Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byDebopriyo Roy
Yoshida presentation
The document summarizes research that examined English language learners' comprehension of website information and perceptions of website usability. Participants analyzed a tourism website in English and completed questionnaires testing their understanding of content and assessing usability, interface, and navigation. Results from accuracy scores and correlation analyses provided insight into readers' abilities and impressions when interacting with an English-language website.
More Related Content
Similar to Yoshida presentation
Yoshida presentation
- 1. EFL Student’s Abilityfor Website Information Comprehension and Perceptions on Website Usability s1170173 Makoto Yoshida Supervised by Prof. Debopriyo Roy
- 2. Overview • Abstract • Research Workflow • Question whatWe Set (to Participants) • Results and Discussion (1-9) • Conclusion and Future Work
- 3. Abstract The purpose ofthis study is to observe and consider the impression of L2 readers during website analysis in target language (English). At first, participants completed an extensive website analysis using established web design models with a closed-ended website information comprehension questionnaire (testing readers’ understanding of the text content in the website). In the second stage, they answered three usability questionnaires (QUIS, CSUQ and MPRC questionnaires), recording their impression about the interface, navigational efficiency, content comprehension, learning aspects of the interface, basic comfort level with text-graphics content etc. I used Pearson Correlation and non-parametric Friedman Test to analyze user data. The self-reports on the questionnaires (QUIS, CSUQ and MPRC) provided a general outlook about the website content and navigation and might not have been specific to the accuracy scores (related to the text content of the website). This exploratory analysis as discussed in this article could help us obtain initial data on how EFL readers in a typical context as this would perform with English website information and the type of impression they have about the website.
- 4. Research Workflow • 59 participantscompleted the website information comprehension questionnaire. Accuracy scores on the questionnaire were measured. • Following the interaction with the website, readers completed the three questionnaires on self-reporting. • Collection their answers • Data Analysis • Consider the Results
- 5. Questionnaires The website informationcomprehension questionnaire focused on the efficiency with which L2 readers are able to search through information from the Belize tourism website. The focus at this stage was on readers’ ability to navigate through the pages, based on cues from the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed on the basis of the following: 1. multiple-choice questions asking readers to accurately pinpoint the information available in the website. 2. readers’ ability to sequence order steps in the correct order when searching for an information from the webpage. (Q1 with 8 steps to be correctly ordered). 10 questions were asked and each question (except Q1) could be scored as 1(correct) or 0 (incorrect) (binary scale). The total accuracy scores for each student were measured. QUIS, CSUQ and MPRC questionnaires are standard software usability questionnaires used for self-reporting users’ preference for the website.
- 6. Results and Discussion Ques%onN Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Devia%on Q1 59 0 10 8.66 2.496 Q2 0 2 1.97 .260 Q3 2 2 2.00 .000 Q4 0 2 1.19 .991 Q5 0 2 1.19 .991 Q6 0 2 1.73 .691 Q7 0 2 1.90 .443 Q8 0 2 1.64 .663 Valid N (List wise) Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for the 8 Website Information Comprehension Questions 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MeanAccurateScore Question Number (1 = Q2; 2 = Q3; 3 = Q4; 4 = Q5; 5 = Q6; 6 = Q7; 7 = Q8) Mean Accuracy Score (Maxium Value = 2) Mean Accuracy Score (Maxium Value = 2) Figure 1. Mean Accuracy Scores for Q2 – Q8 (Wrong Answer = 0; Correct Answer = 2)
- 7. Results and Discussion2 Ques%on Pearson Correla%on Sig.(2-‐ tailed) N=59 Q2-‐Q7 .567** .000 59 Q2-‐Q8 .328* .011 Q7-‐Q4 .280* .032 Q8-‐Q7 .344* .008 **. Correla%on is significant at the 0.01 level (2-‐tailed) *Correla%on is significant at the 0.05 level (2-‐tailed). Table 2: Pearson Correlation Values (Statistically Significant Values only) among the Website Information Comprehension Questions
- 8. Results and Discussion3 Ques%on N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Devia%on Q1 59 0 7 4.10 1.658 Q2 59 1 7 4.29 1.521 Q3 59 0 7 3.81 1.503 Q4 59 0 7 3.61 1.576 Q5 59 0 7 3.69 1.664 Q6 59 1 7 4.03 1.575 Q7 59 1 7 3.97 1.553 Q8 59 0 7 3.32 1.824 Q9 59 0 7 3.29 2.205 Q10 59 0 7 2.92 2.020 Q11 59 0 7 4.36 1.689 Q12 59 1 7 4.37 1.376 Q13 59 1 7 4.20 1.412 Q14 59 0 7 3.95 1.665 Q15 59 1 7 4.63 1.484 Q16 59 0 7 4.05 1.726 Q17 59 1 7 3.63 1.809 Q18 59 1 7 3.49 1.696 Q19 59 1 7 4.17 1.652 Valid N (listwise) 59 Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Self-Reports on the CSUQ Questionnaire
- 9. Results and Discussion4 Question Category Number Significant Correlation with other questions Q1 All questions Q2 All questions Q3 All questions except Q9 Q4 All questions Q5 All questions Q6 All questions Q7 All questions Q8 All questions except Q9 Q9 All questions except Q3 and Q8 and Q15 Q10 All questions except Q12 Q11 All questions except Q12 Q12 All questions except Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12 Q13 All questions Q14 All questions Q15 All questions except Q9 Q16 All questions Q17 All questions Q18 All questions Q19 All questions Table 4: Significant Correlation between Self-Reports on CSUQ Questionnaire (N = 59)
- 10. Results and Discussion5 Ques&ons Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Devia&on Q1 1 9 6.12 1.848 Q2 0 9 5.64 1.989 Q3 0 9 5.25 2.411 Q4 0 9 4.75 2.279 Q5 0 9 4.97 2.304 Q6 0 9 5.03 2.573 Q7 0 9 6.24 2.254 Q8 0 9 6.25 1.944 Q9 0 9 5.73 2.148 Q10 0 9 4.42 2.183 Q11 0 9 5.69 2.053 Q12 0 9 5.71 2.407 Q13 0 9 3.93 2.684 Q14 0 9 3.81 2.549 Q15 0 9 4.73 2.211 Q16 0 9 4.64 2.517 Q17 0 9 4.27 2.180 Q18 0 9 4.37 2.189 Q19 0 9 4.14 2.583 Q20 0 9 4.81 2.467 Q21 0 9 5.51 2.176 Q22 0 9 2.12 2.841 Q23 0 9 2.76 2.654 Q24 0 9 4.69 2.541 Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of the Self-reports on the QUIS Questionnaire 59.4 64.8 54.2 49.2 44.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 PercentageofAgreementwiththe Statement Different Categories on the Questionnaire Category 1 = Overall Reaction to the Website; Category 2 = Web Page; Category 3 = Terminology and Website Information; Category 4 = Learning; Category 5 = Percentage of Positive Responses on Different Categories in QUIS Questionnaire Percentage of Positive Response on Different Categories Figure 2. Percentage Agreement with the Different Categories in QUIS Questionnaire
- 11. Results and Discussion6 Question Number Significant Correlation with other questions Q1 All questions except Q2, Q10, Q14, Q16, Q23, Q24 Q2 No questions except Q22 Q3 All questions except Q2, Q10, Q11, Q17, Q22, Q23 Q4 All questions except Q2, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18, Q20, Q24 Q5 All questions except QQ2, Q5, Q11, Q12, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q23 Q6 All questions except Q2, Q6, Q10, Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q22, Q23, Q24 Q7 All questions except Q2, Q4, Q10, Q13, Q16, Q17, Q22, Q23, Q24 Q8 All questions except Q2, Q4, Q13, Q14, Q16, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q23, Q24 Q9 All questions except Q2, Q4, Q13, Q14, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q23 Q10 All questions except Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q23 Q11 All questions except Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q11, Q13, Q21, Q22, Q23, Q24 Q12 All questions except Q2, Q4, Q5, Q10, Q12, Q13, Q15, Q16, Q19 Q13 All questions except Q2, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18, Q20, Q21, Q24 Q14 All questions except Q1, Q2, Q6, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q23, Q24 Q15 All questions except Q1, Q2, Q4, Q6, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q15, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q23 Q16 All questions except Q1, Q2, Q4, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q16, Q20, Q21, Q22, Q23 Q17 All questions except Q2, Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7, Q13, Q14, Q17, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q23, Q24 Q18 All questions except Q2, Q4, Q13, Q18, Q22 Q19 All questions except Q2, Q5, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q12, Q14, Q15, Q17, Q19, Q24 Q20 All questions except Q2, Q4, Q5, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q20, Q24 Q21 All questions except Q2, Q11, Q13, Q16, Q21, Q23 Q22 All questions except Q1, Q3, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18, Q22, Q24 Q23 No questions except Q4, Q13, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q22, Q24 Q24 No questions except Q3, Q5, Q9, Q10, Q15, Q16, Q18, Q21, Q23 Table 6: Significant Correlation between Self-Reports on QUIS Questionnaire (N = 59)
- 12. Results and Discussion7 Mean Rank Chi-‐ Square Asymp. Sig. Q1 11.19 126.626 .000 Q2 11.62 Q3 9.54 Q4 8.3 Q5 8.88 Q6 10.4 Q7 10.14 Q8 7.2 Q9 8.14 Q10 7.08 Q11 12.19 Q12 11.83 Q13 11.12 Q14 10.4 Q15 13 Q16 10.95 Q17 8.69 Q18 7.71 Q19 11.62 Table 7: Friedman Test Values for the 19 Questions in CSUQ Questionnaire
- 13. Ques%on Categories Mean Rank Chi-‐Square Asymp. Sig. Q1 Comprehensive evalua%on 3.690 21.532 .000 Q2 3.070 Q3 2.960 Q4 2.690 Q5 2.590 Q6 Web Page Design 1.580 24.818 .000 Q7 2.260 Q8 2.160 Q9 Terminology and Website Informa%on 4.260 60.670 .000 Q10 2.920 Q11 4.110 Q12 4.220 Q13 2.860 Q14 2.640 Q15 Learning 3.210 5.769 .217 Q16 3.210 Q17 2.760 Q18 2.810 Q19 3.000 Q20 Website Capabili%es 3.490 75.683 .000 Q21 3.900 Q22 1.950 Q23 2.350 Q24 3.310 Results and Discussion 8 Table 8: Friedman Test Statistics for the 5 Different Categories in the QUIS Questionnaire
- 14. Results and Discussion9 Words with Maximum Frequency (Top 10) Frequency Convenient 32 Clean 29 Dull 29 Slow 28 Helpful 27 Useful 26 Accessible 24 Engaging 23 Fun 23 Usable 23 Table 9. Words chosen with Maximum Frequency
- 15. Conclusion and FutureWork • Production -L2 readers have wide variability in the efficiency scale, when analyzing an English website. • Future Work - This will help us judge their levels of proficiency and the types of English websites they could be exposed to for various kinds of assignments, task-based language learning etc.
- 16.