Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The quality model for e-learning system with multimedia contents: a pairwise comparison approach

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

E-learning system used various multimedia types or learning materials to support the learners a method to get advanced learning effect. Moreover, many education scholars have pointed out that emotions are directly related to and affect learning performance. Therefore, it is very important to know what is the most important or influence factor to learner in online education. However, assessing the effects of multimedia materials in e-learning emotions has never been investigated. The aim of this paper is to classify the criteria for multimedia based learning contents and make a quality model corresponding multimedia factors. For this purpose, this research extracts 9 criteria from the past studies. To evaluate the quality model, pairwise comparison method is used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alkhattabi M, Neagu D, Cullen A (2011) Assessing information quality of e-learning systems: a web mining approach. Comput Hum Behav 27:862–873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andreou AS, Tziakouris M (2007) A quality framework for developing and evaluating original software components. Inf Softw Technol 49:122–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bahtijarevic-Siber F (1999) Human resource management. Golden marketing, Zagreb, pp 717–772

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bany M (2005) Recommended video over IP metrics, test and measurements activity GroupReport, Video Services Forum, December 5

  5. Bartscha RA, Cobern KM (2003) Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Comput Educ 41:77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bozóki S, Fülöp J, Rónyai L (2010) On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Math Comput Model 52:318–333

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Brinck T, Gergle D, Wood SD (2002) Designing web sites that work: usability for the web. Morgan Kaufmann Publishing, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chang Y-C, Kao W-Y, Chu C-P, Chiu C-H (2009) A learning style classification mechanism for e-learning. Comput Educ 53:273–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chanlin LJ (1998) Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels. J Instr Psychol 25(3):166–175

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chao R-J, Chen Y-H (2009) Evaluation of the criteria and effectiveness of distance e-learning with consistent fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst Appl 36:10657–10662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen H-J (2010) Linking employees’ e-learning system use to their overall job outcomes: an empirical study based on the IS success model. Comput Educ 55:1628–1639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen C-M, Wang H-P (2011) Using emotion recognition technology to assess the effects of different multimedia materials on learning emotion and performance. Libr Inf Sci Res 33:244–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Choo EU, Wedley WC (2004) A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Comput Oper Res 31:893–908

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Clark R (1985) Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: analyzing the meta-analyses. Educ Commun Technol J 33(4):249–262

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ćukušić M, Alfirević N, Granić A, Garača Ž (2010) e-learning process management and the e-learning performance: results of a European empirical study. Comput Educ 55:554–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. DeLone WH, McLean ER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a 10-year update. J Manag Inf Syst 9(4):9–30

    Google Scholar 

  17. Desmet P (2002) Designing emotions. Pieter Desmet, Holland

    Google Scholar 

  18. Elliott MA (2010) Selecting numerical scales for pairwise comparisons. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:750–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Frijda NH (1993) Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In: Lewis M, Haviland JM (eds) Handbook of emotions. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gonzalez-Pachon J, Romero C (2004) A method for dealing with inconsistencies in pairwise comparisons. Eur J Oper Res 158:351–361

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Jeong H-Y, Hong B-H (2012) A practical use of learning system using user preference in ubiquitous computing environment. Multimed Tools Appl. doi:10.1007/s11042-012-1026-z

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jeong H-Y, Hong B-H (2012) A service component based CAT system with SCORM for advanced learning effects. Multimed Tools Appl. doi:10.1007/s11042-012-1027-y

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jeong H-Y, Hong B-H, Shrestha B, Cho S (2012) English course E-learning system based on relative item difficulty using web component composition. Multimed Tools Appl 61(1):225–241. doi:10.1007/s11042-010-0708-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lazarus RS (1991) Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Liaw S-S, Huang H-M, Chen G-D (2007) Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Comput Educ 49:1066–1080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lin H-F (2010) An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Comput Educ 54:877–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mackey TP, Ho J (2008) Exploring the relationships between Web usability and students’ perceived learning in Web-based multimedia (WBMM) tutorials. Comput Educ 50:386–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mousavi SY, Low R, Sweller J (1995) Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. J Educ Psychol 87(2):319–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nielsen J (2000) Designing web usability: the practice of simplicity. New Riders Publishing, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ortony A, Glore GL, Collins A (1988) The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Osei-Bryson K-M (2006) An action learning approach for assessing the consistency of pairwise comparison data. Eur J Oper Res 174:234–244

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Ozkan S, Koseler R (2009) Multi- dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher. Comput Educ 53:1285–1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rosenberg MJ (2001) E-learning, strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rubin B, Fernandes R, Avgerinou MD, Moore J (2010) The effect of learning management systems on student and faculty outcomes. Internet High Educ 13:82–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Saaty TL (1994) The analytic hierarchy process series VI. RWS publication

  36. Saaty TL (2006) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications

  37. Saaty TL, Vargas L (1984) Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Math Model 5:309–324

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Shee DY, Wang YS (2008) Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-learning system: a methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Comput Educ 50(3):894–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sun P-C, Cheng HK (2007) The design of instructional multimedia in e-learning: a media richness theory-based approach. Comput Educ 49:662–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tzeng G-H, Chiang C-H, Li C-W (2007) Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning program: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Syst Appl 32:1028–1044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Um ER, Song H, Plass J (2007) The effect of positive emotions on multimedia learning. Proceeding of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Vancouver, Canada

  42. Vichuda K, Ramamurthy K, Haseman WD (2001) User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment. Int J Hum Comput Stud 54(4):541–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wang Y-S (2003) Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Inf Manag 41:75–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yengin I, Karahoca A, Karahoca D (2011) E-learning success model for instructors’ satisfactions in perspective of interaction and usability outcomes. Procedia Comput Sci 3:1396–1403

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology(2011-0014394).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humanitas College of Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Korea

    Hwa-Young Jeong

  2. Division of Computer Engineering, Mokwon University, Daejeon, Korea

    Sang-Soo Yeo

Authors
  1. Hwa-Young Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sang-Soo Yeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sang-Soo Yeo.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Table 3 Sample items for individual scale
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jeong, HY., Yeo, SS. The quality model for e-learning system with multimedia contents: a pairwise comparison approach. Multimed Tools Appl 73, 887–900 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1445-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1445-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation