Empirical Study of Student Satisfaction in E-Learning System Environment

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 14

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

net/publication/282812888

Empirical study of student satisfaction in e-learning system environment

Article  in  Technics Technologies Education Management · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

20 5,066

6 authors, including:

Darko Stefanović Miodrag Drapsin


University of Novi Sad University of Novi Sad
69 PUBLICATIONS   1,754 CITATIONS    50 PUBLICATIONS   281 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Izet Radjo Patrik Drid


University of Travnik University of Novi Sad
177 PUBLICATIONS   460 CITATIONS    212 PUBLICATIONS   1,320 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mitochondria-targeted nutraceuticals in health and disease View project

Designing an Joint Master in Cybersecurity (DJM-CYBER) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrik Drid on 13 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


technics technologies education management

Empirical study of student


satisfaction in e-learning system
environment
Darko Stefanovic 1, Miodrag Drapsin 2, Jelena Nikolic 1, Danijela Scepanovic 3, Izet Radjo4, Patrik Drid5
1
Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia,
2
Medical Faculty University of Novi Sad, , Serbia,
3
Ministry of Education and Science, Serbia,
4
Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
5
Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Novi Sad, Serbia.

Abstract sented in this paper can help universities or facul-


ties to adopt e-learning technology, and to reduce
Information and communication technology the risk of fail during implementation process or
(ICT) can improve the operational processes of any system exploitation. Furthermore, researchers can
business and the education industry is no exception. use the findings of this study as a basis to initiate
Today, ICT plays a major role in many pedagogical other related studies in the e-learning area.
activities, such as instructional delivery, material Key words: E-learning, E-learner satisfaction,
preparation, class communication and evaluation. Higher education
Electronic learning (e-learning) environments offer
the possibilities for communication, interaction and
multimedia material delivery that enhance learn- 1. Introduction
er-directed learning, especially in higher educa-
tion. Universities in Serbia have been successfully Learning is an active process of building knowl-
implemented a variety of open (distance) learning edge and skills through practice within a supportive
activities, but e-learning research and practices, in community. It comprises not only a process of con-
general, are relatively new and limited. Little is tinual personal development and enrichment, but
known about why many e-learners stop their learn- also the possibility of rapid and radical conceptual
ing after their initial experience. change. Traditional, classroom context of learning
This study proposed an integrated model with typically occurs in a teacher-directed instructional
four dimensions: instructor dimension, course di- context with face-to-face interaction in a live syn-
mension, technology dimension and environmen- chronous environment. In contrast to this form of
tal dimension. A survey was conducted to inves- instruction, is an approach that promotes learner-
tigate the potential factors which are in the field directed learning where teaching and learning are
of the university or faculty management and have no longer restricted to traditional classrooms [1,2].
impact on e-learner satisfaction. The question- With emerging Internet commercialization and the
naire was used as an instrument for data collection expansion of information communication technolo-
and the subjects of this study were the students gies (ICT), online or electronic learning (e-learning)
who were enrolled in the online learning cours- environments offer the possibilities for communi-
es. The results revealed that instructor response cation, interaction and multimedia material deliv-
timeliness, e-learning course flexibility, e-learn- ery that enhance learner-directed learning [3]. ICT
ing course quality, technology quality, Internet has increasingly influenced higher education. From
quality, diversity in assessment and interaction playing a supplementary role, it now has permeated
in e-learning environment are the critical factors core teaching and learning in universities and other
affecting e-learners’ satisfaction. The results pre- organizations with training requirements.

1152 Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011


technics technologies education management

E-learning is the learning style empowered a complex task that includes many factors [14,15].
by digital technology, most frequently refer- Thus, universities and teachers need to consider
ring to learning via the Internet. In recent years, these factors to provide their students with effec-
e-learning has become a major phenomenon and tive learning environments.
widely adopted as a promising solution by many The benefits of such systems cannot be realized
universities to offer learning-on-demand opportu- if learners, the main beneficiary of any education-
nities to students in order to improve the teaching al environment, do not accept or use the system
process. The e-learning concept is depicted with in an appropriate manner [16,7]. It is therefore
several tantamount, like flexible Internet environ- important to investigate the drivers or determi-
ment, distributed computing, virtual learning en- nants of e-learning success. The satisfaction of the
vironment and general distance learning etc. The learner is inevitable for successful implementation
use of different words is according to the context of e-learning environment. Satisfaction is widely
in which they are used. Literature explains and accepted as a desirable outcome of any product
defines the word of e-learning in many differ- or service experience and is the most explored
ent ways. There are so many synonymous of e- construct in the history of marketing scholarship.
learning like, open-courseware, advanced distrib- Generally, satisfaction is a factor used to monitor
uted learning, Internet based learning, web-based the product or service quality and also to predict
learning, e-education, open-learning, virtual edu- customer loyalty and other behavioral conse-
cation, virtual learning environment [4]. quences [17].
The use of e-learning become essential for E-learning success can be defined through mul-
higher education institutions and they are consid- tiple perspectives. One way to define success is
ering and accepting this fact in order to compete through outcome factors such as enhanced learn-
with other organizations and for meeting financial ing, time savings, and academic success [18,19].
stability. The other reason of implementing this Another perspective on e-learning success consid-
new learning paradigm in educational institutions ers system delivery factors such as the degree of
by higher education officials is for enhancing stu- use of the e-learning system and its adoption [20].
dents learning experiences and for the improved User satisfaction has proved to be a reliable proxy
learning outcomes and abilities. The major exam- for the success of an IT-based initiative [21]. Since
ple of e-learning implementation is Massachusetts e-learning initiatives are strongly tied to ICT, stu-
Institute of Technology (MIT). MIT is offering its dents’ satisfaction is an important outcome of
programs both in face-to-face and in online mode, e-learning [21]. This research is focusing on po-
and trying to convince other institutions about tential factors which are in the field of the univer-
strategic significance of e-learning [5]. sity or faculty management and have impact on
The goal of e-learning is to increase the qual- e-learner satisfaction. The results presented in this
ity of learning activities by re-using and sharing paper can help universities or faculties to adopt e-
information and knowledge, while the learner can learning technology, and to reduce the risk of fail
determine his own pace [6,7]. E-learning offers during implementation process or system exploi-
instructors and students a flexible learning setting tation. Furthermore, researchers can use the find-
in terms of time and location. Learning does not ings of this study as a basis to initiate other related
require students to being physically present in the studies in the e-learning area.
same place as an instructor nor at the same time This paper is structured as follows. First, previ-
[8]. Academics and practitioners alike consider e- ous research, related literature and factors influ-
learning systems to be a valuable knowledge shar- encing e-learners’ satisfaction in e-learning envi-
ing and transfer tool. ronments are discussed. Second, a research model
Many factors, such as the infrastructure, qual- proposed by this study is described. Third, the pro-
ity of support systems, quality of content and as- cedure of collecting data, the targeted population,
sessment, and peer support networks, may influ- and results of the study are presented. And finally,
ence the e-learning experience [9,10,11,12,13]. In the results are analyzed and discussed.
fact, planning and designing e-learning courses is

Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011 1153


technics technologies education management

2. Goal mation system research clearly shows that user sat-


isfaction is one of the most important factors in as-
The aim of this research is to investigate the sessing the success of system implementation [23].
extent to which is e-learning environment in use Many researchers in previous research have iden-
at state universities in Serbia, what is the level tified important variables dealing with e-learning.
of e-learner’ satisfaction with offered e-learning Among them, the technology acceptance model
environment and how can universities, or facul- [24,25,26], and the expectation and confirmation
ties, raise the level of e-learners’ satisfaction. This model [27,28] have partially contributed to under-
research is focusing only on state universities in standing e-learning success. These models tended
Serbia and trying to determine the potential fac- to focus on technology. A summary of the literature
tors that may affect students' satisfaction with the relevant to all the factors vital to the activities of
offered e-learning environment. e-learning, and affecting learners’ satisfaction with
Little is known about why some users stop their e-learning is presented below in Table 1. Four di-
online learning after their initial experience. Infor- mensions are used to assess the factors which are in

Table 1. Previous research about the critical factors that affect learners’ satisfaction

1154 Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011


technics technologies education management

the field of the university or faculty management, dents, understandability of student problems,
including instructor dimension, course dimension, proper understanding of ICT, persuasion of inter-
technology dimension and environmental dimen- action between students are the factors that leads
sion. Under the four dimensions previously identi- towards students satisfaction [31]. Liaw, Huang,
fied, eight factors were involved. and Chen explains that when teachers are more in-
Based on the previous research a theoretical terested in the use of new e-learning technology
model is designed. In total, nine variables are dis- then it is obvious that they have more constructive
cussed; eight variables within four dimensions are behavioral intent to use that [32]. It’s not the issue
independent variables, namely: instructor response of technology implementation, it’s the teacher in-
timeliness and instructor attitude toward e-learning struction method that plays a vital role in the suc-
in instructor dimension, e-learning course flexibility cessful implementation of e-learning technology
and e-learning course quality in course dimension, and also affects learners’ satisfaction in this new
technology quality and Internet quality in technolo- environment [31]. The effectiveness of online sys-
gy dimension and diversity in assessment and class tem is strongly based on the instructor’s attitude,
discussion in environment dimension. The e-learner dealings with students and perception about new
satisfaction is discussed as a dependent variable. In technology. Webster and Hackley, and Piccoli et al.
total, eight hypotheses are proposed, and supported find that instructors’ attitudes toward e-learning or
via literature, for testing each variable relationship IT positively influence results of e-learning since
with dependent variable. instructors are major actors in learning activities
[33,34]. Dillon and Gunawardena state instruc-
tors’ attitudes toward distance learning should be
Instructor dimension: considered in system evaluation in order to expli-
cate online course user behaviors effectively and
Hypothesis 1. Instructor response timeliness thoroughly [35].
will positively influence e-learner satisfaction
with e-learning.
Course dimension:
Previous research indicated that instructors’
timely response significantly influences e-learn- Hypothesis 3. E-learning course flexibility will
ers’ satisfaction [9,29]. The rationale is that when positively influence e-learner satisfaction with e-
learners face problems in an online course, timely learning.
assistance from the instructor encourages learn-
ers to continue their learning [6]. Soon, Sook, E-learning has removed the barrier of physi-
Jung, and Im point out that instructors’ failing to cal class attendance. The most attractive feature
respond to students’ problems in time has a nega- of e-learning according to students and teachers,
tive impact on students’ learning [30]. Therefore, both is its flexibility of location, time and meth-
if an instructor is capable of handling e-learning ods [36,9]. E-learning came with new virtual (any
activities and responding to students’ needs and where, any time, any place) class concept [9,31].
problems promptly, learning satisfaction will im- The relational intimacy becomes more in online
prove [9,29]. environment as compared to face-to-face learning.
Time independence and flexibility in the course
Hypothesis 2. Instructor attitudes toward e- helps the students to communicate according to
learning will positively influence e-learner satis- their flexible time and place. In addition, elimina-
faction with e-learning. tion of physical barriers enables more dynamic
interaction that fosters establishment of construc-
The successful implementation of e-learning tive learning and opportunities for cooperative
environment is purely based on the teacher’s at- learning [37]. Moreover, its virtuality eliminates
titude towards e-learning. Volery and Lord have awkwardness associated with face-to-face com-
shown that instructor friendly behavior with stu- munication in traditional classrooms.

Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011 1155


technics technologies education management

Hypothesis 4. E-learning course quality will tion. When proper assistance is available for the
positively influence e-learner satisfaction with e- use of e-learning, the reluctance level will become
learning. low. Proper availability of technical resource and
administrative support positively influence stu-
When considering implementation of any new dent’s satisfaction towards e-learning [32]. When
environment, the level of quality comes first. students don’t face any login and logout problem,
Quality of course content is the most important with continue interaction with teacher their satis-
attribute that leads towards student’s satisfaction faction will be improved.
and successful implementation of e-learning and
makes a very strong influence on the satisfaction
level of students who are studying in e-learning Environmental dimension:
environment and also for the students who are en-
couraged to take this mode of study. The unique- Hypothesis 7. Diversity in assessment will
ness of e-learning environment includes the online positively influence e-learner satisfaction with e-
interactive discussion forums, chat sessions among learning.
learners and instructors, multimedia presentations
of course material and other useful material from Thurmond et al. state that environmental vari-
the universities covering that particular topic. All ables such as diversity in assessment and class dis-
of these characteristics motivate the students to cussion influence e-learning satisfaction consider-
continue using this learning environment [34]. ably [29]. The use of different evaluation methods
in an e-learning system causes users to think that
a connection is established between them and the
Technology dimension: instructors, and their learning efforts are properly
assessed [6]. Therefore, this study assumes that if
Hypothesis 5. Technology quality will posi- an e-learning system provides more or diversified
tively influence e-learner satisfaction with e-learn- assessment tools and methods, e-learners’ satis-
ing. faction will increase because of feedback from the
assessment.
To achieve successful implementation and
student satisfaction towards e-learning, quality Hypothesis 8. Interaction in e-learning envi-
of technological attributes need to be excellent. ronment will positively influence e-learner satis-
Therefore, the higher the quality and reliability in faction with e-learning.
ICT, the higher the learning effects will be [33,34].
Many researchers agree that interactive instruc-
Hypothesis 6. Internet quality will positively tional design is an essential factor for learning
influence e-learner satisfaction with e-learning. satisfaction and success [38,39,40]. According to
Moore [41], there are three kinds of interactions in
Quality of the system that includes proper learning activities: students with teachers, students
maintenance of software and hardware recourses with materials, students with students. Teaching
plays an essential role in the satisfaction of stu- styles, especially interactions between teachers
dents with e-learning. The important technical as- and students, play a decisive role in learning activ-
pects that need to be considered for successful e- ities [42,43,33]. Without conspicuous interactions
learning environment are the quality, media rich- between teachers and students, learners are more
ness and reliability of technology. The quality of prone to distractions and difficulty concentrating
Internet is essential for both the synchronous and on the course materials [44]. Because e-learning
asynchronous delivery system along with the ac- can proceed in almost any place, it requires better
cess of material any time with any server problem. concentration than in traditional face-to-face inter-
The irritation with technological problems may actions [45]. Interaction mechanisms in e-learning
be disguising more basic foundation of frustra- environments should be properly designed to im-

1156 Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011


technics technologies education management

prove frequency, quality, and promptness of inter- disagree to 7 as strongly agree is used for the mea-
actions which could affect e-learner satisfaction. surement and all the respondents were asked to
mark only one option. A pilot test for the reliabil-
E-learner satisfaction is widely used in evaluat- ity and validity of the instruments was conducted
ing effects of learning environments and activities with 27 e-learners who have experience with e-
both academically and practically [46,47,6]. This learning. Some items were revised or deleted, ac-
study intends to assess e-learning effects through cording to the results from the pilot tests, to im-
measuring learner satisfaction and investigate the prove validity and reliability. The final version of
preceding factors’ which are in the field of the uni- the questionnaire with its sources is presented in
versity or faculty management and have impact table 2. Participants in the pilot test were excluded
on e-learner satisfaction. Based on the discussion from the subsequent study.
in this section, the research model is presented in
Figure 1.
Data collection procedure

E-learner volunteers enrolled in 12 different


e-learning courses at two state faculties in Serbia
participated in the second part of this study. A to-
tal of 300 surveys were distributed by email. The
initial and follow-up mailing generated 143 usable
responses, resulting in a response rate of 47.67%
which suggested that respondents found the topic
interesting and relevant. Table 3 summarizes de-
scriptive statistics of the respondents. The subjects
Figure 1. Dimensions and variables discussed in were nearly evenly men and women, with only
context of e-learner satisfaction with offered e- slightly more women responding than men. Near-
learning environment ly 70% of the participants were between 20 and 22
years old. Thirty-nine respondents (27.27%) were
first time taking e-learning, whereas ten (6.99%)
3. Methods had taken three or more courses. One hundred and
three learners (72.03%) considered themselves to
We conducted a series of interviews, in person have intermediate level computer skills and nine-
or by phone, with universities or faculties officials ty-nine (69.23%) considered themselves to have
to investigate the extent to which is e-learning en- intermediate level Internet skills. Furthermore,
vironment in use at state universities in Serbia. Par- the perceived learner satisfaction with e-learning
ticipation in this study was accepted by fifty-four courses, according to the survey responses, was
faculty officials from six state universities. Twenty- fairly high with a mean score of almost 5.0.
two contacted faculty officials have refused to par- This research used Statistical Package for the
ticipate in this research. About 37% of the respon- Social Sciences version 16 (SPSS v.16.0) for the
dents stated that use some kind of Learning Man- statistical analysis. Data were analyzed using step-
agement System (LMS) at theirs faculties. Nearly wise multiple regression analysis using eight vari-
95% of them use LMS Moodle and 45% of those ables (instructor response timeliness, Instructor
who stated that use some kind of LMS uses this sys- attitude toward e-learning, e-learning course flex-
tem for more than half of their courses. ibility, e-learning course quality, technology qual-
For the second part of this study questionnaire ity, Internet quality, diversity in assessment and in-
items were developed based on the previous re- teraction in e-learning environment) as regressors,
search and used as a survey instrument. For each and perceived e-learner satisfaction as regress.
variable there was different number of items. A
7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as strongly

Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011 1157


technics technologies education management

Table 2. Questionnaire items and sources

4. Results and data analysis of 1.912 (less than 2) indicated the autocorrelation
problem does not exist [50].
A stepwise multiple regression analysis was Reliability was examined using Cronbach’s
conducted to prove the significance of the vari- Alpha values for each variable. As presented in
ables. This research used the condition index (C.I.) Table 4, all of these were above 0.9, suggesting
to assess the multi co-linearity among independent high internal consistency. The reliability of each
variables in the model. The value of 26.848 indi- factor was as follows: perceived e-learner satisfac-
cated no severe multi co-linearity problem among tion = 0.948; instructor attitude toward e-learning
the regressors. Then we used the Durbin-Watson = 0.991; e-learning course flexibility = 0.992; e-
statistic for detecting serial correlation. The value learning course quality = 0.978; technology qual-

1158 Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011


technics technologies education management

ity = 0.976; Internet quality = 0.965 and interac- Table 4 presents the means, standard devia-
tion in e-learning environment = 0.927. tions, and correlations between variables. The in-
Table 3. Demographic profile and descriptive sta- structor response timeliness variable (r = 0.671, p
tistics (n = 143) < 0.01) has the highest correlation to the dependent
variable. Other independent variables that signifi-
cantly correlated with the dependent variable are:
instructor attitude toward e-learning (r = 0.578, p
< 0.01); e-learning course flexibility (r = 0.666,
p < 0.01); e-learning course quality (r = 0.573, p
< 0.01); technology quality (r = 0.507, p < 0.01);
Internet quality (r = 0.530, p < 0.01); diversity in
assessment (r = 0.522, p < 0.01) and interaction in
e-learning environment (r = 0.613, p < 0.01). All
the factors exhibited significant relationships with
e-learner satisfactions.
As mentioned earlier, a stepwise multiple re-
gression analysis was conducted to test the hy-
potheses. Eight influential variables were applied
as independent variables, while e-learner satis-
faction was used as a dependent variable. Table
Table 4. Means, standard deviation, correlation a and reliabilities b among study variables (n = 143)

Table 5. Stepwise multiple regression analysis results (n = 143)

Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011 1159


technics technologies education management

5 presents the results of stepwise multiple regres- Stepwise multiple regression analysis proved
sion analysis. Among eight independent variables, that seven variables have critical relationships
seven are considered to have critical relationships with e-learner satisfaction. The results suggest-
with e-learner satisfaction with p-values less than ed that 79.9% (adjusted R2 = 79.9%, F-value =
0.05. Only instructor attitude toward e-learning 81.663, p < .001) of the e-learner satisfaction’s
have no critical influence on learner satisfaction variance can be explained by those seven critical
according to this test. variables. There is a reasonable level of represen-
Hypotheses 1 and 2 examined the links be- tativeness in the selected predictor variables and
tween the instructor dimension and e-learner satis- symbolically, a prediction formula of the model
faction. Instructor response timeliness has a strong can be presented as follows:
positively significant influence on e-learners’ sat-
isfaction (β = 0.322, p < .001). The other variable, ELS = (IRT)w1 + (ECF)w2 + (ECQ)w3 + (TQ)w4 +
instructor attitude toward e-learning in Hypothesis (IQ)w5 + (DA)w6 + (IEL)w7.
2 is insignificant and failed to be supported.
Hypotheses 3 and 4 examined the effects of the In the formula, ELS is the e-learner satisfac-
course dimension. E-learning course flexibility tion; IRT is the instructor response timeliness;
and e-learning course quality have significant ef- ECF is the e-learning course flexibility; ECQ is
fect on e-learners’ satisfaction. Both Hypotheses 3 the e-learning course quality; TQ is the technol-
and 4 are supported. ogy quality; IQ is the Internet quality; DA is the
Hypotheses 5 and 6 examined the relationship diversity in assessment; IEL is the interaction in e-
between the technology dimension and e-learn- learning environment; and w1, w2, w3, w4, w5, w6,
er satisfaction. The results show that these two and w7 are empirically determined weights.
variables have positive influence on perceived e-
learner satisfaction. Therefore, both Hypotheses 5 Instructor dimension:
and 6 are supported by this test. Teaching online differs from face-to-face educa-
Hypotheses 7 and 8 examined the links be- tion. Professional expertise should not be the sole
tween the environmental dimension and e-learner criterion in selecting online instructors. Instructor
satisfaction. Both diversity in assessment and in- response timeliness proved to be statistically very
teraction in e-learning environment have positive significant, no response or unreasonable delays in
influence on e-learners’ satisfaction indicating that responding to e-learner’ requests or questions defi-
hypotheses 7 and 8 are supported by this test. nitely will contribute to e-learner satisfaction. In an
Table 6 summarizes the results of all hypoth- e-learning environment, students may be very im-
eses testing. patient waiting response on their questions or re-
Table 6. Results of the hypotheses testing quests. Instructors’ attitudes toward e-learning did
not prove to be statistically significant to e-learner
satisfaction. The results of this research failed to
correspond to previous findings [6,54]. Differences
can be explained with no obligation for existence
of e-learning courses on state universities in Serbia.
Only those teachers who are devoted to e-learning
are held those courses. The insignificant effect
exhibited in this research doesn’t suggest that in-
5. Discussion structor attitude toward e-learning is not important,
it simply implies that instructor attitude toward e-
About one-third of state faculties in Serbia have learning in the e-learning environment is satisfac-
implemented some kind of LMS, most commonly tory to e-learners. Since they did not experience
LMS Moodle. According to this study, students difficulties during the learning process, it is difficult
are satisfied with offered e-learning environment. for them to exhibit concerns about instructor atti-
tude toward e-learning.

1160 Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011


technics technologies education management

Course dimension: ditional methods with access to complementary


Course flexibility and quality are both proven to electronic information and possibilities to com-
be significant in this research. Flexibility and qual- municate. The potential advantage of using this
ity of an e-learning course is a strong indication technology in connection with on-site courses is
of student satisfaction. This result corresponds to that it supports flexibility, through resources that
previous findings that e-learning course flexibility facilitate learning anytime and anywhere. Howev-
and quality played an important role in e-learners’ er, the basic nature of e-learning technology is that
satisfaction [6,51]. E-learning is not constrained by it enables teachers and students with possibilities,
space, time and location; therefore, students have a not with a “ready to use” resource.
high degree of flexibility and opportunity to effec- In Serbia, e-learning has been adopted in ed-
tively balance their other activities with e-learning ucation for a variety of purposes, especially in
courses. Faculties with online learning should ex- higher education. Most universities use e-learning
plore the advantage of this virtual environment and environment as a supplementary tool to enhance
design courses with maximum flexibility to accom- in-class instruction. E-learners in this study learn
modate students’ needs. Also, they should take into mainly in the traditional classroom structure but
account the quality of an e-learning course which also have courses in e-learning environment.
includes overall course design, teaching materials, This research identifies critical factors which
interactive discussion arrangements, etc. are in the field of the university or faculty man-
agement influencing e-learners’ satisfaction. An
Technology dimension: integrated model developed from previous studies
Factors, technology and Internet quality have consisting of eight factors in four dimensions is
a significant effect on e-learner satisfaction. Most presented to guide this research. With a 47.67%
e-learning systems are constructed in a high-speed response rate, a total of 143 valid questionnaires
network environment where software and hard- were collected. A stepwise multiple regression
ware are superior to those of non-e-learning en- analysis was conducted to study the data. The re-
vironment for parallel processing of multimedia sults indicated that instructor response timeliness,
streaming data. Findings in this research suggest e-learning course flexibility, e-learning course
that technology is important. In e-learning envi- quality, technology quality, Internet quality, di-
ronments, poor technology with slow response versity in assessment and interaction in e-learning
time or frequent technical difficulties will definite- environment are the critical factors affecting e-
ly discourage learners from taking online courses. learners’ satisfaction. Together, these seven fac-
tors are able to explain 79.9% of the variance of
Environmental dimension: user satisfaction.
Factors involved in environmental dimen- The findings can provide more insights into
sion, diversity in assessment and interaction in how to implement successful e-learning systems
e-learning environment have a significant impact within the organizations. The presented research
on e-learner satisfaction. A variety of assessment instrument with good reliability and validity can
methods enable instructors to be more effective also provide researchers with a tool for measuring
and motivate e-learner to do their best in different the e-learning systems success dimensions, and
evaluation schemes so as to proceed with e-learn- a basis for explaining, justifying, and comparing
ing activities seriously and effectively. differences among the results.
This research represents a systemic effort to in-
corporate elements of e-learning, but it is not with-
6. Conclusion out limitations. First, the research model which
cover a variety of factors influencing e-learners’
While traditional learning methods, such as lec- satisfaction, might not be comprehensive due to
tures and project work, remain dominant in higher the limitations of time and resources. Second, the
education, universities are investing considerable dependent variable of this study is a single indica-
resources in e-learning technology, to support tra- tor, e-learner satisfaction. Some researchers sug-

Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011 1161


technics technologies education management

gest that learning performance and student scores 6. Sun P-C., Tsai R.J., Finger G., Chen Y-Y. & Y.
should also be considered as dependent variables Dowming (2008), What drives a successful e-
[52,34,53]. Finally, the statistical methods used in Learning? An empirical investigation of the criti-
this study are based on traditional assumptions, cal factors influencing learner satisfaction, Com-
thus our results are established with these assump- puters & Education, Vol. 50 (4), pp 1183-1202.
tions as a base. 7. Lin H-F. (2007), Measuring Online Learning Sys-
All universities should have a flexible institu- tems Success: Applying the Updated DeLone and
tional structure to integrate e-learning technology McLean Model, Cyber Psychology & Behavior,
in their setup for the better and improved learning Vol. 10 (6), pp. 817-820.
outcomes. The universities which are not utilizing 8. Walker, S. L. (2005). Development of the Dis-
technological resource will be left behind in global- tance Education Learning Environments Survey
ization race. The results of this study can be useful (DELES) for higher education. The Texas Journal
for the educational institutions before implement- of Distance Learning, 2 (1), 1-16.
ing e-learning environment. Administration should 9. Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom char-
consider the factors that have been pointed out in acteristics and student satisfaction with internet-
this study, for successful implementation. based MBA courses. Journal of Management Edu-
cation, 24(1), 32–54.
10. Areti, V. (2006). Satisfying distance education
Acknowledgement students of the Hellenic Open University. E-men-
tor, 2 (14), 1-12.
Research for this article was conducted un- 11. Bender, D. M., Wood, B. J., & Vredevoogd, J. D.
der the project "Improving the competitiveness (2004). Teaching time: Distance education versus
of Serbia in the process of joining the European classroom instruction. The American Journal of
Union, Ministry of Science of Serbia, no. 47028, Distance Education, 18 (2), 103-114.
for the period 2011th-2014th year. 12. Roberts, T. G., Irani, T. A., Telg, R. W., & Lundy,
L. K. (2005). The development of an instrument
to evaluate distance education courses using
References student attitudes. The American Journal of Dis-
tance Education, 19 (1), 51-64.
1. Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Powering 13. Trinidad, S. & Pearson, J. (2004). Implementing
e-learning in the new millennium: an overview of and evaluating e-learning environments. In R. At-
e-learning and enabling technology. Information kinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer, R. Phillips,
Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 207–218. (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings
2. Wang, Y., Wang, H., Shee, D. (2007). Measuring e- of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 895-903).
learning systems success in an organizational con- Perth, Australia: Australasian Society for Com-
text: Scale development and validation. A Comput- puters in Learning in Tertiary Education.
ers in Human Behavior 23, p. 1792–1808. 14. Pearson, J., & Trinidad, S. (2005). OLES: An
3. Wu, J.H., Tennyson, R.D., Hsia, T.L., and Liao, instrument for refining the design of e-learning
Y.W. (2008). Analysis of E-Learning Innovation environments. Journal of Computer Assisted
and Core Capability Using a Hypercube Model. Learning, 21, 396-404.
Computers in Human Behavior 24, p. 1851–1866. 15. Trinidad, S., Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. (2005). De-
4. Govindasamy, T. (2002). Successful implementa- velopment, validation and use of the Online Learn-
tion of e-learning pedagogical considerations. The ing Environment Survey. Australasian Journal of
Internet and Higher Education, 4, 287–299. Educational Technology, 21 (1), 60-81.
5. Wu, J. P., Tsai, R. J., Chen, C. C., & Wu, Y. C. 16. Pavlou P. (2003), Consumer Acceptance of Elec-
(2006). An integrative model to predict the con- tronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk
tinuance use of electronic learning systems: hints with the Technology Acceptance Model, Interna-
for teaching. International Journal on E-Learning, tional Journal of Electronic Commerce Vol. 7 (3),
5(2), 287–302. pp. 101 – 134.

1162 Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011


technics technologies education management

17. Fullerton, G., Taylor, S. (2002), "Mediating, in- 28. Wu, J. P., Tsai, R. J., Chen, C. C., & Wu, Y. C.
teractive, and non-linear effects in service quality (2006). An integrative model to predict the con-
and satisfaction with services research", Cana- tinuance use of electronic learning systems: hints
dian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 19 for teaching. International Journal on E-Learn-
No.2, pp.124-36. ing, 5(2), 287–302.
18. Davies, J., & Graff. M. (2005). Performance 29. Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K., & Connors, H.
in e-learning: Online participation and student R. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: de-
grades. British Journal of Educational Technol- termining the impact of a web-based environment
ogy, 36, 657-663. by controlling for student characteristics. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3),
19. Garrison, D. R. & Anderson, T. (2003) E-
169–189.
Learning in the 21 st Century: A Framework for
Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis, New 30. Soon, K. H., Sook, K. I., Jung, C. W., & Im, K.
York. M. (2000). The effects of Internet-based distance
learning in nursing. Computers in Nursing,
20. Holsapple, C., & Lee-Post, A. (2006). Defining,
18(1), 19–25.
Assessing, and Promoting E-Learning Success:
An Information Systems Perspective. Decision 31. Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4, 67- factors in online education. The International
85. Journal of
21. Bailey, J.E. & Pearson, S.W. (1983). Develop- 32. Educational Management, 14(5), 216–223.
ment of a tool for measuring and analyzing com-
33. Liaw, S., Huang, S., & Chen, G., (2007).Surveying
puter user satisfaction. Management science, 29,
instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning.
530-545.
Computers & Education, 49, 1066–1080.
22. Goda, Y. (2008). Factors Affecting Learners’
34. Webster, J., & Hackley, P. (1997). Teaching effec-
Overall Satisfaction in e-Learning as a Wholis-
tiveness in technology-mediated distance learn-
tic Evaluation in Japan. In K. McFerrin et al.
ing. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6).
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International 35. Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-
Conference 2008 (pp. 389-394). Chesapeake, VA: Based Virtual Learning Environments: A Re-
AACE. search Framework and a Preliminary Assessment
of Effectiveness in Basic IT Skills Training. MIS
23. DeLone W. H. and McLean E. R. (1992). In-
Quarterly, 25, (4) 401-426.
formation Systems Success: The Quest for the
Dependent Variable’, Information Systems Re- 36. Dillon, C. L., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). A
search, 3 (1): 60-95. framework for the evaluation of telecommuni-
cations-based distance education. In D. Sewart
24. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude–behav-
(Ed.). 17th world congress of the international
ior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of
council for distance education (Vol. 2, pp. 348–
empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84,
351). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.
888–918.
37. Arbaugh, J. B. (2002). Managing the on-line
25. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R.
classroom: a study of technological and behav-
(1989). User acceptance of computer technology:
ioral characteristics of web-based MBA courses.
A comparison of two theoretical models. Man-
Journal of High Technology Management Re-
agement Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
search, 13, 203–223.
26. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model for the
38. Salmon, G. (2000). Computer mediated confer-
antecedents and consequences of satisfaction.
encing for management learning at the open uni-
Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469.
versity.Management Learning, 31, 491–502.
27. Lin, Cathy S., Wu, S., & Tsai, R. J. (2005). Inte-
39. Hong, K. S. (2002). Relationships between stu-
grating perceived playfulness into expectation-
dents’ and instructional variables with satisfac-
confirmation model for web portal context. Infor-
tion and learning from a Web-based course. In-
mation & Management, 42, 683–693.
ternet and Higher Education, 5, 267–281.

Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011 1163


technics technologies education management

40. Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (1998). Course design, in- 51. Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic econometrics (4th
struction, and students’ online behaviors: A study ed.). McGraw-Hill, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
of instructional variables and student perceptions
52. Arbaugh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technologi-
of online learning. In Paper presented at the annu-
cal and structural characteristics, student learn-
al meeting of the American Educational Research
ing and satisfaction with web-based courses – An
Association, San Diego, CA, April 13–17, 1988.
exploratory study of two on-line MBA programs.
41. Schwartz, R. A. (1995). The virtual university. Management Learning, 33(3), 331–347
American Society for Engineering Education
53. Leidner, D. E., & Fuller, M. (1997). Improving
Prism, 5(4), 22–26.
student learning of conceptual information: GSS
42. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. supported collaborative learning vs. individual
The American Journal of Distance Education, constructive learning. Decision Support Systems,
3(2), 1–6. 20(2), 149–163.
43. Borbely, E. (1994). Challenges and opportuni- 54. Vogel, D. R., Davison, R. M., & Shroff, R. H.
ties in extending the classroom and the campus (2001). Socio-cultural learning: a perspective on
via digital compressed Video. In R. Mason & P. GSS-enabled global education. Communications
bacsich (Eds.), ISDN: Applications in education of the AIS, 7, 1–39.
and training (pp. 65–82). London: Institution of
55. Smeets, E. (2005). Does ICT contribute to power-
Electrical Engineers.
ful learning environments in primary education?
44. Lachem, C., Mitchell, J., & Atkinson, R. (1994). Computers & Education, 44, 343–355.
ISDN-based videoconferencing in Australian ter-
tiary education. In R. Mason & P. Bacsich (Eds.),
ISDN: Applications in education and training Corresponding author
(pp. 99–113). London: Institution of Electrical Darko Stefanovic,
Engineers. University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical
45. Isaacs, E. A., Morris, T., Rodriguez, T. K., & Tang, Sciences, Novi Sad,
J. C. (1995). A comparison of face-to-face and Serbia,
distributed presentations. In R. R. Katz, R. Mack, E-mail: darkoste@gmail.com
L. Marks, M. B. Rosson, & J. Nelson (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the association for computing machin-
ery (ACM) special interest group on computers
and human interaction (CHI) 95 conference (pp.
354–361). New York: ACM Press.
46. Kydd, C. T., & Ferry, D. L. (1994). Case study:
Managerial use of video conferencing. Informa-
tion & Management, 27, 369–375.
47. Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collab-
orative learning: an empirical evaluation. MIS
Quarterly, 18(2), 159–174.
48. Wang, Y. S. (2003). Assessment of learner sat-
isfaction with asynchronous electronic learning
systems. Information & Management, 41, 75–86.
49. Soong, B. M. H., Chan, H. C., Chua, B. C., &
Loh, K. F. (2001). Critical success factors for on-
line course resources. Computers & Education,
36(2).
50. Amoroso, D. L., & Cheney, P. H. (1991). Testing
a causal model of end-user application effective-
ness. Journal of Management Information Sys-
tems, 8(1), 63–89.

1164 Volume 6 / Number 4 / 2011

View publication stats

You might also like