Advertisement

Enhancing English Learning Website Content and User Interface Functions Using Integrated Quality Assessment

  • Dylan Sung
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6774)

Abstract

The present study investigated the applicability of an integrated quality assessment approach to assess English learning website quality. The study used the Kano Model to identify attractive quality attributes of the content and user interface functions of an English learning website. The Importance-Satisfaction Model was used to determine the interface functions that need to be improved. Findings of the study led to the conclusion that the content and user interface functions of English learning websites should be specially developed according to the satisfaction level of the learners and also the degree of importance perceived by them. On the basis of the key quality attributes identified by utilizing the integrated quality assessment model developed in this study, English learning website designers can make important decisions on specific areas for enhancing the quality of the website and improving the learning efficiency of the users.

Keywords

English as a foreign language (EFL) English learning computer-assisted language learning (CALL) Internet-assisted language learning e-learning educational technology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ellis, R., Goodyear, P.: Students’ Experiences of e-Learning in Higher Education: The Ecology of Sustainable Innovation. Routledge, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McNaught, C., Lam, P.: Building an Evaluation Culture and Evidence Base for E-Learning in Three Hong Kong Universities. British Journal of Educational Technology 36(4), 599–614 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu, G.Z., Liu, Z.H., Hwang, G.J.: Developing Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Criteria for English Learning Websites with University Students and Professors. Computers & Education 56(1), 65–79 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kartal, E., Uzun, L.: The Internet, Language Learning, and International Dialogue: Constructing Online Foreign Language Learning Websites. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 11(2), 90–107 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghauth, K.I., Abdullah, N.A.: Learning Materials Recommendation Using Good Learners’ Ratings and Content-Based Filtering. Educational Technology Research and Development 56(8), 711–727 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reeves, T.C., Hedberg, J.G.: Interactive Learning Systems Evaluation. Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    von Dran, G.M., Zhang, P.Z., Small, R.: Quality Websites: An Application of the Kano Model to Website Design. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, pp. 898–900 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee, W.I., Shih, B.Y., Tu, L.J.: The Application of Kano’s Model for Improving Web-Based Learning Performance. In: 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education, 1, T3E2–32, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lai, X., Xie, M., Tan, K.C.: Optimizing Product Design through the Kano Model and QFD. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, Singapore, vol. 3, pp. 1085–1089 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sung, D.: Attractive Quality Attributes of English Language Teaching at Two East Asian Universities. The Journal of Asia TEFL 6(4), 131–149 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang, C.C.: Improvement Actions Based on the Customers Satisfaction Survey. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 14(8), 919–930 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, I.: Korean Content Management in e-Higher Education: Here and Hereafter. Educational Technology Research and Development 54(2), 209–219 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nam, C.S., Smith-Jackson, T.L.: Web-Based Learning Environment: A Theory-Based Design Process for Development and Evaluation. Journal of Information Technology Education 6, 23–43 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kano, N., Nobuhira, S., Takahashi, F., Tsuji, S.: Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality. Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control 14(2), 39–48 (1984) (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stoynoff, S.: Recent Developments in Language Assessment and the Case of Four Large-Scale Tests of ESOL Ability. Language Teaching 42(1), 1–40 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Powers, D.E.: The Case for a Comprehensive, Four-Skills Assessment of English-Language Proficiency. R&D Connections. Educational Testing Service, vol. 14. Princeton (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shih, C.M.: The Washback of the General English Proficiency Test on University Policies: A Taiwan Case Study. Language Assessment Quarterly 7(3), 234–254 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang, Y., Elder, C.: Measuring the Speaking Proficiency of Advanced EFL Learners in China: The CET-SET Solution. Language Assessment Quarterly 6(4), 298–314 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kartal, E.: The Internet and Autonomous Language Learning: A Typology of Suggested Aids. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 4(4), 54–58 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garcia Laborda, J., Magal-Royo, T., de Sigueira Rocha, J.M., Alvarez, M.F.: Ergonomics Factors in English as a Foreign Language Testing: The Case of PLEVALEX. Computers & Education 54(2), 384–391 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dylan Sung
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied Linguistics and Language StudiesChung Yuan Christian UniversityChung-LiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations