Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 73, Issue 2, pp 887–900 | Cite as

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

  • Hwa-Young Jeong
  • Sang-Soo Yeo


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.


Multi criteria decision making Quality model Pairwise comparison Quality evaluation E-learning system Mulimedia learning contents 



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).


  1. 1.
    Alkhattabi M, Neagu D, Cullen A (2011) Assessing information quality of e-learning systems: a web mining approach. Comput Hum Behav 27:862–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andreou AS, Tziakouris M (2007) A quality framework for developing and evaluating original software components. Inf Softw Technol 49:122–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahtijarevic-Siber F (1999) Human resource management. Golden marketing, Zagreb, pp 717–772Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bany M (2005) Recommended video over IP metrics, test and measurements activity GroupReport, Video Services Forum, December 5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartscha RA, Cobern KM (2003) Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Comput Educ 41:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bozóki S, Fülöp J, Rónyai L (2010) On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Math Comput Model 52:318–333CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brinck T, Gergle D, Wood SD (2002) Designing web sites that work: usability for the web. Morgan Kaufmann Publishing, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang Y-C, Kao W-Y, Chu C-P, Chiu C-H (2009) A learning style classification mechanism for e-learning. Comput Educ 53:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chanlin LJ (1998) Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels. J Instr Psychol 25(3):166–175Google Scholar
  10. 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 36:10657–10662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 55:1628–1639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 33:244–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choo EU, Wedley WC (2004) A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Comput Oper Res 31:893–908CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clark R (1985) Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: analyzing the meta-analyses. Educ Commun Technol J 33(4):249–262Google Scholar
  15. 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 55:554–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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):9–30Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Desmet P (2002) Designing emotions. Pieter Desmet, HollandGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elliott MA (2010) Selecting numerical scales for pairwise comparisons. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:750–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frijda NH (1993) Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In: Lewis M, Haviland JM (eds) Handbook of emotions. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gonzalez-Pachon J, Romero C (2004) A method for dealing with inconsistencies in pairwise comparisons. Eur J Oper Res 158:351–361MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lazarus RS (1991) Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liaw S-S, Huang H-M, Chen G-D (2007) Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Comput Educ 49:1066–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin H-F (2010) An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Comput Educ 54:877–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mackey TP, Ho J (2008) Exploring the relationships between Web usability and students’ perceived learning in Web-based multimedia (WBMM) tutorials. Comput Educ 50:386–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mousavi SY, Low R, Sweller J (1995) Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. J Educ Psychol 87(2):319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nielsen J (2000) Designing web usability: the practice of simplicity. New Riders Publishing, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ortony A, Glore GL, Collins A (1988) The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Osei-Bryson K-M (2006) An action learning approach for assessing the consistency of pairwise comparison data. Eur J Oper Res 174:234–244CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ozkan S, Koseler R (2009) Multi- dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher. Comput Educ 53:1285–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosenberg MJ (2001) E-learning, strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rubin B, Fernandes R, Avgerinou MD, Moore J (2010) The effect of learning management systems on student and faculty outcomes. Internet High Educ 13:82–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saaty TL (1994) The analytic hierarchy process series VI. RWS publicationGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saaty TL (2006) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. RWS PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Saaty TL, Vargas L (1984) Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Math Model 5:309–324MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 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):894–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sun P-C, Cheng HK (2007) The design of instructional multimedia in e-learning: a media richness theory-based approach. Comput Educ 49:662–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 32:1028–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  42. 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):541–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang Y-S (2003) Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Inf Manag 41:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 3:1396–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humanitas College of Kyung Hee UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Division of Computer EngineeringMokwon UniversityDaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations