aimed to investigate and compare the usability, cognitive workload, and ergonomic postural risks of using laptops and tablets for online learning.
Methods
This research involved 30 students, 86.75% female and 13.25% male, who were randomly assigned to study online via either laptops (15 students) or tablets (15 students). Instruments used to collect data were the general information questionnaire, Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), Mental Workload Index assessment (NASA-TLX), and System Usability Scale (SUS). The SUS, NASA-TLX, and RULA scores were compared by using Independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U test.
Results
Findings showed that a significant portion of the students (83.3%) spent more than eight hours per day using electronic devices. The analysis of the comparison between these two groups of students revealed significant statistical differences (at the 0.05 level) in the usability and ergonomic postural risks of laptops and tablets. However, no significant differences in cognitive workload were found.
Conclusions
Besides serving as a guideline for designing online education management, the findings of this study can also be applied in the workplace, such as working, meeting, training and controlling machinery through computer devices. Recommendations for further study include exploring more difficult academic lessons, and other tasks such as different kinds of work. In addition, authorities regulating online learning and working through electronic devices should mandate that learners or online workers select appropriate devices for user health and efficiency.
BendenMMehtaRPickensA, et al.Health-related consequences of the type and utilization rates of electronic devices by college students. BMC Public Health2021; 21: 1–12.
3.
Castillo-ManzanoJICastro-NuñoMLópez-ValpuestaL, et al.To take or not to take the laptop or tablet to classes, that is the question. Comput Human Behav2017; 68: 326–333.
4.
BinboğaEKorhanO. Posture, musculoskeletal activities, and possible musculoskeletal discomfort among children using laptops or tablet computers for educational purposes: a literature review. J Sci Educ Technol2014; 23: 605–616.
5.
HoughPANelM. Postural risks and musculoskeletal discomfort of three preferred positions during laptop use amongst students. S Afr J Occup Ther2017; 47: 3–8.
6.
SahuMSolomonDGVijaySJ. Comparison of risk factors of pain among laptop and desktop users. J Instit Eng (India) Ser C2023; 104: 959–965.
7.
Ospina-MateusHNiño-PradaBTilbe-AyolaK,et al.Ergonomic and biomechanical evaluation of the use of computers, tablets and smart phones by children. A pilot study. In: VII Latin American Congress on Biomedical Engineering CLAIB 2016, Bucaramanga, Santander, Colombia, 2017, pp.320–324.
8.
SzucsKACicutoKRakowM. A comparison of upper body and limb postures across technology and handheld device use in college students. J Phys Ther Sci2018; 30: 1293–1300.
9.
O’DonnellRDEggemeierFT. Workload assessment methodology. In: BoffKRKaufmanLThomasJP (eds) Handbook of perceptionand human performance. Volume 2. Cognitive processes and performance: a wiley-interscience publication. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1986, pp.42-1–42-49.
10.
ThorvaldPLindblomJAndreassonR. On the development of a method for cognitive load assessment in manufacturing. Robot Comput Integr Manuf2019; 59: 252–266.
11.
YoungMSBrookhuisKAWickensCD,et al.State of science: mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics2015; 58: 1–17.
12.
ButmeeTLansdownTCWalkerGH. Alternative options for dealing with automation failures: automated stopping vs. Taking over manual control. Transp Res F Traf Psychol Behav2022; 88: 248–257.
13.
BommerSCFendleyM. A theoretical framework for evaluating mental workload resources in human systems design for manufacturing operations. Int J Ind Ergon2018; 63: 7–17.
14.
TranCCYanS. Development of an eye response-based mental workload evaluation method: a study of user interface in a nuclear power plant. Int J Technol Hum Inter (IJTHI)2022; 18: 1–22.
15.
YanSTranCCChenY, et al.Effect of user interface layout on the operators’ mental workload in emergency operating procedures in nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Des2017; 322: 266–276.
16.
DebueNVan De LeemputCPradhanA,et al.Comparative study of laptops and touch-screen PCs for searching on the web. In: Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics: 15th International Conference, EPCE 2018, Held as Part of HCI International Proceedings, 2018, vol. 15, pp. 403–418.
17.
DebueNOufiNvan de LeemputC. An investigation of using a tablet computer for searching on the web and the influence of cognitive load. TQMP2020; 16: 226–239.
18.
FebiyaniAFebrianiAMa'SumJ. Calculation of mental load from e-learning student with NASA TLX and SOFI method. Jurnal Sistem Dan Manajemen Industri2021; 5: 35–42.
19.
LongoL. Experienced mental workload, perception of usability, their interaction and impact on task performance. PloS one2018; 13: e0199661.
20.
WetzlingerWAuingerADörflingerM. Comparing effectiveness, efficiency, ease of use, usability and user experience when using tablets and laptops. In: Design, User Experience, and Usability. Theories, Methods, and Tools for Designing the User Experience: Third International Conference, DUXU 2014, Held as Part of HCI International Proceedings Part I 3, 2014, pp.402–412.
21.
LiberatoreMJWagnerWP. User performance on laptops vs. tablets: an experiment in the field. Behav Inf Technol2022; 41: 2878–2886.
McAtamneyLCorlettEN. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl Ergon1993; 24: 91–99.
25.
WidiyawatiSLukodonoRPLustyanaAT,et al.Investigation of the risk of daily officer work posture based on rapid upper limb assessment (rula) method. Int J Hum Mov Sport Sci2020; 8: 24–31.
26.
KumarAKamathS. Rapid upper limb assessment (RULA): validity and reliability evidences in identifying workplace ergonomics among bank employee’s using computers. Rev Pesqui Fisioter2019; 9: 194–203.
27.
KeeDNaSChungMK. Comparison of the Ovako working posture analysis system, rapid upper limb assessment, and rapid entire body assessment based on the maximum holding times. Int J Ind Ergon2020; 77: 102943.
28.
KakaraparthiVNVishwanathanKGadhaviB, et al.Application of the rapid upper limb assessment tool to assess the level of ergonomic risk among health care professionals: a systematic review. Work2022; 71: 551–564.
29.
JukariyaMTSinghS. Musculo-skeletal disorders (MSDs) risk assessment among goldsmiths by using RULA (rapid upper limb assessment) method. Int J Adv Agric Sci Technol2018; 5: 33–39.
30.
HartSGStavelandLE. Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol2018; 52: 139–183.
31.
LowndesBRForsythKLBlockerRC, et al.NASA-TLX assessment of surgeon workload variation across specialties. Ann Surg2020; 271: 686–692.
32.
ButmeeTLansdownTCWalkerGH. Mental workload and performance measurements in driving task: a review literature. In: Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, 2018, pp.286–294.
33.
GholamiAYarandiMSGhasemiM, et al.Effect of coronavirus epidemic on job stress and mental workload: a longitudinal study in a chemical industry. Iran Occup Health2020; 17: 81–89.
34.
UmyatiASusihonoWMariawatiAS. Measurement of psychological impact of industrial engineering students in fulfiil of online learning outcomes using NASA-TLX method. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng2020; 909: 012064.
35.
Hajesmaeel-GohariSKhordastanFFatehiF, et al.The most used questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction, usability, acceptance, and quality outcomes of mobile health. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2022; 22: 1–9.
36.
LewisJR. The system usability scale: past, present, and future. Int J Hum–Comput Inter2018; 34: 577–590.
37.
DavisLLKongXMcBrideY,et al.Device comparability of tablets and computers for assessment purposes. Appl Meas Educ2017; 30: 16–26.
38.
DavisLLOrrAKongX,et al.Assessing student writing on tablets. Educ Assess2015; 20: 180–198.
39.
CiccarelliMChenJDVazS, et al.Managing children's postural risk when using mobile technology at home: challenges and strategies. Appl Ergon2015; 51: 189–198.
40.
LeeRJamesCEdwardsS,et al.Posture during the use of electronic devices in people with chronic neck pain: a 3D motion analysis project. Work2021; 68: 491–505.
41.
AksütGAlakaşHMErenT. Determining ergonomic risks arising from the use of information technologies in the COVID-19 environment. Int J Hum–Comput Inter2023; 39: 1582–1593.
42.
SaleemJJWeilerDT. Performance, workload, and usability in a multiscreen, multi-device, information-rich environment. PeerJ Comput Sci2018; 4: e162.
43.
JanjuaH. Learning at your fingertips: Reading comprehension, mental workload, and attitudinal differences between computers and iPads. PhD Thesis, Brandeis University, 2016.
