정보교육학회논문지 (Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education)

  • 제24권6호
  • /
  • Pages.623-631
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1229-3245(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2733-8428(eISSN)
한국정보교육학회 (Korea Association of Information Education)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

대화형 이러닝 콘텐츠에 관한 사용자 경험(UX) 질적 평가

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

  • 투고 : 2020.10.16
  • 심사 : 2020.12.07
  • 발행 : 2020.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

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.

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.

키워드

참고문헌

  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