Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2020.24.6.623

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

Lee, Youngju (Korea National University of Education)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education / v.24, no.6, 2020 , pp. 623-631 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Dialogue e-learning; Vicarious interaction; User experience; Qualitative evaluation; HCI;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
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   DOI
5 Fox Tree, J. E.(1999). Listening on monologues and dialogues, Discourse Processes, 7(27). 35-53.   DOI
6 Fox Tree J. E. & Mayer, S. A. (2008). Overhearing single and multiple perspectives. Discourse Processes, 45, 160-179.   DOI
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.   DOI
11 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.
12 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.   DOI
13 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.   DOI
14 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.
15 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.   DOI
16 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.
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.   DOI
19 Creswell, J. W., &. Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.   DOI