DETERMINANTS OF LEARNERS’ PERCEIVED LEARNING ON ENGLISH VOCABULARY LEARNING APPLICATION
Keywords:
Perceived learning, Student’s Motivation, Students’ dialogue, Course DesignAbstract
Purpose: In the digital information age, English vocabulary learning application, as a mobile learning method, has been widely welcomed by learners. But most products of the same type are very similar in the market. Therefore, how to find the factors that affect learners' perceived learning, and based on these factors, provide learners with more diversified services that match their needs, break the status quo of product homogeneity, is a problem worth thinking and studying at present. Research Design Data and Methodology: This study takes learners as the core, constructivism theory as the basis and questionnaire survey as a research instrument to study learners' perceived learning on English vocabulary learning application. Through an extensive review of previous relevant literature, four factors of motivation, dialogue, course design and layout design that may influence perceived learning were selected. 150 University students matching the population requirements were picked as sample on an online questionnaire platform, 150 questionnaires were returned, and all valid data were used to test hypotheses. Results: The results show that motivation, dialogue, course design and layout design all have significant influence on perceived learning. Conclusion: All of the four factors influenced the students’ perceived learning. The motivation was shown to have the most influence and the teachers and application developer should consider how the students’ motivation can be improved to enhance their experience of the learning and application.
Keywords: Perceived learning, Student’s Motivation, Students’ dialogue, Course Design
JEL Classification Code: A22, I23, L86
References
Alqahtani, M., & Mohammad, H. (2015). Mobile applications' impact on student performance and satisfaction. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 14(4), 102-112.
Arbaugh, J. B., Hwang, A., & Pollack, B. L. (2010). A review of research methods in online and blended business education: 2000–2009. In S. B. Eom, & J. B. Arbaugh (Eds.), Student satisfaction and learning outcomes in e-learning: An introduction to empirical research (pp. 37-56). IGI Global.
Bernard, H. R. (2017). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rowman & Littlefield.
Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting he distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 118-126.
Cakmak, F. (2019). Mobile learning and mobile assisted language learning in focus. Language and Technology, 1(1), 30-48.
Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: Testing three conceptions and their relations to perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 323-346.
Darcey, L., & Conder, S. (2012). Android Wireless Application Development Volume I: Android Essentials. Addison-Wesley.
Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An update. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 185-215.
Filgona, J., Sakiyo, J., Gwany, D. M., & Okoronka, A. U. (2020). Motivation in learning. Asian Journal of Education and social studies, 10(4), 16-37.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference (4th Ed.). Allen & Bacon.
Gray, J. A., & DiLoreto, M. (2016). The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning environments. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11(1), n1.
Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance?. Computers & Education, 95, 270-284.
Lin, W., & Lou, L. (2022). User Demand Analysis of English Word Learning APP Based on Text Mining—Taking the APP Bubeidanci as an Example. Open Access Library Journal, 9(5), 1-22.
Muirhead, B., & Juwah, C. (2004). Interactivity in computer-mediated college and university education: A recent review of the literature. Educational Technology & Society, 7(1), 12-20.
Piaget, J. (1977). Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking Press.Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectivenessin basic it skills training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401-426.
Samrgandi, N. (2021). User interface design & evaluation of mobile applications. International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security, 21(1), 55-63.
Wang, L. (2020). Investigation of the present situation of intelligent app in college students' vocabulary learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(5), 764-768.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Grammatical. Situational and Notional Syllabuses.
Wong, C. Y., Khong, C. W., & Chu, K. (2012). Interface design practice and education towards mobile apps development. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 698-702.
Wu, T.-T. (2018). Improving the effectiveness of English vocabularyreview by integrating ARCS with mobile game-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 315-323.
https://doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jcal. 12244
Zhang, P. (2022, December). A comparative research on the effectiveness of two mobile applications for vocabulary learning: BaiCiZhan and Bubeidanci. Third International Conference on Computer Science and Communication Technology (ICCSCT 2022), 12506, 1217-1221.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American educational research journal, 45(1), 166-183
