Assessing the impact of
e-learning systems on learners: a survey study in the KSA
[/B]
Salem Alkhalaf a , Steve Drewa a
,Thamer Alhussainb b
a
School of ICT, Griffith University,Gold Coast, QLD,
Australia
b
College of computer sciences and information technology,King Faisal
University, Saudi Arabia
Abstract[/B]
With the rapid growth of the use of
e-learning systems around the globe, assessing the success and
impact of such systems is becoming increasingly important. This
paper presents findings from a study of the impact of e-learning
systems on university students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It
is asserted that gauging the impact of e-learning systems on
learners is central to the development of suitable and effective
e-learning systems. Students from two different universities in the
KSA were surveyed to capture their perceptions regarding their
current e-learning systems.The assessment framework is based on the
IS Success/Impact Measurement framework, which has been
successfully applied to similar studies on e-Learning, e-Health,
and e-Government. This paper reports on the impacts that the
e-learning systems have had on student participants’ performance
with regard to the depth of learning, customization of learning
pace, student productivity, and student satisfaction. The
conclusion of the study isthat the use of e-learning systems shows
a positive impact on student learning. This paper provides
information that will be of interest to e-learning system designers
and developers.
© 2012
Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords:E-learning systems, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
Success/Impact Measurement
1. Introduction[/B]
Ever since
the concept of schools and classes was adopted by communities to
facilitate education, the tradition of face-to-face interaction has
prevailed. A classroom with one or more teachers and students, with
both groups meeting physically and synchronously in real time, has
been the common practice. However, with the advent of computer
technology and the Internet, the traditional setup of learning is
evolving into a form mostly referred to as
“e-learning.” E-learning
is the term given to a kind of instruction and learning system in
which the students and the
teacher,
or whoever is involved in the interchange of information, do not
meet physically,but rather are separated by time, distance, or
both. This separation is bridged with the help of communication
technology, including the Internet and emergent educational
technologies. E-learning may or may not be in real time. A more
formal definition of e-learning is “the delivery of a learning,
training or education program by electronic means. E-learning
involves the use of a computer or electronic device—in some way to
provide training, educational or learning material” (M. M.
Maneschijn, 2005, p. 1).
This paper reports on an assessment of
the
learning of e-learning systems used in two universities in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The framework used for this study is
the IS Success/Impact Measurement framework pioneered by DeLone and
McLean (1992) and later extended by Gable, Sedera, and Chan (2008).
Based on the adaptation of this framework to the e-learning area,
the assessment criteria include depth of learning, pace of
learning, student productivity, and student satisfaction. The
significance of this work is that itprovides a new form of system
evaluation based on empirically derived evidence, which will guide
the next phase of evolutionary development.
Saudi Arabia was chosen as the site for this research because
it is one of the fastest-growing countries in the world in terms of
e-learning (CITC, 2010) and it has unique educational opportunities
based on its particular cultural operating environment. Moreover,
CITC data show explosive growth in the number of Internet users in
the KSA, from a mere 200,000 in 2000 to 4.8 million in 2006. The
number of students enrolled in institutions of higher education has
also increased significantly in recent years (CITC, 2010). As a
result, many of these institutions have turned to e-learning
systems as a means to broaden and enhance student access to their
courses and subjects (Al Saif, 2005).
Reflecting this trend, a growing number of studies have been
conducted on e-learning in KSA. Many of these studies have focused
on identifying the key factors that differentiate online education
from face-to-face learning, analysing the in-principle advantages
and disadvantages of online courses or developing strategies to
achieve a suitable online learning environment (Alshehri, 2005). To
date, however, little attention has been paid to the issue of
assessing the existing e-learning environments that have been set
up in the country. Indeed, relatively little research has been done
regarding the evaluation of e-Learning systems in general (Aceto,
et al., 2007; Wang, Wang, & Shee, 2007). Responding to this gap
in the literature, this paper relatesthe results of a qualitative
study on the impact of e-learning systems on student experiences of
learning in two different Saudi universities. The next section of
this paper provides a review of the literature related to
e-learning and specifically to e-learning systems in Saudi Arabia,
as well as to the IS Measurement Model (Gable, Sedera, & Chan,
2008). This is followed by a description of the
methodology adopted for this study and then an analysis and
discussion of the data are provided. Finally, the paper concludes
by summarising the outcomes of the study and theirimplications for
the impact of e-learning system on learners in the Saudi
context.
2. Consideration of the
IS-Impact Measurementmodel[/B]
An
e-learning system is one of the many types of Information System
(IS) (Wang et al., 2007). In the context of e-learning and
e-learning systems, there have been a number of studies on the
effectiveness of web-based learning compared to traditional
classroom learning (Zhang & Nunamaker, 2003). However, there
has been little research carried out on the evaluation of
e-learning systems themselves (Aceto et al., 2007) or their
effectiveness (Wang et al., 2007).
In order
to assess the effectiveness of e-learning systems in use in two
universities in the KSA, the IS-Impact Measurement model
(DeLone& McLean, 1992) was selected because it takes into
account the success of educational systems by measuring multiple
dimensions of the information system (Cao & Elias, 2009).
Importantly, the IS-Impact Measurement model does not involve any
financial considerations of information system success, an aspect
which makes it a more reliable model for application to the
educational arena(Cao & Elias, 2009). In addition, dimensional
theory (Gable, et al., 2008)was used to uncover the issues that
would be used to measure the IS success/impact. Furthermore, Gable
et al. (Gable, et al., 2008) stated that this model should cover
the maximum environment that may affect the quality of using any
system like the e-learning system. We have reviewed a number of
models that are relevant to using the techniques and technology in
e-(1992) IS Success m -Impact model (2008), to find the most
appropriate model for this research. We found that the DeLone and
McLean IS Success model is the most cited model in IS research (B.
Myers, Kappelman, & Victor, 1997).
Figure
1. Modifying the IS Measurement model (Alkhalaf, Nguyen, &
Drew, 2010; Gable, et al., 2008)
Most of the models have been concerned
with the measurement of companies, institutions, and financial
profits in measuring the IS Impact (Gable, Sedera, & Chan,
2003). However, this paper focuses on measuring the impact of
e-learning system on individuals. The latest model developed by
researchers is the IS Impact model, which is also a measurement
model for IS evaluation (Gable, et al., 2003; Gable, et al., 2008).
This model is the most useful for measuring e-learning systems
because it comprises 41 measures that include6 dimensions: System
Quality, Information Quality, Use, User Satisfaction, Individual
Impact, and Organizational Impact(Cao & Elias, 2009;
Gable, et
al., 2008).
According to Gable et
al.(2008)and Rabaa’i and Gable(2009), user satisfaction and IS use
are a result of the success (before and after), rather than a
contributing factor to success.Moreover, both system quality and
information quality affect use and user satisfaction (Wang, et al.,
2007). In addition, Gable, Sedera, and Chan (2008) believe that the
Use construct in the IS-Impact Measurement model is unsuitable for
measuring IS success. They stated that “user
satisfaction has been measured indirectly through Information
Quality, System Quality and other variables in prior studies”
(Gable, et al., 2008). Thus, we are left with only 36 measures from
4 dimensions. A review of previous studies in IS fields, e-learning
systems, IS success, end-user computing satisfaction, system use,
and other areas related to IS measurement and evaluation
(e.g.,(Bonk, 2002; El Mansour & Mupinga, 2007; Gable, et al.,
2003; Gable, et al., 2008; Hooper, 1992; Latchman, Salzmann,
Thottapilly, & Bouzekri, 1998; S. Liaw & Huang, 2007; M.
Maneschijn, 2005; Naidu, 2006; Okamoto, 2003; Rabaa'i & Gable,
2009, 2010; Reuben, 1988; Suthers, Vatrapu, Joseph, Dwyer, &
Medina, 2006; Tomsic & Suthers, 2006; Wang, 2003; Wang &
Liao, 2007; Wang & Tang, 2004; Wang, Tang, & Tang, 2001;
Wang, et al., 2007; Zembylas & Vrasidas, 2007)was carried outin
order to find the most suitable variables for measuring the success
of e-learning systems.Section 3 discusses how these models,
generally applied to institutions, can be modified to measure
impacts on individuals.
3. Measuring individual
impact[/B]
According to Gable, Sedera,and Chan(2008,
p. 289),“The ‘individual impact’ is a measure of the extent to
which (the IS) has influenced the capabilities and effectiveness,
on behalf of the organization, of key-users” (p. 289).Based on the
IS-Impact Measurement model, the variables for the construct
of“individual impact” areas shown in Table 1:
Table 1. Individual Impact (II)
items
Accordingly, the
hypothesis for this construct is that the use of e-learning system
has a positive impact on theindividual.
4. Methods[/B]
This study adopts a positivist paradigm of
research. According to M. D. Myers (1997) and Walsham (1995), the
positivist school concerns when researchers achieve substantive
information and discover facts in a way that could be replicated by
other researchers. Objectivity can be maintained through the use of
scientific methodologies and mainly logical rules, calculations,
and assumptions that are used to test theories and to obtain
independent and unbiased results (M. D. Myers, 1997).This study
uses a positivist approach because it seeks to test a theory and
uses a hypothesis to achieve a model for a high-quality e-learning
system. The hypothesisarose through the application of the
IS-Impact Measurement model.
The analysis was carried out through
quantitative studyof the data, which were collected through a
questionnaire. The survey questionnaire was distributed to
e-learning students in both Qassim University and King Abdualaziz
Universityin order to evaluate the current e-learning system that
is already used in these universities. The questionnaire was
designed based on the IS measurement model (Gable, et al., 2008).
It includes 37 questions and measures 4 dimensions: System Quality,
Information Quality, Individual Impact, and Educational Impact. As
mentioned earlier, this paper focuses on the individual impact,
which consists of 5 measures, or variables.
Thequestionnaire was presented to 800 students and 560were
returned, but 32 of these were excluded as they weredeemed
incomplete. Therefore, 528 questionnaires, 328 from male
participants and 200 from females, were included in the
analysis.
5. Findings[/B]
Statistical analysis of 528 questionnaires was
carried out with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS). As mentioned above, only those survey questions that
measure the impact of e-learning systems on individuals are
included. We analyse the frequency and percentage of responses for
each of the5 variables, their Chi-square value and their level of
significance.
Table 2:
Relative numerical distribution and basic standards, including the
Chi-square values of variables related to influencing the
individual
* denotes
significance at 0.01 or 10%
** denotes
significance at 0.05 or 5%
Items: 1:
I have learnt a lot through the experience of using the e-learning
system; 2: The e-learning system enhances my awareness of the
requirements of educational processes; 3: Using the e-learning
system increases my productivity; 4: I am satisfied with the
experience of using the e-learning system; 5: Most users have a
positive attitude towards or evaluation of e-learning system
functionality.
In calculating the Chi-square Goodness of
Fit Test from Table 2, which shows the values for each item that is
related to individual responses regarding the first dimension of
the questionnaire, which is Individual Impact, we see that the
Chi-square for each item is higher than the critical value of 0.05
and the probability level of 7.78for significance with 4 degrees of
freedom indicatesthat for each item there is a significant
difference between expected and actual values for the dimension
Individual Impact. This means that these results are no statistical
coincidence.
The survey results clearly indicate that
the most important response among the variables within Individual
Impact is item number 2: system enhances my
awareness of the requirements of educational processes The majority of
students have a positive view of the functionality of the
e-learning system, with mean scores between 3.51 and 3.91 out of 5,
and the importance of the relative range is 70.2 78.2%, with all
variables near 70% and with standard deviation ranging from 0.945
to 1.217.
With regard to item number 1, the results
demonstrate that the majority of students feel that they have
learnt a great deal through the use of the e-learning system, but
with different levels of agreement. While 40% of the students agree
that they have learnt a lot, 26% state that they strongly agree.
Thus, it appears that the use of e-learning systems has had a
positive impact on their education. Their conviction suggests that
e-learning plays an effective role in the development of
educational processes. These findings are in line with several
previous studies.For instance, Williams and Jacobs(2004) stated
that student learning through blogs or similar collaboration tools
is more effective than from teachers or textbooks.
The results further indicate that most of the
students (72%) either agree or strongly agree that e-learning
systems enhance their awareness of the requirements of educational
processes. This result reflects some of the previous findings in
the literature, such as Ehlers(Ehlers, 2011), who found thata
certain educational environment is needed for development and
learning processes.
Moreover, the majority (71%) of the
surveyed students either agree or strongly agree that using
e-learning systems increases their productivity. A reason behind
thismay be related to the adoption of modern e-learning systems
that enable students to get all the required information in the
educational processeasily and quickly.
The results also confirmed that 60% of the
participants are either satisfied or very satisfied with their
experiences using e-learning systems. However, about 23% of the
students either disagree or strongly disagree regarding their
satisfaction with the experience of using the e-learning system, so
more improvements in the applied e-learning system are modern
technology in organisations, as implemented through an e-learning
system at Qassim University, has improved the student experience.
Furthermore, the University has attempted to close the gap between
students and administration through this new technology. In
addition, the findings show that 40.6% of the students agree that
they have a positive view towards the functionality of the
e-learning system and 15.5% strongly agree. These resultsare (2007,
p. 1066) finding that in e-
perceptions toward using e- (p. 1066).
6. Conclusion [/B]
This paper
reports on an assessment of the impacts of an e-learning system on
individual students in Saudi Arabia. The measurement framework was
based on the IS Success/Impact Measurement framework pioneered by
DeLone and McLean (1992) and extended by Gable, Sedera, and Chan
(2008). This paper indicates that the use of e-learning system
positively affects the individual impact. Importantly, the findings
supported a number of results reported in previous literature
regarding the impact of e-learning systems on individuals. The
analysis of the results shows that using e-the e-departments. It
also helps provide basic information, which, in turn, helps
students take important decisions effectively and accurately, thus
increasing the overall productivity of the process of teaching and
learning. Finally, this paper highlighted the IS Success/Impact
model as the most useful for measuring the impact of e-learning
system on individuals.
References[/B]
Aceto, S.,
Delrio, C., Dondi, C., Fischer, T., Kastis, N., Klein, R., et al.
(2007). e-Learning for Innovation: Executive Summary of the
Helios
Yearly
Report 2007e-Learning for Innovation: Executive Summary of the
Helios Yearly Report 2007. Brussels: MENON Network
EEIG.
Al Saif,
A. A. (2005). The motivating and inhibiting factors affecting the
use of web-based instruction at the University of Qassim in
Saudi
Arabia.
Unpublished 3168482, Wayne State University, United States
Michigan.
Alkhalaf,
S., Nguyen, A., & Drew, S. (2010, 26-
Education
Sector:An exploratory analysis. Paper presented at the 2010
International Conference on Intelligent Network and
Computing
(ICINC
2010), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 103 Salem Alkhalaf et
al.
/ Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences
47 ( 2012
) 98 –
104
Alshehri,
A. (2005). Assessing faculty attitudes toward the significant
factors for facilitating the implementation of online courses at
the Institute
of Public
Administration in Saudi Arabia. Mississippi State
University
Bonk, C.
(2002). Collaborative tools for e-learning. Chief Learning Officer,
30, 41.
Cao, Lan
& Elias, Nur Fazidah (2009) Validating the IS-Impact model :
two exploratory case studies in China and Malaysia.
InBapna,
Ravi &
Sambamurthy , V (Eds.) Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference
on Information Systems 2009, Association for Information
Systems
(AIS), Hotel Novotel, Hyderabad, India, pp. 1-14.
CITC.
(2010, 2011). Communication and Information Technology Commission
2009, from
http://www.citc.gov.sa/citcportal/Homepage/tabid/106/cmspid/{611C6EDD-85C5-4800-A0DA-A997A624D0D0}/Default.aspx
Dalziel,
J. (2003). Implementing learning design: The learning activity
management system (LAMS). Proceedings of the ASCILITE
2003
conference, Adelaide..
DeLone,
W., & McLean, E. (1992). Information systems success: The quest
for the dependent variable. Information systems research, 3(1),
60
95.
Ehlers,
U. D. (2011). Quality in e-learning from a learner's perspective.
EURODL, 9.
El
Mansour, B., & Mupinga, D. (2007). Students'positive and
negative experiences in hybrid and online classes. College Student
Journal, 41(1),
242.
Gable G,
Sedera D And Chan T (2003)
Enterprise systems success: a measurement model. In Proceedings of
the Twenty-Fourth International
Conference
on Information Systems (MARCH S, MASSEY A and DEGROSS JI, Eds), p.
576, Association for Information Systems,
Seattle,
Washington, US.
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.
Hooper, S.
(1992). Cooperative Learning and Computer-Based Instruction.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 40 (3).
Latchman,
H., Salzmann, C., Thottapilly, S., & Bouzekri, H. (1998).
Hybrid asynchronous and synchronous learning networks in
distance
education.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering
Education, ICEE'98, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Liaw,
S.-S., Huang, H.-M., & Chen, G.-D. (2007). Surveying instructor
and learner attitudes toward e-learning. [doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.001]. Computers &
Education, 49(4), 1066-1080.
Liaw, S.,
& Huang, H. (2007). Developing a Collaborative e-Learning
System Based on Users' Perceptions. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science,
v 4402,
751.
Maneschijn, M. (2005). The e-learning dome:
A comprehensive e-learning environment development model.
(Unpublished Master's thesis).
University
of South Africa, South
Africa.
Myers, B.,
Kappelman, L., & Victor, R. (1997). Prybutok, A comprehensive
model for assessing the quality and productivity of the
information
systems
function: toward a theory for information systems assessment.
Information Resources Management Journal, 10(1), 6-25.
Myers, M.
D. (1997). Qualitative Research in Information Systems. [Article].
MIS quarterly, 21(2), 241-242.
Naidu, S.
(2006). E-learning: A guidebook of principles, procedures and
practices. 2nd Revised Edition. New Delhi, India:
Commonwealth
Educational Media Center for Asia (CEMCA), and the
Commonwealth of Learning.
Okamoto,
T. (2003). E-collaborative learning technologies and
e-pedagogy.Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on
Advanced
Rabaa'i,
Ahmad A. & Gable, Guy G. (2009) Extending the IS-Impact Model
into the higher education sector. In ICICS2009 : 7th
International
Conference
on Information and Communications Systems, 7-10 Dec., 2009,
Macau.Reuben, B. (1988). Communication and human
behaviour:
USA:Macmillan Publishing Company.
Reuben, B.
(1988). Communication and human behaviour.USA: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Suthers,
D., Vatrapu, R., Joseph, S., Dwyer, N & Medina, R. (2006).
Representational Effects in Asynchronous Collaboration: A
Research
Paradigm
and Initial Analysis. In Proceedings of the 39th Hawai`i
International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-39), January
4-
7, 2005,
Kauai, Hawai`i (CD-ROM), Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) 104
Salem Alkhalaf et al. / Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences
47 ( 2012
) 98 –
104
Tomsic,
A., & Suthers, D. (2006). Discussion tool effects on
collaborative learning and social network structure. Educational
Technology &
Society,
9(4), 63-77.
Walsham,
G. (1995). The emergence of interpretivism in IS research.
Information systems research, 6(4), 376 394.
Wang, Y.
(2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous
electronic learning systems. Information & Management,
41(1),
75-86.
Wang, Y.,
& Liao, Y. (2007). The conceptualization and measurement of
m-commerce user satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior,
23(1),
381-398.
Wang, Y.,
& Tang, T. (2004). Assessing customer perceptions of Web site
service quality in digital marketing environments Advanced Topics
in
End User
Computing (Vol. 3, pp. 16-35): IGI Global.Wang, Y., Tang, T., &
Tang, J. (2001). An instrument for measuring customer
satisfaction toward web sites that market digital products
and services. Electronic Commerce Research, 2(3),
89-102.
Wang, Y.,
Tang, T., & Tang, J. (2001). An instrument for measuring
customer satisfaction toward web sites that market digital products
and
services.
Electronic Commerce Research, 2(3), 89 102.
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.
Williams,
J. B., & Jacobs, J. S. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as
learning spaces in the higher education sector. Austra lasian
Journal of
Educational Technology, 20(2), 232-247.
Zembylas,
M., & Vrasidas, C. (2007). Listening for silence in text-based,
online encounters. Distance Education, 28(1), 5-24.
Zhang, D.,
& Nunamaker, J. (2003). Powering e-learning in the new
millennium: An overview of e-learning and enabling
technology.
Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 207 218.
评估电子学习系统对学习者的影响：在沙特阿拉伯进行的一项调查研究
塞勒姆a
，史蒂夫.德鲁a,塔默b
a
学校的信息与通信技术，格里菲斯大学，黄金海岸，昆士兰州，澳大利亚
b 计算机科学与信息技术学院，费萨尔国王大学，沙特阿拉伯
摘要[/B]
随着全球使用电子学习系统的迅速增加，对这项系统的成就和影响的评估变得愈显重要。这个报告呈现了在移动学习系统对沙特阿拉伯王国的大学学生影响进行的研究的结果。报告断言衡量电子学习体统对学习者的影响对于开发合适和有效的电子学习系统是很重要的。研究对沙特阿拉伯两所不同大学的学生进行调查，获取他们对当前在线的电子学习系统的看法。研究评估框架是基于信息系统[/B]的成功/影响框架，它已经很成功的应用与电子学习系统，电子健康，电子政务的相似研究中。该报告指出了电子学习系统对学生参与者关于学习深度、定制的学习速度、学生生产力和学生满意度表现的影响。电子系统的设计者和开发者将对本文提供的信息感兴趣。
C
2012年爱思唯尔公司出版，在责任教授下选择和或同行审查。侯赛因博士
关键词：[/B]电子学习系统，沙特阿拉伯王国，成功/影响测量
1[/B]、引言[/B]
自从学校和课程的概念是采用通过社区促进教育，传统面对面的互动已经占据了上风。拥有一个或是更多较适合学生的，两组会议身体和实时同步的教室已经成为常见的实践。但是随着计算机技术和互联网的出现，传统建立的学习逐渐演变成称为电子学习的形式。电子学习是指一种教学和学习系统。在这个系统中，学生和教师或是任何参与信息交换的人，不需要面对面，二十被时间或距离分离或是被两者分离。通信技术为这种分离搭建了桥梁，包括网络和出现的教育技术也起到了帮助作用。电子学习可能或可能不会实现实时。对电子学习的一个正式定义“学习，训练或是教育项目通过电子途径的传递。电子学习包括计算机和电子设备的使用—在一定程度上为训练，教育或学习资料提供支持（M.
M. Maneschijn, 2005, p. 1）
这项报告报告了沙特阿拉伯王国两所大学电子系统学习对学生学习影响的评估情况。研究评估框架是基于印度标准的首先是由麦克莱恩（1992）倡导的并随后被盖博，赛德拉和chan（2008）推广的成功/影响框架。基于这个框架电子学习去的学习适应性，评估标准包括学习深度，学习进度，学生生产力，还有学生满意度[/B]。这个工作的意义是它提供了一种基于经验基础上派生证据的新形势的系统评估。它将知道下一阶段的进化发展[/B].[/B]
沙特阿拉伯被选为研究的地点是因为它是世界上使用电子系统方面发展最快的国家（CITIC沙特通讯与信息技术委员会,2010年订正），结果，很多教育机构已经趋向于把电子学习系统作为一种途径来拓宽和增强学生接触他们课程和学科的机会。
反映这种趋势，在沙特阿拉伯已经进行了越来越多的这方面研究。许多这样的研究集中在识别区别在线学习和面对面学习的关键因素上，初步分析在线课程或是发展策略的优缺点，营造一个合适的在线学习环境（Alshehri,2005）.迄今为止，然而，人们很少注意到对在一些国家中建立的电子学习环境评估出现的问题。实际上，一般关于电子学习系统评价的研究进行的相对较少（Aceto,
et al., 2007; Wang, Wang, & Shee,
2007）。针对这种文献上的差异，本文叙述了在两所不同的沙特阿拉伯大学中电子学习系统对学生学习经验的影响的定性研究结果。本报告的下一部分提供了沙特阿拉伯与在线学习和在线学习系统以及印度标准测量模型[/B]相关的文献回顾。（盖博，赛德拉，和chan，2008）随后描述的是本研究中采用的方法，然后就是数据分析和讨论。最后报告通过总结研究结果得出结论，并且指出对沙特阿拉伯范围内电子学习系统对学习者影响。
2[/B]、标准影响测量模型研究[/B]
电子学习系统是许多中信息系统中的一种（信息系统）（wang等人，2007）。在网络学习和电子学习系统的背景下，有很多关于比较基于网页学习和传统教室学习有效性的研究（张和Nunamaker，2003）。然而，很少进行关于电子学习系统本身和他们自身有效性的评估的研究（王等，2007）。
为了沙特阿拉两所不同大学电子学习系统使用的有效性进行评估，使用信息系统影响测量模型[/B]（德隆和麦克林，1992）考虑到了测量信息系统多维度的教育系统的成功（曹和伊莱亚斯，2009）.重要的是，这个影响测量模型不涉及任何信息系统成功的财政考虑，这方面使其成为应用到教育领域更可靠的模型（曹和伊莱亚斯，2009）。此外，通过因此理论（盖博等，2008）来发现问题来测量信息系统的成功/[/B]影响。而且，盖博指出这个模型应该包括可能影响使用像电子学习系统任何系统质量的最大环境。我们已经回顾了一些在电子学习上使用技术或是相关技术的模型，比如德隆和麦克林（1992）的信息系统成功模型，平衡计分卡（卡普兰和诺顿）Sedera和chen的信息系统影响模型（2008），这些都是为了找到最适合该研究的模型。我们发现德隆和麦克林的成功模型是信息系统研究中被引用最多的模型（B.
Myers, Kappelman, & Victor B.迈尔斯，丹麦人和维克多，1997）。
[tr]
| [td]
|
| 
|
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
图1
修改的系统测量模型（奥克和拉夫，阮和德鲁，2010；盖博等2008）
大多数模型一直关心的是在测量系统影响方面的测量公司，机构和财务利益（盖博，赛德拉和chan，2003）。然而，这项报告主要测量电子学习系统对个人的影响。研究者最新发现的研究模型是信息系统影响模型，也是对盖博等人2003；盖博等，2008）。这个模型对测量电子学习系统模型是最有用的，因为，他包括41项措施，6个维度：系统质量，信息质量，使用，用户满意度，个人影响和组织影响（曹和埃利亚斯，2009；盖博等人，2008）。根据盖博等人（2008）和Rabaa’i和盖博（2009），用户满意度和信息系统成功的结果（之前之后），但不是一个促进成功的因素。此外，系统质量和信息质量影响使用和用户满意度（王等人，2007）。除此之外，盖博，赛德拉，和chan(2008)认为信息系统影响测量模型的使用构造不适合测量信息系统的成功。他们指出“用户满意度已经通过信息质量，系统质量和先前研究中的其他变量间接测量（盖博等，2008）。因此，我们剩下36个测量量度四个维度，对信息系统领域，电子学习系统，信息系统成功，终端用户计算满意度，系统使用，和其他与信息系统测量和评估有关的领域先前的研究进行回顾（邦克，2002；厄尔曼苏尔和Mupinga，2007；盖博等人，2003；盖博等人，2008；霍珀，1992；Latchman,
Salzmann, Thottapilly, & Bouzekri, 1998; S. Liaw & Huang,
2007; M. Maneschijn, 2005; Naidu, 2006; Okamoto, 2003; Rabaa'i
& Gable, 2009, 2010; Reuben, 1988; Suthers, Vatrapu, Joseph,
Dwyer, & Medina, 2006; Tomsic & Suthers, 2006; Wang, 2003;
Wang & Liao, 2007; Wang & Tang, 2004; Wang, Tang, &
Tang, 2001; Wang, et al., 2007; Zembylas & Vrasidas,
2007)，主要是为了找到最适合测量电子学习系统成功的变量。第三部分测量了这个模型如何应用与一般机构，和如何不断改进来测量对个人的影响。
3[/B]、个人影响测量[/B]
根据盖博，赛德拉和chan(2008,p289),“‘个人影响’是一定程度上对影响能力和效率的信息系统的测量，代表着组织和关键用户”（p,289）。基于信息系统影响测量模型，“个人影响”结构变量[/B]见表1：
表1.个人影响变量
[tr]
| [td]
| 项目
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 来源
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| Ⅱ1 我通过使用电子学习系统学到很多
| [/TD]
| [td]
| （盖博等，2008，p390）
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| Ⅱ2电子学习系统增强了我教育过程的需求意识
| [/TD]
| [td]
| （盖博等，2008，p390）
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| Ⅱ3 使用电子学习系统能增加我的创造力
| [/TD]
| [td]
| （盖博等，2008，p390）
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| Ⅱ4 我很满意使用电子学习系统
| [/TD]
| [td]
| （盖博等，2007，p1799）
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| Ⅱ5大多数用户对电子学习系统功能的评估持积极的态度
| [/TD]
| [td]
| （盖博等，2007，p1798）
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
根据上表，对这个结构的假设是：电子学习系统的使用对个人有积极的影响。
4.[/B]方法[/B]
本研究采用实证范式研究。根据医学博士梅尔斯（1997）和沃尔沙姆（1995），实证主义学派关心研究着什么时候能够取得一定程度上其他研究人员可以复制的实证信息和事实，客观性可以通过科学方法论，主要逻辑规则，计算，和假设的使用来维护，这些主要是用来测量理论和获得独立和公正的结果（医学博士梅尔斯，1997）本研究采用了实证的方法[/B]是因为它旨在测试理论和使用假设来获得一个高品质的电系学习系统模型。假设是通过影响测量模型的应用提出的。
通过对数据定量研究进行分析，数据是通过问卷收集[/B]的。调查问卷分发给卡西姆大学和Abdualaziz大学使用电子系统学习的学生，来评估现有已经应用于这些大学的电子学习系统。调查问卷是根据信息系统测量模型（盖博）来设计的。它包括37个问题，测量4个维度：系统质量，信息质量，个人影响和教育影响。就如之前所提到的，这项报告主要针对研究对个人的影响，包括了5个测量变量。调查问卷分给了800名学生，5收回560份，但是由于回答不完整，32份被排除。因此，528份问卷，328分来自男性参与者，200份来自女性，这些问卷用来分析。
5[/B]、调查结果[/B]
用SPSS（社会科学统计软件包））对528份问卷进行了数据分析。正如上面所提到的，只包括那些测量电子学习系统对学生影响的调查问题。我们在每五个变量中分析他们的频率和反应频率，它们的卡方值以及意义水平。
表2：相关的数据分布和基本标准，包括影响个人相关变量的卡方值
[tr]
| [td]
|
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 完全同意
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 同意
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 中立
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 不同意
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 完全不同意
| [/TD]
| [td]
|
| Mean
| [/TD]
| [td]
|
| SD
| [/TD]
| [td]
|
| 卡方（x2）
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 相对权重
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 排序
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| N
| [/TD]
| [td]
| %
| [/TD]
| [td]
| N
| [/TD]
| [td]
| ％
| [/TD]
| [td]
| Ｎ
| [/TD]
| [td]
| ％
| [/TD]
| [td]
| Ｎ
| [/TD]
| [td]
| ％
| [/TD]
| [td]
| Ｎ
| [/TD]
| [td]
| ％
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| １[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 143[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 26.5[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 205[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 40.6[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 117[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 23.2[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 30[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 5.94[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 19[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 3.76[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 3.8[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 1.018[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 236.9**[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 76[/B]
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 3[/B]
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| ２
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 144
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 28.5
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 220
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 43.6
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 103
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 20.4
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 27
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 5.35
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 11
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 2.18
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 3.91
| [/TD]
| [td]
| .945
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 292.9**
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 78.2
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 1
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| ３
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 157
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 31.1
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 199
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 39.4
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 92
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 18.2
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 43
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 8.51
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 14
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 2.77
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 3.88
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 1.034
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 235..2**
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 77.6
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 2
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| ４
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 132
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 26.3
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 169
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 33.7
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 87
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 17.4
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 81
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 16.2
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 32
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 6.39
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 3.57
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 1.217
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 109.2**
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 71.4
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 4
| [/TD]
| [/TR]
| [tr]
| [td]
| ５
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 77
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 15.5
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 202
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 40.6
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 138
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 27.7
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 62
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 12.4
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 19
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 3.82
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 3.51
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 1.019
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 204.6**
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 70.2
| [/TD]
| [td]
| 5
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
*表示在0.01或10%的意义
**表示在0.05或5%的意义
项目 Ⅱ1
我通过使用电子学习系统学到很多Ⅱ2电子学习系统增强了我教育过程的需求意识Ⅱ3 使用电子学习系统能增加我的创造力Ⅱ4
我很满意使用电子学习系统Ⅱ5大多数用户对电子学习系统功能的评估。
从表2中计算卡方拟合优度，显示两人第一维度问卷与个人反应相关的每个项目值，我们看到每个项目的卡方比标准值高出0.05,7.78的概率水平的意思和4个自由度表明，对于每个项目来说在该维度个体影响上期望值与实际值之间存在很大差异。这意味着这些结果没有统计上的巧合。调查结果清楚表明，个人影响变量中最重要的相应变量是项目2.。“这个系统增强了我对教育过程的需求意识”大部分学生对电子学习系统功能又积极地观点，五分满分，平均分在3.51和3.91之间，相对重要范围是70.2-78.2%，所有变量都接近70%，标准偏差范围是0.945-1,217.
关于项目编号1，结果表明，大部分学生认为他们通过电子学习系统的使用学到了很多，但是有不同程度的一致性。40%的学生认为他们学到了很多,26%的学生表示同意。因此，看来使用电子学习系统对他们的教育有积极的影响。他们一直缺锌电子学习系统对教育过程的发展起着有效的作用。这些发现与先前的许多先前研究结果相符。例如，威廉姆斯和雅各布斯（2004）学生通过博客或是类似的协作工具学习比从教师或教材学习更有效。
结果进一步表明，大多数学生（72%）同意或是非常同意使用电子学习系统可以增强他们教育过程中的需求意识。结果页反映了文献中一些先前的结果，比如埃勒斯发现一个良好的教育环境对与发展和学习过程是必需的。
另外，大部分学生（71%）同意或是非常同意电子学习系统可以提高他们的创造力。原因可能是现代电子学习系统的使用能够是学生在教育过程中更简单快捷的获得所要需要的信息。
研究结果也确认60%的参与者满意或是非常满意他们使用电子学习系统的经历。然而约23%的学生不同意或是完全不同意他们使用电子学习系统经历的满意度。因此，在电子学习系统方面需要更多的提高来粗军学生满意度和满足他们的需求。组织机构中现代技术的广泛使用，真给在卡西姆大学通过电子学习系统实的施，提高了学生的学习经验。而且，大学试图通过这种新技术缩进学生与政府之间的距离。除此之外，研究表明，40.6%的学生表示他们对电子学习系统的功能持积极的态度，15.5%的的学生完全同意。这些结果与廖，黄和陈的发现相似，即“电子学习系统用户对电子学习系统作为一种教师辅助工具持有积极的态度”
6[/B]、结论[/B]
这项报告报告了意向对沙特阿拉伯地区电子学习系统对个体学生影响的评估。测量框架是基于下信息系统的成功影响测量框架（由德隆和麦克林开创（1992），盖博，赛德拉和陈拓展（2008）。这项研究表明电子学习系统的使用对个体影响有积极的作用。重要的是，该研究支持了先前文献中电子学习系统对个人影响报道的一些结果。结果分析表明电子学习系统的使用增强了学生准确解释信息的能力。此外，电子学习系统的使用增强了学生信息和相关部门先关活动理解力。它也为学生提供了基础信息，反过来帮助了学生做出有效准确的决定，从而提高了教学和学习过程的整体生产力。最后，本文着重强调成功影响模型作为作为测量电子学习系统对个人影响模型是最有用的。
References[/B] 参考文献[/B]
|
