4.7 Article

Multi-dimensional students' evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation

Journal

COMPUTERS & EDUCATION
Volume 53, Issue 4, Pages 1285-1296

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.011

Keywords

e-Learning information systems; Learning management systems; e-Learning evaluation; e-Learning evaluation survey; Statistical analysis; Students' satisfaction

Funding

  1. (BAP) Funding Center of Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There has been little research on assessment of learning management systems (LMS) within educational organizations as both a web-based learning system for e-learning and as a supportive tool for blended learning environments. This study proposes a conceptual e-learning assessment model, hexagonal e-learning assessment model (HELAM) suggesting a multi-dimensional approach for LMS evaluation via six dimensions: (1) system quality, (2) service quality, (3) content quality, (4) learner perspective, (5) instructor attitudes, and (6) supportive issues. A survey instrument based on HELAM has been developed and applied to 84 learners. This sample consists of students at both undergraduate and graduate levels who are users of a web-based learning management system, U-Link, at Brunei University. UK The survey instrument has been tested for content validity, reliability, and criterion-based predictive validity. The analytical results strongly support the appropriateness of the proposed model in evaluating LMSs through learners' satisfaction. The explanatory factor analysis showed that each of the six dimensions of the proposed model had a significant effect on the learners' perceived satisfaction. Findings of this research will be valuable for both academics and practitioners of e-learning systems. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available