You are here:

The Relationship Between National Culture and the Usability of an E-Learning System

, Nationwide Technologies, Nigeria ; , University of Illinois, United States

International Journal on E-Learning Volume 6, Number 1, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


The purpose of this study was to investigate possible relationships between national culture and the usability of an e-learning system. The theoretical frameworks that were used to guide this study were Hofstede's (1980) cultural dimensions, and Nielson's (1993) usability attributes. The sample for this study was composed of 24 international students from 11 different countries attending a large Midwest university in the United States. This sample was selected for this study because they represented the various cultural dimensions being studied, had spent their formative years in their home country, and were not advanced computer users. Three instruments were used in this study and each instrument assisted in collecting information regarding unique aspects of the research study. The study revealed that females had higher scores for Learnability Time and Learnability Path, while males had higher scores for Satisfaction with Navigation and Satisfaction with General Usage. The study also found that respondents in the Low Uncertainty Avoidance group had higher Memorability Path scores than those in the High Uncertainty Avoidance group.


Adeoye, B. & Wentling, R.M. (2007). The Relationship Between National Culture and the Usability of an E-Learning System. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 119-146. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Abernathy, D. (2000). Key trends: The end of learning as we know it. Online Publication (Equity Research) Retrieved October 9, 2006, from
  2. Barrett, D. E. (1996). Analysis of the instructional design variables within selected integrated learning systems (ills): Implications for design changes to enhance cultural diversity. (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57–07, 2979A.
  3. Bernard, M. (2000). Constructing user-centered websites: The early design phases of small to medium sites. Usability news 2.1. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from
  4. Berge, Z. L. (1998). Conceptual frameworks in distance training and education. In D. A. Schneider & Z. L. Berge (Eds.), Distance training: How innovative organizations are using technology to maximize learning and meet business objectives (pp. 19–36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  5. Borges, J., Morales, I., & Rodríguez, N. (1995). Guidelines for designing usable world wide web pages. October 9, 2006,
  6. Branch, R. M. (1997). Educational technology frameworks that facilitate culturally pluralistic instruction. Educational Technology, 37(2), 38–41. Chute, A., & Shatzer, L.
  7. Collis, B, Parisi, D., & Ligorio, M. (1996). Adaptation of courses for trans-European tele-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12(1), 47-62.
  8. Day, D. (1991, April). The cross cultural study of human computer interaction: A review of research methodology, technology transfer and the diffusion of innovation. Paper presented at the Third National Conference on Librarians and International Development, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Del Galdo, E., & Nielsen, J. (1996). International user interface. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  9. Demeester, D. (1999). Design considerations for distance education in a global environment. Dearborn, MI: College of Education, University of Michigan. Dunbar, R.
  10. Evers, V., & Day, D. (1997). The role of culture in interface acceptance. In S. Howard, J. Hammond, & G. Lindegaard (Eds.), Human computer interaction INTERACT'97. London: Chapman and Hall.
  11. Faiola, T. (1989). Principles and guidelines for screen display interface. The Videodisc Monitor, 8(2), 27–29.
  12. Fernandez, T. (1995). Global interface design. London: Academic Press. Galitz, W. O.
  13. Hall, E. T. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Hambrick, D. C., Davison, S. C., Snell, S. A., & Snow, C. C. (1998). When groups consist of multiple nationalities: Towards a new understanding of the implications. Organization Studies, 19(2), 181–205. Henderson, L. (1996).
  14. Hites, J. M. (1996). Design and delivery of training for international trainees: A case study. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(2), 57–74.
  15. Hoffer, E. (2000). Equity research. WR Hambrecht & Co. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from
  16. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  17. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Confucius & Economic growth: New trends in culture's consequences. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4–21.
  18. Instone, K. (1997). Conducting your first user test. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from
  19. Jacques, R., Preece, J., & Carey, T. (1995). Engagement as a design concept for multimedia. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24(1), 49–59.
  20. Kim, H. (1996). Transcultural customization of training programs in global learning organizations. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58–01, 0138A.
  21. Kurosu, M., & Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent usability vs. Inherent usability: Experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability. Proceedings of CHI (pp. 292–293). Denver, Colorado.
  22. Lee, K. (2000). A study on the cultural effects on user-interface design with the emphasis on the cross-cultural usability testing through world wide web. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from
  23. Mahemoff, M. J., & Johnston, L. J. (1998) Software internationalization: Implications for requirements engineering. Proceedings of the 3rd Australian Workshop on Requirements Engineering. Geelong, Australia Retrieved October 9, 2006, from http://www.cs
  24. Marcus, A., & Gould, E. (2000). Cultural dimensions and global web user-interface design: What? So what? Now what? Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Human Factors and the Web (pp. 1–15). Austin, Texas.
  25. Masie, E. (2000). The masie center. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from McLoughlin, C. (1999). Culturally responsive technology use: Developing an on-line community of learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 231–243.
  26. Moore, E. (1986). Ethnicity as a variable in child development. In M. Spencer (Ed.), Projections of the Hispanic population: 1983 to 2080 (Report No. P-25-99 5 ED301396).
  27. Murphy, E., Norman, K., & Moshinsky, D. (1999). VisAGE usability study. Proceedings of 1999 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,(Vol. 2), 99CH36088-5, (pp. 1168-1173). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Murphy, K. L.
  28. Nielsen, J. (1997a). Report from a 1994 web usability study. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from
  29. Nielsen, J. (1997b). Usability testing. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 1543–1568). New York: John Wiley.
  30. Onibere, E. A., Morgan, S., Busang, E. M., & Mpoeleng, D. (2000). Human computer interface design issues for a multicultural multilingual English speaking country-Botswana. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 4(13), 497–512.
  31. Petterson, R. (1982). Cultural differences in the perception of image and color in pictures. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(1), 43–53.
  32. Pribeanu, C. (2000). Tools for evaluating the visual consistency of graphical human computer interfaces. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from Rajani, R., & Rosenberg, D. (1999). Usable? or not?...Factors affecting the usability of web sites. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivery knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  33. Sherry, L. S. (1996). Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Distance Education, 1(4), 337–365.
  34. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. St. Louis, MO: McGraw-Hill. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Nicholas Brealey.
  35. Tufte, E. R. (1992). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. Urdan, T. A., & Weggen, C. C. (2000). Corporate e-learning: Exploring a new frontier. WR Hambrecht + Co. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from
  36. Victor, D. (1992). LESCANT model. In E. Del Galdo & J. Nielsen (Eds.), International user interface. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  37. Vöhringer-Kuhnt, T. (2001). The influence of culture on usability. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from
  38. Wellins, R., & Rioux, S. (2000). The growing pains of globalizing. Retrieved October 6, 2006, from
  39. Wentling, T. L., Waight, C., Gallaher, J., Fleur, J. L., Wang, C., & Kanfer, A. (2000). E-learning – A review of literature. (National Center for Supercomputing Application’s report). Wentling, T. L., Waight, C., Strazzo, D., File, J., Fleur, J. L., & Kanfer, A. (2000). The future of e-learning: A corporate and an academic perspective. (National Center for Supercomputing Application’s report). Adeoye and Wentling
  40. Wild, M., & Henderson, L. (1997). Contextualising learning in the world wide web: Accounting for the impact of culture. Education and Information Technologies, 2, 179-192. Zaharias, P., Vassilopoulou, K., & Poulymenakoua, K., (2001). Designing on-line learning

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact