See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290294630

Kansei design model for eLearning: A

preliminary finding

Article · January 2011

CITATION READS

1 10

4 authors:

Fauziah Redzuan Anitawati Mohd Lokman

Universiti Teknologi MARA Universiti Teknologi MARA
6 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS 48 PUBLICATIONS 93 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zulaiha ali othman Salha Abdullah

National University of Malaysia King Abdulaziz University
17 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 46 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Fauziah Redzuan
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 17 June 2016
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding

1,2 2 1 1
Fauziah Redzuan , Anitawati Mohd. Lokman , Zulaiha Ali Othman , Salha Abdullah
1
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi, Malaysia
2
Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Shah Alam, Malaysia
fauziahr@tmsk.uitm.edu.my
anita@tmsk.uitm.edu.my
zao@ftsm.ukm.edu.my
sa@ftsm.ukm.edu.my

Abstract: Positive emotion plays an important role in learning. Previous researchers have emphasised
the importance of positive emotion for effective learning. Although some researchers have documented
the association between emotion and e-learning, few studies have addressed users’ emotional
experience during their interaction with e-learning material. Therefore, this research paper highlights the
importance of emotion and aims to associate users’ emotional experience in e-learning in a convergence
of interface, content, and interaction design, of the learning material. In an experimental setting, we adopt
the Kansei Engineering (KE) methodology that has been proven successful in associating emotion and
product design characteristics. The Kansei Engineering technique is used in this research to translate the
users’ Kansei (feeling and desire) into the design elements of the online course. The instruments used in
this research include ten online database courses, and 478 adjectives have been used to represent the
users’ emotional experience. Respondents are comprised of 36 undergraduate students from a public
institution of higher learning, in Malaysia. The findings led to the development of a Kansei design model,
which aims to provide instructors and designers with clues for engineering a positive emotional
experience, for students learning in an online environment. The positive emotional experience is targeted
to facilitate, not only the capable students, but also the at-risk students, by enhancing their learning
experience. Recent research has also highlighted the need for new techniques to identify at-risk students,
as well as to support their learning. Therefore, identifying a good emotional design for e-learning will
hopefully assist better learning, not only for the good student, but also, and more importantly the at-risk
student. This paper presents the preliminary findings of the first experiment conducted by the
researchers. Results reveal the key adjectives for describing emotional experience in online learning, as
well as the specific design elements of the online course, associated with these emotions. Additionally,
this paper briefly discusses a proposed model for positive emotional experience in online learning; a
description of the Kansei Engineering technique adopted for this study; the analysis and findings, as well
as a brief explanation of future research directions.

Keywords: Online Course, Kansei Engineering (KE), Emotion, Design Elements, E-Learning, Emotional
Experience

1. Introduction
Emotion plays an important role in learning. As emphasised by various researchers, positive emotions are
crucial for effective learning to take place. Despite critiques claiming that emotion should be neglected in
the learning process, many other researches support the idea that positive emotion is important for
effective learning.

However, although there are some researchers who associate emotion and e-learning, researches that
address users’ emotional experience in e-learning are still in the early stages of development. The work
reported in this paper presents the results of the preliminary study, performed to provide input to the
ultimate aim, which is to discover the association of users’ emotional experience in e-learning with a
convergence of interface, content, and interaction design, of the online learning material.

The following sections are placed in order of what has been said in the literature on emotion in e-learning,
issues in e-learning, emotional experience in web-based applications, Kansei Engineering, a brief
description of the research model, followed by the research method, and the analysis and discussions

658
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

from the results of the evaluation experiment. Finally, the research summary and future work directions
are given.

2. Emotion in learning
Emotion is still somewhat neglected in learning, as researchers only tend to emphasise on cognition and
rationality. It is only quite recently that the trends have changed, and more researchers are including
emotion in their research.

According to Clapper (2010), positive emotion can be positively associated with learning. Recent brain
research also indicates that emotions are essential to learning (Rager 2009). In order for learning to take
place, the attention of the learner must first be engaged, and emotional responses can ‘trigger’ the
learners’ attention (Rager 2009: 29). Rager (2009) also suggested that emotional issues could not be
ignored and should be included in all types of learning, and stressed that more research is needed in this
area.

Many researchers highlight the importance of positive emotion in learning, such as in becoming more
efficient, and creative problem solvers, Hirt et al (in Capota, van Hout and van der Geest 2007); to affect
information processing and learning outcomes (Domagk, Schwartz and Plass 2010); to promote
knowledge construction and problem solving (Um, Song and Plass 2007); to improve creativity and
flexibility, Isen (in Chaffar and Frasson 2005); in motivating students (Wang et al 2010); and to help in
performing difficult tasks (MacFadden 2005). However, negative emotion poses several risks including
making simple tasks difficult (MacFadden 2005) and impairing individuals’ abilities to think or learn
efficiently, Goleman (in Chaffar and Frasson 2005).

However, de Jong (2009) implied that emotion in learning is rediscovered. This renewed discovery may
be based on the direction of research from being teacher-centred to learner-centred. This is a new light to
emotion in education, and rejects MacFadden’s (2005) argument that emotion has been neglected in
education and online education, which was reported due to the heavy emphasis on cognition and
rationality. According to him, historically, emotion has not been very appropriate in education (MacFadden
2005). Additionally, MacFadden also asserted that more investigation was needed to identify ways that
the focus on emotions can inform and strengthen the web-based learning experience (MacFadden,
2005).

Linnenbrink-Garcia and Pekrun (2011) also highlighted the importance of studying emotions, especially in
the context of a student’s engagement and learning. These authors emphasised that research on
emotions was still limited in educational psychology, a point that was previously stressed by (Domagk,
Schwartz and Plass 2010).

In conclusion, it is evident from the above literature that emotions, especially positive emotions, are
indeed very important and powerful in engaging learners either traditionally or online. Hence, putting this
argument forward, the research reported in this article was conducted in order to investigate the
emotional experience that students would have in online learning, looking into the possibilities to cluster
significant emotions and thus, distinguish between positive and negative emotions.

3. Problems in E-Learning
Three important problems that are uniquely associated with the design within the e-learning environment
have been identified from the literature. The first problem, as highlighted by (Vrasidas 2004), focuses on
the e-learning design itself, with regard to some problems in the Learning Management System (LMS).
The second problem is associated with the course design in the e-learning environment, as discussed by
(Yang and Cornelius 2004; Fisher and Wright 2010). The third issue concerns the design of the learning
material in the online course, as discussed below.

Although many issues remain, especially related to design in the e-learning environment, the focus of this
research is only on the emotional experience evoked by the design of the learning material in the online
environment.

659
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

One of the general problems in web-based design, according to Lokman (2011), is that web-based design
always produces a conflict between the designer’s specification and the user’s conformance. Her
argument agrees with that of Liu’s (2007) that posited that there is a discrepancy between the designs of
e-learning and the learners’ need or preferences, which results in poor learning among students. This
idea is further supported by Stephenson et al (2007), who state that designers should employ the
principles of a user- or learner-centred design. Even though many e-learning materials do employ
multimedia elements, as well as interactivity, these elements still do not meet the expectations of the
user, as noted by Greitzer (in Stephenson et al 2007). The root cause of this problem may be poor
design, organisation of the content or usability.

Furthermore, van Schaik and Ling (2008) also emphasised that poorly designed pages can rapidly turn
users away. O'Brien and Toms (2008) also stated; “a Web interface that is boring, a multimedia
presentation that does not captivate users’ attention ….are quickly dismissed with a simple mouse click”.
O'Brien and Toms (2008) also argued that, in order for technologies to be successful, they must not only
be usable, but also engage users. Accordingly, previous researchers also noted the difficulty of designing
online learning interfaces, as compared with designing web pages such as those noted by Kreijins (in
Fadel and Dyson 2007).

In addition, Bennet and Bennet (2008) also stressed on the emotional aspect of the learners and the
learning experience that they are going through. According to these researchers, “ideally good e-learning
would facilitate an experience with the learner that creates emotional tags, thus enhancing the ability to
learn from that experience”. From the literature, it is confirmed that a good design of the online learning
material is important to help students learn better.

4. Emotional experiences in web-based application

Several issues of concern exist with regard to the user’s emotional experience in the web-based
environment. Although the area of emotional aspects of the user experience is a neglected area of
research (Thuring and Mahlke 2007), it is now an area of concern within the Human Computer Interaction
(HCI) community.

Agarwal and Meyer (2009) and Agarwal and Prabaker (2009) demonstrated that usability metrics alone
(e.g., time on task, number of errors) cannot sufficiently measure the overall user experience of the
product or interface. According to their research, emotional responses may also play a significant role in
measuring the user’s experience, as well as in judging the usability of the product or interface.

Whilst some research on emotion and online learning exists, there is still a lack of research on the design
of the learning material in an online environment, which could capture or engage students’ attention and
emotion. Most literature is based on the general emotional experience of the learners during the online
course. Little attention is placed particularly on the emotional response to the design of the learning
materials. Other related researches in this area such as by Zembylas, Theodorou and Pavlakis (2008),
focused on the general experience of the learners in the online environment and the emotional
experience of the students going through the online study. Zembylas’ research does not specifically
concentrate on the emotional response to the design of the learning material. Additionally, MacFadden
(2005) proposed an emotionally oriented model for web-based education based on a constructivist
approach. This model consists of four stages, namely; safety, challenge, new thinking, and consolidation.
This proposed model is for general emotions within web-based learning.

It is evident from the literature that even though emotion is now an emphasised issue in web-based
applications, there is still no specific model for emotional experience evoked from the design of the
learning material in an online environment.

660
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

5. Kansei Engineering
There are many definitions of Kansei. According to Professor Mitsuo Nagamachi, the founder of Kansei
Engineering (KE), Kansei “implies psychological feeling and needs in mind” (Nagamachi 2008). Kansei
also “refers to the state of mind where knowledge, emotion and passion are harmonized” (Nagamachi
and Lokman 2011: 5). The idea of KE has been around since 1970. In KE, the aim is to develop a product
that people desire for or have deeply in mind. As described by Lokman (2011), KE provides a systematic
way of understanding the insights of user perceptions toward artefacts via several physiological and
psychological measurement methods. These insights are then translated into the design characteristics of
the artefact. KE is a very important philosophy, as it is not only customer/user oriented, but it also
promotes the value of emotion or aesthetics in the product design, as perceived by the customer/user.

Many researchers use KE, but few do so in the field of education. The philosophy of KE has only quite
recently permeated into educational systems (Sandanayake and Madurapperuma 2009). Several studies
have linked KE to online learning. Tharangie et al (2008) used KE to enhance e-learning web interfaces,
focusing on the study of colour. On the other hand, Chaminda et al (2009) proposed and implemented an
interactive e-learning system using KE. Levels of knowledge and emotion were analysed using biometrics
signals to analyse the emotions, which were then mapped against the knowledge and emotional levels of
the Kansei model (Chaminda et al 2009). In another study, Sandanayake and Madurapperuma proposed
a conceptual model for e-learning using KE techniques. Specifically, they used a software agent capable
of recognising and responding to the learner’s emotional state during a period of learning (Sandanayake
and Madurapperuma 2009). Chen, Chuah and Teh (2010) also attempted to use KE in their study on
instructional design.

Many methods of KE exist, namely, KE Type I and Type II, Category Classification Method, KE System,
Virtual KE System, and many more. For the purpose of this research, we selected KE Type II as being
the method most suitable for this area of study, as identified by its research design.

6. Proposed model
This paper reports a brief description of the proposed research model. The chosen model is based on the
principles of the Aptum model, highlighted by Hasle (2006) and interaction design. The Aptum model was
chosen as it consists of elements that are strongly proposed for effective communication and is related to
emotion. The interaction design also is included in the model, as from the literature it is an important
element in learning. The Aptum model consists of the elements of the Orator (the speaker or instructor),
the Scena (the audience or the receiver), the Res (the content), the Verba (the style or the form of
presentation or interface), and the Situatio (the context). According to Hasle (2006) the Aptum model
emphasises the balance between the elements, to achieve the apt. The more the balance, the better is
the apt.

However, the Aptum model is a general model, and adaptation is needed in order to discover the
knowledge of how a specific combination of design elements affects emotional experience in e-learning
environment. To enable this, KE methodology was adopted, as it has been successfully proven in
discovering relations between emotion and design.

Therefore, we argue that, based on the principles of Aptum model and interaction design, there is not one
element that affects the positive emotional experience in learning, but rather a combination of elements
that results in a positive emotional experience of the learners. The important elements extracted from the
Aptum model are the interface, content, and context. For this experiment, the emotional experience
based on the combination of interface, content, and interaction design were being evaluated.

As far as the authors are aware, no other researchers have yet applied the principles of the Aptum model,
interaction design, in combination with KE, to extract the design elements based on the emotional
experience of the learners in online learning. For interested readers, who would like to read in detail about
the proposed model, please refer to Redzuan et al (in press).

661
 Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

7. Methodology
To proceed with the research, we took several steps based on the KE technique. The KE Type II method
based on (Nagamachi and Lokman 2011), is followed.

Steps were adopted from the KE Type II (Phase 1), but were adapted specifically at the Extracting
Item/Category step. Figure 1 shows in detail all of the steps adopted in this study using the KE Type II
method. Section 7 (Methodology) and Section 8 (Analysis and Discussion) of the paper are related to
Figure 1.

Selecting Survey
Target

Extracting Low Level

Kansei Words Configuration
of SD Scale
(1)
Phase 1
Primary Evaluation Preparation of
Experiment Evaluation Target (1)

Statistical Analysis
of Kansei Words Configuration
of SD Scale Preparation of
(2) Evaluation Target (2)

Extracting High
Level Kansei Words

Extracting
Item/Category

Secondary Evaluation
Experiment
Phase 2

Figure 1: Research methodology steps using KE Type II method. Adapted from (Nagamachi and Lokman
2011: 50)

7.1 Selecting survey target

During the survey target selection phase, researchers began with the general problem, identified from the
literature and then focused on the specific problem of the design of the learning material for courses in an
e-learning environment. A short survey was administered to undergraduate university students in
Information Technology and Network, at the Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences to which
the first author of this paper is affiliated. The survey was conducted in order to confirm that the problem in
the design of learning materials is still relevant. Initially, 45 students were selected and surveyed to
ascertain their opinions on which of five courses needed support for e-learning. The results are shown in
Table 1.

662
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

Table 1: Students’ feedback regarding the importance of e-learning for the specific courses offered

IT Students (30) Network Students (15)

Course Code Numbers Course Code Numbers

ITS572 18/30 ITT550 10/15

ITS472 16/30 ITS472 9/15
ITS410 13/30 ITT450 9/15
ITS521 10/30 ITT460 8/15
ITS544 9/30 ITT510 7/15

A comparison was made between the two groups. Both groups valued e-learning as important to course
code ITS472 (Database course) so that they would be able to study at their own pace and time.

A second survey was subsequently administered, in order to understand the state of emotion experienced
by students, particularly in response to the online course on the i-Learn system. The i-Learn system is an
e-learning environment developed to allow lecturers to share online learning material with students in the
first author’s university. In this survey, 106 students were given several open-ended questions related to
the current online learning system that they were experiencing. Analysis of the second surveys findings
revealed that, even though many students responded that they were satisfied, at the same time, many
online learning materials in their courses still evoked negative emotions.

7.2 Extracting low-level Kansei words

In this step, 511 Kansei words considered to be related to online learning, as well as the psychology of
learning, were collected from 83 journals and proceedings. The optimum number of Kansei words,
according to Nagamachi and Lokman (2011), is between 600 and 800, but 300 or 400 words are also
sufficient to complete the primary evaluation experiment. Kansei words were usually related to users’
emotions and opinions. They include adjectives, nouns, verbs, and sentences (Nagamachi 2011). Kansei
words are best understood in their adjective form (Nagamachi and Lokman 2011). Therefore, all the 511
Kansei words were checked properly for their adjective and noun forms, and then submitted to the expert
for validation.

The first expert, Expert (A) is a linguistic with 20 years experience in the field. Expert (A) validated and
checked whether all of the words were in their proper adjective and noun form. Expert (A) also suggested
several more words related to learning and emotions. The second expert, Expert (B) is an educational
psychologist who has been involved in the area for more than 10 years. Expert (B) validated the Kansei
words and judged whether each was related to online learning or general learning. The third expert,
Expert (C) is a team of e-learning designers and instructional designers who have been involved in this
area for more than four years. From the designers’ team, most of the negative words were eliminated and
suggested as unsuitable for e-learning. This was justified by the designers’ expertise in the area that
suggest e-learning to induce positive emotions to the user. However, the designers also agreed that
sometimes negative emotion could be generated from e-learning materials. Therefore, negative emotion
is also a valid construct to measure designs that may evoke a negative emotional experience. Finally,
from all of the experts’ validations, a set of 478 Kansei words were concluded.

7.3 Configuration of SD scale

The Semantic Differential (SD) scale was then developed for the 478 Kansei words. According to
Nagamachi and Lokman (2011), a 5-level rating has been widely used for SD scales. They suggested
avoiding too many levels, as more levels make respondents more confused. In addition, according to
Nagamachi (in Lokman and Nagamachi 2010), the 5-degree scale is better than other scales, such as the

663
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

7-, 9- or 11-degree scales, as it is best suited to the style of human judgment. Therefore, we used a 5-
level rating for this research.

7.4 Primary evaluation experiment

The primary evaluation experiment was conducted using respondents comprising 36 undergraduate
students in the area of Information Technology. The selection of respondents was based on the subject
(i.e., the students or the respondents) selection procedure. A purposive sampling technique was used to
select the students. Selection criteria included firstly, that the students were studying in the area of
Information Technology; secondly, that they were currently enrolled or had taken the database course,
and thirdly, that they had the ability to express their emotions. Initially, around 100 students took a short
survey to test their ability to express their emotions. Following that test, only 55 students were selected
and invited to complete the primary evaluation experiment. Of these, only 36 students accepted the
invitation and completed the experiment.

As for the specimens (i.e., the online database courses), ten specimens were selected based on the
criteria that the design elements, such as colour, typography, layout, content, and interaction of each
differed from one another. The specimens are available online. Each specimen was assigned a number
(Specimen No.) by the researcher.

The primary evaluation experiment conducted in a computer laboratory, took 6.5 hours. There were
breaks every two hours to help respondents to refresh their mind. Each specimen was evaluated using
the 478 Kansei words. Each respondent was assigned a number (Subject No.) by the researcher and a
computer with an Internet connection was used to do the experiment. The respondents interacted with the
actual specimens online and the suggested time for the actual evaluation for each specimen was
between 20 to 30 minutes. In addition, to minimize the effects of fatigue, boredom, or bias, the 478 Kansei
words were arranged into two different versions. To further help the respondents verify the meaning of the
Kansei words, Malay translations were provided, even though the medium of the instructions of the
respondents’ university is English.

8. Analysis and Discussion

8.1 Statistical analysis

Some data cleaning was performed on the collected data, and the average evaluation values were
calculated. The average evaluation data was then analysed using JMP software, in order to understand
the correlation of Kansei words, as well as to calculate factor analysis, in order to understand the
significant factors that were formed from the evaluation results. In addition, based on the average score,
specimens that fitted best to Kansei were identified.

Figure 2 shows some examples of the average evaluation results based on the 35 subjects’ evaluations.
Correlation analyses, based on a pairwise correlation method were performed on the data, in order to
understand the strength of the correlation between two or more Kansei words. Correlation Coefficient
Analysis (CCA) is the measure of strength between variables. CCA is important to identify smaller, but
precise sets of correlated Kansei words, from the larger set of emotion words (Lokman and Ibrahim
2010). Figure 3 depicts the correlation matrix of the Kansei words with their correlation values.

664
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

Subject No Average Data 2

Specimen No
KW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Relaxed 3.028571 2.685714 4.142857 3.457143 3.647059 3.857143 3.457143 3.8 2.828571 3.942857
2 Intimidated 2.285714 2.742857 2.441176 2.828571 2.852941 2.885714 2.8 3.2 2.885714 3.257143
3 Happy 2.657143 2.742857 4.085714 3.171429 3.676471 3.514286 3.342857 3.771429 2.885714 3.485714
4 Merry 2.314286 2.514286 3.914286 3.114286 3.294118 3.142857 3.142857 3.6 2.657143 3.457143
5 Unpleasant 2.742857 2.705882 2.257143 2.657143 2.441176 2.457143 2.771429 2.6 3 2.771429
6 Leisurely 2.857143 2.828571 3.742857 3.028571 3.333333 3.428571 3.4 3.342857 3.114286 3.314286
7 Soothing 3.085714 3.085714 3.529412 2.914286 2.970588 3.085714 3.2 3.114286 3.142857 3.228571
8 Unsafe 2.371429 2.514286 2.085714 2.257143 2.176471 2.428571 2.371429 2.2 2.628571 2.428571
9 Sensational 2.514286 2.857143 3.571429 3 3.235294 3.257143 3.028571 3.628571 2.714286 3.257143
10 Surprised 2.542857 2.714286 3.285714 2.771429 2.852941 3.085714 3.257143 3.514286 2.742857 3.028571
11 Unwise 2.571429 2.342857 2.228571 2.514286 2.235294 2.457143 2.205882 2.485714 2.885714 2.428571
12 Heavy 3.171429 3.147059 2 2.8 2.705882 2.828571 3 3 3.342857 2.828571
13 Learnable 4.352941 3.828571 4.285714 3.942857 4.264706 4.314286 3.971429 4.228571 3.714286 3.971429
14 Solemn 3.764706 3.114286 2.676471 3.371429 3.058824 3.114286 3 3.114286 2.857143 3
15 Touched 2.323529 2.514286 3 2.942857 2.823529 2.857143 2.914286 3.314286 2.857143 3
16 Restless 2.882353 2.8 2.542857 2.828571 2.852941 2.685714 2.828571 3.028571 2.6 2.657143
17 Proud 3 2.914286 3.8 3.057143 3.294118 3.228571 3.342857 3.542857 2.885714 3.4
18 Mad 2.058824 2.428571 1.714286 2.142857 2.029412 2 2.142857 2.057143 2.514286 2.085714
19 Pleasant 2.939394 3.257143 3.8 3.342857 3.529412 3.2 3.285714 3.514286 3.171429 3.257143
20 Unwilling 2.606061 2.657143 1.914286 2.714286 2.617647 2.428571 2.628571 2.314286 2.914286 2.342857
21 Neutral 3.617647 3.085714 3.514286 3.514286 3.470588 3.771429 3.828571 3.742857 3.542857 3.714286
22 Irritated 2.647059 3.028571 2.2 2.742857 2.205882 2.371429 2.514286 2.6 3.028571 2.457143
23 Curious 3.441176 3.485714 3.514286 3.514286 3.794118 3.4 3.371429 3.285714 3.428571 3.485714
24 Despairing 2.764706 2.771429 2.428571 2.771429 2.588235 2.742857 2.771429 2.771429 3.114286 2.771429
25 Competent 3.176471 3.257143 3.457143 3.314286 3.323529 3.371429 3.314286 3.142857 3.314286 3.485714
26 Unique 2.647059 2.971429 3.971429 2.8 3.205882 3.514286 3.4 4.085714 2.8 3.542857
27 Involved 3.411765 3.257143 3.971429 3.457143 3.647059 3.542857 3.6 3.6 3.057143 3.657143
28 Confused 2.970588 3.114286 2.114286 2.885714 2.088235 2.257143 2.857143 2.685714 2.828571 2.571429
29 Inefficient 2.617647 2.857143 2.205882 2.6 1.911765 2.2 2.685714 2.342857 3.057143 2.114286
30 Inconvenient 2.588235 2.885714 2 2.628571 2 2.114286 2.685714 2.514286 2.828571 2.171429
31 Unresponsive 2.441176 2.828571 2 2.714286 2.176471 2.257143 2.485714 2.314286 3.028571 2.4
32 Desirable 2.941176 3.342857 3.882353 3.142857 3.588235 3.457143 3.371429 3.314286 3.2 3.457143
33 Perfect 2.735294 2.857143 3.735294 3.2 3.823529 3.657143 3.257143 3.742857 2.685714 3.714286
34 Uncooperative 2.588235 2.6 2.058824 2.571429 2.323529 2.090909 2.4 2.485714 3 2.257143
35 Ready 3.588235 3.285714 3.852941 3.428571 3.823529 3.714286 3.371429 3.8 3 3.771429
36 Unconscious 2.382353 2.6 2.176471 2.714286 2.5 2.4 2.628571 2.342857 3.028571 2.542857

Figure 2: Example of the calculated average values for each specimen based on the Kansei words

665
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

Relaxed IntimidatedHappy Merry Unpleasant Leisurely Soothing Unsafe SensationalSurprised Unwise Heavy Learnable Solemn Touched Restless Proud Mad Pleasant
Relaxed 1 0.277989 0.919003 0.913603 -0.688922184 0.855807 0.420139 -0.68612 0.856116 0.717382 -0.47207 -0.77504 0.567165 -0.3697 0.673719 -0.16029 0.885369 -0.84963 0.62938
Intimidated 0.277989 1 0.280317 0.365044 0.232271392 0.159982 -0.21995 0.158378 0.43857 0.421073 0.10845 0.203714 -0.32602 -0.31614 0.683563 0.148854 0.129905 0.234159 0.10071
Happy 0.919003 0.280317 1 0.970428 -0.741837874 0.92362 0.471634 -0.74222 0.946186 0.807961 -0.52832 -0.79873 0.478218 -0.59406 0.760106 -0.14259 0.927823 -0.75882 0.84972
Merry 0.913603 0.365044 0.970428 1 -0.63848158 0.881699 0.49791 -0.70881 0.944758 0.818477 -0.48556 -0.78703 0.328836 -0.6115 0.831852 -0.16803 0.925256 -0.70189 0.84951
Unpleasant -0.68892 0.232271 -0.74184 -0.63848 1 -0.62453 -0.305 0.798943 -0.68654 -0.41398 0.653881 0.856979 -0.72939 0.228529 -0.22499 0.077907 -0.68118 0.832847 -0.7146
Leisurely 0.855807 0.159982 0.92362 0.881699 -0.624530168 1 0.644742 -0.54919 0.807851 0.790641 -0.45967 -0.75443 0.395862 -0.70251 0.671537 -0.37851 0.881997 -0.70407 0.72371
Soothing 0.420139 -0.21995 0.471634 0.49791 -0.305000046 0.644742 1 -0.21631 0.401793 0.490385 -0.26803 -0.5811 0.131816 -0.6162 0.22927 -0.59832 0.667222 -0.45768 0.46172
Unsafe -0.68612 0.158378 -0.74222 -0.70881 0.798943014 -0.54919 -0.21631 1 -0.66727 -0.48051 0.602464 0.77435 -0.6617 0.072983 -0.40321 -0.24013 -0.75339 0.832156 -0.7613
Sensational 0.856116 0.43857 0.946186 0.944758 -0.686537646 0.807851 0.401793 -0.66727 1 0.863711 -0.48777 -0.68619 0.389566 -0.56568 0.818278 -0.01654 0.880761 -0.63962 0.82623
Surprised 0.717382 0.421073 0.807961 0.818477 -0.413975128 0.790641 0.490385 -0.48051 0.863711 1 -0.40956 -0.44243 0.272106 -0.54417 0.828878 0.076461 0.837473 -0.49963 0.6323
Unwise -0.47207 0.10845 -0.52832 -0.48556 0.653880984 -0.45967 -0.26803 0.602464 -0.48777 -0.40956 1 0.609961 -0.37405 0.22565 -0.09626 -0.11315 -0.58371 0.570719 -0.5460
Heavy -0.77504 0.203714 -0.79873 -0.78703 0.856979334 -0.75443 -0.5811 0.77435 -0.68619 -0.44243 0.609961 1 -0.47921 0.45027 -0.35553 0.392862 -0.79508 0.842079 -0.8049
Learnable 0.567165 -0.32602 0.478218 0.328836 -0.729386979 0.395862 0.131816 -0.6617 0.389566 0.272106 -0.37405 -0.47921 1 0.268167 -0.00293 0.233591 0.517417 -0.82655 0.22956
Solemn -0.3697 -0.31614 -0.59406 -0.6115 0.228528517 -0.70251 -0.6162 0.072983 -0.56568 -0.54417 0.22565 0.45027 0.268167 1 -0.56965 0.599819 -0.5054 0.082251 -0.6625
Touched 0.673719 0.683563 0.760106 0.831852 -0.224990089 0.671537 0.22927 -0.40321 0.818278 0.828878 -0.09626 -0.35553 -0.00293 -0.56965 1 0.013889 0.658228 -0.29074 0.63449
Restless -0.16029 0.148854 -0.14259 -0.16803 0.077906585 -0.37851 -0.59832 -0.24013 -0.01654 0.076461 -0.11315 0.392862 0.233591 0.599819 0.013889 1 -0.11067 0.069214 -0.1419
Proud 0.885369 0.129905 0.927823 0.925256 -0.681181685 0.881997 0.667222 -0.75339 0.880761 0.837473 -0.58371 -0.79508 0.517417 -0.5054 0.658228 -0.11067 1 -0.82335 0.78399
Mad -0.84963 0.234159 -0.75882 -0.70189 0.832847362 -0.70407 -0.45768 0.832156 -0.63962 -0.49963 0.570719 0.842079 -0.82655 0.082251 -0.29074 0.069214 -0.82335 1 -0.5570
Pleasant 0.629381 0.100715 0.849727 0.849513 -0.714626213 0.723715 0.461728 -0.76136 0.826238 0.63234 -0.54603 -0.80494 0.229567 -0.66257 0.634493 -0.14192 0.783993 -0.55701
Unwilling -0.79733 0.054228 -0.77514 -0.77199 0.745317547 -0.72599 -0.73518 0.65477 -0.77547 -0.65938 0.514784 0.816035 -0.5862 0.371597 -0.41305 0.231416 -0.89749 0.839095 -0.6575
Neutral 0.549048 0.290537 0.373532 0.364045 0.030873029 0.492378 0.138929 -0.13073 0.282113 0.532207 0.047996 -0.03322 0.344631 0.014601 0.47092 0.081727 0.407332 -0.38833 -0.0925
Irritated -0.86053 0.042983 -0.80729 -0.71072 0.774419672 -0.78131 -0.34278 0.725547 -0.64159 -0.48324 0.643877 0.764573 -0.75116 0.229688 -0.31873 0.108607 -0.77773 0.895243 -0.540
Curious 0.057499 -0.16949 0.132086 0.062295 -0.347859938 0.018285 -0.21356 -0.30167 -0.02269 -0.40962 -0.33777 -0.34753 0.114331 -0.06929 -0.24004 -0.14499 -0.03436 -0.14469 0.28554
Despairing -0.64137 0.3248 -0.65855 -0.5968 0.908218601 -0.54151 -0.38911 0.836539 -0.57982 -0.34429 0.82704 0.867866 -0.67325 0.146022 -0.09486 0.027314 -0.71025 0.854365 -0.6741
Competent 0.521993 0.132205 0.438541 0.490882 -0.271125066 0.565743 0.499659 -0.04938 0.314399 0.136668 -0.26959 -0.60274 -0.1038 -0.604 0.225193 -0.82236 0.377337 -0.32283 0.32910
Unique 0.800092 0.376524 0.877162 0.870511 -0.573255585 0.822538 0.584127 -0.54017 0.937051 0.943056 -0.46373 -0.58422 0.399078 -0.57311 0.754205 -0.03683 0.909558 -0.61625 0.70332
Involved 0.890088 -0.04486 0.855295 0.836568 -0.794170197 0.789216 0.539138 -0.83092 0.76348 0.638081 -0.74249 -0.87892 0.639748 -0.30138 0.435599 -0.08882 0.924379 -0.93358 0.70303
Confused -0.77513 -0.0616 -0.82347 -0.70539 0.769562789 -0.80692 -0.33191 0.567627 -0.67438 -0.41104 0.399499 0.745058 -0.58595 0.48827 -0.3915 0.354214 -0.6641 0.705628 -0.6334
Inefficient -0.83556 -0.22284 -0.76285 -0.68804 0.732304501 -0.60856 -0.12138 0.663885 -0.69282 -0.39847 0.551359 0.65285 -0.69281 0.146928 -0.35796 -0.01584 -0.67499 0.771668 -0.5008
Inconvenient -0.84464 -0.05521 -0.78061 -0.69101 0.771028301 -0.7259 -0.31996 0.604501 -0.64716 -0.3551 0.46481 0.765184 -0.68128 0.294999 -0.30611 0.288881 -0.68886 0.811938 -0.5254
Unresponsive -0.83834 0.109319 -0.80006 -0.69858 0.844823365 -0.73129 -0.41274 0.784536 -0.69835 -0.55204 0.650542 0.761681 -0.86232 0.155078 -0.29307 -0.0101 -0.83328 0.944075 -0.5654
Desirable 0.669402 0.079044 0.818594 0.773812 -0.723191521 0.829049 0.627146 -0.49734 0.749299 0.55762 -0.63994 -0.82064 0.249574 -0.7961 0.432667 -0.48031 0.753734 -0.56627 0.82409
Perfect 0.922006 0.434428 0.925741 0.888976 -0.715446817 0.784706 0.236625 -0.67541 0.909856 0.704073 -0.57491 -0.68487 0.525621 -0.41295 0.676897 0.002096 0.821131 -0.72088 0.69069
Uncooperative -0.83859 0.002975 -0.73949 -0.67963 0.817064561 -0.71487 -0.41637 0.587716 -0.68253 -0.52316 0.734637 0.780916 -0.6546 0.251541 -0.26596 0.191407 -0.74626 0.848275 -0.490
Ready 0.833299 0.084437 0.745731 0.682108 -0.777142457 0.571952 0.243202 -0.7602 0.717838 0.484618 -0.55577 -0.67179 0.821616 -0.02223 0.331747 0.138314 0.763057 -0.87479 0.50341
Unconscious -0.63574 0.264601 -0.58039 -0.50032 0.805373529 -0.47223 -0.42258 0.71043 -0.58121 -0.46367 0.594868 0.647677 -0.86025 -0.0532 -0.09917 -0.14078 -0.71348 0.862439 -0.4387
Preoccupied 0.671904 0.282972 0.502478 0.479952 -0.327323564 0.634529 0.437552 -0.0415 0.493757 0.565184 -0.35573 -0.35403 0.331293 -0.31563 0.322378 -0.32452 0.530351 -0.48603 0.08577
Anxious -0.04323 0.332347 -0.03909 0.044142 0.414664685 -0.0373 0.270919 0.166513 0.123043 0.434026 0.285348 0.367518 -0.1119 0.002163 0.317227 0.305564 0.176734 0.15755 -0.1289
Oblivious 0.010878 0.742183 0.08576 0.216914 0.494979007 0.100163 0.032915 0.349927 0.129424 0.133396 0.312483 0.194555 -0.70351 -0.54614 0.509879 -0.28475 -0.0238 0.454736 0.10105
Unexplainable -0.80612 0.158315 -0.83721 -0.76097 0.923303052 -0.71193 -0.43855 0.898419 -0.77336 -0.5771 0.610202 0.853134 -0.80186 0.214284 -0.37671 -0.01748 -0.85885 0.934287 -0.7440
Just 0.40681 0.414965 0.454512 0.483408 -0.4414735 0.09974 -0.30912 -0.59549 0.537132 0.161019 -0.36183 -0.35945 0.199695 -0.00995 0.390256 0.36591 0.313215 -0.28388 0.53370
Uncomfortable -0.9329 -0.19241 -0.90546 -0.88994 0.754108265 -0.78545 -0.4863 0.755336 -0.85513 -0.6328 0.566164 0.824053 -0.60333 0.379863 -0.55205 0.134871 -0.91102 0.857153 -0.7178
Creative 0.88934 0.448969 0.931366 0.948854 -0.632749646 0.813647 0.483289 -0.63341 0.981818 0.873532 -0.49969 -0.68223 0.390635 -0.54499 0.797854 -0.05114 0.917766 -0.66996 0.76601
Dumb -0.87923 -0.02415 -0.67705 -0.65822 0.712843933 -0.61048 -0.20405 0.648544 -0.58703 -0.39743 0.504704 0.737109 -0.66826 0.008138 -0.32603 0.110379 -0.6534 0.877724 -0.3744
Troubled -0.88572 -0.40544 -0.8967 -0.82784 0.632736557 -0.8667 -0.2244 0.548407 -0.82504 -0.7334 0.504841 0.598554 -0.48618 0.473498 -0.68318 0.077419 -0.75415 0.658431 -0.5913
Awful -0.75104 -0.01251 -0.76753 -0.66643 0.763106835 -0.6429 -0.18322 0.75485 -0.6171 -0.31503 0.537322 0.72393 -0.68757 0.22353 -0.29623 0.053233 -0.66971 0.775463 -0.615
Figure 3: Partial view of the correlation matrix results of the Kansei words
Responsible 0.513837 0.083608 0.443496 0.320716 -0.318648507 0.549743 0.128177 -0.23641 0.382542 0.604517 -0.24679 -0.12316 0.609037 -0.00875 0.306122 0.196153 0.443363 -0.48943 0.02748
Disillusioned -0.52847 -0.10673 -0.4713 -0.40024 0.391321123 -0.45741 -0.06456 0.436302 -0.35479 -0.35884 0.790038 0.344903 -0.44781 0.058355 -0.1239 -0.20517 -0.49012 0.523073 -0.22
Unexcited -0.9497 -0.35786 -0.95741 -0.92737 0.737846265 -0.85387 -0.43178 0.671239 -0.94883 -0.77911 0.512313 0.742235 -0.55446 0.481567 -0.70034 0.106014 -0.90351 0.775301 -0.7253
A correlation value above 0.8 was considered strong; therefore, some strong correlations did exist
Chaotic -0.58417 0.343069 -0.44518 -0.33576 0.642797994 -0.39248 0.024944 0.697183 -0.24564 -0.09709 0.446645 0.549124 -0.82538 -0.2855 0.015721 -0.13465 -0.42338 0.808702 -0.2136
Ambivalent -0.2447 0.578653 -0.21838 -0.14907 0.693075886 -0.04226 0.009657 0.689572 -0.11476 0.239197 0.361999 0.598216 -0.6211 -0.2954 0.275855 -0.0579 -0.21881 0.607279 -0.3503
between specific Kansei words. This detail is important to understand, in order to extract the high-level
Tense -0.8285 -0.29874 -0.89499 -0.87204 0.552837416 -0.93155 -0.60806 0.444623 -0.80581 -0.67607 0.248817 0.714219 -0.29489 0.75877 -0.70266 0.501533 -0.80251 0.595294 -0.7123
Kansei words, or in other words, to identify the most significant Kansei words. Words in the correlation
Inactive -0.89724 -0.29721 -0.93467 -0.92146 0.771946222 -0.74052 -0.27249 0.850278 -0.92002 -0.69133 0.587658 0.774271 -0.5487 0.356082 -0.68329 -0.08219 -0.87161 0.783597 -0.8146
Authentic -0.05822 -0.68269 -0.18197 -0.32305 -0.166306274 -0.12265 0.011219 -0.19286 -0.33195 -0.26238 -0.06832 0.021004 0.699181 0.60096 -0.57514 0.24296 -0.02148 -0.37833 -0.3349
matrix with a correlation value of 0.8 and above were extracted and further grouped together, based on
each of the Kansei words. This finding serves as the basis for identifying the high-level Kansei words
necessary to reduce the number of Kansei words from 478 to between 50 and around 100 words, for the
secondary experiment, as was suggested by (Nagamachi and Lokman 2011).

8.2 Extracting high-level Kansei words

In a KE study, one of the most important analyses is multivariate analysis. According to Nagamachi and
Lokman (2011), “multivariate analysis is a technique used to clarify the impact of variables that affect the
characteristic values as a phenomenon”. Multivariate analysis is useful for identifying factors that might
lead to certain outcomes. In this study, correlation coefficient analysis and factor analysis are performed
to understand the data better.

Based on the correlation analysis, we identified groups of highly correlated Kansei words. For example,
the Kansei word ‘Enchanting’ is highly correlated with the words ‘Fun’, ‘Merry’, ‘Happy’ and ‘Wonderful’,
with correlation values of more than 0.971.The Kansei word ‘Interested’ is highly correlated with the
words ‘Efficient’, ‘Satisfied’, ‘Admirable’, and ‘Understandable’, with correlation values of more than 0.953.
The correlation analysis revealed that not only was positive emotional keywords highly associated with
each other, but that negative emotional keywords were as well. For example, ‘Unhappy’ is highly
correlated with ‘Inactive’, ‘Lonely’, ‘Upset’, ‘Lost Interest’, ‘Tired’, and ‘Frustrated’, with values of more
than 0.952. ‘Mad’ is highly correlated with ‘Unresponsive’, ‘Unexplainable’, ‘Discardable’, ‘Faulty’,
‘Disappointed’, and ‘Stupid’, with correlation values of more than 0.908.

666
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

Some of the dimensions for positive emotions included ‘Enchanting’, ‘Interested’, ‘Concentrated’,
‘Harmonious’, and ‘Stimulating’, and those for negative emotions included ‘Unhappy’, ‘Mad’, and ‘Hated’.
It can be concluded that the emotional responses from the perspective of the students towards the online
database courses, can be represented by the 130 significant emotional dimensions. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the design of the online database course should fall within these dimensions.

Table 2: Variance analysis

Factor Variance Percent Cum Percent

Factor 1 225.271 47.128 47.128
Factor 2 77.507 16.215 63.343
Factor 3 38.082 7.967 71.310
Factor 4 28.629 5.989 77.299
Factor 5 25.111 5.253 82.552
Factor 6 22.709 4.751 87.303
Factor 7 21.243 4.444 91.747
Factor 8 20.535 4.296 96.043
Factor 9 18.913 3.957 100.000
Factor 10 0.000 0.000 100.000

Row Factor 1 Row Factor 2 Row Factor 3 Row Factor 4 Row Factor 5 Row Factor 6 Row Fact
Enchanting 0.98488107 Furious 0.956395 Overwhelming 0.8203534 Time Consuming 0.954044013 Responsible 0.87841228 Hysterical 0.834266138 Disaffected 0.6
Fun 0.984120404 Irrational 0.946843 Expert 0.797115466 Anxious 0.937249876 Neutral 0.692149833 Jittery 0.790303391 Disillusioned 0.6
Gay 0.983947942 Indignant 0.928412 Frenzied 0.767302271 Pathetic 0.797806291 Compliant 0.653910994 Ebullient 0.721031853 Silly 0.6
Happy 0.981556799 Anomalous 0.913394 Professional 0.746310898 Deceptive 0.727372572 Preoccupied 0.605250808 Longing 0.675167366 Sacred 0.6
Lovable 0.979917393 Enraged 0.901949 Challenging 0.73245983 Scared 0.663154037 Narrow 0.594036061 Triumphant 0.652038054 Unwise 0.5
Interesting 0.978678142 Impetuous 0.880886 Feeble-Minded 0.725517832 Insensitive 0.647008061 Emphatic 0.566388662 Greedy 0.590046375 Cheesy 0.
Joyful 0.978480037 Shocked 0.867651 Mature 0.714109204 Distracted 0.60633301 Concentrated 0.538987537 Simple 0.561065677 Autonomous 0.4
Wonderful 0.976800965 Ambivalent 0.856998 Restless 0.663129242 Unresolved 0.563311822 Authentic 0.53265586 Unadulterated 0.533338315 Negligible 0.4
Calm 0.976674315 Melancholic 0.855691 Wealthy 0.621129915 Alarmed 0.559887379 Sympathetic 0.528968428 Placid 0.526828717 Dreadful 0.4
Merry 0.975463459 Hostile 0.841331 Jealous 0.580731704 Dramatic 0.55567322 Light 0.528592194 Sympathetic 0.524859121 Unreproachable 0.4
Enjoyable 0.974353959 Contradictory 0.839706 Bewildered 0.569265777 Disgusted 0.543325333 Bright 0.512471894 Ingenious 0.52135029 Unjust 0.4
Delighted 0.97414408 Humiliated 0.83092 Inconsolable 0.566227513 Guilty 0.529889045 Actual 0.511138413 Envious 0.520576619 Justifiable 0.4
Youthful 0.971088339 Distressed 0.821598 Arbitrary 0.564773492 Comprehensible 0.521364736 Sober 0.49658674 Dignified 0.511870441 Intentioned 0.4
Amused 0.965431088 Avaricious 0.807801 Just 0.55494958 Unenlightened 0.505149486 Learnable 0.478227907 Isolated 0.465398531 Longing 0.4
Glad 0.964130141 Resentful 0.800197 Actual 0.549978307 Wide Awake 0.504420578 Ingenious 0.472511964 Neutral 0.453423059 Yearning 0.4
Creative 0.964115453 Insulting 0.787234 Integrated 0.542836668 Agitated 0.500672657 Insightful 0.471260729 Perceivable 0.435047631 Tender 0.3
Sensational 0.961800244 Grieving 0.787105 Flowing 0.537153735 Optimistic 0.500309376 Simple 0.461699782 Sorrowful 0.429286494 Gloomy 0.3
Fascinated 0.960100098 Terrified 0.77193 Content 0.536452052 Ingenious 0.499610253 Wandering 0.458460021 Epiphanic 0.423423747 Scary 0.
Nice 0.959305568 Vulnerable 0.764008 Stable 0.534509947 Isolated 0.498500946 Altruistic 0.454634773 Vigorous 0.415107241 Quaint 0.3
Aroused 0.957065025 Dreadful 0.756239 Self-Regulated 0.532120488 Unthinking 0.494847871 Threatening 0.454222238 Competent 0.409836121 Sensitive 0.3
Proud 0.955757294 Chuckle 0.755121 Valuable 0.516134982 Impulsive 0.491697841 Expected 0.45041581 Threatening 0.398788884 Sorrowful 0.
Entertaining 0.955226079 Mournful 0.749116 Promising 0.515832994 Restless 0.485100503 Easy to Read 0.43981112 Avaricious 0.392544545 Insightful 0.3
Excited 0.953399646 Intimidated 0.741233 Resolved 0.50742822 Confused 0.470306466 Thinking 0.43624208 Easy to Read 0.389298767 Sense of Belonging0.3
Active 0.951207053 Indifferent 0.732188 Trustable 0.50454291 Altruistic 0.46704963 Intense 0.4320209 Puzzled 0.383484589 Pervasive 0.3
Serene 0.948914514 Oblivious 0.731889 Solemn 0.501301357 Pressured 0.459956102 Skilled 0.408992956 Oblivious 0.383275801 Distressed 0.3
Playful 0.948057396 Contemptible 0.725011 Important 0.493795618 Graceful 0.444447975 Justifiable 0.398327892 Self-Pitying 0.380922015 Sad 0.3
Admirable 0.941842833 Wistful 0.721744 Good 0.491080114 Apprehensive 0.440777763 Appreciative 0.389115107 Pervasive 0.377493499 Sorry 0.3
Friendly 0.93852647 Regretful 0.717201 Revolted 0.49027899 Embarrassed 0.428440812 Autonomous 0.386568404 Dispositional 0.375225652 Puzzled 0.3
Easy 0.934881948 Arbitrary 0.715643 Pleasurable 0.484269961 Grouchy 0.427818921 Appropriate 0.385842901 Romantic 0.370910447 Regretful 0.3
Captivating 0.934628462 Aggravating 0.701663 Well 0.479789935 Struggling 0.422910047 Wise 0.378522168 Sincere 0.368070647 Hated 0.3
Feeling 0.931627352 Misconception 0.697312 Self-Confident 0.474999146 Pained 0.412318765 Helpful 0.373398949 Irresponsible 0.34441702 Influential 0.3

Figure 4: Partial view of the factor analysis results

Figure 4 depicts the partial results of the performed factor analysis. The factor analysis was performed
using varimax rotation. From this first experiment, shown in Table 2, we see that Factor 1 explains 47% of
the data, and the accumulated percentage, to explain the data from Factor 1 to Factor 4 is 77%. Factors 5
to 8 contribute smaller percentages, of approximately 4 to 5% for each of the factors, to explain the data.
Looking in detail at Figure 4, Factor 1, Factor 3, and Factor 5, consist of positive emotional responses.
However, Factors 2, 4, 6, and 7, consist of negative emotional responses. From these findings, we can
conclude that the specimens used in this experiment evoke positive, as well as negative emotions. We
would like to explore further, which of the specimens evoked positive emotions and which of the
specimens evoked negative emotions.

667
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

Table 3: Partial view of the Kansei words with the highest specimen’s average
Kansei words Highest Average Specimen No Kansei words Highest Average Specimen No Kansei words Highest Average Specimen No
Enchanting 3.5 3 Interested 4.05 3 Professional 4.22 5
Fun 4.08 3 Efficient 3.97 5 Mature 3.94 5
Merry 3.91 3 Satisfied 4 3 Content 4.25 5
Happy 4.08 3 Admirable 3.85 3 Expert 4.2 5
Wonderful 4 3 Understandable 4.17 5 Valuable 4.34 5
Positive Emotions

Lovable 3.34 3 Preferable 4.17 5

Creative 4.28 8 Likeable 4.14 5
Sensational 3.62 8 Great 3.94 8
Amused 3.58 3 Cool 4.08 8
Delighted 3.6 3 Courageous 3.88 3,5
Enjoyable 4.17 3
Youthful 3.48 3
Joyful 3.8 3
Captivating 3.94 8
Nice 4.11 3
Mad 2.51 9 Unhappy 3.31 9 Heavy 3.34 9
Unexplainable 2.91 9 Inactive 3.08 9 Stressed 3.4 9
Negative Emotions

Discardable 3 9 Lonely 2.94 9

Faulty 2.71 9 Upset 2.77 9
Disappointed 3.11 9 Lost Interest 3.68 9
Stupid 2.28 9 Tired 3.48 9
Rejected 3.2 9 Frustrated 3 9
Sad 2.48 9 Annoyed 3.2 9
Dissatisfied 3.05 9

The average data calculated previously were examined in detail. From the correlation analysis results,
some of the words were carefully chosen from each dimension to examine the specimens further. Table 3
shows the selected Kansei words and the highest average value from the specimens. It is evident from
Table 3 that most of the positive emotions are related to Specimen Nos. 3, 8, and 5. In contrast, the
negative emotions are consistently related to Specimen No. 9. Further examination of the specimens (as
shown in Table 4) reveals the design elements of the identified specimens.

Table 4: Brief design elements based on the selected specimens

Specimen No. Design Dimension Design Elements

3 Interface Simple, not crowded, colour: white background with
some orange colour in the title, simple and organized
menu on the left
Interaction Short quiz/challenge, interaction with learner, learner
gives some input, gets instant feedback on their input
Content Short notes, precise, concise, some pictures, animation,
learner able to explore
5 Interface Simple, colour: white background with green colour in the
logo and some words, simple menu on the left
Interaction Short exercise, learner can try the exercise, gets instant
results and feedback on the exercise
Content Short notes with examples
8 Interface Simple, related to example given
Interaction Walkthrough examples
Content Showing pointer and has audio
9 Interface Simple, colour: white background with blue text, picture
of instructor, no menu, next and back button/links
Interaction No learner interaction
Content Give examples with wordy explanations

668
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

It is interesting to note, that a simple interface with some interaction with the learners, as well as short
notes, evokes positive emotions in the learners. However, a simple interface with no learner interaction
and with lengthy explanations evokes negative emotions.

9. Conclusion
The aim of this study was to identify the design elements of learning material in an online course that
could evoke emotional responses from the students. Based on the principles extracted from the Aptum
model, interaction design and using the KE Type II method, the researchers pursued this study according
to the steps outlined in the KE Type II method. The experimental procedure involved ten online database
courses to be used as specimens and 478 Kansei words, with 36 respondents or subjects. Statistical
analysis was performed using correlation and factor analysis, in order to understand the data better. The
results show that there are 130 significant emotional dimensions for the design of an online database
course. The design elements of the specimens for positive and negative emotional experiences were also
identified.

This study reveals that it is possible to measure the emotional experience of the learners when interacting
with online learning material, and to investigate the design elements that evoked emotional experiences
of the learners in an online environment. Further study is to be performed on the second experiment, to
investigate the detail design elements and its combination that contributes to the evoked emotions,
especially on the positive emotional experience of the learners.

References
Agarwal, A. and Meyer, A. (2009) "Beyond Usability: Evaluating Emotional Response as an Integral Part
of the User Experience", Paper read at the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI 2009), Boston, Massachusetts, ACM.
Agarwal, A. and Prabaker, M. (2009) “Building on the Usability Study: Two Explorations on How to Better
Understand an Interface”, in Jacko, J.A. (ed.) Human-Computer Interaction, Part I, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science (LNCS 5610), Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Bennet, A. and Bennet, D. (2008) "E-learning as Energetic Learning", VINE: The Journal of Information
and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp 206-220.
Capota, K., van Hout, M. and van der Geest, T. (2007) "Measuring the Emotional Impact of Websites: A
Study on Combining a Dimensional and Discrete Emotion Approach in Measuring Visual Appeal of
University Websites", Paper read at the International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and
Interfaces. Helsinki, Finland, August. ACM.
Chaffar, S. and Frasson, C. (2005) "The Emotional Conditions of Learning", American Association for
Artificial Intelligence.
Chaminda, H.T., Basnayake, A., Madurapperuma, A. and Osano, M. (2009) "An Interactive E-Learning
System using Kansei Engineering", Paper read at the International Conference on Biometrics and Kansei
Engineering, IEEE.
Chen, C.J., Chuah, K.M. and Teh, C.S. (2010) “Bridging the Emotional Divide in Instructional Design: A
Kansei Perspective”, in Iskander M. et al (ed.) Technological Developments in Education and
Automation: Springer
Clapper, T.C. (2010) "Beyond Knowles: What Those Conducting Simulation Need to Know About Adult
Learning Theory", Clinical Simulation in Nursing, Vol. 6, pp e7-e14.
Domagk, S., Schwartz, R.N. and Plass, J.L. (2010) "Interactivity in Multimedia Learning: An Integrated
Model", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26, pp 1024-1033.
de Jong, T. (2009) “Affective Processes in Learning”, Explorations in Learning and the Brain: Springer.
Fadel, L.M. and Dyson, M.C. (2007) "Enhancing Interactivity in an Online Learning Environment", Paper
read at the 11th IFIP TC 13 International Conference (INTERACT), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September.
Fisher, E.A. and Wright V.H. (2010) "Improving Online Course Design Through Usability Testing",
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp 228-245.

669
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

Hasle, P.F.V. (2006) “The Persuasive Expansion - Rhetoric, Information Architecture and Conceptual
Structure” in Scharfe, H., Hitzler, P. and Ohrstrom P. (ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science:
Springer.
Kampov-Polevoi, J. (2010) "Framework for Analysis of Online Course Design", ASIS&T Annual Meeting.
Pittsburgh, P.A, U.S.A.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. and Pekrun, R. (2011) "Students' Emotions and Academic Engagement:
Introduction to the Special Issue", Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 36, pp 1-3.
Liu, F. (2007) "Personalized Learning Using Adapted Content Modality Design for Science Students",
Paper read at ECCE Conference, London, UK. August.
Lokman, A.M. (2011) “Kansei/Affective Engineering and Web Design”, in Nagamachi, M. (ed.)
Kansei/Affective Engineering, Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Lokman, A.M. and Nagamachi, M. (2010) Kansei Engineering A Beginners Perspective, University
Publication Centre (UPENA), Seri Kembangan, Selangor.
Lokman, A.M. and Mior, I.E.N. (2010) "The Kansei Semantic Space in Children's Clothing", IEEE.
MacFadden, R.J. (2005) "Souls on Ice: Incorporating Emotion in Web-Based Education", Journal of
Technology in Human Services, Vol. 23, No. 1/2, pp 79-98.
Nagamachi, M. (2008) "Perspectives and the New Trend of Kansei/Affective Engineering", The TQM
Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp 290-298.
Nagamachi, M. (2011) “Kansei/Affective Engineering and History of Kansei/Affective Engineering in the
World”, in Nagamachi, M. (ed.) Kansei/Affective Engineering, Boca Raton, Florida, U.S.A: CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group.
Nagamachi, M. and Lokman, A.M. (2011) Innovations of Kansei Engineering, CRC Press Taylor &
Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, U.S.A.
O'Brien, H.L. and Toms E.G. (2008) "What is User Engagement? A Conceptual Framework for Defining
User Engagement with Technology", Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, Vol. 59, No.6, pp 938-955.
Rager, K.B. (2009) "I Feel, Therefore I Learn: The Role of Emotion in Self-Directed Learning", New
Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp 22-33.
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A.M., Othman, Z.A. and Abdullah, S. (in press) “Kansei Design Model for
Engagement in Online Learning: A Proposed Model”, Paper to appear in The International Conference
on Informatics Engineering & Information Science (ICIEIS). Springer.
Sandanayake, T.C. and Madurapperuma A.P. (2009) "Conceptual Model for E-Learning Systems using
Kansei Engineering Techniques", Paper read at the International Conference on Biometrics and Kansei
Engineering. IEEE.
Stephenson, J.E., Morris, W.B., Tempest, H.G., Griffin, D.K., Mileham, A. and Payne, A.M. (2007) "The
Use of an E-Learning Constructivist Solution in Workplace Learning", Paper read at ECCE Conference,
London, UK. August.
Tharangie, K.G.D, Irfan, C.M.A, Marasinghe, C.A and Yamada, K. (2008) "Kansei Engineering Assessing
System to Enhance the Usability in E-Learning Web Interfaces: Color Basis", Paper read at the Workshop
Proc. 16th Inter. Conf. on Computers in Education (ICCE), Workshop on Testing and Assessment, Taipe,
Taiwan, October.
Thuring, M. and Mahlke, S. (2007) "Usability, Aesthetics and Emotions in Human-Technology Interaction",
International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp 253-264.
Um, E.R., Song, H. and Plass J. (2007) "The Effect of Positive Emotions on Multimedia Learning", Paper
read at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications
(EDMEDIA) 2007, Vancouver, Canada. AACE.
van Schaik, P. and Ling, J. (2008) "Modelling User Experience with Web Sites: Usability, Hedonic Value,
Beauty and Goodness", Interacting with Computers, Vol. 20, pp 419-432.
van Schaik, P. and Ling, J. (2009) "The Role of Context in Perceptions of the Aesthetics of Web Pages
Over Time", International Journal of Human - Computer Studies, Vol. 67, pp 79-89.
Vrasidas, C. (2004) "Issues of Pedagogy and Design in E-Learning Systems", Paper read at the ACM
Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC2004), Nicosia, Cyprus. ACM.

670
Redzuan, F., Lokman, A. M., Othman, Z.A., Abdullah, S. (2011). Kansei Design Model for E-Learning: A Preliminary Finding. Proceeding of the 10th European Conference on e-
Learning (ECEL-2011), University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom. 10-11 November 2011. Pg 685-696.
ISBN: 978-1-908272-23-2. Index: ISI Thompson, EBSCOHOST

Wang, C-Y., Ke S-Y., Chuang, H-C, Tseng, H-Y and Chen, G-D (2010) "E-Learning System Design with
Humor and Empathy Interaction by Virtual Human to Improve Students' Learning", Paper read at the 18th
International Conference on Computers in Education, Putrajaya, Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Society for
Computers in Education.
Yang, Y. and Cornelius, L.F. (2004) "Students' Perceptions Towards the Quality of Online Education: A
Qualitative Approach", Association for Educational Communication and Technology, Vol. 27, pp
861-877.
Zembylas, M., Theodorou, M. and Pavlakis, A. (2008) "The Role of Emotions in the Experience of Online
Learning: Challenges and Opportunities", Educational Media International, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp 107-117.

671