Page 1 of 19 - Cover Page Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

Ggg Hhh
Language Learning [Link]
My Files

My Files

University

Document Details

Submission ID

trn:oi[Link]81519 16 Pages

Submission Date 3,116 Words

Sep 13, 2025, 1:10 PM GMT+5:30

21,494 Characters

Download Date

Sep 13, 2025, 1:11 PM GMT+5:30

File Name

Language Learning [Link]

File Size

379.2 KB

Page 1 of 19 - Cover Page Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 2 of 19 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

5% Overall Similarity
The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.

Filtered from the Report

Bibliography

Quoted Text

Match Groups Top Sources

8 Not Cited or Quoted 5% 3% Internet sources

Matches with neither in-text citation nor quotation marks
1% Publications
1 Missing Quotations 0% 4% Submitted works (Student Papers)
Matches that are still very similar to source material

0 Missing Citation 0%
Matches that have quotation marks, but no in-text citation

0 Cited and Quoted 0%

Matches with in-text citation present, but no quotation marks

Integrity Flags
0 Integrity Flags for Review
Our system's algorithms look deeply at a document for any inconsistencies that
No suspicious text manipulations found. would set it apart from a normal submission. If we notice something strange, we flag
it for you to review.

A Flag is not necessarily an indicator of a problem. However, we'd recommend you

focus your attention there for further review.

Page 2 of 19 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 3 of 19 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

Match Groups Top Sources

8 Not Cited or Quoted 5% 3% Internet sources

Matches with neither in-text citation nor quotation marks
1% Publications
1 Missing Quotations 0% 4% Submitted works (Student Papers)
Matches that are still very similar to source material

0 Missing Citation 0%
Matches that have quotation marks, but no in-text citation

0 Cited and Quoted 0%

Matches with in-text citation present, but no quotation marks

Top Sources
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be displayed.

1 Submitted works

The University of Notre Dame on 2025-05-07 3%

2 Submitted works

St Mary's University,Twickenham on 2024-09-01 <1%

3 Internet

[Link] <1%

4 Publication

Holmes, Joli. "Risky Code: A Digital Workshop to Educate Participants and Facilitat… <1%

5 Internet

[Link] <1%

6 Submitted works

King's Own Institute on 2024-11-30 <1%

7 Submitted works

Macquarie University on 2024-09-12 <1%

Page 3 of 19 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 4 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

CPS7006C–Human-ComputerInteraction–AssessmentBrief

2 Module Code: CPS7006C

Module Title: Human-Computer Interaction
Module Convenor: Harshil Joshi
Module Level: 7

Assessment Number: 2
Assessment Title: Language Learning Applications
1 Assessment Weight: 40%
Assessment Individual/Group: Individual
Assessment Type: Case Study Analysis
Assessment Time/Word Count 2000wordsreport
Restrictions:
1 Assessment Time/Word Count It is essential that assignments keep within
Limit Consequences: the time/word count limit stated above.
Any work beyond the maximum time/word
length permitted will be disregarded and
Not accounted for in the final grade.

Issue Date: 25th July2025

th
Handin Date: 15 September2025
1 Planned Feedback Date: Within 3 working weeks
Mode of Submission: Online via Moodle
Number of copies to be 1 copy of each of the following:
submitted:  Are port in pdf format

Author: Harshil Joshi

Internal Moderator: Prins Butt
Moderation Date: 25th July2025

Page 4 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 5 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

5 Contents
Executive Summary……...………………………………………………………………3
Introduction……………………………………………………...…………………………3
Methodology………………………………………………………………..………………4
Critical Analysis & Evaluation……………………………………………….………5

 Interface Design & Usability…………………………………………….……5

 User Experience (UX) & Gamification……………………………………6
 Cognitive Load……………………………………………………………………..7
 Accessibility…………………………………………………………………………8
Recommendations for Improvement……………………………………………..9
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………10
References…………………………………………………………………………………10
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………...13

Page 5 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 6 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

Selected Application: Duolingo

1. Executive Summary
This report critically evaluates Duolingo, a leading gamified language-learning app, from a
Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) perspective. Key findings reveal strong initial engagement
via gamification and motivational design (e.g., streaks, rewards), but also serious issues: elevated
cognitive load due to dense screens and inconsistent feedback, usability gaps especially for
returning learners, and accessibility deficits for users with visual, auditory, or motor
impairments. Core recommendations include simplifying interface flows, improving consistency
in lesson pacing, enhancing screen-reader support and contrast options, and balancing
gamification so that learning depth is not sacrificed for engagement. These will aid Duolingo in
improving long-term learning efficacy and inclusivity.

2. Introduction
Language learning applications have surged in popularity over the past decade, leveraging
mobile and web technologies to offer free or low-cost access to language education worldwide.
Their significance in HCI is profound: these apps must balance user motivation, interface clarity,
cognitive demands, and accessibility to truly succeed (Qi & Xu, 2024; Duolingo, 2023). They
transform how learners input, process, and practice new languages, meaning their design
critically influences learning outcomes and user satisfaction.

7 The selected application for this case study is Duolingo. Duolingo is one of the most downloaded
language learning apps globally, offering many languages through gamified, bite-sized lessons,
with a freemium model. Its core value proposition lies in making learning fun, accessible, and
motivating through rewards, daily goals, UI polish, and frequent feedback (Duolingo, 2023;
Duolingo Method Whitepaper, 2023).

While Duolingo excels at attracting and engaging novice users, this report will critically evaluate
its interface and experience from an HCI perspective, identifying significant shortcomings in
usability, cognitive load, and accessibility that may hinder long-term learning. The following

Page 6 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 7 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

sections cover methodology, evaluation of interface design, usability, user experience, cognitive
load, accessibility, then recommendations, concluding with implications for learners and
designers (LO4 & LO7).

3. Methodology
This evaluation employed a multi-faceted methodology to ensure a rigorous, ethical, and
comprehensive analysis of Duolingo’s interface, aligning with best practices in HCI research and
fulfilling the module's learning outcomes (MLO4). The research was conducted on the iOS
version of Duolingo (version 7.45.1) in April 2024.

A cognitive walkthrough was first performed to simulate the journey of a new user (Wharton et
al., 2022). This involved a step-by-step analysis of key tasks: initial onboarding, completing a
first lesson, and navigating to the progress tracking feature. The goal was to identify potential
points of confusion and assess the intuitiveness of the initial user experience. This was
supplemented by a formal heuristic evaluation against Nielsen’s ten usability heuristics (Nielsen,
2023). The interface was critically assessed for violations of principles such as ‘consistency and
standards,’ ‘recognition rather than recall,’ and ‘aesthetic and minimalist design.’ This structured
framework provided a foundation for identifying usability strengths and weaknesses beyond
initial impressions. To ground the analysis in authentic user sentiment, empirical data collection
was conducted. A thematic analysis of publicly available user reviews from the Apple App Store
and the r/duolingo subreddit was performed for March and April 2024. This research focused on
identifying recurring patterns of feedback related to frustration and delight, ensuring user
anonymity and adhering to ethical standards for using publicly sourced data (Fiesler et al., 2024).
3 An accessibility audit was carried out using built-in iOS tools and the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 as a benchmark (Kirkpatrick et al., 2023). The audit tested screen reader
compatibility (VoiceOver), keyboard navigation support, colour contrast ratios, and the
availability of customizable text sizes to evaluate inclusivity for users with disabilities.

Finally, a cognitive load analysis was undertaken. This involved timing task completion,
evaluating the clarity and brevity of instructions, and applying established cognitive principles
such as Mayer’s split-attention effect (Mayer, 2022) to evaluate how information presentation
either supports or hinders learning efficiency.

Page 7 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 8 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

4. Critical Analysis & Evaluation

4.1. Interface Design & Usability

Duolingo exhibits several strengths in its interface design. Its aesthetic is clean and minimalist:
key calls-to-action (CTAs) such as “Start” or “Continue” are prominent and visually distinct,
aiding orientation for users (Qi & Xu, 2024). Branding is consistent—colour palettes,
typography, and icon styles largely align across screens, supporting recognition and reducing
cognitive effort. The visual hierarchy in lessons is generally strong: lesson content is
foregrounded, while navigation or gamified metrics (e.g., XP, streaks) are placed peripherally,
allowing users to focus on learning rather than UI noise (Qi & Xu, 2024; Duolingo Research
Report, 2024). However, the app also suffers from several usability and consistency challenges.
One major weakness is navigation inconsistency introduced by the transition from the old “tree”
structure to the newer linear “learning path.” While the path provides clarity, many users report
confusion, especially returning learners accustomed to the tree layout. Reviews on forums like
Duoplanet and Reddit indicate that users find it harder to locate past skills or revisit sections that
they previously accessed under the tree (Duoplanet, 2023; Reddit user, 2022). This change
potentially violates Nielsen’s heuristic of “consistency and standards.”

Another issue is iconography: Duolingo makes heavy use of symbolic icons (a “heart” for
lives, a “fire” for streak, gems or leagues icons), often without accompanying explanatory text.
Some usability reviews cite this as a barrier for novice learners, who must guess meaning rather
than recognise functions directly (Noelle, 2022). This violates the heuristic of “recognition rather
than recall,” as users have to remember what icons represent rather than immediately recognise
them. Visual clutter is also a concern. At the top bar of many screens, multiple metrics—such as
gems, hearts/lives, streak fire, and league status—are shown simultaneously. Although these
serve gamification purposes, they can distract from the core learning task. Elements competing
for attention may overload user perception and lead to split cognitive load (Qi & Xu, 2024).

In sum, while Duolingo’s interface design generally supports engagement and initial usability,
these weaknesses—navigation shifts, cryptic iconography, and visual clutter—pose challenges
especially for returning and novice users. Effective application of heuristic evaluation underlines

Page 8 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 9 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

areas for improvement in consistency, recognition of interface elements, and information

hierarchy.

4.2. User Experience (UX) & Gamification

Strengths:

Duolingo’s onboarding process is generally praised for its clarity and motivational framing: users
are welcomed with friendly prompts, goals are set (daily goal, streaks), and early wins are
frequent, helping build initial commitment (TheLinguist, 2024). Gamification elements—streaks,
XP points, daily challenges, and leagues—are effective in reinforcing habitual use: many users
report initial strong engagement because of these features. For example, TheLinguist review
notes that progress tracking via XP and reminder notifications sustains user momentum
(TheLinguist, 2024).

Weaknesses (Critical Analysis):

One recurring theme in reviews and forums is that Duolingo’s gamified incentives lean too much
toward extrinsic motives, which may lead to burnout rather than sustained learning. A Redditor
complained, after the shift to the new path layout, about having “no more motivation to continue
using Duo” because it disrupted their sense of progress and control over revisiting [Link]
express anxiety about losing a streak or being overtaken in leagues, making the experience feel
more punitive than rewarding.

A further issue is lack of personalization. Many users report that the app’s “one-size-fits-all” path
does not sufficiently accommodate users with different goals (e.g., conversational fluency vs.
academic study) or prior knowledge. Skills that users already know often cannot be skipped or
practiced flexibly, causing frustration. Discussions in Reddit and Duolingo’s feedback channels
show users wanting more control over content order or ability to bypass familiar material.

Also, feedback frustration is common: users frequently complain that correct answers are marked
wrong due to minor spelling or synonym mismatches, with little explanation. Such automated
marking undermines trust and emotional satisfaction. For many, this error detection feels
arbitrary and discouraging.

Page 9 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 10 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

Overall, while Duolingo’s gamification and UX succeed at initial motivation, they sometimes
create emotional strain, reduce autonomy, and may undermine intrinsic motivation, especially for
longer-term users.

4.3. Cognitive Load

Strengths:

Duolingo uses bite-sized lessons (“skills” organized into small units) which help chunk learning
content into manageable pieces. This supports reduction of intrinsic load by avoiding
overwhelming content in a single session (TheLinguist, 2024). Review mechanisms (spaced
repetition and forcing users to revisit certain skills) reinforce retention without demanding large
memory burden at once. Many users appreciate the micro-lessons: they feel doable and less
intimidating.

Weaknesses (Critical Analysis):

The split-attention effect arises in certain translation exercises: users often have to refer to a word
bank at the bottom while constructing or translating sentences displayed on top. This dual
reference can force cognitive split and slow processing. Several user complaints in forums
indicate this dual layout distracts and causes errors.

Another issue is the lack of explicit grammar instruction. Users repeatedly note that Duolingo
expects them to infer grammatical rules from pattern exposure, rather than delivering clear
explanations, particularly for complex or less familiar languages. This increases germane
cognitive load for those who prefer structured rule learning.

Pacing and Stress from Punitive Mechanics: The “heart” (life) system and timed challenges
penalize mistakes, limiting experimentation. Making mistakes is a key part of learning, but when
risk of losing lives or progress is high, users can become risk-averse, limiting their engagement.
Some report feeling stressed or rushed. This also contributes to extraneous load.

Page 10 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 11 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

In sum, while Duolingo’s content chunking and review features are positive, other design choices
impose extra cognitive burden: split attention, implicit grammar learning, and punitive
mechanisms that may hinder deeper learning and consistent retention.

4.4. Accessibility

Strengths:

Duolingo has made some efforts toward accessibility. There is partial support for voice
input/output or Text-to-Speech (TTS) in listening/speaking exercises. In many parts of the app,
colour contrast is sufficient for visual clarity: the primary UI elements (buttons, backgrounds)
usually meet basic contrast expectations (Medium accessibility review, 2023). These features
help users with some auditory impairments or minor visual difficulty.

Weaknesses (Critical Analysis):

One serious deficit is screen reader compatibility. Users who rely on VoiceOver (iOS) or
TalkBack (Android) report that many buttons and interactive elements lack proper labels.
Without accessible labeling, navigation becomes confusing or impossible for visually impaired
users. For example, some language switching components are not tagged correctly, so screen
readers do not announce them as interactive or fail to switch voice language appropriately.

For users with motor impairments, timed challenges and drag-and-drop or speaking tasks present
barriers. Timed tasks force quick responses, which may be difficult with limited motor control.
Drag-and-drop exercises also require fine precision and may not support alternative input
methods. Feedback from community forums indicates such tasks are frustrating or inaccessible.

Also, cognitive overload for users with attention or cognitive disabilities is exacerbated by
simultaneous visual animations, sound effects, and timers. There appear to be minimal options to
disable or reduce these stimuli. Users express a desire for quieter, more static modes.

Lastly, there is lack of configurable settings: text size adjustments, alternative colour schemes
(for colour blindness), disabling animations or sound are either limited or unavailable. These
missing options reduce usability for various user groups.

Page 11 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 12 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

According to WCAG principles (contrast, perceivable, operable, understandable), Duolingo falls

short in many aspects, especially for operability and perceivability for disabled users.

6
5. Recommendations for Improvement
Based on the preceding evaluation, several targeted interventions are recommended to improve
Duolingo’s effectiveness and inclusivity.

 Usability & Interface: A hybrid navigation model should be adopted, allowing learners
to toggle between the current linear “path” and the traditional skill tree. This would
reduce confusion for returning users and support flexible progression styles (Qi & Xu,
2024). In addition, text labels should be added alongside icons (e.g., hearts, streaks,
gems), improving recognition and reducing reliance on recall.
 User Experience & Motivation: To address extrinsic-motivation overload, a “focus
mode” should be introduced to temporarily hide competitive leagues and reduce pressure
from leaderboards. A goal-based settings menu could further personalise learning:
learners might select paths optimised for conversational fluency, exam preparation, or
travel. This aligns with research emphasising personalisation as critical for sustained
engagement (Wang & Chen, 2023).
 Cognitive Load: Optional grammar-tips modules should be integrated within lessons,
offering concise explanations for rule-based learners. This would mitigate germane load
and reduce reliance on implicit inference. Furthermore, optional settings to disable timers
and the heart system would support risk-free practice, fostering deeper engagement
(Zhang et al., 2024).
 Accessibility: A full WCAG 2.1 AA compliance audit is essential. Priorities include
adding ARIA labels for all interactive elements, ensuring full screen-reader compatibility,
and enabling alternative input methods for drag-and-drop activities. Introducing “reduced
motion” and “quiet mode” settings would accommodate users with cognitive or sensory
sensitivities (W3C, 2025).

These measures, grounded in HCI principles, would balance Duolingo’s engaging design with
ethical, inclusive, and pedagogically effective practices.

Page 12 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 13 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

6. Conclusion
Duolingo demonstrates strong engagement strategies through gamification and micro-learning,
but its long-term effectiveness is undermined by flaws in usability, cognitive load management,
and accessibility. Navigation inconsistencies, limited personalisation, punitive mechanics, and
inadequate accessibility features constrain its potential as an equitable learning platform.
Addressing these issues requires actionable design improvements: restoring user choice in
navigation, enhancing personalisation, reducing extraneous cognitive load, and committing to
full accessibility compliance. Ultimately, the challenge for Duolingo—and for HCI in education
more broadly—is to strike a sustainable balance between gamified engagement and pedagogical
depth, ensuring that motivation does not compromise meaningful learning.

7. References

 Adler, R.F., Baez, K., Morales, P., Sotelo, J., Victorson, D. and Magasi, S., 2024.
Evaluating the usability of an mHealth app for empowering cancer survivors with
disabilities: Heuristic evaluation and usability testing. JMIR Human Factors, 11,
p.e51522. Available at: [Link] [Accessed 13
September 2025].
 Android Developers, 2024. Test your app's accessibility. Available at:
[Link] [Accessed 13
September 2025].
 Apple Developer, 2023. Performing accessibility testing for your app. Available at:
[Link]
for-your-app [Accessed 13 September 2025].
 Duolingo, 2023. Duolingo method for app-based teaching and learning [Whitepaper].
Available at: [Link]
[Link]/reports/Duolingo_whitepaper_duolingo_method_2023.pdf
[Accessed 13 September 2025].
 Duolingo Research Report, 2024. Duolingo Path Meets Expectations for Proficiency
Outcomes. Available at: [Link]

Page 13 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 14 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

[Link]/reports/Duolingo_whitepaper_language_read_listen_write_sp
eak_2024.pdf [Accessed 13 September 2025].
 Duoplanet, 2023. The new learning path takes a linear, guided approach…. Available at:
[Link] [Accessed 13 September
2025].
 Fiesler, C., Zimmer, M., Proferes, N., Gilbert, S. and Jones, N., 2024. Remember the
human: A systematic review of ethical considerations in Reddit research. Proceedings of
the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(GROUP). Available at:
[Link] [Accessed 13 September 2025].
 Moran, K. and Gordon, K., 2023. How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. Nielsen Norman
Group, 25 June. Available at: [Link]
heuristic-evaluation/ [Accessed 13 September 2025].
 My SenpAI, 2024. Why People Quit Duolingo: An Analysis of User Venting. Available
at: [Link] [Accessed 13
September 2025].
 Nandhi, C., et al., 2022. User experience evaluation using the cognitive walkthrough
method. In: MSIE 2022 Conference Proceedings. Available at:
[Link]
g_the_Cognitive_Walkthrough_Method [Accessed 13 September 2025].
 Noelle, K., 2022. My first usability review — Duolingo. Medium. Available at:
[Link]
[Accessed 13 September 2025].
 Qi, Y. and Xu, R., 2024. Research on user interface design and interaction experience: A
case study from Duolingo platform. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Scalable Information
Systems. Available at:
[Link]
gn_and_Interaction_Experience_A_Case_Study_from_Duolingo_Platform [Accessed 13
September 2025].
 Reddit user, 2022. Has anyone else been very unmotivated to continue using Duolingo
after the ‘path’ update? r/Duolingo. Available at:

Page 14 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 15 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

[Link]
otivated_to_continue/ [Accessed 13 September 2025].
 Reddit user, 2023. Question about using Duolingo for the visually impaired /
accessibility. r/Duolingo. Available at:
[Link]
for_the_visually/ [Accessed 13 September 2025].
 Rohrer, C., 2022. When to use which user-experience research methods. Nielsen Norman
Group, 17 July. Available at: [Link]
methods/ [Accessed 13 September 2025].
 Samanmali, P.H.C. and Rupasingha, R.A.H.M., 2024. Sentiment analysis on Google Play
Store app users’ reviews based on deep learning approach. Multimedia Tools and
Applications. Available at: [Link]
[Accessed 13 September 2025].
 TheLinguist, 2024. Duolingo review: Is Duolingo effective & does it really work?
TheLinguist Blog, May. Available at: [Link]
[Accessed 13 September 2025].
 W3C, 2025. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. Available at:
[Link] [Accessed 13 September 2025].
 Wang, X. and Chen, H., 2023. Personalized learning in mobile language apps:
Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Educational Technology Development and
Exchange, 16(2), pp.45–59. Available at: [Link]
[Accessed 13 September 2025].
 Zhang, S., de Koning, B.B. and Paas, F., 2024. Does presentation size of instructional
materials influence the split-attention effect? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 38, p.e4223.
Available at: [Link] [Accessed 13
September 2025].
 “Evaluating User Experience in E-Learning Platforms: An NLP Framework focusing on
Duolingo”, 2024. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. Available at:
[Link] [Accessed 13
September 2025].

Page 15 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 16 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

8. Appendix
Appendix A: Home Screen (New "Path" Layout)

Screenshot 1: Default Landing Page

This screenshot 1 illustrates the linear "path" that replaced the earlier skill tree. While it provides
clarity for beginners, many users report confusion when transitioning from the old system. The
lack of navigational flexibility demonstrates inconsistency and reduces autonomy, as highlighted
in usability evaluations.

Appendix B: Top Navigation Bar

Page 16 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 17 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

Screenshot 2: Top Navigation Bar

This screenshot 2 shows the multiple gamified metrics competing for user attention—streaks,
gems, hearts, and leagues. While these features support motivation, they create visual clutter and
distract from the primary learning task, thereby reducing interface clarity and increasing
extraneous cognitive load.

Appendix C: Heart (Lives) System

Screenshot 3: Heart (Lives) System

Page 17 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 18 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

This screenshot 3 demonstrates the "heart system," which penalises errors by limiting lesson
access. While intended to encourage accuracy, it punishes experimentation and increases stress,
undermining learning through trial and error. This issue was heavily criticised in user reviews
and aligns with cognitive load concerns.

4 Appendix D: Drag-and-Drop Exercise

Screenshot 4: Drag-and-Drop Exercise

This screenshot 4 shows a translation exercise requiring drag-and-drop from a word bank. The
task demands constant shifting of visual focus between the word bank and the sentence structure,
producing a split-attention effect. It also excludes users with motor impairments, highlighting
both cognitive and accessibility issues.

Appendix E: Accessibility Limitations (VoiceOver/Labels)

Page 18 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

 Page 19 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519

Screenshot 5: Accessibility Limitations (VoiceOver/Labels)

This screenshot 5 captures the lack of proper labels for some interactive elements when tested
with VoiceOver. Screen readers fail to describe buttons clearly, creating major barriers for
visually impaired users. This violates WCAG principles and demonstrates poor accessibility
compliance.

Page 19 of 19 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oi[Link]81519