Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction 1.BACKGROUND of Study
Motivation for Study
Study Problem
Significance of Study
Study Contribution and Objectives
Literature Review
Proposed Model and Hypotheses
H3 Hypotheses of Quality Variables. H1
Research Methodology
Study Approach
Data Collection and Analysis
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Business and Management
Information Systems and Management

Measuring e-learning system success (Research in progress)

Profile image of Ahmed AlsabawyAhmed Alsabawy

2011

visibility

…

description

16 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Education is considered to be one of the sectors that have been radically affected by developments in information technology. E-learning is believed to be the main outcome of adopting and using the new and more advanced information technology in the education sector. In spite of this rapid growth in the elearning field there still exists a range of issues facing the stakeholders of e-learning systems. One of the key issues is measuring e-learning system success. Although considerable attention has been paid to the information systems success issue, there remain arguments about the factors which are most effective in measuring information system success. The issue of measuring information system success has an impact on evaluating e-learning systems success as well. This study aims to fill this void by proposing an evaluation methodology model to assess e-learning systems success. The contribution of this study is the proposed model to assess e-learning systems success. The model is based on a thorough review of the e-learning success literature and existing IS success models. A range of stakeholders such as Academic staff, students, and ICT staff are considered in this model.

Related papers

Evaluating E-Learning Systems Success: A Case of Wayamba University, Sri Lanka
Niranjala Tennakoon

Wayamba Journal of Management, 2021

E-learning, the product of technology and education, has emerged as a powerful medium of learning particularly in the higher education sector. Significance of e-learning in educational services has led to a massive growth in the number of e-learning courses and systems offering different types of services followed by the COVID 19 pandemic. Thus, evaluation of e-learning -systems is critical to ensure successful delivery, effective use, and positive impacts on learners. Survey data of Sri Lankan university student’s sample tested the research hypotheses. Quantitative assessment of determinants of PLS-SEM results confirms 81.7% explanatory power of the predictor variables in explaining the variance of E-Learning Success among which Instructor Quality, Learner Quality, Service Quality, Support System Quality and Technical System Quality found significant predictors. Implications invite revisiting the theoretical models to assess the e-learning effectiveness by incorporating multifarious factors while developing e-learning system of multifractality found critical for the success of any electronically driven learning experience.

View PDFchevron_right
e-Education Systems Implementation Success Model
PROFESOR DR AZIZUL HALIM YAHYA

2009

Originally developed for delivering distance learning programs, e-education systems in their current forms are powerful, web-based information systems with capabilities that match Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. By carrying out their deployments on an enterprise-level basis, many Higher Education Institutions (HEI) are able to leverage on their powerful functionalities and ERP-like integrative capabilities to put together academic and administrative systems (Twigg 2002). This study is proposing that it may no longer relevant to still evaluate e-education systems as only educational technologies in view of the current implementation environment where new forms of e-education systems are now information systems of strategic relevance in many HEI (Moul 2002). E-education systems should therefore be studied as: mainstream information systems, i.e. within the paradigms of information systems evaluation research and no longer as educational technology or innovation. This study looks into information systems success model that can be developed to explain and predict the success of e-education systems implementation. It identifies constructs to measure e-education systems implementation success; investigates the appropriate dependent variable as a proxy for e-education systems implementation success and finally develops and validates the model. The findings from this research, showed that the 'organizational IS continuance' construct is a viable proxy for information systems implementation success and the model developed can be equally applied and generalizable across different stakeholder groups.

View PDFchevron_right
MEASURING E-LEARNING SUCCESS WITH THE EXTENSION OF TECHNOLOGY FACTOR IN DELONE & MCLEAN IS SUCCESS MODEL.
IJAR Indexing

International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR), 2018

This paper aimed to provide a framework to find the effects of success factors on the e-learning system success. The success factors like system factors and technology factors with the mediating effect of user-satisfaction and system use and e-learning system success. Information system success (ISS) theory has been used to support the framework. A number of reliable databases like Emerald, JSTOR, Science Direct, Tylor and Francis and Springer have been consulted to add the support of the literature. The keywords like system factor (Service quality, Information quality, System quality) technology factor, user-satisfaction, system use, and E-learning system success have been used to search the relevant studies. It has been studied that system factors and technology factors cause e-learning success and this relation is also mediated by user-satisfaction and system use. At the end, the limitations of the study are described, and future research descriptions are recommended.

View PDFchevron_right
e-Learning Success Model: an Information Systems Perspective
deepak kumar

This paper reports the observations made and experience gained from developing and delivering an online quantitative methods course for Business undergraduates. Inspired by issues and challenges experienced in developing the online course, a model is advanced to address the question of how to guide the design, development, and delivery of successful e-learning initiatives based on theories of a user-centered information systems development paradigm. The benefits of using the proposed model for e-learning success assessment is demonstrated through four cycles of action research after two action research cycles of pilot study. Findings from our empirical study confirm the value of an action research methodology for promoting e-learning success. The paper concludes with a discussion on the merits of the proposed model in furthering our understanding of how to define, assess, and promote e-learning success.

View PDFchevron_right
Analysis of Success Factors of E-Learning
Oyuntungalag Buyantur

Embedded Selforganising Systems

E-learning is being considered one crucial method of education, and various models and methods are being used to test its implementation and accomplishments. Among many, the DeLone MacLean information success (IS) success model is the most widely used in the assessment of e-learning systems’ success evaluation. The aim of this research was to study the effectiveness of the platforms used in e-learning at the Mongolian University of Science and Technology. In this study, we used the D&M IS Success Model to examine whether e-learning can be a successful transmitter of knowledge. Our intention was to assess the success of e-learning by the D&M IS Success Model, define the impact of current e-learning practice on individuals, and identify the factors that affect the quality. The survey covered 685 undergraduate and graduate students of the Mongolian University of Science and Technology. Results demonstrated that high-quality systems and information upsurge the individual impact. In addi...

View PDFchevron_right
Investigating Critical Success Factors of E-Learning: Different Stakeholders’ Perspectives
Shereen Nosier, Reham Salah

International Journal of Instruction

The educational process has been hindered worldwide due to Covid-19 pandemic. Yet, the Egyptian government adopted E-learning to maintain the designed educational agenda. Consequently, recognizing E-learning benefits is imperative to link the E-learning system with its success drivers. Therefore, the aim of this study is detecting the main critical success factors that affect E-learning in Egypt. The study employed multiple information system success models as a basis for identifying aspects of E-learning success measured by net benefits, namely; technological factors, E-learning quality, user attitude, intention to use and user satisfaction. Online questionnaires were directed to two stakeholder groups of tertiary education, namely; learners and instructors. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling technique, the two models were statistically confirmed. The results indicate that the E-learning success models adequately demonstrate and predict the interdependency of the selected constructs. Moreover, the importance-performance map analysis was implemented to investigate the importance and performance of the constructs and indicators on E-learning success. This analysis identified user satisfaction and E-learning quality as the most crucial constructs for achieving higher success in both models. Furthermore, users' perceived usefulness, ease of use and information quality are indicators that should be improved to indirectly foster E-learning success.

View PDFchevron_right
E-Learning Success: Requirements, Opportunities, & Challenges
Ismail Romi

Reimagining Education - The Role of E-learning, Creativity, and Technology in the Post-pandemic Era [Working Title]

A lot of models and frameworks were suggested to conceptualize and operationalize the e-learning success, and enhance the e-learning and learner performance. Most of these model tries to find out the optimal match among the e-learning components in order to enhance e-learning and learner performance. This chapter explores the e-learning system, its components, e-learning success requirements, opportunities, and challenges that may enable or inhibit e-learning success. As a result, the best fit among the e-learning system components (instructor, learner, course, ICT) is to choose the best mix of the components’ characteristics, as well as taking into consideration the contextual factors (individual, institutional, and environmental) that have a direct impact on the e-learning system components and hence impacts the learner performance. On the other side, institutions must take into consideration the e-learning developments, which take two main directions, mainly; technological, and m...

View PDFchevron_right
Evaluating E-Learning Systems Success: A Case of Sri Lanka
Janani Lasanthika, Niranjala Tennakoon

Wayamba Journal of Management, 2021

E-learning, the product of technology and education, has emerged as a powerful medium of learning particularly in the higher education sector. Significance of e-learning in educational services has led to a massive growth in the number of e-learning courses and systems offering different types of services followed by the COVID 19 pandemic. Thus, evaluation of e-learning-systems is critical to ensure successful delivery, effective use, and positive impacts on learners. Survey data of Sri Lankan university student's sample tested the research hypotheses. Quantitative assessment of determinants of PLS-SEM results confirms 81.7% explanatory power of the predictor variables in explaining the variance of E-Learning Success among which Instructor Quality, Learner Quality, Service Quality, Support System Quality and Technical System Quality found significant predictors. Implications invite revisiting the theoretical models to assess the e-learning effectiveness by incorporating multifarious factors while developing elearning system of multifractality found critical for the success of any electronically driven learning experience.

View PDFchevron_right
Measuring success in e-learning–a multi-dimensional approach
Stephen Farrier

2007

In 1999 Northumbria University published a strategy document entitled "Towards the web-enabled University". This prefaced an assessment of need and of available platforms for developing online teaching and learning which, in turn, led in 2001 to the roll out and institution-wide adoption of the Blackboard Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) now referred to as our eLearning Platform or eLP. Within a very few years we had over 90% take-up by academic staff and the eLP had become integral to the learning of virtually all our students. What has always been relatively easy to measure has been the number of users, frequency of use, number of courses, levels of technological infrastructure, etc. However, with the publication of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) e-learning strategy in 2005 it became apparent that such quantitative data was not particularly helpful in measuring how the university matched onto the 10-year aspirations of that document and its measures of success. Consequently an ongoing exploration was embarked upon to try to measure where we were and what we should prioritise in order to embed e-learning, as envisaged within the HEFCE strategy. This involved a number of key approaches: The measures were broken down into manageable sizes, creating sixteen measures in all with descriptors for "full achievement" through to "no progress to date" with suggested sources of information which would support the description. A series of interviews with key staff were set up in which they were asked to rank where they felt the university stood against each measure and what evidence would support their views. An academic staff survey was developed on-line which invited staff to explore a number of statements based around the HEFCE criteria and express degrees of agreement. This was followed up by a range of face-to-face interviews. An online student survey was developed and students were asked to express degrees of agreement with these. Student responses were followed up with an independent student focus group exploring issues in greater depth. The outcomes of the three approaches were then combined and an interim report prepared which identified strengths and areas for further development. Some of the latter are already being addressed. Subsequently, the university joined phase 2 of a national benchmarking e-learning in Higher Education exercise, running from May to December 2007, supported by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) and the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). During this exercise we engaged in a deeper exploration against a wider set of criteria, based upon the "Pick & Mix" (Bacsich, 2007) methodology. Pick&Mix comprises 20 core criteria and the option of a number of supplementary criteria. Through these approaches we will be able to set a baseline for where we currently are and it will allow us to revisit criteria later to measure our progress in those areas we identify for development. This paper shares methodologies used, identifies key outcomes and reflects upon those outcomes from both an institutional and sectoral perspective.

View PDFchevron_right
Measuring e-learning systems success: Data from students of higher education institutions in Morocco
Omar BOUBKER

Data in Brief, 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced Higher Education Institutions (HEI's) to rethink the teaching approach taken. In response to this emergency state, Moroccan universities switched to the e-learning approach as an alternative to faceto-face education. At this level the assessment of e-learning systems success becomes a necessity. This data article aims to identify e-learning systems success determinants during the COVID-19 pandemic. The data was collected from students of the Moroccan Higher Education Institutions. The research data are collected via an on a self-administered online questionnaire, from a sample of 264 university students. The responses are collected from students of 12 Moroccan universities and 31 Moroccan educational institutions. The data were analyzed using a structural equation modeling method under the Partial Least Squares approach (PLS-SEM). Data analysis was performed using SmartPLS 3 software. Universities managers can use the dataset to identify key factor to enhance e-learning system success.

View PDFchevron_right

References (146)

  1. Bailey & Pearson (1983), Miller & Doyle (1987), DeLone & McLean (1992) (2003), Seddon (1997), Skok et al. (2001), Rai et al. (2002), Kahn et al. (2002), Lee et al. (2002), McKinney et al. (2002), Bharati & Berg (2005), Iivari (2005), Byrd et al. (2006), Ifinedo (2006), Nicolaou & McKnight (2006), Stvilia et al.(2007), Stvilia et al. (2008), Price et al.(2008), Gable et al. (2008), Wang (2008), Zhi-yong et al. (2009), Gorla et al. (2010), Gorla & Lin (2010), Landrum et al. (2010). Holsapple & Lee Post (2006), Roca et al. (2006), Wang et al. (2007), Ozkan & Koseler (2009),Wang & Wang (2009), Ramayah et al. (2010).
  2. System Quality Bailey & Pearson (1983), Mahmood (1987), DeLone & McLean (1992) (2003), Wang & Strong (1996), Seddon (1997), Skok et al. (2001), Rai et al. (2002), McKinney et al. (2002), Iivari (2005), Bharati & Berg (2005), Byrd et al. (2006), Ifinedo (2006),Wang (2008), Zhi-yong et al. (2009), Gable et al. (2008), Landrum et al. (2010), Gorla et al. (2010), Gorla & Lin (2010).
  3. Holsapple & Lee Post (2006), Roca et al. (2006), Wang et al. (2007), Liaw (2008), Ozkan & Koseler (2009),Wang & Wang (2009), Ramayah et al. (2010), McGill & Klobas (2009). Usefulness Davis (1989), Seddon (1997), Venkatesh & Davis (2000), Rai et al. (2002), Hung (2003), Yang (2005), Byrd et al. (2006), Sabherwal et al. (2006), Landrum et al. (2007), Venkatesh & Bala (2008), Larsen et al. (2009), Landrum et al. (2010). Arbaugh (2000), Pituch & Lee (2006), Roca et al. (2006), Liaw (2007), Martinez-Torres et al. (2008), Lee-Post (2009), Wang & Wang (2009), Abbad et al. (2009).
  4. User Satisfaction Bailey & Pearson (1983), Ives et al. (1983), Baroudi et al. (1986), Lehman (1996), Doll & Torkzadeh (1988), DeLone & McLean (1992) (2003), Etezadi-Amoli & Farhoomand (1996), Seddon (1997), Skok et al. (2001), Rai et al. (2002), Xiao & Dasgupta (2002), McKinney et al. (2002), Xiao & Dasgupta (2005), Ong & Lai (2007), Wixom & Todd (2005), Iivari (2005), Sabherwal et al. (2006), McGill & Klobas (2008), Wang (2008), Gable et al. (2008), Landrum et al. (2010), Udo et al. (2010). Arbaugh (2000), Roca et al. (2006), Holsapple & Lee Post (2006), Wang et al. (2007), Shee & Wang (2008), Sun et al.(2008), Adeyinka & Mutula (2010), Wu et al. (2010), Naveh et al. (2010). References
  5. Abbad, M., Morris, D., & de Nahlik, C. (2009). Looking under the Bonnet: Factors Affecting Student Adoption of E-Learning Systems in Jordan. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(2), 1-25.
  6. Adeyinka, T., & Mutula, S. (2010). A proposed model for evaluating the success of WebCT course content management system. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1795-1805.
  7. Aldag, R., & Power, D. (1986). An empirical assessment of computer-assisted decision analysis. Decision Sciences, 17(4), 572-588.
  8. Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in E business. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6 7), 493- 520.
  9. Arbaugh, J. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in Internet- based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 9-26.
  10. Ardito, C., Costabile, M., Marsico, M., Lanzilotti, R., Levialdi, S., Roselli, T., et al. (2006). An approach to usability evaluation of e-learning applications. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(3), 270-283.
  11. Atoji, Y., Koiso, T., & Nishida, S. (2002). Information filtering for emergency management, Cybernetics and Systems, 34(3), 193-206.
  12. Bailey, J., & Pearson, S. (1983). Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science, 29(5), 530-545.
  13. Baroudi, J., Olson, M., & Ives, B. (1986). An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM, 29(3), 232-238.
  14. Bauer, H. H., Falk., T., & Hammerschmidt, M. (2006). etransQual: A transaction process-based approach for capturing service quality in online shopping. Journal of Business Research, 59, 866-875.
  15. Bekkers, V. (2009). Flexible information infrastructures in Dutch e-government collaboration arrangements: Experiences and policy implications. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 60-68.
  16. Benbasat, I., & Dexter, A. (1986). An investigation of the effectiveness of color and graphical information presentation under varying time constraints. MIS Quarterly, 10(1), 59-83.
  17. Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1997). Listening to the customer-the concept of a service-quality information system. Sloan Management Review, 38(3), 65-76.
  18. Bharati, P., & Berg, D. (2005). Service quality from the other side: Information systems management at Duquesne Light. International Journal of Information Management, 25(4), 367-380.
  19. Bhatt, G., Emdad, A., Roberts, N., & Grover, V. (2010). Building and Leveraging Information in Dynamic Environments: The Role of IT Infrastructure Flexibility as Enabler of Organizational Responsiveness and Competitive Advantage. Information & Management, 47(7-8), 314-349.
  20. Brigham, D. (2001). Converting student support services to online delivery. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(2), 1-16.
  21. Broadbent, M., & Weill, P. (1997). Management by maxim: how business and IT managers can create IT infrastructures. Sloan Management Review, 38, 77-92.
  22. Byrd, T., Thrasher, E., Lang, T., & Davidson, N. (2006). A process-oriented perspective of IS success: Examining the impact of IS on operational cost. Omega, 34(5), 448-460.
  23. Chang., H. H., Wang., Y.-H., & Yang., W.-Y. (2009). The impact of e-service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty on e-mrketing: moderating effect of perceived value. Total Quality Management, 20(4), 423-443.
  24. Chiu, C., Hsu, M., Sun, S., Lin, T., & Sun, P. (2005). Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions. Computers & Education, 45(4), 399-416.
  25. Cohen, E., & Nycz, M. (2006). Learning objects and e-learning: An informing science perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 23-34.
  26. Cox, J., & Dale., B. G. (2001). Service quality and e-commerce: an exploratory analysis. Managing Service Quality, 11(121-131).
  27. Cristobal., E., Flavian., C., & Guinaliu., M. (2007). Perceived e-service quality (PeSQ) measurement validation and effects on consumer satisfaction and web site loyalty. Managing Service Quality, 17(3), 317-340.
  28. Davern, M., & Wilkin, C. (2010). Towards an integrated view of IT value measurement. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 11(1), 42-60.
  29. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
  30. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information system success: the quest for the dependent variable Information System Research, 60-95.
  31. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information system success: A Ten-Year update. Journal of Management Information System 19(4), 9-30.
  32. Ding., D. X., Hu., P. J.-H., & Sheng., O. R. L. (2010). e-SELFQUAL: A scale for measuring online self- service quality. Journal of Business Research, Article in Press.
  33. Doll, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 259-274.
  34. Engelbrecht, E 2005, 'Adapting to Changing Expectations: Post-Graduate Students', Computers and Education, 45 (2), 217-229.
  35. Etezadi-Amoli, J., & Farhoomand, A. (1996). A structural model of end user computing satisfaction and user performance. Information & Management, 30(2), 65-73.
  36. Fassancht., M., & Koese., I. (2006). Quality of electronic service: Conceptualizing and testing a hierarchical model Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 19-37.
  37. Fink, L., & Neumann, S. (2007). Gaining agility through IT personnel capabilities: The mediating role of IT infrastructure capabilities. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(8), 440-462.
  38. Fink, L., & Neumann, S. (2009). Exploring the perceived business value of the flexibility enabled by information technology infrastructure. Information & Management, 46(2), 90-99.
  39. Frydenberg, J. (2002). Quality standards in eLearning: A matrix of analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(2), 1-15.
  40. Gable, G., Sedera, D., & Chan, T. (2008). Re-conceptualizing information system success: The IS-impact measurement model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(7), 377-408.
  41. Georgina, D., & Olson, M. (2008). Integration of technology in higher education: A review of faculty self-perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 1-8.
  42. Gorla, N., & Lin, S. (2010). Determinants of software quality: A survey of information systems project managers. Information and Software Technology, 52(6), 602-610.
  43. Gorla, N., Somers, T., & Wong, B. (2010). Organizational impact of system quality, information quality, and service quality. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(3), 207-228.
  44. Hicks, B., Culley, S., McMahon, C., & Powell, P. (2010). Understanding information systems infrastructure in engineering SMEs: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27(1-2), 52-73.
  45. Hitt, L., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Productivity, Business Profitability, and Consumer Surplus: Three Different Measures of information technology value. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 121-142.
  46. Holsapple, C., & Lee Post, A. (2006). Defining, Assessing, and Promoting E Learning Success: An Information Systems Perspective. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(1), 67- 85.
  47. Hung, S. (2003). Expert versus novice use of the executive support systems: an empirical study. Information & Management, 40(3), 177-189.
  48. Hwang, H., Yeh, R., Chen, H., Jiang, J., & Klein, G. (2002). IT Investment Strategy And IT Infrastructure Services. The Review of Business Information Systems, 6(2), 55-63.
  49. Hwang, Y., & Kim., D. J. (2007). Customer self-service system: The effect of perceived Web quality with service contents on enjoyment, anxiety, and e-trust Decision Support System, 43, 446-760.
  50. Ifinedo, P. (2006). Extending the Gable et al. enterprise systems success measurement model: a preliminary study. Journal of Information Technology Management, 17(1), 14-33.
  51. Iivari, J. (2005). An empirical test of the DeLone-McLean model of information system success. ACM SIGMIS Database, 36(2), 8-27.
  52. Ives, B., Olson, M., & Baroudi, J. (1983). The measurement of user information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM, 26(10), 785-793.
  53. James, L., Mulaik, S., Brett, J., & Psychology, A. P. A. D. o. I.-O. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data: Sage Beverly Hills, CA.
  54. Kahn, B., Strong, D., & Wang, R. (2002). Information quality benchmarks: product and service performance. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 184-192.
  55. Kettinger, W., & Lee, C. (2005). Zones of tolerance: Alternative scales for measuring information systems service quality. MIS Quarterly, 29(4), 607-623.
  56. King, W., & Flor, P. (2008). The development of global IT infrastructure. Omega, 36(3), 486-504.
  57. Kuo, Y.-F., Wu., C.-M., & Deng., W.-J. (2009). The relationship amongservice quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Computer in Human Behavior, 25, 887-896.
  58. Lai, J. (2006). Assessment of employees' perceptions of service quality and satisfaction with e-business. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(9), 926-938.
  59. Landrum, H., & Prybutok, V. (2004). A service quality and success model for the information service industry. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(3), 628-642.
  60. Landrum, H., Prybutok, V., & Zhang, X. (2007). A comparison of Magal's service quality instrument with SERVPERF. Information & Management, 44(1), 104-113.
  61. Landrum., H., Prybutok., V. R., & Zhang., X. (2010). The moderating effect of occupation on the perception of information services quality and success. Computer &Industrial Engineering, 58(1), 133-142.
  62. Larsen, T., Sørebø, A., & Sørebø, Ø. (2009). The role of task-technology fit as users' motivation to continue information system use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 778-784.
  63. Lee-Post, A. (2009). e-Learning Success Model: an Information Systems Perspective. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(1), 61-70.
  64. Lee, B.-C., Yoon, J.-O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners' acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Computer and Education, 53, 1320-1329.
  65. Lee, J., & Lee, W. (2008). The relationship of e-Learner's self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e- Learning environmental quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 32-47.
  66. Lee, Y., & Kozar, K. (2006). Investigating the effect of website quality on e-business success: an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1383-1401.
  67. Lee, Y., Strong, D., Kahn, B., & Wang, R. (2002). AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment. Information & Management, 40(2), 133-146.
  68. Lehman, M. (1996). Laws of software evolution revisited. Software Process Technology, 114, 108-124.
  69. Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students' perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864-873.
  70. Liaw, S., Huang, H., & Chen, G. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1066-1080.
  71. Lin, H. (2007). Measuring online learning systems success: Applying the updated DeLone and McLean model. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 817-820.
  72. Liu, C., & Arnett, K. (2000). Exploring the factors associated with Web site success in the context of electronic commerce. Information & Management, 38(1), 23-33.
  73. Loiacono, e. T., Watson., R. T., & Goodhue., D. L. (2007). WebQual: An instrument for consumer evaluation of Web sites. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(3), 51-87.
  74. MacDonald, C., Stodel, E., Farres, L., Breithaupt, K., & Gabriel, M. (2001). The demand-driven learning model: A framework for Web-based learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(1), 9-30.
  75. MacDonald, C., & Thompson, T. (2005). Structure, content, delivery, service, and outcomes: Quality e- learning in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(2), 1-25.
  76. Mahmood, M. (1987). System development methods-a comparative investigation. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 293-311.
  77. Martinez-Torres, M., Toral Marín, S., Garcia, F., Vazquez, S., Oliva, M., & Torres, T. (2008). A technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in practical and laboratory teaching, according to the European higher education area. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27(6), 495-505.
  78. McGill, T., & Klobas, J. (2009). A task-technology fit view of learning management system impact. Computers & Education, 52(2), 496-508.
  79. McGorry, S. (2003). Measuring quality in online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(2), 159-177.
  80. McKinney, V., & Yoon, K. (2002). The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: An expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 296-315.
  81. McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2001). Quality in online delivery: what does it mean for assessment in e- learning environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computer in Learning in Tertiary Education, Melbourne, Australia
  82. McManus, J. ( 2009). A perspective om service delivery. Management Services, Winte, 8-11.
  83. Miller, J., & Doyle, B. (1987). Measuring the effectiveness of computer-based information systems in the financial services sector. MIS Quarterly, 11(1), 107-124.
  84. Mirani, R., & Lederer, A. (1998). An instrument for assessing the organizational benefits of IS projects. Decision Sciences, 29(4), 803-838.
  85. Murakami, E., Saraiva, A., Ribeiro Junior, L., Cugnasca, C., Hirakawa, A., & Correa, P. (2007). An infrastructure for the development of distributed service-oriented information systems for precision agriculture. Computers and Electronics in agriculture, 58(1), 37-48.
  86. Naveh, G., Tubin, D., & Pliskin, N. (2010). Student LMS use and satisfaction in academic institutions: The organizational perspective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 127-133.
  87. Ngai, E., Poon, J., & Chan, Y. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250-267.
  88. Nicolaou, A., & McKnight, D. (2006). Perceived information quality in data exchanges: Effects on risk, trust, and intention to use. Information Systems Research, 17(4), 332.
  89. Oliver, R. (2005). Quality assurance and e-learning: Blue skies and pragmatism. Research in Learning Technology, 13(3), 173-187.
  90. Ong, C., & Lai, J. (2007). Measuring user satisfaction with knowledge management systems: scale development, purification, and initial test. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1329-1346.
  91. Ozkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students' evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1285-1296.
  92. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml., V. A., & Malhotra., A. (2005). E-S-QUAL a multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research, 7(3), 213-233.
  93. Park, Y. A., & Gretzel., U. (2007). Success factor for destination marketing Web sites: A qualitative Meta-Analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 46-63.
  94. Pérez-Mira, B. (2010). Validity of DeLone and McLean's Model of Information Systems Success at the Web Site Level of Analysis. Doctral Dissertation, Louisiana State University.
  95. Pitt, L., Watson, R., & Kavan, C. (1995). Service quality: a measure of information systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 173-187.
  96. Pituch, K., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47(2), 222-244.
  97. Price, R., Neiger, D., & Shanks, G. (2008). Developing a measurement instrument for subjective aspects of information quality. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 22(1), 49-74.
  98. Rai, A., Lang, S., & Welker, R. (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success models: An empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information Systems Research, 13(1), 50-69.
  99. Ramayah, T., Ahmad, N., & Lo, M. (2010). The role of quality factors in intention to continue using an e- learning system in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5422-5426.
  100. Ramirez, R., Melville, N., & Lawler, E. (2010). Information technology infrastructure, organizational process redesign, and business value: An empirical analysis. Decision Support Systems, 49(4), 417-429.
  101. Rauyruen, P., & Miller, K. (2007). Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 21-31.
  102. Reid, I. (2005). Quality assurance, open and distance learning, and Australian universities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(1), 1-11.
  103. Roca, J., Chiu, C., & Martínez, F. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 683-696.
  104. Roses, L., Hoppen, N., & Henrique, J. (2009). Management of perceptions of information technology service quality. Journal of Business Research, 62(9), 876-882.
  105. Rovai, A., & Downey, J. (2009). Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 141-147.
  106. Ryan, S., Harrison, D., & Schkade, L. (2002). Information-technology investment decisions: when do costs and benefits in the social subsystem matter? Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 85-127.
  107. Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A., & Chowa, C. (2006). Information system success: individual and organizational determinants. Management Science, 52(12), 1849-1864.
  108. Seddon, P. (1997). A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 240-253.
  109. Selim, H. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49(2), 396-413.
  110. Shang, S., & Seddon, P. (2002). Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise systems: the business manager's perspective. Information Systems Journal, 12(4), 271-299.
  111. Shee, D., & Wang, Y. (2008). Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-learning system: A methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Computers & Education, 50(3), 894-905.
  112. Shun, C., & Yunjie, X. (2006). Effects of outcome, process and shopping enjoyment on online consumer behaviour. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 5(4), 272-281.
  113. Shurville, S., O'Grady, T., & Mayall, P. (2008). Educational and institutional flexibility of Australian educational software. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(2), 74-84.
  114. Skok, W., Kophamel, A., & Richardson, I. (2001). Diagnosing information systems success: importance- performance maps in the health club industry. Information & Management, 38(7), 409-419.
  115. Snitkin, S., & King, W. (1986). Determinants of the effectiveness of personal decision support systems. Information & Management, 10(2), 83-89.
  116. Sobol, M., & Klein, G. (2009). Relation of CIO background, IT infrastructure, and economic performance. Information & Management, 46(5), 271-278.
  117. Strother, J. (2002). An assessment of the effectiveness of e-learning in corporate training programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1-17.
  118. Stvilia, B., Gasser, L., Twidale, M., & Smith, L. (2007). A framework for information quality assessment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(12), 1720-1733.
  119. Stvilia, B., Twidale, M., Smith, L., & Gasser, L. (2008). Information quality work organization in Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 983- 1001.
  120. Sun, P., Tsai, R., Finger, G., Chen, Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183-1202.
  121. Tallon, P., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2000). Executives' perceptions of the business value of information technology: a process-oriented approach. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(4), 145-173.
  122. Tzeng, S., Chen, W., & Pai, F. (2008). Evaluating the business value of RFID: Evidence from five case studies. International Journal of Production Economics, 112(2), 601-613.
  123. Udo, G., Bagchi, K., & Kirs, P. (2010). An assessment of customers'e-service quality perception, satisfaction and intention. International Journal of Information Management, 30(6), 481-492.
  124. Van Dyke, T., Kappelman, L., & Prybutok, V. (1997). Measuring information systems service quality: concerns on the use of the SERVQUAL questionnaire. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 195-208.
  125. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
  126. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
  127. Wang, R., & Strong, D. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 33.
  128. Wang, W., & Wang, C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based learning systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 761-774.
  129. Wang, Y. (2008). Assessing e commerce systems success: a respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Journal, 18(5), 529-557.
  130. Wang, Y., Wang, H., & Shee, D. (2007). Measuring e-learning systems success in an organizational context: Scale development and validation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1792-1808.
  131. Watson, R., Pitt, L., & Kavan, C. (1998). Measuring information systems service quality: lessons from two longitudinal case studies. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 61-79.
  132. Weill, P., Subramani, M., & Broadbent, M. (2002). Building IT infrastructure for strategic agility. MIT Sloan School of Managment, Working Paper
  133. Weill, P., & Vitale, M. (2002). What IT infrastructure capabilities are needed to implement e-business models. MIS Quarterly Executive, 1(1), 17-34.
  134. Wilkin, C., & Castleman, T. (2003). Development of an instrument to evaluate the quality of delivered systems. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference, Big Island, Hawaii.
  135. Wixom, B., & Todd, P. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85-102.
  136. Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). eTailQ: dimensionlizing, measuring and predicting etail quality. Journal of Retailing, 79, 183-198.
  137. Wu, J., Tennyson, R., & Hsia, T. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155-164.
  138. Xiao, L., & Dasgupta, S. (2002). Measurement of user satisfaction with web-based information systems: An empirical study. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2002 Americas Conference on Information Systems,, Dallas, TX.
  139. Xiao, L., & Dasgupta, S. (Eds.). (2005). User satisfaction with Web portals: An empirical Study. United States of America: Idea Group Publishing.
  140. Yang, Z., Cai, S., Zhou, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument to measure user perceived service quality of information presenting web portals. Information & Management, 42(4), 575-589.
  141. Yang, Z., & Fang., X. (2004). Online service quality dimensions and their relationship with satisfaction A content analysis of customers reviews of securities brokerage services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(3), 302-326.
  142. Yoo, B., & Donthu., N. (2001). Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an internet shopping site (SITEQUAL). Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2(1), 31-47.
  143. Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A., & Malhotra, A. (2000). e-Service quality: definition, dimensions and conceptual model. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, working paper.
  144. Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A., & Malhotra, A. (2002). An empirical examination of the service quality- value-loyalty chain in an electronic channel. University of North Caroline, Chapel Hill, NC, working paper.
  145. Zeithaml, V. A. (2002). Service excellence in electronic channels. Managing Service Quality 12(3), 135- 138. Zhi-yong, G., Jian-min, G., Fu-min, C., & Lin, G. (2009). Estimation method for manufacturing information quality based on material constraint relationship. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 1, 57-72.
  146. Zmud, R. (1983). The effectiveness of external information channels in facilitating innovation within software development groups. MIS Quarterly, 7(2), 43-58.

Related papers

A model to measure e-learning systems success
Aileen CaterSteel

2012

E-learning involves adopting and exploiting the potential of new, advanced Information Technology in development and delivery of education. In spite of a rapid growth in the e-learning field there still exists a range of issues facing the stakeholders of e-learning systems. One of the key issues is how to measure e-learning system success. Although considerable attention has been paid to the Information Systems success issue, there remain arguments about the factors which are most effective for measuring Information System success. The issue of measuring Information System success has an impact on evaluating e-learning systems success. This chapter aims to fill this void by proposing an evaluation methodology model to assess e-learning systems success. The contribution of this study is the proposed model to evaluate the success of e-learning systems. The model is based on a thorough review of the e-learning success literature and existing Information Systems success models.

View PDFchevron_right
Measuring E-Learning Systems Success
Ahmed Alsabawy

2014

The education sector has been radically affected by developments in information technology. In the education arena, substantial funds have been invested in the systematic development of technology infrastructure. E-learning is believed to be the main platform for adopting and using new and more advanced IT in the education sector. However, measuring the success of e-learning systems is one of the key issues facing universities and educational institutions. Although considerable attention has been paid to the information systems success issue, there remain arguments about which factors are the most telling in measuring information system success. The issue of evaluation of the success of information systems generally, and e-learning systems in particular, has become more complicated due to the differing interests and needs of stakeholders. Different groups of stakeholders deal with e-learning systems in different ways - for instance, students, academic staff, ICT staff, management, a...

View PDFchevron_right
Evaluating E-learning Systems Success: An Empirical Study
Jane Sinclair

Computers in Human Behavior

E-learning, as a direct result of the integration of technology and education, has emerged as a powerful medium of learning particularly using Internet technologies. The undeniable significance of e-learning in education has led to a massive growth in the number of e-learning courses and systems offering different types of services. Thus, evaluation of e-learning-systems is vital to ensure successful delivery, effective use, and positive impacts on learners. Based on an intensive review of the literature, a comprehensive model has been developed which provides a holistic picture and identifies different levels of success related to a broad range of success determinants. The model has been empirically validated by fitting the model to data collected from 563 students engaged with an e-learning system in one of the UK universities through a quantitative method of Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). The determinants of e-learning perceived satisfaction are technical system quality, information quality, service quality, support system quality, learner quality, instructor quality, and perceived usefulness, which together explain 71.4% of the variance of perceived satisfaction. The drivers of perceived usefulness are technical system quality, information quality, support system quality, learner quality, and instructor quality, and these explain 54.2% of the variance of perceived usefulness. Four constructs were found to be the determinants of e-learning use, namely educational system quality, support system quality, learner quality, and perceived usefulness, and together they account for 34.1%. Finally, 64.7% of the variance of e-learning benefits was explained by perceived usefulness, perceived satisfaction, and use.

View PDFchevron_right
The role of information technology in e-learning systems success
Sean Eom

Human Systems Management

This study empirically tested the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success model (the DM model) in a university e-learning context using structural equation modeling. The results indicated that system quality, information quality, all affected the two mediating constructs, system use and user satisfaction, which in turn, influences the e-learning systems success. The nature of e-learning systems is fundamentally different from the environment in which the DeLone and McLean model is developed and tested, either voluntary or quasi-voluntary environments. However, e-learning systems are to be used in a mandatory environment. For that reason, the DeLone and McLean model has a limited explanatory power for explaining the role of e-learning systems on the outcomes of e-learning. Consequently, we conclude that the primary focus of the e-learning system empirical research should shift from the system factor toward human and design factors. E-learning systems empirical research...

View PDFchevron_right
Measuring e-learning systems success in an organizational context: Scale development and validation
Nirosha Kamali

Computers in Human Behavior, 2007

Electronic learning (e-learning) has been widely adopted as a promising solution by many companies to offer learning-on-demand opportunities to individual employees in order to reduce training time and cost. While information systems (IS) success models have received much attention among researchers, little research has been conducted to assess the success and/or effectiveness of e-learning systems in an organizational context. Whether traditional IS success models can be extended to investigate elearning systems success has been scarcely addressed. Based on previous IS success literature, this study developed and validated a multi-dimensional model for assessing e-learning systems success (ELSS) from the perspective of the employee (e-learner). The procedures used in conceptualizing an ELSS construct, generating items, collecting data, and validating a multiple-item scale for measuring ELSS are described. This paper presents evidence of the scaleÕs factor structure, reliability, content validity, criterion-related validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity on the basis of analyzing data from a sample of 206 respondents. Theoretical and managerial implications of our results are discussed. This empirically validated instrument will be useful to researchers in developing and testing e-learning systems theories, as well as to organizations in implementing successful e-learning systems.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Business
  • Computer Science
  • Knowledge Management
  • Information and Communications T...
  • Critical Success Factor
  • Queensland University of Technology
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved