Empirical Study of Student Satisfaction in E-Learning System Environment
Empirical Study of Student Satisfaction in E-Learning System Environment
Empirical Study of Student Satisfaction in E-Learning System Environment
net/publication/282812888
CITATIONS READS
20 5,066
6 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Patrik Drid on 13 October 2015.
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
Table 1. Previous research about the critical factors that affect learners’ satisfaction
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.
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-
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
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-
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.