International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 7 (July 2023), Pages: 23-32

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

 Original Research Paper

The effect of interface quality, system quality, and perceived usefulness of an automated pronunciation scoring system on student satisfaction

 Author(s): 

 Goh Ying Soon 1, Ju Soon Yew 2, Nurul Ain Chua 3, *, Jumadil Saputra 3, Ngo Kea Leng 1, Wong Hoong Cheong 1

 Affiliation(s):

 1Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA Terengganu, 23000 Kuala Dungun, Terengganu, Malaysia
 2Faculty of Administrative Science and Policy Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA Pahang, 26400 Bandar Tun Razak, Pahang, Malaysia
 3Faculty of Business, Economics, and Social Development, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2915-1577

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.07.004

 Abstract:

Presently, the utilization of an automated pronunciation scoring system holds significant importance in the endeavor to enhance the pronunciation skills of non-native learners. A plethora of research endeavors have been dedicated to exploring the various factors that contribute to students' satisfaction with this technology. This particular investigation, however, narrows its focus to examine the influence of interface quality, system quality, and perceived usefulness of the automated pronunciation scoring system on students' levels of satisfaction. The approach employed in this study is quantitative, employing a cross-sectional design, and data was gathered through a survey questionnaire administered to a sample of 250 students from two universities in Malaysia. The collected data were subjected to analysis utilizing Structural Equation Modelling Partial Least Square (SEM-PLS), complemented by SmartPLS3.3 software. The outcomes of this analysis unequivocally indicate that both system quality and the perceived usefulness of the automated pronunciation scoring system significantly and positively impact students' satisfaction. However, it was found that the interface quality does not wield a significant influence on students' overall satisfaction. In conclusion, this investigation has successfully identified and explored the critical factors that contribute to students' satisfaction when utilizing an automated pronunciation scoring system. Moreover, the study establishes a strong correlation between the implementation of such a system and heightened levels of student satisfaction. These findings underscore the importance of diligently attending to interface quality, system quality, and perceived usefulness to optimize the effectiveness of an automated pronunciation scoring system. It is crucial for instructors to play an active role in ensuring that users are adept at navigating and interacting with the system, fostering a positive and fruitful learning experience.

 © 2023 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: Automated pronunciation scoring system, Interface quality, System quality, Perceived usefulness, Student satisfaction

 Article History: Received 1 November 2022, Received in revised form 28 February 2023, Accepted 10 May 2023

 Acknowledgment 

We would like to thank the Department of Research and Industrial Linkages, UiTM Campus Dungun, Terengganu, for supporting this research publication. We also thank Universiti Malaysia Terengganu for this excellent collaboration work and everyone who has volunteered to participate in this research.

 Funding 

This research has been funded by the Research Collaboration Fund 2021 (RCF 2021), Project Code: 600-UiTMCTKD (PJI/RMU 5/2/1)/ RCF2021-SS (1/2021).

 Compliance with ethical standards

 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:

 Soon GY, Yew JS, Chua NA, Saputra J, Leng NK, Cheong WH (2023). The effect of interface quality, system quality, and perceived usefulness of an automated pronunciation scoring system on student satisfaction. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(7): 23-32

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7

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

 References (56)

  1. Abdullah F, Ward R, and Ahmed E (2016). Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students’ perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior, 63: 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.014   [Google Scholar]
  2. Adkins G, Bennison J, Bowie P, Buist A, Couser P, Foggo R, and Wilson J (2017). Improving together: A national framework for quality and GP clusters in Scotland. NHS Education for Scotland (NES), Inverness, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Badi AH, Michelle OO, Al Roobaea R, and Mayhew P (2013). Improving usability of social networking systems: A case study of LinkedIn. Journal of Internet Social Networking and Virtual Communities, 2013: 889433. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2407462   [Google Scholar]
  4. Allam A, Sak G, Diviani N, and Schulz PJ (2017). Do quality markers for health websites affect the perception of vaccination webpages? Computers in Human Behavior, 67: 273-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.003   [Google Scholar]
  5. Alrajawy I, Daud NM, Isaac O, and Mutahar AM (2016). Mobile learning in Yemen public universities: Factors influence student’s intention to use. In The 7th International Conference on Postgraduate Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Shah Alam, Malaysia, 1: 1050-1064.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Aristovnik A, Keržič D, Tomaževič N, and Umek L (2016). Demographic determinants of usefulness of e-learning tools among students of public administration. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 13(4): 289-304. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-09-2016-0033   [Google Scholar]
  7. Cabada RZ, Estrada MLB, Hernández FG, Bustillos RO, and Reyes-García CA (2018). An affective and Web 3.0-based learning environment for a programming language. Telematics and Informatics, 35(3): 611-628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.03.005   [Google Scholar]
  8. Chang CT, Hajiyev J, and Su CR (2017). Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning approach. Computers and Education, 111: 128-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.010   [Google Scholar]
  9. Costa CJ, Ferreira E, Bento F, and Aparicio M (2016). Enterprise resource planning adoption and satisfaction determinants. Computers in Human Behavior, 63: 659-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.090   [Google Scholar]
  10. Daoust F (2018). Report from the world wide web consortium. SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal, 127(8): 72-73. https://doi.org/10.5594/JMI.2018.2850378   [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis FD (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008   [Google Scholar]
  12. Dong L, Fakeye OA, Graham G, and Gaskin DJ (2018). Racial/ethnic disparities in quality of care for cardiovascular disease in ambulatory settings: A review. Medical Care Research and Review, 75(3): 263-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558717725884   [Google Scholar] PMid:28882087
  13. El-Adly MI and Eid R (2016). An empirical study of the relationship between shopping environment, customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty in the UAE malls context. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31: 217-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.04.002   [Google Scholar]
  14. Elia G, Solazzo G, Lorenzo G, and Passiante G (2019). Assessing learners’ satisfaction in collaborative online courses through a big data approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 92: 589-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.033   [Google Scholar]
  15. Farooq MS, Salam M, Fayolle A, Jaafar N, and Ayupp K (2018). Impact of service quality on customer satisfaction in Malaysia airlines: A PLS-SEM approach. Journal of Air Transport Management, 67: 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.12.008   [Google Scholar]
  16. Forster Y, Hergeth S, Naujoks F, Krems JF, and Keinath A (2020). What and how to tell beforehand: The effect of user education on understanding, interaction and satisfaction with driving automation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 68: 316-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.11.017   [Google Scholar]
  17. Franke G and Sarstedt M (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison of four procedures. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 29(3): 430-447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2017-0515   [Google Scholar]
  18. Gaona-García PA, Martin-Moncunill D, and Montenegro-Marin CE (2017). Trends and challenges of visual search interfaces in digital libraries and repositories. The Electronic Library, 35(1): 69–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-03-2015-0046   [Google Scholar]
  19. Granollers T (2018). Usability evaluation with heuristics: New proposal from integrating two trusted sources. In the International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability, Springer, Cham, Switzerland: 396-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91797-9_28   [Google Scholar]
  20. Hair J, Hollingsworth CL, Randolph AB, and Chong AYL (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 117(3): 442–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130   [Google Scholar]
  21. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, and Sarstedt M (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7   [Google Scholar]
  22. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, and Ringle CM (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1): 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203   [Google Scholar]
  23. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, and Kuppelwieser VG (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review, 26(2): 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128   [Google Scholar]
  24. Henseler J, Dijkstra TK, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Diamantopoulos A, Straub DW, and Calantone RJ (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2): 182-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928   [Google Scholar]
  25. Henseler J, Ringle CM, and Sarstedt M (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1): 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8   [Google Scholar]
  26. Hussein Z (2017). Leading to intention: The role of attitude in relation to technology acceptance model in e-learning. Procedia Computer Science, 105: 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.01.196   [Google Scholar]
  27. Ibrahim R, Leng NS, Yusoff RCM, Samy GN, Masrom S, and Rizman ZI (2017). E-learning acceptance based on technology acceptance model (TAM). Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 9(4S): 871-889. https://doi.org/10.4314/jfas.v9i4S.50   [Google Scholar]
  28. Indarsin T and Ali H (2017). Attitude toward using m-commerce: The analysis of perceived usefulness perceived ease of use, and perceived trust: Case study in Ikens Wholesale Trade, Jakarta–Indonesia. Saudi Journal of Business and Management Studies, 2(11): 995-1007.   [Google Scholar]
  29. Isaac O, Abdullah Z, Ramayah T, Mutahar AM, and Alrajawy I (2016). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived compatibility, and net benefits: An empirical study of internet usage among employees in Yemen. In the 7th International Conference Postgraduate Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Shah Alam, Malaysia: 899-919.   [Google Scholar]
  30. Keržič D, Tomaževič N, Aristovnik A, and Umek L (2019). Exploring critical factors of the perceived usefulness of blended learning for higher education students. PLOS ONE, 14(11): e0223767. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223767   [Google Scholar] PMid:31751345 PMCid:PMC6872162
  31. Kock N (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101   [Google Scholar]
  32. Kock N and Lynn G (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(7): 546-580. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00302   [Google Scholar]
  33. Lewis JR (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human‐Computer Interaction, 7(1): 57-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319509526110   [Google Scholar]
  34. Lowry PB and Gaskin J (2014). Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(2): 123-146. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452   [Google Scholar]
  35. Md Noor S, Rasoolimanesh SM, Jaafar M, and Barghi R (2019). Inscription of a destination as a world heritage site and residents’ perceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 24(1): 14-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2018.1541183   [Google Scholar]
  36. Noh MJ and Lee KT (2016). An analysis of the relationship between quality and user acceptance in smartphone apps. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 14(2): 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-015-0283-6   [Google Scholar]
  37. Ogbeibu S, Jabbour CJC, Gaskin J, Senadjki A, and Hughes M (2021). Leveraging STARA competencies and green creativity to boost green organisational innovative evidence: A praxis for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(5): 2421-2440. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2754   [Google Scholar]
  38. Ouyang Y, Tang C, Rong W, Zhang L, Yin C, and Xiong Z (2017). Task-technology fit aware expectation-confirmation model towards understanding of MOOCs continued usage intention. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.020   [Google Scholar]
  39. Palos-Sanchez PR, Robina-Ramirez R, and Velicia-Martin F (2019). What role does corporate governance play in the intention to use cloud computing technology? Symmetry, 11(10): 1253. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11101253   [Google Scholar]
  40. Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Mitchell R, and Gudergan SP (2020). Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(12): 1617-1643. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1416655   [Google Scholar]
  41. Sarstedt M, Hair Jr JF, Cheah JH, Becker JM, and Ringle CM (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(3): 197-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003   [Google Scholar]
  42. Schön EM, Thomaschewski J, and Escalona MJ (2017). Agile requirements engineering: A systematic literature review. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 49: 79-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.011   [Google Scholar]
  43. Shmueli G, Sarstedt M, Hair JF, Cheah JH, Ting H, Vaithilingam S, and Ringle CM (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11): 2322-2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189   [Google Scholar]
  44. Smith GI, Mercer SW, Gillies JC, and McDevitt A (2017). Improving together: A new quality framework for GP clusters in Scotland. British Journal of General Practice, 67(660): 294-295. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X691601   [Google Scholar] PMid:28663413 PMCid:PMC5565863
  45. Song S, Bu J, Shen C, Artmeier A, Yu Z, and Zhou Q (2018). Reliability aware web accessibility experience metric. In Proceedings of the Internet of Accessible Things, ACM, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3192714.3192836   [Google Scholar]
  46. Song Y and Kong SC (2017). Investigating students’ acceptance of a statistics learning platform using technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(6): 865-897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116688320   [Google Scholar]
  47. Sun Y, Zhang Y, Gwizdka J, and Trace CB (2019). Consumer evaluation of the quality of online health information: Systematic literature review of relevant criteria and indicators. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(5): e12522. https://doi.org/10.2196/12522   [Google Scholar] PMid:31045507 PMCid:PMC6521213
  48. Szczepańska-Woszczyna K and Gatnar S (2022). Key competences of research and development project managers in high technology sector. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 10(3): 107-130.   [Google Scholar]
  49. Tarhini A, Hone K, Liu X, and Tarhini T (2017). Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of E-learning in developing countries: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3): 306-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1122635   [Google Scholar]
  50. Tian M and Xu G (2017). Exploring the determinants of users' satisfaction of WeChat official accounts. In the 3rd International Conference on Information Management, IEEE, Chengdu, China: 362-366. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOMAN.2017.7950409   [Google Scholar]
  51. Veral R and Macías JA (2019). Supporting user-perceived usability benchmarking through a developed quantitative metric. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 122: 184-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.09.012   [Google Scholar]
  52. Wang EST (2016). The moderating role of consumer characteristics in the relationship between website quality and perceived usefulness. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 44(6): 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-03-2015-0049   [Google Scholar]
  53. Wijaksono D and Ali H (2019). Model repurchase intentions: Analysis of brand awareness, perceived quality, brand association, and brand loyalty (case study private label on store Alfamidi in Tangerang). Saudi Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(5): 371-380.   [Google Scholar]
  54. Wu B and Chen X (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67: 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028   [Google Scholar]
  55. Xu F and Du JT (2019). Examining differences and similarities between graduate and undergraduate students' user satisfaction with digital libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(6): 102072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102072   [Google Scholar]
  56. Young RA, Roberts RG, and Holden RJ (2017). The challenges of measuring, improving, and reporting quality in primary care. The Annals of Family Medicine, 15(2): 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2014   [Google Scholar] PMid:28289120 PMCid:PMC5348238