Journal of Service Research and Studies (서비스연구)

The Society of service Science (서비스사이언스학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Exploratory study on derivation and Improvement of Kano Quality Attributes in Untact Classes

비대면 수업의 Kano 품질속성 도출과 개선에 관한 탐색적 연구

  • 변대호 (경성대학교 경제금융물류학부) ;
  • 양재훈 (경성대학교 경제금융물류학부)
  • Received : 2022.03.10
  • Accepted : 2022.06.01
  • Published : 2022.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Non-face-to-face classes continue due to Covid-19. There have been e-learning classes since the past, but the difference is that the current non-face-to-face classes are blended classes that combine real-time and recording classes or combine face-to-face and non-face classes. It is also characterized by being able to self-filmed or choose various lecture platforms in a place other than a dedicated studio. The advantages of non-face-to-face classes can be learned beyond time and space, and repetitive viewing and learning speed can be adjusted. Greening classes have no time and place constraints, and real-time classes have the advantage of high communication effects with learners. Evaluating whether non-face-to-face classes provide sufficient quality compared to face-to-face classes or e-learning will be necessary if branded classes are considered for post Covid. In this paper, for the evaluation of the service quality of non-face-to-face classes, the essential attributes desired by the instructors were derived from the viewpoint of Kano quality attributes and a quality improvement plan was proposed. After expressing the degree of functions that non-face-to-face classes should have on the X-axis and the satisfaction of learners on the Y-axis, 23 quality attributes were classified into 6 quality dimensions. In addition, satisfaction coefficient, dissatisfaction coefficient, and customer satisfaction improvement index were derived. As a result, 50% of learners were satisfied with non-face-to-face classes, but the preference was slightly higher than satisfaction, suggesting the sustainability of non-face-to-face classes. In terms of the customer satisfaction improvement index, the ranking of attributes with the largest increase in satisfaction when improving class quality was as follows. Professors' quick answers to learners' questions, content that can fully explain the subject, what the professor explains easily, develop high-quality content that can be learned on mobile phones, fairness of attendance checks, and real-time classes should start on time.

Covid-19로 인해 비대면 수업이 지속되고 있다. 과거부터 e-러닝 수업은 있었지만 코로나로 인한 비대면 수업은 실시간 수업과 녹화수업이 결합되거나 대면과 비대면이 결합된 블랜디드(blended) 수업이라는 것이 차이점이다. 또한 전용 스튜디오가 아닌 곳에서 자가 촬영하거나 다양한 강의 플랫폼을 선택할 수 있다는 점이 특징이다. 비대면 수업의 이점은 시간과 공간을 초월하여 학습할 수 있고, 반복 시청, 학습속도를 조절할 수 있다. 녹화수업은 시간과 장소적 제약이 없지만, 실시간 수업은 시간적 제약은 있지만, 학습자와의 커뮤니케이션 효과가 높다는 장점이 있다. 비대면 수업이 대면수업이나 e-러닝과 비교하여 충분한 품질을 제공하는지를 평가하는 일은 포스트 코로나 이후에도 블렌디드 수업을 고려한다면 필요한 일이 될 것이다. 본 논문에서는 비대면 수업의 서비스 품질평가를 위해 Kano 품질속성 관점에서 학습자들이 원하는 필수속성을 도출하고 품질개선 방안을 제안하였다. 비대면 수업이 갖추어야 할 기능의 정도를 X축, 학습자의 만족도를 Y축으로 나타낸 후 23개의 품질속성을 6개로 분류하였다. 그리고 만족계수, 불만족 계수, 고객만족개선지수를 도출하였다. 학습자들의 50%가 비대면 수업에 만족했지만 선호도는 만족도 보다는 약간 높게 나타나 비대면 수업의 지속 가능성을 암시하고 있다. 고객만족개선 지수로 볼 때, 수업 품질을 개선했을 때 만족도 증가폭이 가장 큰 속성들은 학습자의 질문에 대한 교수의 신속한 답변, 교과내용을 반영한 충실한 강의 콘텐츠, 교수가 알기 쉽게 설명해 주는 것, 모바일 폰에서도 학습할 수 있는 고품질의 콘텐츠 개발, 출석체크의 공정성, 그리고 실시간 수업은 정시에 수업 시작 순이었다.

Keywords

References

  1. 국가지정의과학연구정보센터 (2020). 코로나 19로 인한 대학.대학원 비대면수업 교수 학생 의견 조사. 2020.4.22. https://www.medric.or.kr/Controls/Sub.aspx?d=06&s=01&g=NOTICE&m=VIEW&i=1592.
  2. 김강희 (2020). 대학교 교양 교과에서 외국인 유학생을 위한 블렌디드 러닝 수업 운영의 효과 및 한계 연구 -온라인과 오프라인 강의의 비교를 중심으로 교양교육연구, 14(5), 239-249.
  3. 김경아, 김지심, 안유정 (2020). 온라인 수업에서 선호수업유형에 따른 학습자 만족도 분석. 한국컴퓨터 정보학회 학술발표논문집, 28(2), 595-596.
  4. 동아사이언스 (2020). 올해 공대 1학기 비대면 수업 교수, 학생 불만족 2020.9.7, http://dongascience.donga.coni/news.php?idx=39484.
  5. 박혜자 (2020). 비대면 시대 온라인 수업현황과 발전방향. KISO 저널, 40, 35-38.
  6. 사이언스타임스 (2020). 비대면 수업, 강의자체를 혁신하라. 2020.9.11.
  7. 송기영 (2020). 온라인 실습수업의 이상과 현실차이. 기계저널. 60(7), 37-41.
  8. 신봉섭, 김기석 (2012). KANO 모델을 활용한 커피 전문점의 품질분류와 고객만족개선지수. 한국콘텐츠학회 논문지, 12(7), 346-357.
  9. 양정미, 한상일 (2013). Kano 모형에 기반한 항공서비스품질 분류와 잠재적 고객만족 개선 지구(PCSI Index)에 관한 연구 호텔경영학연구, 22(6), 37-57.
  10. 이동희 (2021). 온라인 PBL을 활용한 서비스마케팅 비대면 수업사례와 학습효과. 관광연구저널, 35(2), 101-115.
  11. 이영희, 박윤정, 윤정현(2020). Covid-19 대응 대학 원격강의 운영 사례 분석을 통한 유형탐색. 열린교육연구, 28(3), 211-234, doi: https://doi.org/10.18230/tjye.2020.28.3.211
  12. 이쌍철, 김정아 (2018). 학생의 온라인수업 만족에 영향을 주는 요인분석. 교육행정학연구, 36(2), 115-138.
  13. 윤대균 (2020). 코로나19 확산에 따른 비대면 원격수업에 대한 단상. 한국인터넷진흥원 리포트, 3, 26-30.
  14. 임성욱, 박영택 (2010). Kani 모델을 기반으로 한 잠재적 고객만족 개선지수. 품질경영학회지, 38(2), 248-260.
  15. 임애련 (2021). COVID-19로 인한 비대면 상호작용적 영화심리치료 수업의 효과성 연구 감성지능과 공감능력. 한국산학기술학회 논문지, 22(2), 57-66.
  16. Allen, M., JVkibry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J., Titsworth, S., & Burrell, N. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of distance learning: A comparison using meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 54, 402-420.
  17. Anderson, T. (2004). Theory and practice of online learning. Canada, AU Press, Athabasca University.
  18. Appana, S. (2008). A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the contect of student, the instructior, and the tenured faculty. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 5-22.
  19. Azlann, C. A. (2020). Teaching and learning of postgraduate medical physics using Internet-based e-learning during the CCMD-19 pandemic-A case study from Malaysia. Physica Medica, 80, 10-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.10.002
  20. Barbera, E. (2004). Quality on virtual education environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 13-20.
  21. Bartley, S. J., & Golek, J. H (2004). Evaluating the cost effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. Educational Technology and Society, 7(4), 167-175.
  22. Bartolic-Zlomislic, S., & Bates, A (1999). Investing in on-line learning: Potential benefits and limitations. Canadian Journal of Communication, 24(3), 349-366.
  23. Berenson, R., Boyles, G., & Weaver, A (2008). Emotional intelligence as a predictor for success in online learning. International Review of Research in open & Distance Learning, 9(2), 1-16.
  24. Booker, Q. E & Rebman, C E (2005). E-student retention: Factoid affecting customer loyalty for online program success. Issues in Information Systems, 1(1), 183-189.
  25. Bornschlegl, M & Cashman, D. (2018). Improving distance student retention through satisfaction and authentic experiences. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 8(3), 60-77. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJOPCD.2018070105
  26. Choe, R. C. et al. (2019). Student satisfaction and learning outcomes in asynchronous online lecture videos. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe. 18-08-0171
  27. Christopfer, D. A (2003). Interactive large lecture classes and the dynamics of teacher/student interaction. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems. 17(1), 13-18.
  28. Dooley, L. M., Frankland, S., Boller, E., & Tudor, E. (2018). Implementing the flipped classroom in a veterinary pre-clinical science course: Student engagement, performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 45(2): 195-203. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.1116-173r
  29. Finaly-Neumann, E. (1994). Gourde work characteristics and students' satisfaction with instructions. Journal of Instructional Rsychology, 21(2), 14-19.
  30. Gameel, B. G. (2017). Learner satisfaction with massive open online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(2), 98-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1300462
  31. Garrison, D. R. & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
  32. Goyal, E. & Tambe, S. (2015). Effectiveness of Moodle-enabled blended learning in private Indian Business School teaching NICHE programs. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Eduaction, 5(2), 14-22.
  33. Green, R. A, Whitburn, L. Y., Zacharias, A., Byrne, G., & Hughes, D. L. (2018). The relationship between student engagement with online content and achievement in a blended learning anatomy course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 11(5), 471-477. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1761
  34. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39-48.
  35. Kintu, M. J. & Zhu, C. (2016). Student characteristics and leaning outcomes in a blended learning environment intervention in a Ugandan University. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, K3), 181-195.
  36. Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students' engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892
  37. Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2013). Instructor presence in online courses and student satisfaction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1-25.
  38. Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H M. (2002). How Web technology can facilitate learning. Information Systems Management, 19(1), 56-61. https://doi.org/10.1201/1078/43199.19.1.20020101/31477.8
  39. Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29, 531-565. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562904271199
  40. McGorry, S. Y. (2003). Measuring quality in online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(2), 159-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(03)00022-8
  41. Min, Y. D, Tang, Y., Bonk, C. J., Zhu, M. (2020). MCX3C instructor motivation and career development, Distance Education, 1-22. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2020.1724770,
  42. Moore, J. C. (2009). A synthesis of Sloan-C effective practices: December 2009. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(4), 84-94.
  43. CECD (2020). A framework to guide an education response to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020.
  44. Paecher, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students expectations of and experiences in e-learning, their relation to achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54: 222-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.005
  45. Palmer, S. R. & Holt, D. M. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00294.x
  46. Parasuraman, A., Zeithml, A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298504900403
  47. Parikh, M. A. (2003). Beyond the web: Leveraging multiple Internet technologies. In: A Agarwal (Ed), Web-based education: Learning from experience (pp, 120-130), Hershey, PA: Information science publishing.
  48. Qi, D., Zhang, M., & Zhang, Y (2020), Influence of participation and value co-creation on learner satisfaction of MOOCs learning: Learner experience perspective, The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 10,1007/s40299-020-00538-6. 10,1007/s40299-020-00538-6
  49. Riddle, E. & Gier, E. (2019). Flipped classroom improves student engagement, student performance, and sense of community in a nutritional sciences course (P07-007-19), Current Developments in Nutrition, 3(1),657-659.
  50. Sen, T (2011). Application of blended and traditional class teaching approach in higher education and the student learning experience, International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology,, 2(2): 107-109.
  51. Skyler, A. A. (2009), A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous interactive web conferencing lectures, Issues in Teacher Education, 1&2), 69-84.
  52. Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K., Connors, H. R., & Frey, B. B. (2002), Evaluation of student satisfaction: Determining the impact of a web-based environment by controlling for student characteristics. The Americal Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 169-189. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_4
  53. Timko, M. (l993). An experiment in continuous analysis, Center for Quality of Management Journal, 2(4), 17-20.
  54. Young, A & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students' perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.001