Volume 12, Issue 5 (May 2025), Pages: 196-207

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

A quantitative study of user feedback on online education software from an interaction design perspective

 Author(s): 

 Zhang Man, Azhari Md Hashim *

 Affiliation(s):

 College of Creative Arts, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Petani, Malaysia

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3929-2915

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.05.019

 Abstract

With the rapid development of technology, the rise of the mobile internet era, and the widespread use of smartphones, online education apps focused on user experience have become the main platforms for delivering online learning. As demand for online education continues to grow, interface design has become a key factor in the success of these apps, often shaping users' first impressions. A well-designed interface not only gives users easy access to a wide range of courses and learning materials but also improves the overall user experience. This study reviews articles from the SSCI database to examine connections between key terms, highlighting important themes in interaction design and the possible relationships among various factors. Based on this analysis, the study identifies key dimensions and develops a questionnaire to assess user satisfaction. The findings from the questionnaire provide a clearer picture of the current state of online education app interfaces and offer practical insights for improving intelligent interaction design, with the goal of increasing user satisfaction.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Online education, User experience, Interface design, Mobile learning, Interaction design

 Article history

 Received 15 January 2025, Received in revised form 3 May 2025, Accepted 14 May 2025

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment. 

  Compliance with ethical standards

  Ethical considerations

In this study, all participants were given complete information about the purpose, methods, potential risks, and benefits of the study before they gave written consent to participate.  The identities and personal information of the participants will be kept confidential, and the data will be anonymized in the research report.  In addition, participants were given the right to withdraw from the study at any time without negative consequences.

  Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Man Z and Hashim AM (2025). A quantitative study of user feedback on online education software from an interaction design perspective. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(5): 196-207

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

  Fig. 1  Fig. 2  Fig. 3  Fig. 4  Fig. 5  Fig. 6  Fig. 7  Fig. 8 

 Tables

  Table 1  Table 2  Table 3  Table 4  Table 5 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (17)

1. Al Kez D, Lowans C, and Foley A (2024). Sustainable development in third level programs: Distilling a pathway to a true net-zero education. Sustainability, 16: 1998.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051998    [Google Scholar]
2. Amponsah KD, Mensah RO, Aheto SPK, Commey-Mintah P, Danquah CT, and Cobbinah D (2024). Digital revolution in higher education: Unveiling the impact of online learning versus traditional classroom instruction in a Ghanaian university, west Africa. African Journal of Social Issues, 7(1): 185-207.  https://doi.org/10.4314/ajosi.v7i1.13    [Google Scholar]
3. Burzagli L, Emiliani PL, Antona M, and Stephanidis C (2022). Intelligent environments for all: A path towards technology-enhanced human well-being. Universal Access in the Information Society, 21: 437–456.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00797-0    [Google Scholar] PMid:33746688 PMCid:PMC7956403
4. Chaw LY and Tang CM (2018). What makes learning management systems effective for learning? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 47(2): 152-169.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239518795828    [Google Scholar]
5. DeWitt A, Kientz J, and Liljenquist K (2022). Quality of mobile apps for child development support: Search in app stores and content analysis. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, 5(4): e38793.  https://doi.org/10.2196/38793    [Google Scholar] PMid:36346656 PMCid:PMC9682452
6. Fanati Rashidi S (2020). Studying productivity using a synergy between the balanced scorecard and analytic network process. Opsearch, 57(4): 1404-1421.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-020-00466-5    [Google Scholar]
7. Gómez-Carmona O, Casado-Mansilla D, López-de-Ipiña D, and García-Zubia J (2024). Human-in-the-loop machine learning: Reconceptualizing the role of the user in interactive approaches. Internet of Things, 25: 101048.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2023.101048    [Google Scholar]
8. González ADM, Morga GRN, and Mena CC (2021). Development of interactive gadgets: Pedagogical, methodological and ergonomic aspects for industrial design. Revista De Ciencias Tecnológicas, 4(4): 412-424. https://doi.org/10.37636/recit.v44412424    [Google Scholar]
9. Hui K and Li J (2014). Application and research on ergonomics and Kansei engineering in human-computer interface design. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 563: 245-247.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.563.245    [Google Scholar]
10. Karunathilake RLP and Galdolage BS (2021). Value co-creation and co-destruction in online education during the COVID19 pandemic: Special reference to Sri Lankan state sector universities. Journal of Business and Technology, 5(2): 14-28.  https://doi.org/10.4038/jbt.v5i2.30    [Google Scholar]
11. Kong SC, Shroff RH, and Hung HK (2009). A web enabled video system for self-reflection by student teachers using a guiding framework. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4): 544-558.  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1128    [Google Scholar]
12. Liu M, Wang Y, and Wang Y (2023). Analysis of low user retention rate of fitness technology platforms. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences, 21: 8-17.  https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/21/20230227    [Google Scholar]
13. Liu Z and Yu X (2024). Development of a T2D app for elderly users: Participatory design study via heuristic evaluation and usability testing. Electronics, 13(19): 3862.  https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13193862    [Google Scholar]
14. Martín-Sómer M, Casado C, and Gómez-Pozuelo G (2024). Utilising interactive applications as educational tools in higher education: Perspectives from teachers and students, and an analysis of academic outcomes. Education for Chemical Engineers, 46: 1-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2023.10.001    [Google Scholar]
15. Mohammadhossein N, Richter A, and Lukosch S (2024). Augmented reality in learning settings: A systematic analysis of its benefits and avenues for future studies. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 54(1): 29-49.  https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05402    [Google Scholar]
16. Pike A, Bunch M, DeGennaro CM, and Parker MJ (2022). Online courses provide robust learning gains and improve learner confidence in the foundational biomedical sciences. Medical Science Educator, 32(6): 1425-1432.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-022-01660-4    [Google Scholar] PMid:36340046 PMCid:PMC9628398
17. Wang S, Liu Y, Song F, Xie X, and Yu D (2021). Research on evaluation system of user experience with online live course platform. IEEE Access, 9: 23863-23875.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3054047    [Google Scholar]