Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 687–699 | Cite as

Quantitative influence of HCI characteristics in a blended learning system

  • Poornima Nataraja
  • G. T. Raju
Original Article


Of late blended learning is a popular choice of training in India. To assess the effectiveness of Human Compute Interaction (HCI) in blended mode, evaluation by trainee group was undertaken. The trainees with a background in commerce evaluated the blended learning system using a Likert type evaluation form. Due to the non-parametrical nature of data, we adopt RIDIT method to analyze data. The novel approach in this paper is the use of RIDIT method to analyze qualitative HCI features quantitatively. The trainee feedback has provided an understanding of the extent to which blended learning is acceptable. The evaluation provides insight into level of preference given among human-human, human-computer and technology aspect by trainees. This evaluation looks promising and provides opportunity for further developments in blending HCI features into blended learning environment to provide worthwhile and relevant learning opportunities.


Evaluation methodologies Instructional technology Likert scale Ridit analysis Human computer interface Interactive learning environment Blended learning 



Human computer interface/interaction


  1. Agresti, A. (1984). Analysis of ordinal categorical data. NY: John Wiley and Sons.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Axmann, M. (2006). Facilitating quality discussions through student-centered-discussion in the online environment. Melbourne: Workshop Materials, Open University Australia.Google Scholar
  3. Berge, Z. L., & Yi-Ping, H. (2004). A model for sustainable student retention: a holistic perspective on the student dropout problem with specific attention to E-learning. DEOSNEWS, 13(5), 1–26.Google Scholar
  4. Bross, I. (1958). How to use RIDIT analysis. Biometrics, 14(1), 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapanis, A. (1965). Man machine engineering. Belmont: Wadsworth publishing company.Google Scholar
  6. Chien-Ho, Wu. (2007). On the application of grey relational analysis and RIDIT analysis to Likert scale surveys. International Mathematical Forum, 2(14), 675–687.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Clason, D., & Dormody, T. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design-qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  9. Anderson & Elloumi (2008). Theory and practice of online learning. 2nd Ed. Athabasca University.Google Scholar
  10. Graham, C. R. (2005). The handbook of blended learning-global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Kitamura, R., Nishii, K., & Goulias, K., (1988). Trip chaining behaviour by central city commuters: a causal analysis of time-space constraints. Paper presented at the Oxford Conference on Travel and Transportation.Google Scholar
  12. Lankford, S. V. (1994). Attitudes and perceptions towards tourism and rural regional development. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Likert, R. (1967). The method of constructing an attitude scale. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 90–95). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Litwin, M. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  15. Lucas, H. C. (1975). Performance and the use of an information system. Management Science, 21(8), 908–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mc Kay, E. (2008). The human dimensions of human-computer interaction: balancing the HCI equation. Netherlands: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  17. McKay, & Martin. (2007). Multi-disciplinary collaboration to unravel expert knowledge: designing for effective human-computer interaction. In M. J. Keppel (Ed.), Instructional design: case studies in communities of practice (pp. 309–329). Hershey: Information science publication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Norman, D. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In D. Norman & S. Draper (Eds.), User centered design: new perspective on human-computer interaction. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ramachander, P. (2004). Towards the responsible management of socio-cultural impact of township tourism. PhD Dissertation: University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
  21. Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2004). Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. Timmermans, H., Arentze, T., & Hyeon, J. C. (2002). Analyzing space-time behaviour: new approaches to old problems. Progress in Human Geography, 26(2), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Veal, A. J. (2005). Research methods for leisure and tourism: a practical guide (3rd ed.). Harlow: FT Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Williams, B. (2007). Students’ perceptions of prehospital web-based examinations. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 3(1), 54–63.Google Scholar
  25. Zhang, P., Galletta, D., Li, N., & Sun, H. (2008). Human-computer interaction. In W. Huang (Ed.), Management information systems. Beijing China: Tsinghua University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ApplicationsDayanandasagar College of EngineeringBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Research ScholarBharathiar UniversityCoimbatoreIndia
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceRNS Institute of TechnologyBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations