Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education (정보교육학회논문지)

Korea Association of Information Education (한국정보교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

User Experience(UX) Qualitative Evaluation of Dialogue e-learning contents

대화형 이러닝 콘텐츠에 관한 사용자 경험(UX) 질적 평가

  • Received : 2020.10.16
  • Accepted : 2020.12.07
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In the era of COVID-19 global pandemic, e-learning has become new standards and daily life in the name of 'new normal'. This study developed dialogue e-learning contents as opposed to monologue e-learning which is unidirectional and instructor centered and conducted qualitative user experience evaluation of dialogue e-learning contents. A total number of 20 adult students participated and were individually interviewed. Qualitative data analysis was performed. The findings include students' positive perceptions of dialogue e-learning contents such as empathy for various ideas and new format. With regard to personal preference, 55% of participants preferred dialogue e-learning contents because it enables them to focus and share real experiences. Meanwhile, in terms of learning effects, 60% participants selected monologue e-learning contents and mentioned adequate explanations of concepts and explicit information delivery. Based on the results, suggestions on the design and development of dialogue e-learning contents were presented.

코로나 19라는 전세계적 위기를 맞이하여 이러닝은 '뉴노멀(new normal)'이라는 이름으로 새로운 표준과 일상이 되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 기존의 일방향적, 교수자 중심적 독백형 이러닝 콘텐츠 분석 평가하였다. 총 20명의 성인 학습자가 참여하였고, 1:1 인터뷰를 통한 사용자 경험 평가를 진행하였고, 질적 데이터 분석을 실시하였다. 사용자 경험 평가 결과, 대화형 이러닝은 다양한 의견에 공감할 수 있고 새로운 이러닝 형태로 신선하였다고 응답하였다. 독백형과 대화형 이러닝 콘텐츠에 관한 개인적 선호에 관해 55%의 학습자가 대화형을 선호한다고 답하였고, 실제 경험을 공유하며 참신하다고 답하였다. 한편, 내용 이해 효과성측면에서 선호도는 60% 학습자가 독백형을 선택하였고, 충분한 개념 설명과 정확한 지식 전달을 지적하였다. 연구 결과를 토대로 대화형 이러닝 콘텐츠 설계와 개발을 위한 개선 방안을 제안하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bandura, A.(1977). Social learning theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  2. Sutton, L. A.(2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in Computer-Mediated Communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223-242.
  3. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Clark, H. H. & Schaefer, E. F.(1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 19-41 https://doi.org/10.1080/01690968708406350
  5. Fox Tree, J. E.(1999). Listening on monologues and dialogues, Discourse Processes, 7(27). 35-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545049
  6. Fox Tree J. E. & Mayer, S. A. (2008). Overhearing single and multiple perspectives. Discourse Processes, 45, 160-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530701792867
  7. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  8. Park, Y. J.(2017). A Theoretical Exploration of Pedagogical Meaning of Flipped Learning from the Perspective of Dialogism. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society 8(1), 179-179.
  9. Craig, S. D., Driscoll D. M. &. Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialogue in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 163-183.
  10. Driscoll, D. M,. Craig, S. D., . Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Hu, X. & Graesser, A. C. (2003). Vicarious learning: Effects of overhearing dialogues and monologue-like discourse in a virtual tutoring session. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29. 431-450. https://doi.org/10.2190/Q8CM-FH7L-6HJU-DT9W
  11. Chi, M. T. H.,. Kang, S. M. & Yahomourian, D. L. (2017). Why Students learn more from dialogue than monologue-videos: Analyses of peer interactions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 10-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204546
  12. Woo, Y. H.(2016). Development of online contents using vicarious interaction in large web-based courses and analysis of learners' response. The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, 28(4), 609-628. https://doi.org/10.17927/TKJEMS.2016.28.4.609
  13. Kang, S. H. & Lee, Y. (2018). Effects of vicarious interaction instructional strategies on students' participations and satisfactions in online discussions. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 24(3), 441-457.
  14. Muller, D. A., Bewes, J., Sharma M. D. & Reimann, P. (2008). Saying the wrong thing: improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 144-155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00248.x
  15. Moon, J. H., Lim,, S. T., Park, C.L.,Lee, I. S. & Kim, J. W.(2018). Conceptual study on user experience in HCI: Definition of UX and introduction of a new concept of CX (Co-Experience). Journal of the HCI Society of Korea, 24(3). 441-457.
  16. Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J. & Martens, J. B. (2009). User experience over time: An initial framework in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston: MA, pp. 729-738.
  17. Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web Usability, Indiana USA: New Riders.
  18. Lohr, L. L. & Eikleberry, C. (2001). Learner-centered usability. Tools for crating a Learner-Friendly Instructional Environment," Performance Improvement, 40(4), 24-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140400406
  19. Creswell, J. W., &. Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2