Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
evaluation framework from a student perspective. The research employed a mixed design
in which data collection was through the use of both primary and secondary sources. The
findings of the research indicate that is a strong positive correlation between eLearning
evaluation and the level of students satisfaction, some of the factors that should be
results of study indicate that most higher education institutes employ the use of students
surveys and inbuilt data analytics tools that are used to measure user profile information
and usage. Also, the result of the study indicates that some ways through which higher
education institutes can minimize the costs incurred in undertaking eLearning evaluation
include the following; Undertaking effective eLearning planning and control process, use
Acknowledgements
Dissertation
Table of Contents
that recognize the communicative powers of the Internet to support an active and
constructive role for learners (Oliver &Omari, 1999; Trinidad &Albon, 2002). This
higher education institutions through a case study. There are many factors that influence
the learning experience such as the infrastructure, the quality of content and assessment,
the quality of learner support systems, the assumptions made by learners and educators
about the learning experience itself, the educational design and peer support networks for
learners and educators (Trinidad, Fisher & Aldridge, 2003). Considering the complexity
of these factors can have on the learning experience it becomes imperative to know how
these factors are influenced while learning through an e-learning facility. Such knowledge
can be gained through development of appropriate evaluation models keeping in view the
need to ultimately assist the students to learn in a supported and effective learning
environment through such evaluation models. The evaluation should aim at stimulating
the institutions to address the various issues involved in the student learning process.
While some researchers feel that the e-learning is still in its infant stage, a growing
number of others are emphasizing on the need to develop models that will provide ways
learning education being provided by higher education institutions and the effect of such
1
Dissertation
interactions With content, with learning activities and tools, and with other people
(Wilson & Stacey, 2004, p. 35). A variety of broad terms related to the use of technology
in education were used. These included electronic learning, distance education, distance
systems, Web content, or digital text. Traditionally, teachers used these resources as
additional, Separate supports to classroom instruction (e.g., watching a video about World
War II in a history class). What we are seeing now, however, is the development of new,
much more complex e-learning resources that address the breadth of classroom curricular
and instructional needs. These resources often use the Internet and integrate multimedia,
Data collection and Web content into complete packages that teachers can use to support
student achievement. In fact, some predict that e-learning resources will eventually
from neutral to positive. On one hand, it is noted that e-learning (e.g., DE, CAI, etc.) is at
and that there are no major differences in academic performance between the more
traditional and more technology-oriented modes of instruction. On the other hand, many
2
Dissertation
learning (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Benefits include offering a variety of new possibilities
on students achievement in different subject matter areas (Soe, Koki, & Chang, 2000;
Christmann&Badgett, 2003).
Recent surveys indicate that students in Canada and the United States are
enjoying unprecedented access to computers at school. There is one computer for every
six high school students in Canada; in the United States there is one computer for every
five students. Both countries are well above the average within member nations of the
students (Van Dijk, 2006). The challenge to provide physical access to computers is
rapidly being met. However, access to computers is not translating into equivalent use:
students and their teachers are not, so far, capitalizing on the physical investment.
Internet connectivity is far from complete: 80% of Canadas school computers are
connected to the World Wide Web, compared with only 39% of those in the United States
The need for computer literacy training for teachers, installation and technical
support staff, physical wiring costs, network provider fees, and adherence to network
security requirements all impose costs and barriers to greater online access. Although the
rate of growth in Internet use from home, school, and work is leveling off, the volume of
users and the range of purposes for which the Internet is being used are sure signs that
the World Wide Web are here to stay. Todays kids play games on computers, and they
3
Dissertation
play those games interactively over the Internet. They have never known a world without
computers and many have never known a world without the Internet (Callister&Burbules,
1990).
Now, schools, educational institutions, and teachers must find ways to integrate
credible, relevant e-learning opportunities into the classroom so that the explosion of
incorporate into our classrooms this communication tool and interactive source of
information that is so much a part of North American life is like teaching teens how to
drive without ever letting them into a car (Surma, Geise, Lehman, Beasley & Palmer,
2012).
However, reviews also acknowledge the need to address more closely design
issues in e-learning courses and activities. Developing effective strategies for teaching
and learning is also called for (Meredith & Newton, 2004; Oliver & Herrington, 2003).
implementation issues are addressed, there seems to be a consensus among reviewers that
effective use of e-learning requires the presence of immediate, extensive, and sustained
support (Sclater, Sicoly, &Grenier, 2005). Nevertheless, reviews report a major concern
regarding the absence of strong empirical evidence to support the use of e-learning
One review considered the quality of research to be inadequate and called for
more scientific rigour and less reliance on anecdotal evidence. Another review
4
Dissertation
effectiveness (Hirumi, 2002). An extra obstacle facing the advancement of research in the
field seems to be the fact that elearning researchers are not all uniform in the methods
used and questions asked (Cantoni&Rega, 2004). The aforementioned discussion brings
into focus the need to develop standard assessment systems of e-learning facilities to
identifies ways to bring some order to the definitions of e-learning and the various
A cursory look at the educational advantages that e-learning resources have over
traditional print resources, like textbooks will set the basis for identifying the need for
evaluating e-learning facilities. Teachers are finding them more flexible for teaching and
learning. Electronic media (print, video, audio, software, and systems) are being
integrated to create a more dynamic learning experience for children and better
instructional support for teachers. Electronic resources, especially those delivered via the
Internet, will be very flexible, up-to-date, and easy for teachers to use in their classrooms
(Ozkan&Koseler, 2009).
evaluations also has a cost attached since the variation of standards, of adherence to
standards, and of evaluation methods and criteria means time and effort in choosing the
agencys goals differ, educators must assess the evaluation for suitability and fit with
5
Dissertation
local educational needs, objectives, and curriculum standards. Saving time and money
There are state-funded evaluations, like those conducted by the California Learning
Resource Network, in which the review criteria are specific to California law and
curriculum standards, and by North Carolinas EvaluTech, in which the evaluation criteria
are relatively detailed but are not currently aligned with state student academic standards.
There are national consortiums in the United States, like the Gateway to Educational
Materials (www.thegateway.org) that attempt to recommend those resources that are free
The right third-party external review and assessment option can save schools and
other institutions of education hundreds of hours and untold sums of money, and it can
provide protection from potentially embarrassing and problematic errors. Avoiding the
wrong or inappropriate resource, or quickly finding the right one, is just what educators
need as they struggle to do more with less. However whether these evaluation methods
are effective and assist learners efficiently is a question that needs to be addressed.
E-learning is still evolving and there is no consensus amongst researchers on the method
6
Dissertation
medium of learning. In her article E-Learning in Three Steps, Kathryn Barker opined
Fritzsche& Salas, 2004, p.6). With the growing demand for e-learning all over North
Americaup 125% in one Canadian province alone over a 2-year periodschool boards
everywhere will be or are already seeking ways to deliver quality, reliable, efficient and
effective e-learning opportunities. The question then, is not whether to provide e-learning
opportunities, but how and at what cost. The goal is to use electronic media to support
students in their daily practice, in classrooms, or over the Internet so they can better
learning experience. But how easy will it be for the ordinary student with basic computer
skills (like word processing and e-mailing) to adapt to and use new electronic resources?
As with any new curriculum, students will need appropriate training, but an effective e-
learning resource should be student friendly and easy to incorporate in the classroom
Any effective learning resource must respect the fundamental values of learning.
How will students be able to identify the best resource for their classrooms? How will
teachers know what kind of facilities should be used to assist the students? How will
The tools and strategies already used to make good purchasing choices will work here in
theory, and they can be used in one of two ways: to evaluate these new, complex
agencies, or consortiums across the continent. However whether these methods will work
7
Dissertation
is a question that needs to be addressed. Keeping in view the above discussions the
following research questions are set for this research (Devedi, Jovanovi&Gaevi,
2007).
Two of the most important components of any effective resource are curriculum
correlation and inclusiveness. Teachers want resources that support the curriculum and
facilities what are areas that need to be focused while developing the evaluation
mechanism that can directly benefit the learning needs of the students?
3. What ways can be used to minimize the expense on the evaluation process but at the
4. Are there are models that have been developed for evaluating the e-learning facilities
and if there are no standard models is it possible to develop an evaluating mechanism that
could be generalized?
answers that will stimulate the creation of new ideas in developing new models for
8
Dissertation
2. Develop areas of focus that could be used for the evaluation of e-learning
facilities.
students perspective.
and other stakeholders. A review of the literature shows that many researchers have used
empirical study. This research is expected to use a combination of both quantitative and
qualitative methodologies. Quantitative data are expected to provide the much needed
objectivity in developing the conceptual model. Qualitative data are expected to provide
used to derive final outcomes from the data analysis. The focus of this study is on
qualitative data due to the use of case study method. However quantitative data will be
9
Dissertation
needed to make the study more complete by integrating objectivity into the study.
Quantitative data was collected through the use of questionnaires in which students were
regarding the research questions. On the other hand qualitative data will be obtained from
regarding interview questions (Heppner, Wampold, Owen, Thompson & Wang, 2015).
Researchers concur that there are no standardized methods that have been found
in the literature to evaluate the e-learning facilities, especially from the students
growing need felt across the spectrum of researchers to evaluate the e-learning facilities
used by many institutions with reasonably assured outcomes. Additionally till date the e-
learning facility evaluation has not been looked at solely from the perspective of students.
There is a tremendous need for evaluating the e-learning facilities to enable understand
the needs of the students in the e-learning efforts especially keeping in view changing
technologies, cost and time as parameters. This research is expected to fill this important
gap found in the literature. Undertaking the study was of vital importance in the sense
that it gave an insight in understanding the various e-learning evaluation methods from a
student perspective. Such the above research construct enables the effective use of e-
10
Dissertation
undertaking the research enabled higher education institutes to adopt cost effective e-
1.10 Limitation
The major limitations that were encountered in undertaking of the study were time
limitations and limitations associated with the research findings. Time limitations were
depicted in the sense that, the research paper was undertaken in less than twelve weeks
which presented a major limitation in time. Additionally, the research findings were
limited evident in the sense that the research solely concentrated on collecting data from
150 participants from a single higher education institute. This presents a small population
sample given the high number of students in various higher education institutes that
employ the use of eLearning. Additionally, other limitations that were encountered in the
process of undertaking the study included the following limitations; time constraints,
constraints were encountered in cases where some respondents delayed with their
respondents were not willing to corporate in availing the required research information.
In such a case, the researcher was forced to employ a lot of tactics to counteract the
limitation that was encountered was hostility. Hostility was encountered in the sense that
some information sources and participants appeared hostile and not ready to give out the
desired information. Lastly, ignorance was another limitation that was encountered in the
undertaking of the research in the sense that some respondents did not effectively
11
Dissertation
understand the main ideas in the research question. Hence; it was difficult to obtain the
relevant information from such respondents regarding the key impacts the research
12
Dissertation
The concept of e-learning has been in existence for many years but it was first
employed in 1999 at a CBT systems seminar. During this eve other terms also came to
light in search of accurate description such as online learning and virtual learning.
The principles behind e-learning have been well documented throughout history however
with evidence suggesting that early forms of electronic learning existing as far back as
the 19th century. Many definitions have come up with attempt to try to define e-learning
with the most basic but conceptual of them being a computer based educational tool or
system that facilitates the learning process. E-learning has been integrated in many
from traditional ways of learning to electronic environment. The above analysis implies
that eLearningis a process that didnt emerged in a fort night but it can be considered
The most conventional form of learning from way back has always been the use
seminars to study. While they were gathered at these places they would then be given
trainings about different subjects. This method of learning has been practiced worldwide
13
Dissertation
in all levels of education such as kindergartens, primary, secondary, high schools and
tertiary institutions. Cox (2013) states in his publication that the Traditional learning
environment incorporated use of teachers and professors who employed various teaching
styles with the most popular traditional teaching style being teaching by narration.
Traditional learning method similar to any other method has its own advantages and
Like any other methods of learning, it has its strengths and weaknesses. One of
the weaknesses of traditional learning arises from the number of students in a single
class. This is in that the numbers of students in the classrooms influence the
(Byun&Loh, 2015). In British Columbia reported that the size of the public school
categorically linked and supported the view that class sizes should be reduced in order to
E-learning, otherwise known as online Training makes use of videos and audio in
training sessions. These materials can also be given to the trainees for their own
use. This will contribute to cut in the cost of trainer as the session can be recorded
to travel.
14
Dissertation
done from any location, but in many cases where training environment is not so
because the recorded videos and audios work as the training material. Apart from
this, if a teacher prefers to offer any other notes or documents, they can make use
of PDF or word documents which they would upload without paying any extra
cost.
There is no extra maintenance cost in offering e-learning.
One of the great features of the Learning Management Systems is that you can
system which enables a person to learn from anywhere, and at any given time. Today e-
learning is mostly delivered though the internet, although in the past it was delivered
using a blend of computer-based methods like use of CD-ROM. With the recent
advancement in technology, geographical gap has been bridged with the use of tools that
make you feel as if you are inside the classroom. E-learning offers the ability to share
material in all kinds of formats such as videos, slideshows, word documents and PDFs.
Conducting of webinars (live online classes) and communication with professors via
chat and message forums is also an option that is available to users (Sarwar, Ketavan&
Butt, 2015).
Learning Management Systems) and methods, which allows for courses to be delivered.
With the right tool various processes can be automated such as the marking of
15
Dissertation
tests or the creation of engaging content. E-learning provides the learners with the
ability to fit their learning schedules around their lifestyles, effectively. Studies by
Chimalakonda, S. (2010) and Guri-Rosenblit and Gros (2011) reiterates that the idea of
eLearning evolved from distance education, and is still struggling to gain full recognition
and accreditation within mainstream education as an approach for high quality provision.
While developments in eLearning have been exciting and beneficial, finding ways
of enhancing the quality of provision and effectiveness have posed a serious challenge. In
response to this concern of legitimacy, value and quality of online programs, Davies et al.
strives to identify factors that enhance the quality of fully-online degree programs. The
provision of higher education and the use of market mechanisms have increased the
checks.
The growth of the internet and its impact on education system has created a new
learning model called e-learning that is considered as a new revolution in the world of
education. Guri-Rosenblit and Gros (2011) describes E-learning as the type of learning
&Ortega (2012) for the purposes of study electronic learning refers to the delivery of
educational material via any electronic media such as internet, intranet, extranets, satellite
broadcast, audio or video tape, CDs and computer-based training. E-Learning is currently
16
Dissertation
one of the popular models of learning. Like any other means it has its own advantages
and disadvantages with the most important advantages being that participants can access
programs anywhere at any time compared to the traditional learning students who are
the internet. For instance, many learners in this present era are well versed in the use of
computers/ laptops, smartphones, increased use of text messaging platforms and using the
internet. This has made participation in and running of online course to become a simple.
Messaging, social media and various other means of online communications functions
to allow learners to keep in touch and discuss course related matters, while providing
takes a long time and the results can vary. E-learning offers an alternative that is user
friendly, faster, cheaper and potentially better (Guri-Rosenblit and Gros, 2011).
2.4.1 Benefits
E-learning offers great outcomes when it comes to benefits which make the
creation and delivery process seemingly easier and hassle-free. Some of the important
Locational restrictions and time factor is one of the issues that learners and
location limits attendance to a group of learners who have the ability to participate in
17
Dissertation
the area, and in the case of time, it limits the crowd to those who can attend at a specific
time. E-learning on the other hand facilitates learning without having to organize
when and where everyone who is interested in a course can be present (Steimle,
gurevych&Mhlhuser, 2007).
It is more Fun
Designing a course in a way that makes it interactive and fun through the
use of multimedia enhances not only your engagement factor, but also the relative
lifetime of the course material in question. It also enhances the concentration of the
students and better understanding of the course being taught (Lytras, Poiloudi&Korfiatis,
2003).
It is cost effective
This applies to both tutors and students as they dont need to pay much to acquire
updated versions of textbooks for schools or colleges. While textbooks often become
obsolete after a certain period of time, the need to constantly acquire new editions
multinational corporations expand across the globe, the chances of working with
people from other countries also increases, and training all those parties together is an
18
Dissertation
2.4.2 Drawbacks
Although e-Learning concept is becoming more widely spread for education and
training many online courses are still poorly designed. Some are little more than
courses is not good and the exception of well-designed courses that effectively teach a
topic to its target students is high (Nayak&Suesaowaluk, 2007). The most important
strengths of eLearning courses for students comes from its minimal limitation to the
time and the fact that it isnt bound to location, besides that, the number of students in
virtual classrooms is not an issue since e-leaning courses are student centered
compared to traditional learning courses that are instructor oriented. Some researchers
contributing to the lowering the quality of the educational experience (Rahm and
Reed, 1997). Further studies on-line learning indicated that dissatisfaction with online
courses resulted from feelings of isolation and lack of interaction with students and
instructors.
The weakness of e-learning courses is that they are not suitable for all subjects, it
is not comfortable for all students that are used to traditional learning, contributes
to low motivation of learners due to the lack of face to face interaction between instructor
and students. The lack of face to face interaction influences the student performance in
some universities as the e-learning courses are not fully conducted as a distance
19
Dissertation
learning, and there are some face to face session to solve students issues and
20
Dissertation
21
Dissertation
22
Dissertation
Literature review shows that the concept of service quality has been well
researched although under various names. For instance Alsabawy et al. (2013) argue that
e-service quality has been investigated and measured using scales including WebQual,
is that the service quality dimensions addressed by these scales do not take into account
learning services (Alsabawy et al. 2013). In this regard Alsabawy et al. (2013) through
services, systems quality and information quality were the three sub-dimensions
As far as SDQ itself was concerned, Alsabawy et al. (2013) identified six
produced mixed results and the choice of the exogenous variables that represented the
whereas there are other factors identified by researchers that can play a significant role in
determining the SDQ. For instance from the literature review (Section---) it can be seen
that Selim (2007) identified teacher, student, technology and university support as critical
23
Dissertation
infrastructure services identified Alsabawy et al. (2013), the other factors identified by
Selim (2007) namely teacher, student and university support are different from the ones
identified by Alsabawy et al. (2013). But Selim (2007) identified factors that influence
certain critical e-learning factors and SDQ. However it can be implied that critical
rendered. This in turn enables the researcher to argue that the critical success factors
very similar to the infrastructure services identified by Alsabawy et al. (2013) and is
already part of the original model developed by Alsabawy et al. (2013) and referred
above. As far as the concept of SDQ is concerned, the scale developed by Alsabawy et al.
(2013) can be modified in order to integrate the six measures of the components of SDQ
namely efficiency, privacy, fulfilment, contact; privacy and responsiveness are integrated
into a single construct named as SDQ. Such an addition is supported by Selim (2007)
who argues that further research is needed to know the causal relationship amongst the
four critical factors namely teacher, student, technology and support. Thus one of the
replaced by the infrastructure services identified by Alsabawy et al. (2013). Thus the
24
Dissertation
model developed Alsabawy et al. (2013) to identify the determinants of e-learning SDQ
importance of the instructor with Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994) arguing that
learning not the IT itself. Similar arguments are espoused by Webster and Hackley (1997)
who argue that instructor characteristics affect e-learning success. Thus instructor
learning infrastructure by researchers (Kim and Bonk, 2006). For instance Greenhow,
25
Dissertation
Robelia and Hughes (2009) argued that e-learning infrastructure enables teachers to
Robelia and Hughes (2009) argued that teaching sub-workflow system and infrastructure
sub-workflow system are related. These arguments enable the researcher to infer that
phenomenon that influences SDQ, the researcher adopts the instrument developed by
Selim (2007) for this research as it has been tested for reliability and validity. Selim
success factor that influences student acceptance of e-learning was established by Selim
(2007). Literature shows that some researchers (e.g. Beyth-Marom et al. 2003) conclude
that e-learning students perform better than traditional learning students implying that
students would like to use e-learning if it facilitates their learning, anywhere, anytime and
the way they like (Papp, 2000). These arguments indicate that student is an important
construct that influences the e-learning process including SDQ. Again, as in the case of
the relationship between teacher and infrastructure, Beyth-Marom et al (2003) argue that
infrastructure.
26
Dissertation
a critical e-learning success factor that influences student acceptance of e-learning was
attributed due to lack of access to technical advice and support. An important component
that could eliminate this problem is the University administration support (Selim, 2007).
Thus it can be construed that University support is an important construct that influences
different devices (e.g. desktop, laptop, mobile devices), network technologies (e.g. WIFI,
cellular services) and software platforms (e.g. programming language and model,
operating systems, network protocols and services) (Bergstedt et al, 2003) argues that
arguments found in the extant literature which underpin that there is a relationship
27
Dissertation
2.6.5 Relationship between system quality, information quality and e-learning SDQ
The research effort produced by Alsabawy et al. (2013) indicates that six
e-learning SDQ. Accordingly Alsabawy et al. (2013) portrayed that both system quality
and information quality act as a determinants of all the six constructs individually (See
Figure 1).
28
Dissertation
Figure 1: Relationship between System Quality, Information Quality and SDQ variables
that has cropped has been how to handle the number of variables which impact on the
effectiveness of the programme and deciding what constitutes the dependent and
independent variables in a given situation. Several literatures and the study of existing
evaluation practice, suggests that many evaluation tools and criteria tend to disregard
many of these variables. A lot of the existing practices are mainly focused on the
technology aspect and on learner reaction to the use of the technology. Socio-economic
factors such as class or gender are seldom considered and even learning environment
variables such as the subject environment are all too often ignored. Not only does this
result in limitations in the data available on the use of ICT in learning but the limited
recognition of the different variables can distort analysis of the weaknesses (and
29
Dissertation
discussion of evidence from relevant sources on the quality, effectiveness, and impact of
the most important component of quality checks. But there has been mixed reports as to
its effectiveness. For instance, Guru and Drillon (2009) argue that analyzing users'
perceptions with regards to e-learning system would offer valuable data to evaluate and
improve its functionality and performance. Consequently (Ardito et al, 2006) dismissed
reports from their research findings by stating that student feedback was not always fully
adequate to support quality enhancement. So a researcher is cautioned that they will need
to make judgments in this area, and maybe conduct further research to validate the
deductions found.
with five major clusters of variables emerging such as individual learner variables,
variables. All these can be broken down into more precise groups and further simplified
until individual variables can be identified and isolated. A clear distinction between
quality assurance and evaluation was tried to be explained by Deepwell (2007), who
satisfaction, and cost effectiveness as the five pillars of quality of online programs.
age), learning history, learner attitude (either positive or negative), learner motivation and
familiarity with the technology. Learning environment variables include the immediate
30
Dissertation
subject environment. Contextual variables will include socio-economic factors (e.g. class,
gender), the political context and cultural background. Technological variables include
include Level and nature of learner support systems, Accessibility issues, Methodologies,
evaluation. The evaluation methods and tools differ widely. But what they do have in
common is that they recognize the importance of evaluation with most proposing that
regard, they tend toward a management model of evaluation. The major aim of the
There exists numerous literature that offer details on tools for the evaluation of e-
learning. However, these are mainly divided into two types. Firstly there are many on-
line data gathering instruments for assessing the user interface characteristics and
secondly devices to record and analyze usage by duration and frequency of log-in, pages
accessed user profile. Many of these are complex in their design and ingenuity but lack
31
Dissertation
The numerous reports that exist arise from industry based examples and are
written from a human resource department perspective. They draw from the conclusion
that the investment was cost-effective and represented value-for money, not limiting to
the fact that in most cases the savings are defined in efficiency rather than effectiveness
with no long-term impact analysis that takes account of unintended outcomes and
distinctions between net and gross costs, capital and revenue costs, displacement of
existing funds, costs over time etc. are often blurred or missing. Much return on
(Strother, 2002).
Benchmarking models
several attempts being made to generate sets of criteria for quality assuring e-learning.
These however, tend to be twisted towards proposing quality standards for e-learning
systems and software which often disregard key variables in the wider learning
processes (and which disregard the technology) or criteria associated with measuring
1997).
32
Dissertation
Product evaluation
particular education software. The vast majority of these reports are commissioned or
published by the software developers. This is not to question the usefulness of these
is not an acceptable substitute for the rigorous evaluation of elearning systems (Sae-
Khow, 2014).
Performance evaluation
For instance, as postulated by Scrivens (2000), the USA makes use of the term
assessment. Examination of student performance is by no means the only means that can
were mainly concerned with on-line tools and instruments for examining knowledge-
based learner performance and could therefore be categorized under that heading. To
combat this, there are eight factors to examine when evaluating e-learning. These factors
would help to determine whether the program is worth your time and effort within your
organization.
a) Instructional design
The first area to consider is the instructional design of the content. Regardless of
delivery method, a good learning initiative will conform to some instructional process or
model. These can either be but not limited to popular models such as ADDIE model
which was initially developed in 1975 by Florida State University for use by the U.S.
33
Dissertation
Armed Forces, the Dick and Carey Model that is a bit more sophisticated and complex
than ADDIE, or the ASSURE model which is more popular with the K-12 academic set.
Regardless to the model adopted, the common and most critical components are the
learning program claims it will do for the learners? Whether it is viable to truly measure
the objectives that the e-learning sets out to instruct against, or are the learning objectives
b) Level of interactivity
which the learner engages in the content, from passive page turning to the much more
strategies. The more strategies that are used, the better the interactivity is for the learner.
And the more the learner is engaged with the content, the better the learning experience
and, potentially, the higher the retention. Using more interactive strategies caters to more
learning preferences, but it also means more development time and higher costs, too
(Govindasamy, 2001).
c) Visual impact
Learning content must look appealing enough to engage the learners from the start
to finish.. Otherwise they will tune out before giving the content a chance. This is not fair
but is a reality which must be put into context. For instance, during trainings (whether
online or instructor led), if your visuals dont appeal to the learners sight, the learner has
34
Dissertation
a higher chance of disengaging even if the content has a great message. Examine the look
and feel of the learner and determine whether they are engaging and professional. In
addition, even if the graphics are engaging, ask yourself if they are right for the audience.
Do they reflect the brand of the learning program, the module, or organization overall?
d) Language
In any learning, clear language use is a vital key, but in a face-to-face situation a
good facilitator can see when students do not understand a word or are confused by a
concept and then can elaborate as needed for comprehension. This is however not the
case with asynchronous e-learning, so clarity of message and the semantics used have to
be selected with great care. Approach the e-learning's language and tone from two
different perspectives: target learners' knowledge and target learners' demographics. For
instance, Target learners' knowledge is a jargon used that is appropriate for the target
audience? Are the examples and scenarios used universal to the group or are they too
specific to the experiences of some? Is the learning well written? On the other hand,
Target learners' demographics is the tone used in the learning in conjunction with the age
of the learners? What is the perceived language proficiency of the learner in relationship
to the content? For example, if English is the language used, what is the perceived
comprehension level of the learner? Are the examples used universal to this audience or
exclude some? For instance, if sports analogies are used, is that appropriate for the
35
Dissertation
attention, but if used incorrectly it can greatly distance a learner from the learning
e) Technical functions
If you break down the technology facet of the learning it can be approached in
five areas.
Course interface and navigation - Do the buttons take the learner where they're
supposed to and function as intended? Are icons clear and used consistently? Is the e-
learning intuitive to use for learners who are new to e-learning? If not, does it include a
Content display and sound - Do the font, text, and images look as intended? If content
isn't displayed correctly, is it due to a plug-in and are the needed plug-ins available for
easy download and updating? Does audio sound as it should through the organization's
Accessibility - Is the module Section 508 compliant? In other words, does it meet the
criteria of "accessibility" identified in the U.S. Rehabilitation Act, which mandates that
learners with differing abilities be able to access the content in an equitable way? In
learner can't access the Internet? Can he still take the learning somehow?
(Ozkan&Koseler, 2009)
Hyperlinks and files - Do the links take the learner to where they're supposed to? If
there's a link to a file, is that file (such as a PDF) there? Do external hyperlinks work as
expected?
36
Dissertation
organization's learning management system, is it sharing the data like it's supposed to?
Are help screens available to learners? Does the learning identify where learners can turn
In some cases, the above areas overlap. For example the LMS functionality may be
because of an organization's intranet capabilities, or the audio of the learning may sound
terrible because of the sound capabilities of the computers in the organization. The point
here is to determine whether the learning isn't providing the expected experience because
of the limitations of the organization or the limitations of the learning module itself. In
either case, if it doesn't work well for you as an evaluator it won't work well for your
f) Time
Another area of focus should be related to the length of time taken on the learning
module. First, how long does it take a learner to complete the learning? Some experts
look at attention span to determine a "good" length of time for an online module; research
suggests between 15 and 30 minutes for each topic or module as a good guideline.
Putting the attention span and our time concept aside for a moment, answer this question:
Does the learning meet the stated learning objectives? If so, the overall length of the
learning program should be as long as it takes to meet the overall learning objectives.
These two concepts may seem counterintuitive, but they're not at all. If the e-learning is
good overall but longer than the suggested timeframe to keep learners engaged, you could
simply separate the content into pieces. That holds the integrity of the learning, but better
fits the 15- to 30-minute delivery suggestion. However, if the timing is but one variable
37
Dissertation
of the learning that you would not consider good, then it may not even be worth this
g) Cost
If the e-learning scores brilliantly in all the above-noted criteria, what if it's too costly to
purchase or maintain? There are many ways to examine the costs of running any training
program, but the best way to think about it is to be consistent. Does your organization
already calculate a cost-per-learner metric or have some other way to determine the cost
First, determine the costs of running an existing program by determining all the costs for
developing the course (instructional designer costs, time, travel costs, purchasing cost,
and any annual fees for maintaining the course such as an LMS, conference center rental,
or annual licenses). Then divide this number by the number of learners who have or will
experience the course in the calendar year. Now you have your annual cost-per-learner
Once you calculate the cost per learner for existing programs, calculate it for the online
program you are evaluating. You probably will have to estimate some of the figures in the
formula (for example, how many learners will go through the program during the first
year). Where does the online program fall with the distribution of all your programs? This
gives you a good way to compare this potential program with existing ones based on
operational costs. Any e-learning endeavor does have some nonfiscal benefits that also
could be considered as part of its value, mainly reusability. While upfront development
costs (or purchase costs, if it's off-the-shelf) can be seen as higher than creating
38
Dissertation
Conversely, instructor-led training costs tend to remain the same or increase over time. So
when discussing value, consider the cost and management annually but also determine
whether its reusability, the consistency of message, and other advantages of the e-learning
h) Team effort
This is just one approach to evaluating the quality of an e-learning programseven areas
plus a look at a weighted average of importance. You may know another or develop a
different approach for your organization. Regardless of the methodology you use it's best
to use a team-based approach to evaluation. Get a team together and compare notes using
the same criteria: What were the top scoring areas of the seven scales? Compare and
contrast and talk. Find out what your team thought of the learning and if it's worth it to
your learners. By taking a group approach you help to minimize rater bias and get a better
holistic view of the impact and potential effectiveness of the e-learning for your
organization. Aristotle said, "Quality is not an act, it is a habit." Instill and evaluate
39
Dissertation
2.8 Ways through which costs of evaluating e-learning facilities can be reduced
assurance process can be expensive and time consuming, but in the long run can be worth
the effort. This is categorically supported by the study undertaken by Rajasingham (2009)
which states state that the merit, quality and success of the e-Learning programme they
investigated were mainly due to the proper application of the quality assurance strategies.
Rajasingham (2009) continues to note that new educational paradigms and models that
possible with the help of the increasing sophistication in information technology. Training
is always a necessity in every field, an aspect which makes it costly to develop and
deliver as it contributes a large part of the total cost of the business. Before we look at the
ways with which to cut the training cost, we should first consider the different aspects of
The tutor
Incentives to be used
Traveling cost
Cost of Training Environment
Material Developing Cost
Maintenance cost
Cost of evaluation
All these aspects cant be scrapped off with intent of cutting on training cost
which would only leave an option for means which would instead increase ease of
learning, increase success rate and cut error rate, increase productivity, increase
management of users, is easy to use and understand, and cut the cost of learning/training .
The cost of evaluation of e-learning facilities arise from the necessity in counter checking
40
Dissertation
the means in order to deduce whether or not it conforms to required standards ; and if it
would yield desired results. The longer an evaluation is performed, the greater the cost
A well-designed evaluation would cost tons of money but just how much would
depend on the experience and education of the evaluator, the type of evaluation to be
used, and the geographic location of the program. Tips that would be employed in order
problem with this method is that you would have to wait for a longer time to get
such.
c) It would also be advisable to make use of existing data.
d) To explore other avenues such as an evaluator who is interested in branching out
and trying new things. Sometimes an evaluator will work for less in order to have
Again, this will save money because the evaluator is already familiar with
41
Dissertation
demands a reassessment of our understanding of what makes for the most productive
student engagement. The findings reported below are intended to help move towards an
answer to this question. Successful use of online communication in courses has been
reported by a number of researchers. Many of these courses had either been delivered
in delivering the online courses. However, there are variations in the reported benefits of
1. Student development (student study habits, workload, their overall impression of the
module)
3. Student perception of the learning materials (how well they facilitated learning,
of lecturer)
Oliver (2000) argued that evaluation plays three vital roles such as:
By making use of the reports Ogunleye (2010) was able to deduce that students
performed better in their respective courses when the system of e-learning was adopted,
42
Dissertation
while Owens, Hardcastle and Richardson (2009) discovered that e-learning would
provide psychological support, reduce the feeling of isolation and the rates of drop-outs.
Online discussion also encouraged introverts and students of non -western cultures who
are more reflective and tend not to respond so quickly in face-to-face discussion to
Concurrent studies by Hollenbark (1998) showed that learners have become more
believed that learners are now more critical in their thinking and more effective in
knowledge synthesis (Borns, 1999). Depending on their motivation, some learners may
only participate in activities that they consider more fruitful. For example, Sluijsmans,
Moerkerke, Van Merrienboer&Dochy (2001) reported that some learners actively sought
ways to aid their performance on assignments and therefore, such learners may only
(2001), linking online discussion to grades would ensure a high participation rate.
Students also tend to take more responsibility for their own learning when using
students learning behavior should instead focus on learning behavior rather than on
teaching behavior. Other student based factors are also important in evaluating e-learning
facilities in order to promote teaching and learning student attributes such as level of
reflect many demographic attributes such as readiness, learning styles and motivation
to learn. Differences in learning styles are as a result of such things as past life
43
Dissertation
experiences and the demands of the present environment. Willcoxson& Prosser (1996)
further identified four learning styles: The converger, the diverge, the assimilator and the
accommodator.
diverger works best in the presence of concrete experiences. The assimilator creates
models for the task at hand, while for the accommodator, learning in best conceived as a
process. Birkey (1994) identified two of the learning styles; a ccommodator and
converger, as very significant predictors for students choosing classes with high computer
usage. This is because both of these learning styles have active experimentation as a
common learning mode. On the other hand, Jonassen and Grabowski (1993) identified
the two other learning styles; i.e. assimilators and divergers, as more thought intensive,
solving. Divergers tend to be open-minded and assimilators deal well with systematic
and scientific approaches. The various learning styles mentioned play very important
In the modern times, all people alike ranging from educators, teachers, researchers
and students are well informed of the potential of web technology with many of them
adopting it for creation of a new learning environment. This has consequently led to a
large collection of educational websites. One objective of this is the belief that
teaching and learning process. For example, the information manipulation functions, such
44
Dissertation
as generating, transmitting, storing, processing and retrieving information, are at the heart
facility from a students perspective. This is divided into different levels namely reaction,
1. Reaction
Evaluation at this level measures how the participants in a training program feel
about their experience. It takes assessment of several rising questions such as if they are
satisfied with what they are learning, if they regard the material as relevant to their work,
whether they believe the material will be useful to them .This level does not measure
learning but it simply measures how well the learners liked the training session.
Corporations are beginning to gather more data on how their trainees feel about the use of
e-learning technologies. For example, the following results were obtained from an
(Kirschner&Paas, 2001).
45
Dissertation
2. Learning
Kirkpatrick defined learning as the principles, facts, and techniques that are
understood and absorbed by trainees. When trainers measure learning, they try to find out
how much the skill, knowledge, or attitudes of their trainees have changed with respect to
the contents being taught. Measuring learning requires a more rigorous process than a
reaction survey. Ideally, both a pretest and posttest are given to trainees to determine how
much they learned as a direct result of the training program. While many organizations do
not measure at this level, other corporate training centers, such as Sun Corporations
Network Academy, keep careful track of what employees have learned through the use of
rationales for the power of e-learning. This research body demonstrates that no significant
difference can be found no matter what medium is used for learning. In many of these
studies, the model is asynchronous learning delivered to the learner on demand. The
findings demonstrate that even with no instructor or face-to-face interaction, there are no
TeleEducation NB, New Brunswick, Canada, includes extracts from more than 355
compelling factor in favor of e-learning. If corporations can get all of the advantages of e-
46
Dissertation
learning with the same level of results as an instructor-led classroom situation, then the
significant differences between the test scores of experimental (e-learning) and traditional
qualitative data that indicated that students in the e-learning group had, overall, more
positive feelings about their experience than did the control group. This observation is
However, it is becoming more common not to find the same level of results.
While some studies show greater benefits in favor of face-to-face delivery, research
higher performance results, there are other immediate benefits to students such as
increased time on task, higher levels of motivation, and reduced test anxiety for many
learners. Wegner et al (1999) report that, while the majority of the 49 studies they
education, nearly 30 percent of the studies report that e-learning programs had positive
outcomes based on student preference, improved grades, higher cost effectiveness, and a
most of which report positive results in favor of e-learning. For example, Wegner et al
(1999) evaluated a Web-based psychology course and reported that content knowledge,
47
Dissertation
use of the WWW, and use of computers for academic purposes increased while computer
anxiety decreased. Navarro and Shoemaker reported, ...we see that cyber learners
performed significantly better than the traditional learners. Mean score [final exam] for
the cyber learners was 11.3, while the mean score for traditional learners was 9.8. With a
t-test statistic of 3.70, this result was statistically significant at the 99 percent level
Along these same lines, a California State University Northridge study reported
that e-learners performed 20 percent better than traditional learners (Strother, 2002).
(Strother, 2002) reported a significant difference between the mean grades of 406
university students earned in traditional and distance education classes, where the
distance learners outperformed the traditional learners. In a study within the insurance
industry, Redding and Rotzien (1999) reported that the online group is the most
results of the study do provide strong support for the conclusion that online instruction
for individuals entering the insurance field is highly effective, and can be more effective
them. From the 15 papers in which the effectiveness of ALN was compared to that of
remainder of the papers reported no significant difference. Strother (2002) stressed the
crucial need to develop critical thinking and other higher order skills among students
using e-learning products. Earlier, Bates noted that: the potential for developing higher
48
Dissertation
based distance education courses. Examining how learners engage in higher order
thinking is the topic of a research study at Massey University in New Zealand Strother
(2002). White (1998) examined strategies of 420 foreign language learners at that
university and reported that distance learners made greater use of metacognitive
strategies what individuals know about their own thinking compared to classroom
education, Serrano and Alford (2000) conducted research that clearly showed that
incorporating technology across the curriculum acts as a catalyst for all learners. They
learning tasks and to develop higher-order critical thinking, visualization, and literacy
skills.
desirable goal in a purely academic setting, it may be less important in the areas of
corporate online training programs. This is yet another evaluation issue that needs to be
3. Behavior
Even well informed, quantitative learning objectives do not typically indicate how
the trainee will transfer that learning to job performance. Changed on-the-job behavior is
certainly the main goal of most corporate training programs, but measuring this change is
a more complex task than eliciting trainees feelings or measuring their direct learning
49
Dissertation
through test scores. In a number of studies included here, there is an assumed connection
between measures of behavioral change and the hoped for consequence: solid business
results (Level IV), although in most cases, empirical measurement is lacking. In their
overview of the evaluation process, Bregman and Jacobson (2000) discuss the need to
measure business results rather than just evaluate trainee test results. They point out that
all important business results affect customer satisfaction, either directly or indirectly.
Business results that may increase efficiency or help short-term profits but do not
increase customer satisfaction are obviously bad for business. These authors claim that
changes in customer satisfaction due to training of sales or service personnel are easy to
measure by asking the customers of the trainees to compile reaction surveys. Generally,
reaction sheets for customers get high response rates; therefore, a valid connection
between the effects of training on the employee and how the customer feels about that
employee can be made. Bregman and Jacobson summarize that a training program
succeeds, by definition, when the training changes employees behaviors in ways that
Unilever claims that e-learning helped their sales staff produce more than US$20
million in additional sales (Bregman and Jacobson, 2000) Level IV evaluation. They
track the results of their e-training programs by asking course participants to take part in
a teleconference several months after the course. Participants are asked to discuss how
they have integrated their new skills into their work and to share their best practices
Level III evaluation. Uniacke, the person in charge of Unilevers training program, points
out that many results of e-training programs are difficult to measure. For example, he is
convinced many employees do not learn new material, but rather they polish their overall
50
Dissertation
skills and customer interaction techniques still a significant benefit to the company and
incorporate the first three levels routinely in the design of training programs (Boverie,
Mulcahy, and Zondlo, 1994). In a more recent report on e-learning evaluation, Hall and
LeCavalier (2000) make a strong case for focusing on Level III with job performance-
based measures. Their research study of eleven U.S. and foreign companies helped them
identify best practices within these companies, which have significant e-learning success
stories. They conclude that the most promising strategy for many companies is to focus
on Level III to find out what is really effective within e-learning programs.
4. Results
affects a companys bottom line a challenging task for many reasons with respect to
concept grabbed by the trainees during perion of training.. Kirkpatrick (1999) noted that
the number of variables and complicating factors make it difficult, if not impossible, to
evaluate the direct impact of training on a business bottom line and this is just as true
for e-learning as for traditional training programs. While reduced costs, higher quality,
increased production, and lower rates of employee turnover and absenteeism are the
desired results of training programs, most companies do not address this complex
evaluation process. However, some companies strive to make the difficult link between
training and improved business results.Some firms are beginning to measure e-learning
results for their sales force in terms of increased sales, like in the case of Unilever. In a
51
Dissertation
investment in training add to the value of a companys shares a high priority for
corporations and she claims that there is added value regardless of overall market
conditions.
5. Return on Investment
Kirkpatricks model requires a rather detailed and complex evaluation and calculation
process. Using this levels evaluation data, the results are converted into monetary values
and then compared with the cost of the training program to obtain a return on investment.
In respect to these developments, one can therefore arrive to the conclusion the that
and cooperative learning. It also serves to enhance students knowledge of course content
important conclusion from this study is that there is not a single right way for online
course delivery. Although the development of e-learning is still in its infancy, the findings
of this study provide the necessary guidance in designing instructions for e-learning for
students, as well as identifying certain constraints that could affect students attitudes to
e-learning, such as availability of resources. The findings also show that much more still
needs to be done to arouse interest in online course delivery. The implication of this is
that evaluation in the context of e-learning must involve the learner, the resources
available to students, and how to arouse their interest to trigger better results (Strother,
2002).
52
Dissertation
3.1 Introduction
The methodology section critically evaluates the various research approaches that
were undertaken with specific regards to the selection of research type, research
used and data analysis methods that were employed. The research that was undertaken
employed the use of both quantitative and qualitative research designs in which the main
form of data collection was done through the use of questionnaires and interviews. The
choice of a mixed research design was guided by the fact that there are various
advantages associated with the use of a mixed research design. For instance, as postulated
by Ivankova, Creswell and Stick (2006), one of the advantages associated with the use of
a mixed research design is that it leads to higher levels of research objectivity, validity
and reliability in the sense that the researcher is able to leverage on the advantages
associated with both the qualitative and the quantitative research designs. Additionally, as
postulated by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), another advantage associated with the
use of mixed methods is that it enables effective data triangulation which leads to higher
levels of data credibility. Moreover, using the mixed methods in undertaking a research
enables the researcher to have reduced research bias due to employing diverse research
methods that are characterized with minimal research bias. In essence, the mixed research
design was mainly used in order to complement the strengths of using a single design
while at the same time overcoming the weaknesses associated with the use of a single
design.
53
Dissertation
Moreover, the research employed the use of simple random sampling in selecting
the final research participants. In the use of random sampling, participants were randomly
picked from a sample population of 200 students. Moreover, the research employed the
use of one sample t-test and spearman rho coefficient as the main statistical data analysis
methods. On the other hand, interview responses were analyzed using thematic analysis
in which a frequency count of common themes was used to determine the percentage
As postulated by Trevio and Weaver (1999), there are two main research
traditions that a researcher can employ in undertaking a research. They are the deductive
and the inductive research traditions. The deductive research tradition is mainly focused
hypothesis based on the results obtained from the analysis undertaken. Moreover, in the
deductive approach, a researcher develops hypothesis from the research question and then
developing a framework for rejecting or adopting the hypothesis based on the results
obtained. For instance, Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2006) states that a researcher
On the other hand, the inductive tradition is based on studying behaviour and
Babbie (2010) states that most inductive research traditions employ a qualitative design
in which the qualitative research design is considered as a research design the emphasizes
on studying human behaviour from a social phenomenon perspective. On the other hand,
54
Dissertation
Babbie (2010) states that most quantitative researches employ the deductive research
tradition. The research that was undertaken employed both the inductive and the
deductive research traditions in the sense that the research emphasized on the use of both
A research setting involves various aspects including the population sample that
was employed in the undertaking of the research, the geographical niche in which the
research was undertaken and the application of the research findings obtained. For
instance, the research that was undertaken was mainly focused on identifying the various
Moreover, the research that was undertaken was aimed at development of an eLearning
framework based on the constructs of eLearning evaluation facilities. Data was collected
through the use of interviews and questionnaires on students in one of the prestigious
higher learning institutions in Asia. The above analysis implies that the setting of research
that was undertaken can only be applied in higher education institutions that employ the
use of eLearning. Moreover, the geographical location is pinned to the area in which the
methodology, but more of a philosophy that guides how the research is to be conducted.
55
Dissertation
individuals mental model, his way of seeing things, different perceptions, variety of
beliefs towards reality, etc. This concept influences the beliefs and value of the
researchers, so that he can provide valid arguments and terminology to give reliable
results1. According to Collis and Hussey (2003), a research can employ the use of two
main research philosophies which are the phenomenological research philosophy and the
focussed on the development of hypothesis and then undertaking empirical data analysis
in order to either adopt or reject the null hypothesis. For example, Like the resources
researcher earlier, only phenomena that you can observe will lead to the production of
credible data. To generate a research strategy to collect these data you are likely to use
existing theory to develop hypotheses. These hypotheses will be tested and confirmed, in
whole or part, or refuted, leading to the further development of theory which may then be
paradigm, researchers are interested to collect general information and data from a large
1http://dissertationhelponline.blogspot.com/2011/06/research-philosophy-
and-research.html
2http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.102.4717&rep=rep1&type=pdf
56
Dissertation
researchers own beliefs have no value to influence the research study. The positivism
philosophical approach is mainly related with the observations and experiments to collect
numeric data3.
On the other hand, most qualitative research designs are based on the
phenomena, the way in which consciousnesses give meaning to their world in an inter-
research that was undertaken was based on the use of both the phenomenological
research philosophy and the positivist research philosophy. The use of both the
phenomenological research philosophy and the positivist research philosophy was based
on the fact that the research employed the use of both qualitative and quantitative
research designs.
3http://dissertationhelponline.blogspot.com/2011/06/research-philosophy-
and-research.html
57
Dissertation
addressed in the same way in naturalistic work. In order to promote higher levels of
3.4.1 Credibility
research. A researcher can employ various strategies that enhance high levels of
credibility in the undertaking of the research paper. For instance, some of the strategies
that can be used to enhance credibility in undertaking a research include but not limited
triangulation, referential adequacy, persistent observation, and negative case analysis. The
following research strategies were employed in order to effectively promote high levels
credibility in the undertaking of the research; selecting the most appropriate data
research region, and use of random sampling in the process of selecting the participants
3.4.2 Transferability
process in which the results obtained can be applied to other similar research cases. For
select a research population sample that reflects the various variables in the research
58
Dissertation
through the use Think description. For example, as postulated by Lincoln and
Guba(1985), one strategy in which transferability can be enhanced is through the use of
think description. Lincoln and Guba (1985) describe think description as a way of
can begin to evaluate the extent to which the conclusions drawn are transferable to other
times, settings, situations, and people. In order to enhance, transferability, the research
that was undertaken was based on collecting data from students who have used eLearning
for more than 3 years. The above analysis depicts a population sample that suits well
within the research variables and the results obtained can be applied across many higher
3.4.3 Dependability
Dependability can be generally defined as the level at which the same results can
be replicated if a similar research was to be undertaken under similar research setting and
characteristics. For example, To check the dependability, one looks to see if the
researcher has been careless or made mistakes in conceptualizing the study, collecting the
data, interpreting the findings and reporting results. The logic used for selecting people
and events to observe, interview, and include in the study should be clearly presented.
The more consistent the researcher has been in this research process, the more
dependable are the results4. A good strategy that can be used to enhance dependability is
through the use of a dependability audit. Moreover, there are several strategies that can be
4http://qualitativeinquirydailylife.wordpress.com/chapter-5/chapter-5-dependability/
59
Dissertation
independent auditor reviews the activities of the researcher (as recorded in an audit trail
in field notes, archives, and reports) to see how well the techniques for meeting the
credibility and transferability standards have been followed5. For instance, according to
Lincoln and Guba (2000) one effective strategy to check for dependability is through the
use of audit trails. For instance, according to Lincoln and Guba (1985), External audits
involve having a researcher not involved in the research process examine both the
process and product of the research study. The purpose is to evaluate the accuracy and
evaluate whether or not the findings, interpretations and conclusions are supported by the
data. For instance Lincoln and Guba (1985) states that external audits provides a
assess adequacy of data and preliminary results, and an important feedback that can lead
to additional data gathering and the development of stronger and better articulated
findings. In order to enhance higher levels of dependability, the researcher employed the
use of well framed and validated data collection methods such as interviews and
questionnaires.
3.4.4 Conformability
Conformability is mainly focused with enhancing high levels of objectivity in the process
is to quantitative research. Researchers need to demonstrate that their data and the
5 [FN1]
60
Dissertation
interpretations drawn from it are rooted in circumstances and conditions outside from
questions how the research findings are supported by the data collected. This is a process
to establish whether the researcher has been bias during the study; this is due to the
assumption that qualitative research allows the research to bring a unique perspective to
the study. An external researcher can judge whether this is the case by studying the data
collected during the original inquiry6. Moreover, Denzin and Lincoln (1994, pg 513)
states that, confirmability builds on audit trails...and involves the use of written field
notes, memos, a field diary, process and personal notes, and a reflexive journal. The
same analysis is also provided by Lincoln &Guba (1985, p. 319) when they stated that,
one major strategy that can be utilized in enhancing higher levels of conformability is
through undertaking audit trails. Audit trails are aimed at analyzing the various aspects of
the research in order to determine how the conclusions were arrived at. For instance as
postulated by Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 320) there are six steps of undertaking audit
trails which are, (a) raw data (field notes, video and audio recordings), (b) data
trustworthiness notes), (e) materials related to intentions and dispositions (study proposal,
field journal), and (f) instrument development information (pilot forms, survey format,
6http://credibility-rsmet.blogspot.com/2011/11/ensuring-credibility-of-
qualitative.html
61
Dissertation
critically evaluate the processes process that was undertaken in arriving at the
conclusions.
In most cases, research delimitation is used to define the boundaries and the scope
of the research undertaken. For example, according to Simon (2011, p. 2), The
delimitations are those characteristics that limit the scope and define the boundaries of
your study. The delimitations are in your control. Delimiting factors include the choice of
objectives, the research questions, variables of interest, theoretical perspectives that you
adopted (as opposed to what could have been adopted), and the population you choose to
investigate. For instance the research sought to investigate the various parameters that
aim, the researcher collected data from a 150 students who had used eLearning systems
for 3 years and over. The above analysis basically implies the research was mainly based
on collecting data from eLearning students in Asia. According to Simon (2011, p.2), The
delimitations section of your study will explicate the criteria of participants to enroll in
your study, the geographic region covered in your study, and the profession or
organizations involved.
Research participants
62
Dissertation
The target populations for this study were 150 students enrolled in higher
education institute who have used eLearning systems for 3 years and more. Additionally,
the population sample included 5 students enrolled in higher education institute who have
used eLearning systems for 3 years and more. A simple random sampling technique was
employed in selecting the final 150 participants from a total of 200 who were required to
the 150 research participants, a simple random sampling was further undertaken on the
The use of simple random sampling was based on the fact that simple sampling
technique is characterized with the ability in which every member of the population
having the same probability of being selected into the final sample population. As defined
by Moore & George (2006, p. 10), a simple random sample is, A size n consists of n
individuals from the population chosen in such a way that every set of n individuals has
an equal chance to be the sample actually selected. Moreover, the choice was based on
the fact that simple random sampling is characterized with various advantages which
include but not limited to the following; simple sampling is a cost effective and cheap
sampling few number of participants and that simple sampling consumes less time
(Moore & George, 2006). Additionally, simple sampling was selected in the sense that,
the population that was used in undertaken the research was a small population that can
63
Dissertation
3.7 Instruments
The research paper employed the use of both primary and secondary data
collection methods. Primary data collection methods were undertaken through the use of
questionnaires and interviews. On the other hand, secondary data sources such as printed
materials, journal articles, and books were used as to supplement data that was collected
3.7.1 Questionnaires
questionnaires are appropriate in cases where the research involves large number of
the researcher needs to collect data about behaviours, beliefs, knowledge and attitudes as
well as when the researcher needs to protect the privacy of the participants.
The questionnaire was developed with the help of a panel of experts. The panel of
experts included some qualified members who have worked with eLearning systems for
over than 10 years. The panel of experts were drawn from 3 higher education institutes
was based on Likert scale type responses and was pilot tested to ensure reliability and
64
Dissertation
validity. The participants that were selected for the pilot study reflected the true nature of
the final sample participants. This was undertaken through applying the participants
inclusion criterion of the study which included participants drawn higher education
The pilot study consisted of an analysis a group of 20 students who had utilized
eLearning systems for at least 3 years. The first part of the questionnaire involved the
included items regarding the various elements that should be considered in evaluating
eLearning systems. Moreover, the second part of the questionnaire involved relating to
how various higher education institutes could reduce costs in evaluating eLearning
facilities. The survey questionnaire contained questions that were aimed at asking the
respondent to rate their level of agreement on the Likert-type questionnaire. The scale
denotes neutral, 4 denotes agree, and 5 denotes strongly agree. The overall score of
participants on questionnaire item entered into SPSS version 20.0 in order to undertake
The participants for the pilot study were then asked to complete the questionnaire
and also to comment on the items in the questionnaire. Later, the questionnaire was
modified based on the comments of the participants in order to ensure some level of
clarity in the final questionnaire that was utilized in undertaking the study.
the use of questionnaires. For instance, questionnaires are characterized with various
65
Dissertation
advantages with regard to data collection instruments. For instance, According to Belk
(2006), some of the advantages associated with questionnaires include but not limited to
the following advantages; questionnaires can be used to collect data from a large
population, questionnaires are easy and fast in undertaking data analysis, questionnaires
are more objective due to the high level of standardization in questionnaires, and
questionnaires reduce biasness and are cost effective (Kuiper &Clippinger, 2012).
However, despite the various advantages that are associated with the use of
number of disadvantages. For instance, questionnaires are quite complex to design and
develop, a factor attributed to the high level of standardization required in designing and
counter the above limitations associated with questionnaires, a short, simple and inclusive
3.7.2 Interviews
To supplement the use of questionnaires, interviews were also used. Face to face
information regarding the interview questions. Also, the interviews were undertaken in
order to provide an insight into understanding the various parameters that should be
Both the interviewer and the interviewee were able to clarify on issues of the research
that was being undertaken. This helped the interviewer obtain viable and authentic
66
Dissertation
information that was well elaborated and authentic (Belk, 2006). There are various
advantages associated with the use of interviews as a data collection instrument. For
instance, interviews are considered to be a flexible data collection tool. In cases where the
interview questions were not well understood by the interviewee, the questions were
rephrased by the interviewer in order to expound more. In most cases, interviews will
always allow one to learn about things and facts that cannot be observed directly and
(2012), there are various disadvantages associated with the use of interviews as data
collection instruments. For instance, interviews are a slow method of collecting data
because the process calls for interviewing one person at a time, cannot fully trace events
and trends that occurred in the past. Additionally, interview is an expensive tool to use; it
is also subject to respondent and interviewer bias. This was partly eliminated through
having a tight time and structural frame work that ensured everything was done on time
and appropriately.
Interview schedule
The following represents the interview schedule that was utilized in the undertaking of
the study
Interviewee Date
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Interview questions
67
Dissertation
The following are the research questions that were employed in the undertaking of the
interviews with the relevant stakeholders in the undertaking of the research paper.
1. In your own opinion do you think there is a positive correlation between evaluating
eLearning facilities from a student perspective and the level of student satisfaction?
3. From your own personal perspective, what are areas that need to be focused while
developing the evaluation mechanism that can directly benefit the learning needs of the
students?
4. What ways can be used to minimize the expense on the evaluation process but at the
5. Based on your personal experience in utilizing eLearning facilities, are there any
models that have been developed for evaluating the e-learning facilities from a student
perspective?
Materials from the library, internet and related research reports were used to
provide the required data and information concerning the research question. Internal
organization information sources were also analysed in order to obtain relevant data
regarding the research question. External data sources included information from various
data sources are instrumental in supporting data that has been collected in the primary
data session i.e. from the interviews and questionnaires (Vithal& Jansen, 1997).
68
Dissertation
Research validity and reliability are very vital components in the undertaking of a
research. For instance, validity refers to the measure of truthfulness of a research and is
normally aimed at analyzing what the research is intended to measure. On the other hand,
reliability can be defined as the extent to which results are consistent over time.
Additionally, reliability entails various issues related to the accuracy presentation of the
It was quite challenging in determining the reliability and validity levels of this
both quantitative and qualitative are all designed to understand and explain behavior and
components of both qualitative and quantitative can be used together. In order to enhance
higher levels of questionnaire validity and reliability, the design of the questionnaire was
and validity of a questionnaire are important aspects to consider in the sense that, a
perfectly designed questionnaire should be able to elicit perfect responses from the
responses is a complex process fraught with disappointments. The researcher with the
69
Dissertation
that could elicit perfect responses from the participants. In designing the questionnaire,
the researcher and the panel of experts followed some seven basic principles in designing
the questionnaire (Bradburn, Sudman&Wansink, 2004). For instance, the researcher and
the panel of experts used precise terminologies in the design of the questionnaire, simple
language was used in the design of the questionnaire, Jargons, ambiguity and unnecessary
phrases were avoided in the design of the questionnaire. Also, the researcher and the
panel of experts avoided unwarranted assumptions and prejudice regarding the research
participants responses. Moreover, the researcher and the panel of experts ensured that,
conditional information preceded the main key points in the questions being asked. Also,
the researcher and the panel of experts avoided the use double-barrelled questions.
Double-barrelled questions are considered as questions that ask the participants more
than one question but provide an option for the participant to only give one answer. In
order to avoid the use of double-barrelled questions, the researcher used the following
five point Likert scale options (1 denotes strongly disagree, 2 denotes disagree, 3 denotes
neutral, 4 denotes agree, and 5 denotes strongly agree). Additionally, the researcher and
the panel of experts chose an appropriate response format for participants to provide their
responses. Finally, in order to enhance higher levels of validity and reliability of the
questionnaire, the researcher undertook a pilot study through a pilot study in order to test
the developed questionnaire with the aim of modifying the questionnaire. Additionally,
the researcher distributed the questionnaire to other people with diversified backgrounds
in eLearning in order to aid in the reviewing of the questionnaire that was developed.
Also, reliability was enhanced through administering the same set of questions that were
70
Dissertation
employed in the pilot study to the final research participants (Presser, Rothgeb, Couper,
3.9 Design
This research paper employed the use of both the quantitative and the qualitative
research design in obtaining the responses of the research participants. Specifically, the
research paper employed an exploratory research in exploring the various parameters that
the research types include but not limited to the following research types; descriptive,
Little (2013), a researcher can effectively apply more than one research type in the
continue to posit that, an explanatory research design is well suited when analysing and
An explanatory research on the other hand, is normally used in cases where there
are little studies regarding the subject area. On the other hand, a comparative research
design is aimed at making comparisons between two scenarios that are being studied. For
analysing and accessing the outcomes of a research phenomenon. Adams (2007) continue
the outcome of a scenario based on some variables. This research paper employed the use
71
Dissertation
design was used in the sense that, little research has been done in the recent past,
facilities. Additionally, a predictive design was used in which the research culminated in
The research paper employed the use of ordinal variables in the sense that the
participants were required to rate their responses against a Likert scale type response.
Continuous variables include numerical outputs such that the values can take on any
number in a given range. Ordinal variables are variables that can take a set number of
values, such as a 1-5 Likert scale, but can only take those values and the order has
meaning. Categorical variables, such as race or gender, are variables where the output is
not a number or where the number used in the analysis does not align with a value of the
The collected data was analysed through the use of spearman rho coefficient and
one sample t-test analysis. Spearman rho coefficient was utilized in order to determine
the correlation between eLearning facility evaluation and students satisfaction. On the
other hand, the use of one sample t-test analysis was undertaken in order to analyze the
mean variation and the statistical significance of the participants responses. The adoption
or rejection of the null hypothesis was based on the t and p values obtained which were
72
Dissertation
that involve human subjects. In order to conform to research best practices, the following
The participation of the human subjects was on a voluntary basis and was based
upon the participants signing the consent form. Also no monetary gains and tips
were given to the participants and that no favors were advanced to any participant.
In order to ensure that the participants were aware of the purpose, duration and
the objectives of the study, the participants were fully informed about the overall
purpose, objectives and the duration of the research that was undertaken. This
ensured that, the participants effectively filled the questionnaire appropriately and
The participants were also guaranteed a data protection act in which the
participants data was solely used for the main purpose it was intended. No
participants data was used for any other reasons apart from the research
objectives.
73
Dissertation
Introduction
The research that was undertaken was aimed at evaluating the various ways
order to develop and elearning framework that could be used in effective evaluation of
elearning facilities. In order to achieve the above objectives, the following research
Research Questions
elearning facilities?
facilities what are areas that need to be focused while developing the evaluation
mechanism that can directly benefit the learning needs of the students?
4. What ways can be used to minimize the expense on the evaluation process but at the
5. Are there are models that have been developed for evaluating the e-learning facilities
and if there are no standard models is it possible to develop an evaluating mechanism that
could be generalized?
74
Dissertation
Quantitative summaries
Correlations
Students satisfaction
Spearman's rho eLearning Correlation 1.000
evaluation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) .
N 150
.180
.081
75
Dissertation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -12.994 149 .000 -.660 -.76 -.56
76
Dissertation
2. Tools for measuring elearning duration and frequency of log-in, pages accessed,
user profile
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -15.708 149 .000 -1.267 -1.43 -1.11
77
Dissertation
using e-learning facilities what are areas that need to be focused while developing the
evaluation mechanism that can directly benefit the learning needs of the students?
Learning history
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -11.868 149 .000 -.733 -.86 -.61
Physical characteristics
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
78
Dissertation
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.541 149 .000 -.567 -.68 -.45
Learner attitudes
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -8.446 149 .000 -.433 -.53 -.33
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
79
Dissertation
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.951 149 .000 -.513 -.62 -.41
80
Dissertation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -11.479 149 .000 -.587 -.69 -.49
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
81
Dissertation
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.508 149 .000 -.473 -.57 -.37
82
Dissertation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -8.457 149 .000 -.400 -.49 -.31
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
83
Dissertation
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.474 149 .000 -.453 -.55 -.36
84
Dissertation
Socio-economic factors
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.760 149 .000 -.520 -.63 -.41
Geographical location
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
85
Dissertation
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -10.278 149 .000 -.627 -.75 -.51
Cultural background
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -23.000 149 .000 -1.533 -1.67 -1.40
Political factors
86
Dissertation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -24.952 149 .000 -1.587 -1.71 -1.46
Connectivity levels
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
87
Dissertation
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.871 149 .000 -.473 -.57 -.38
Mode of delivery
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.541 149 .000 -.427 -.52 -.34
Interactivity levels
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
88
Dissertation
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -10.503 149 .000 -.473 -.56 -.38
Presentation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.015 149 .000 -.400 -.49 -.31
89
Dissertation
Application proactivity
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -11.532 149 .000 -.520 -.61 -.43
Multimedia used
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
90
Dissertation
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -12.486 149 .000 -.560 -.65 -.47
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -12.652 149 .000 -.567 -.66 -.48
Accessibility issues
91
Dissertation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -10.789 149 .000 -.487 -.58 -.40
92
Dissertation
Level of flexibility
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -11.532 149 .000 -.520 -.61 -.43
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -10.123 149 .000 -.513 -.61 -.41
93
Dissertation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.675 149 .000 -.433 -.52 -.34
Data privacy
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
94
Dissertation
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -8.000 149 .000 -.347 -.43 -.26
95
Dissertation
Data integrity
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -8.757 149 .000 -.387 -.47 -.30
Data availability
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
96
Dissertation
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -7.875 149 .000 -.340 -.43 -.25
97
Dissertation
Data confidentiality
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -8.707 149 .000 -.373 -.46 -.29
Research question 4: What ways can be used to minimize the expense on the evaluation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
98
Dissertation
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -11.183 149 .000 -.493 -.58 -.41
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -12.438 149 .000 -.547 -.63 -.46
99
Dissertation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -13.294 149 .000 -.580 -.67 -.49
100
Dissertation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -12.438 149 .000 -.547 -.63 -.46
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -11.639 149 .000 -.513 -.60 -.43
101
Dissertation
102
Dissertation
Quantitative summaries
Correlations
Students satisfaction
Spearman's rho eLearning Correlation 1.000
evaluation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed) .
N 150
.180
.081
The above statistical table indicates that the r value was obtained to be 0.180
while the percentage of the p value percentage was obtained to bet 8.1%. The r value of
0.180 that was obtained from the above statistical measure implies that there is a positive
moderate in the sense that the r value obtained tends to move away from the zero value.
The p value percentage value that was obtained was 8.1%. The 8.1% value indicates that
103
Dissertation
the alternate hypothesis is true. For instance, based on the p value obtained, it means that
there 8.1% chance that undertaking random sampling will lead into a positive correlation
between eLearning and students satisfaction if the null hypothesis was true. This implies
that there is 91.9 percent chance that undertaking random sampling will produce a strong
alternate hypothesis was true. The above analysis implies that we reject the null
hypothesis and adopt the alternate hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -12.994 149 .000 -.660 -.76 -.56
104
Dissertation
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.34. The mean score value of 4.34 translated to a rounded value of
4.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking agreed
eLearning facilities. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was undertaken, the p
value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be -12. 994. Based on the
mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis that student perception
statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean value of (4.34 0.622) is
lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a statistically difference of
105
Dissertation
2. Tools for measuring elearning duration and frequency of log-in, pages accessed,
user profile
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -15.708 149 .000 -1.267 -1.43 -1.11
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 3.73. The mean score value of 3.73 translated to a rounded value of
4.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking agreed
to the point that tools for measuring elearning duration and frequency of log-in, pages
from the sample statistics that was undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while
the t value was obtained to be -15.708. Based on the mean value of the participants
responses, we adopt the hypothesis that tools for measuring eLearning duration and
106
Dissertation
eLearning facilities. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that
the mean value of (3.73 0.988) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This
implies a statistically difference of 1.267 (95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.43), t (149)
= -15.708, p = 0.00.
using e-learning facilities what are areas that need to be focused while developing the
evaluation mechanism that can directly benefit the learning needs of the students?
Learning history
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -11.868 149 .000 -.733 -.86 -.61
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.27. The mean score value of 4.27 translated to a rounded value of
4.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking agreed
to the point that Individual learner variables (learning history) should be considered in
107
Dissertation
eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was undertaken, the p
value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be -11. 868. Based on the
mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis that Individual learner
Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean value of
(4.27 0.757) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
statistically difference of 0.733 (95% confidence interval, 0.61 to 0.86), t (149) = -11.868,
p = 0.00.
Physical characteristics
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.541 149 .000 -.567 -.68 -.45
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.43. The mean score value of 4.43 translated to a rounded value of
4.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking agreed
108
Dissertation
considered in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-9.541. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
eLearning evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that
the mean value of (4.43 0.727) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This
implies a statistically difference of 0.567 (95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.68), t (149)
= -9.541, p = 0.00.
Learner attitudes
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -8.446 149 .000 -.433 -.53 -.33
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.57. The mean score value of 4.57 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
agreed to the point that Individual learner variables (Learner attitudes) should be
109
Dissertation
considered in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-8.446. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean
value of (4.57 0.628) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
statistically difference of 0.433 (95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.53), t (149) = -8.446,
p = 0.00.
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.951 149 .000 -.513 -.62 -.41
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.49. The mean score value of 4.49 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
agreed to the point that Individual learner variables (Learner motivational levels) should
110
Dissertation
be considered in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
9.951. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
eLearning evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that
the mean value of (4.49 0.632) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This
implies a statistically difference of 0.513 (95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.62), t (149)
= -9.951, p = 0.00.
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -11.479 149 .000 -.587 -.69 -.49
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.41. The mean score value of 4.41 translated to a rounded value of
4.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking agreed
111
Dissertation
considered in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-11.479. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
eLearning evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that
the mean value of (4.41 0.626) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This
implies a statistically difference of 0.587 (95% confidence interval, 0.49 to 0.69), t (149)
= -11.479, p = 0.00.
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.508 149 .000 -.473 -.57 -.37
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.53. The mean score value of 4.53 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
112
Dissertation
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
agreed to the point that learning environment variables (the physical learning
the sample statistics that was undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t
value was obtained to be -9.508. Based on the mean value of the participants responses,
we adopt the hypothesis that learning environment variables (the physical learning
statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean value of (4.53 0.610) is
lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a statistically difference of
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -8.457 149 .000 -.400 -.49 -.31
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.60. The mean score value of 4.60 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
113
Dissertation
strongly agreed to the point that learning environment variables (the subject environment)
statistics that was undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was
obtained to be -8.457. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt
the hypothesis that learning environment variables (the subject environment) could be
employed in evaluating eLearning facilities. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was
undertaken indicates that the mean value of (4.60 0.579) is lower than the test value of
5 that was selected. This implies a statistically difference of 0.40 (95% confidence
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.474 149 .000 -.453 -.55 -.36
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.55. The mean score value of 4.55 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
114
Dissertation
the sample statistics that was undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the
tvalue was obtained to be -9.474. Based on the mean value of the participants responses,
Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean value of
(4.55 0.586) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
statistically difference of 0.453 (95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.55), t (149) = -9.474,
p = 0.00.
Socio-economic factors
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.760 149 .000 -.520 -.63 -.41
115
Dissertation
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.48. The mean score value of 4.48 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking agreed
evaluating eLearning facilities. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-9.760. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
eLearning facilities. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that
the mean value of (4.48 0.653) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This
implies a statistically difference of 0.52 (95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.63), t (149) =
-9.760, p = 0.00.
Geographical location
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -10.278 149 .000 -.627 -.75 -.51
116
Dissertation
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.37. The mean score value of 4.37 translated to a rounded value of
4.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking agreed
evaluating eLearning facilities. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-10.278. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
eLearning facilities. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that
the mean value of (4.37 0.747) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This
implies a statistically difference of 0.627 (95% confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.75), t (149)
= -10.278, p = 0.00.
117
Dissertation
Cultural background
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -13.000 149 .000 -0.533 -0.67 -0.40
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 3.47. The mean score value of 3.47 translated to a rounded value of
4.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking agreed
to the point that contextual variables (students cultural background) could be employed
in evaluating eLearning facilities. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-13.00. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
eLearning facilities. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that
the mean value of (3.47 0.816) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This
118
Dissertation
implies a statistically difference of 0.533 (95% confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.67), t (149)
= -13.00, p = 0.00.
119
Dissertation
Political factors
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -12.002 149 .000 -0.587 -0.71 -0.46
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 3.41. The mean score value of 3.41 translated to a rounded value of
3.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Neutral point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research had neutral opinion
facilities. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was undertaken, the p value was
obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be -12. 002. Based on the mean
value of the participants responses, we can neither accept nor reject the hypothesis that
facilities. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean
value of (4.41 0.779) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
statistically difference of 0.587 (95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.71), t (149) = -12.000,
p = 0.00.
120
Dissertation
121
Dissertation
Connectivity levels
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.871 149 .000 -.473 -.57 -.38
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.53. The mean score value of 4.53 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
strongly agreed to the point that usability and technological factors (connectivity levels)
that was undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained
to be -9.871. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the
considered in eLearning evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken
indicates that the mean value of (4.53 0.587) is lower than the test value of 5 that was
122
Dissertation
selected. This implies a statistically difference of 0.473 (95% confidence interval, 0.38 to
Mode of delivery
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.541 149 .000 -.427 -.52 -.34
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.57. The mean score value of 4.57 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
agreed to the point that usability and technological factors (mode of delivery) should be
considered in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-9.541. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
eLearning evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that
the mean value of (4.57 0.548) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This
123
Dissertation
implies a statistically difference of 0.427 (95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.52), t (149)
= -9.541, p = 0.00.
Interactivity levels
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -10.503 149 .000 -.473 -.56 -.38
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.53. The mean score value of 4.53 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
agreed to the point that usability and technological factors (level of interactivity) should
be considered in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-10.503. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
eLearning evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that
the mean value of (4.53 0.552) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This
124
Dissertation
implies a statistically difference of 0.473 (95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.56), t (149)
= -10.503, p = 0.00.
Presentation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.015 149 .000 -.400 -.49 -.31
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.60. The mean score value of 4.60 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
strongly agreed to the point that usability and technological factors (presentation) should
be considered in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-9.015. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean
value of (4.60 0.543) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
125
Dissertation
statistically difference of 0.400 (95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.49), t (149) = -9.015
p = 0.00.
Application proactivity
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -11.532 149 .000 -.520 -.61 -.43
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.48. The mean score value of 4.48 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking strongly
agreed to the point that usability and technological factors (application proactivity)
that was undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained
to be -11.532. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the
considered in eLearning evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken
indicates that the mean value of (4.48 0.552) is lower than the test value of 5 that was
126
Dissertation
selected. This implies a statistically difference of 0.520 (95% confidence interval, 0.43 to
Multimedia used
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -12.486 149 .000 -.560 -.65 -.47
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.44. The mean score value of 4.44 translated to a rounded value of
4.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking agreed
to the point that usability and technological factors (multimedia used) should be
considered in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be -12.
486. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis that
evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean
value of (4.44 0.549) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
127
Dissertation
statistically difference of 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.47 to 0.65), t (149) = -12.486,
p = 0.00.
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -12.652 149 .000 -.567 -.66 -.48
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.43. The mean score value of 4.43 translated to a rounded value of
4.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking agreed
to the point that pedagogical variables (level of learner support systems) should be used
in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was undertaken, the
p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be -12. 652. Based on
the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis that pedagogical
128
Dissertation
Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean value of
(4.43 0.549) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
statistically difference of 0.567 (95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.66), t (149) = -12.652,
p = 0.00.
Accessibility issues
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -10.789 149 .000 -.487 -.58 -.40
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.51. The mean score value of 4.51 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
strongly agreed to the point that pedagogical variables (level of eLearning accessibility)
should be used in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-10.789. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
129
Dissertation
evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean
value of (4.51 0.552) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
statistically difference of 0.487 (95% confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.58), t (149) = -10.789,
p = 0.00.
Level of flexibility
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -11.532 149 .000 -.520 -.61 -.43
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.48. The mean score value of 4.48 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
strongly agreed to the point that pedagogical variables (level of eLearning flexibility)
should be used in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-11.532. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
130
Dissertation
evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean
value of (4.48 0.552) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
statistically difference of 0.520 (95% confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.61), t (149) = -11.532,
p = 0.00.
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -10.123 149 .000 -.513 -.61 -.41
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.49. The mean score value of 4.49 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
agreed to the point that pedagogical variables (assessment and evaluation) should be used
in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was undertaken, the
p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be -10.123. Based on
the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis that pedagogical
131
Dissertation
the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean value of (4.49 0.621)
is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a statistically difference of
132
Dissertation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -9.675 149 .000 -.433 -.52 -.34
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.57. The mean score value of 4.57 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
strongly agreed to the point that pedagogical variable (level of learner autonomy) should
be used in eLearning evaluation. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-9.675. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
evaluation. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean
value of (4.57 0.549) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
statistically difference of 0.433 (95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.52), t (149) = -9.675,
p = 0.00.
133
Dissertation
134
Dissertation
Data privacy
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -8.000 149 .000 -.347 -.43 -.26
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.65. The mean score value of 4.65 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
strongly agreed to the point that security variables (data privacy) should be used in
evaluating eLearning facilities. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-8.000. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
that security variables (data privacy) should be used in evaluating eLearning facilities.
Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean value of
(4.65 0.531) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
135
Dissertation
statistically difference of 0.347 (95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.43), t (149) = -8.00, p
= 0.00.
Data integrity
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -8.757 149 .000 -.387 -.47 -.30
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.61. The mean score value of 4.61 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
strongly agreed to the point that security variables (data integrity) should be used in
evaluating eLearning facilities. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-8.757. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
that security variables (data integrity) should be used in evaluating eLearning facilities.
Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean value of
(4.61 0.541) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
136
Dissertation
statistically difference of 0.387 (95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.47), t (149) = -8.757,
p = 0.00.
Data availability
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -7.875 149 .000 -.340 -.43 -.25
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.66. The mean score value of 4.66 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
strongly agreed to the point that security variables (data availability) should be used in
evaluating eLearning facilities. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-7.875. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
that security variables (data availability) should be used in evaluating eLearning facilities.
Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean value of
(4.66 0.529) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
137
Dissertation
statistically difference of 0.340 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.43), t (149) = -7.875,
p = 0.00.
Data confidentiality
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -8.707 149 .000 -.373 -.46 -.29
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.63. The mean score value of 4.63 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking strongly
agreed to the point that security variables (data confidentiality) should be used in
evaluating eLearning facilities. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was
undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be
-8.707. Based on the mean value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis
facilities. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean
value of (4.63 0.525) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
138
Dissertation
statistically difference of 0.373 (95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.46), t (149) = -8.707,
p = 0.00.
Research question 4: What ways can be used to minimize the expense on the evaluation
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -11.183 149 .000 -.493 -.58 -.41
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.51. The mean score value of 4.51 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
strongly agreed to the point that undertaking constant evaluation for eLearning
facilities. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was undertaken, the p value was
obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be -11.183. Based on the mean
139
Dissertation
value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis that undertaking constant
evaluation for eLearning improvement can significantly reduce the expense incurred in
evaluating eLearning facilities. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken
indicates that the mean value of (4.51 0.540) is lower than the test value of 5 that was
selected. This implies a statistically difference of 0.493 (95% confidence interval, 0.41 to
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -12.438 149 .000 -.547 -.63 -.46
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.45. The mean score value of 4.45 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
strongly agreed to the point that incorporating the relevant stakeholders in the
Additionally, from the sample statistics that was undertaken, the p value was obtained to
140
Dissertation
be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be -12. 438. Based on the mean value of the
eLearning facilities. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that
the mean value of (4.45 0.538) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This
implies a statistically difference of 0.547 (95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.63), t (149)
= -12.438, p = 0.00.
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -13.294 149 .000 -.580 -.67 -.49
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.42. The mean score value of 4.42 translated to a rounded value of
4.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes an Agree point on the Likert
scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking agreed
141
Dissertation
from the sample statistics that was undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while
the t value was obtained to be -13.294. Based on the mean value of the participants
facilities. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean
value of (4.42 0.534) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
statistically difference of 0.580 (95% confidence interval, 0.49 to 0.67), t (149) = -13.294,
p = 0.00.
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -12.438 149 .000 -.547 -.63 -.46
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.45. The mean score value of 4.45 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
142
Dissertation
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
strongly agreed to the point that use of evaluation methods that covers all aspects of
effective eLearning can significantly reduce the expense incurred in evaluating eLearning
facilities. Additionally, from the sample statistics that was undertaken, the p value was
obtained to be 0.00 while the t value was obtained to be -12. 438. Based on the mean
value of the participants responses, we adopt the hypothesis use of evaluation methods
that covers all aspects of effective eLearning can significantly reduce the expense
incurred in evaluating eLearning facilities. Moreover, the statistical analysis that was
undertaken indicates that the mean value of (4.45 0.538) is lower than the test value of
5 that was selected. This implies a statistically difference of 0.547 (95% confidence
One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
95% Confidence Interval of
Mean
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
RES -11.639 149 .000 -.513 -.60 -.43
143
Dissertation
From the above statistical analysis, the mean score of the participants one sample
t-test was found to be 4.49. The mean score value of 4.49 translated to a rounded value of
5.00 as indicated on the Likert scare type which denotes a Strongly Agree point on the
Likert scale. The value implies that most of the participants in the research undertaking
strongly agreed to the point that undertaking effective eLearning planning and control
from the sample statistics that was undertaken, the p value was obtained to be 0.00 while
the t value was obtained to be -11.639. Based on the mean value of the participants
responses, we adopt the hypothesis that undertaking effective eLearning planning and
Moreover, the statistical analysis that was undertaken indicates that the mean value of
(4.49 0.540) is lower than the test value of 5 that was selected. This implies a
p = 0.00.
As earlier stated, the research also employed the use of interviews in collecting
primary data from the research participants. For instance, a total of 5 interviews were
eLearning facilities from a student perspective. The following were the interview
questions that were asked and the students responses regarding the same.
Student one:
144
Dissertation
1. In your own opinion do you think there is a positive correlation between evaluating
eLearning facilities from a student perspective and the level of student satisfaction?
I dont know the exact term to use for I am not an IT guru but I have heard that
some eLearning systems have capabilities to record and store user data which
3. From your own personal perspective, what are areas that need to be focused while
developing the evaluation mechanism that can directly benefit the learning needs of the
students?
There are so many areas that need to be focused in order to develop an effective
eLearning evaluation system that meets the students need. For instance, there is
need to focus on areas such as the level of system interactivity, the ease of use of
the eLearning facility and the motivation level of students to use the facility.
4. What ways can be used to minimize the expense on the evaluation process but at the
145
Dissertation
5. Based on your personal experience in utilizing eLearning facilities, are there any
models that have been developed for evaluating the e-learning facilities from a student
perspective?
NO
Student two:
1. In your own opinion do you think there is a positive correlation between evaluating
eLearning facilities from a student perspective and the level of student satisfaction?
3. From your own personal perspective, what are areas that need to be focused while
developing the evaluation mechanism that can directly benefit the learning needs of the
students?
icons used, the security level in the facility, the learner ability and disability
levels, the learning environment in which the facility is being utilized, how
flexible is the eLearning facility and the cost of evaluation comparatively to the
benefits.
4. What ways can be used to minimize the expense on the evaluation process but at the
146
Dissertation
5. Based on your personal experience in utilizing eLearning facilities, are there any
models that have been developed for evaluating the e-learning facilities from a student
perspective?
NO
Student three:
1. In your own opinion do you think there is a positive correlation between evaluating
eLearning facilities from a student perspective and the level of student satisfaction?
3. From your own personal perspective, what are areas that need to be focused while
developing the evaluation mechanism that can directly benefit the learning needs of the
students?
Students learning abilities, how easy it is to use the eLearning system, the
availability of support activities, the environment and the subject in which the
eLearning is delivered, the level of students data security and the extent to which
4. What ways can be used to minimize the expense on the evaluation process but at the
147
Dissertation
5. Based on your personal experience in utilizing eLearning facilities, are there any
models that have been developed for evaluating the e-learning facilities from a student
perspective?
NO
Student four:
1. In your own opinion do you think there is a positive correlation between evaluating
eLearning facilities from a student perspective and the level of student satisfaction?
I can categorically state that there is a correlation in the sense that undertaking
3. From your own personal perspective, what are areas that need to be focused while
developing the evaluation mechanism that can directly benefit the learning needs of the
students?
some of the areas that need to be considered are areas related to usability of the
delivered and the learning environment that the eLearning will be utilized as well
148
Dissertation
4. What ways can be used to minimize the expense on the evaluation process but at the
5. Based on your personal experience in utilizing eLearning facilities, are there any
models that have been developed for evaluating the e-learning facilities from a student
perspective?
NO
Student five:
1. In your own opinion do you think there is a positive correlation between evaluating
eLearning facilities from a student perspective and the level of student satisfaction?
Yes, there is. Look at it in this terms, if students are experiencing difficulties in
the use of the eLearning facility, then undertaking an evaluation from the student
students and later fixing the problems which will eventually lead to higher levels
of students satisfaction.
of eLearning facilities?
According to me I would think most higher education institutions employ the use
of surveys that ask the students to illustrate their experience with the eLearning
system.
3. From your own personal perspective, what are areas that need to be focused while
developing the evaluation mechanism that can directly benefit the learning needs of the
students?
149
Dissertation
How the students will use the facility, whether the facility will be quite easy to
use, the multimedia content that will be embedded in the system, interactivity
tools to be used, the level of eLearning security, and the subject being taught as
4. What ways can be used to minimize the expense on the evaluation process but at the
5. Based on your personal experience in utilizing eLearning facilities, are there any
models that have been developed for evaluating the e-learning facilities from a student
NO
Question 1
150
Dissertation
From the above pie chart, it is evident that 80% of the research participants
indicated that there is a positive correlation between eLearning evaluation and students
satisfaction in the sense that eLearning evaluation leads to higher levels of students
satisfaction. On the other hand, 20% of the respondents indicated that there is no positive
facility evaluation does not lead to higher levels of students satisfaction. The above
interview results are in line with the questionnaire responses in which most of the
Question 2
embedded technologies
Total 5
151
Dissertation
152
Dissertation
From the above chart representation, 60% of the interviewee indicated that most
higher education institutes employ the use of students surveys in undertaking eLearning
facility evaluation. On the other hand, 40% of the interviewee indicated that most higher
education institutes employ the use of eLearning data embedded systems in undertaking
evaluation of eLearning facility. The above results are consistent with data obtained from
questionnaire analysis in which most of the participants indicated that the use ofstudents
surveys was the most common eLearning facility evaluation method employed by higher
education institutes.Question 3:
153
Dissertation
154
Dissertation
From the above pie chart 18% of the interview participants responses indicated
that security was the major parameter that should be considered in eLearning facility
evaluation. Moreover, 15% indicated ease of use, 14% indicated learner environment,
3% learner background and 3% mode of delivery. The above research findings are
consisntent with the analysis that was undertaken through the use of participants
evaluation
Invest in state of the art 1
eLearning technology.
TOTAL 4
155
Dissertation
156
Dissertation
facilities was an effective way to minimize costs incurred in eLearning evaluation. On the
other hand, 25% of the participants stated that investing in state of the art eLearning
effective way to minimize costs incurred in eLearning evaluation is consistent with the
questionnaire response analysis that were undertaken in which the participants indicated
that undertaking constant reviews, evaluation and monitoring of eLearning facilities was
Question5
From the above table, it is evident that all the participants that were interviewed
indicated that there is no standard framework that can be used in undertaking evaluation
of eLearning facilities from a student perspective. The above analysis implies that there is
157
Dissertation
Research question 5: Are there are models that have been developed for evaluating the
on a rounded value of 4.00 which denotes an Agree point as rated on the Likert scale. The
value of 4.00 was selected in the sense that it denotes an Agree which implies that most
158
Dissertation
Based on the benchmarked value of 4.00 the following table indicates a summary of the
eLearning evaluation parameters that were included and excluded from the development
of an eLearning framework.
159
Individual learner variables (learning history, physical characteristics,Contextual
learner attitudes, motivational levels and familiarity with technology
variables
(soci-economicfactors, geographical location, cultural background)
Proposed eLearning facilities evaluation framework
vironment variables (the physical learning environment, the subject environment, institutional or organizational environment)
Security variables (data privacy, integrity, availability and
E-LEARNING FACILITIES EVALUATION
Pedagogical variables (level of learner support systems, accessibility issues, level of flexibility, assessment and evalua
Usability and technological factors (connectivity levels, mode of delivery, interactivity levels, the multimedia used, presentation and application proactivity
160
6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
The research that was undertaken was aimed at evaluating the various constructs and
parameters that should be considered in undertaking eLearning facility evaluation. Moreover, the
research was mainly focused on determining the various ways through which eLearning
evaluation can be undertaken in order to reduce the costs associated with evaluating eLearning
facilities. From the research that was undertaken, results indicated that there is a strong positive
correlation between eLearning evaluation and the level of students satisfaction. Undertaking
from the research that was undertaken, results of the study indicate that some of the factors that
learner variables (learning history, physical characteristics, learner attitudes, motivation levels of
learners and familiarity with technology), Learning environment variables (the physical learning
variables (socio-economic factors, geographical location, cultural background, and the political
context), Usability and technological factors (connectivity levels, mode of delivery, interactivity
levels, the multimedia used, presentation and application proactivity), Pedagogical variables
(level of learner support systems, accessibility issues, level of flexibility, assessment and
evaluation, level of learner autonomy), and Security variables (data privacy, integrity, availability
and confidentiality). Additionally, the results of study indicate that most higher education
institutes employ the use of students surveys and inbuilt data analytics tools that are used to
measure user profile information and usage. Also, the result of the study indicates that some
ways through which higher education institutes can minimize the costs incurred in undertaking
eLearning evaluation include the following; Undertaking effective eLearning planning and
161
control process, use of evaluation methods that covers all aspects of effective eLearning,
Recommendations
The research that was undertaken was based on data collection from a total 155 students
(150 questionnaire respondents and 5 interview respondents). This represents a small population
sample, bearing the large number of students who are utilizing eLearning systems. This is a
major limitation depicted in the study and there is need in future to undertake a research that is
global in nature and covers a large student population throughout the country. Secondly, the
developed framework does not exclusively cover all the components needed to undertake
effective eLearning facility evaluation. There is a likelihood of certain variables changing due to
the dynamics that are being experienced in the information and communication industry. This
implies that the framework can be modified to represent the changes that are being experienced
162
References:
Adams, J. (2007). Research methods for graduate business and social science students.
New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Albon, R., & Trinidad, S. (2002). Building learning communities through technology.
Unpublished paper, Curtin University of Technology.
Aldridge, J., Fraser, B., Fisher, D., Trinidad, S., & Wood, D. (2003, April). Monitoring the
success of an outcomes-based, technology-rich learning environment. In annual meeting
of the American educational research association, April, Chicago, IL.
Alliger, G. M., &Janak, E. A. (1989). Kirkpatrick's levels of training criteria: Thirty years
later. Personnel psychology, 42(2), 331-342.
Alsabawy, A. Y., Cater-Steel, A., & Soar, J. (2013). ELearning Service Delivery
Quality. Learning management systems and instructional design: Best practices in online
education, 89.
Ardito, C., Costabile, M. F., De Marsico, M., Lanzilotti, R., Levialdi, S., Roselli, T., &Rossano,
V. (2006).An approach to usability evaluation of e-learning applications. Universal
access in the information society, 4(3), 270-283.
Babbie, E. (2010) The Practice of Social Research. 12thedn. Belmont: Wadsworth
164
Heppner, P., Wampold, B., Owen, J., Thompson, M., & Wang, K. (2015).Research design in
counseling. Cengage Learning.
Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., &Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learnerinterface interaction in
distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for
practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich learning environments (SCenTRLE):
Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497-538.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential
explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field methods, 18(1), 3-20.
Johnson, R. B., &Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Individual differences and instruction. New York:
Allen & Bacon.
Jurado, F., Redondo, M. A., & Ortega, M. (2012). Blackboard architecture to integrate
components and agents in heterogeneous distributed eLearning systems: An application
for learning to program. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(7), 1621-1636.
Kim, K., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education:
The survey says. Educause quarterly, 29(4), 22.
Kimber, M., & Catherine Ehrich, L. (2011). The democratic deficit and school-based
management in Australia. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 179-199.
Kirschner, P. A., &Paas, F. (2001). Web-enhanced higher education: a tower of
Babel. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(4), 347-353.
Koohang, A., & Du Plessis, J. (2004). Architecting usability properties in the e-learning
instructional design process. International Journal on ELearning,3(3), 38.
Kuiper, S., &Clippinger, D. A. (2012).Contemporary business report writing. Mason,
Ohio: South-Western
Laferrire, T., Montane, M., Gros, B., Alvarez, I., Bernaus, M., Breuleux, A., ...&Lamon, M.
(2010). Partnerships for knowledge building: An emerging model. Canadian Journal of
Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de lapprentissageet de la
technologie, 36(1).
LaPointe, L., &Reisetter, M. (2008). Belonging online: Students' perceptions of the value and
efficacy of an online learning community. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(4),
641-665.
Lee, C., Potkonjak, M., &Mangione-Smith, W. H. (1997, December).MediaBench: a tool for
evaluating and synthesizing multimedia and communicatons systems. In Proceedings of
the 30th annual ACM/IEEE international symposium on Microarchitecture (pp. 330-
335). IEEE Computer Society.
Lincoln, Y. S. &Guba, E. H. (2000).Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences, in N K Denzin& Y S Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research, 2nd ed, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lincoln, Y. &Guba, E. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Little, T. D. (2013).The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Litwin, M. (1995).How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity. Sage Publications
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., &Voegtle, K. H. (2010).Methods in educational
165
research: From theory to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Lytras, M. D., Poiloudi, A., &Korfiatis, N. (2003). An Ontology Oriented Approach on
eLearning: Integrating Semantics for Adaptive eLearning Systems. ECIS 2003
Proceedings, 87.
MacDonald, C. J., Stodel, E. J., Farres, L. G., Breithaupt, K., & Gabriel, M. A. (2001). The
demand-driven learning model: A framework for web-based learning. The Internet and
Higher Education, 4(1), 9-30.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia
learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
McDaniel, C. D., & Gates, R. H. (1998).Marketing research essentials. Cincinnati, Ohio:
South- Western College Pub.
Meredith, S., & Newton, B. (2004). Models of eLearning: Technology promise vs learner needs-
case studies. The International Journal of Management Education, 4(1).
Moore, David S. and George P. McCabe (2006), Introduction to the Practice of Statistics.
London: Routledge
Monsen, E. R., Van, H. L., & American Dietetic Association. (2008). Research:
Successful approaches. Chicago: American Dietetic Association
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communications
technology: a review of the literature. Journal of information technology for teacher
education, 9(3), 319-342.
Nayak, M. K., &Suesaowaluk, P. (2007). Advantages and disadvantages of elearning
management system. In Fourth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-
Based Society.School of Information Technology. Assumption University Bangkok,
Thailand.
Ogunleye, A. O. (2010). Evaluating An Online Learning Programme from Students'
Perspectives. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 79.
Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2003). Exploring technology-mediated learning from a pedagogical
perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(2), 111-126.
Oliver, R., &Omari, A. (1999). Replacing lectures with on-line learning: Meeting the challenge.
In 16th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in
Tertiary Education, Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology.
Owens, J., Hardcastle, L., & Richardson, B. (2009). Learning from a distance: The experience of
remote students. Journal of Distance Education (Online), 23(3), 53.
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.
Paechter, M., Maier, B., &Macher, D. (2010). Students expectations of, and experiences in e-
learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers &
education, 54(1), 222-229.
Papp, R. (2000). Critical success factors for distance learning. AMCIS 2000 Proceedings, 104.
Pavlov, R., &Paneva, D. (2005, October). Towards a Creative Exploitation of Digitised
Knowledge in eLearning Systems.In 2nd CHIRON Workshop, Paris, France (pp. 10-11).
Pimple, K. D., 2008.Research ethics.Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Presser, S., Rothgeb, J., Couper, M., Lessler, J., Martin, E., Martin, J. & Singer, E.
(2004). Methods For Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. Wiley-
Interscience.
166
Rahm, D., & Reed, B. J. (1997). Going remote: The use of distance learning, the World Wide
Web, and the Internet in graduate programs of public affairs and administration. Public
Productivity & Management Review, 459-474.
Rajasingham, L. (2009). Breaking Boundaries: Quality E-Learning for Global Knowledge
Society. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 4(1).
Redding, T. R., &Rotzien, J. (1999). Comparative analysis of SDL online training with
traditional classroom instruction. In 14th International Symposium on Self-Directed
Learning.
Reeves, T. C., Benson, L., Elliott, D., Grant, M., Holschuh, D., Kim, B., ...&Loh, S. (2002).
Usability and Instructional Design Heuristics for E-Learning Evaluation.
Rosenberg, H., Grad, H. A., &Matear, D. W. (2003). The effectiveness of computer-aided, self-
instructional programs in dental education: a systematic review of the literature. Journal
of dental education, 67(5), 524-532.
Sangr, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. (2012). Building an inclusive definition of e-
learning: An approach to the conceptual framework. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 145-159.
Sarwar, A., Ketavan, C., & Butt, N. S. (2015). Impact of eLearning Perception and eLearning
Advantages on eLearning for Stress Management (Mediating Role of eLearning for
Corporate Training). Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research, 11(2), 241-
258.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. &Thornhill, A. (2006) Research Methods in Business.4thedn.
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Sclater, J., Sicoly, F., &Grenier, A. (2005). ETSB-CSLP laptop research partnership: SchoolNet
report: Preliminary study. Montreal, QC: Concordia University, Centre for the Study of
Learning and Performance.Retrieved October, 12, 2005.
Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor
models. Computers & Education, 49(2), 396-413.
Serrano, C., & Alford, R. L. (2000). Virtual Languages: An innovative approach to teaching
EFL/ESL English as a foreign language on the World Wide Web. Teaching With
Technology: Rethinking Tradition. Less Lloyd Medford, NJ.: Information Today, Inc.
Shenton, A.K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research
projects. Education for Information, 22, 6375
Simon, M.D. (2011). Excerpted from Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly
research: Recipes for success (2011 Ed.). Seattle, WA, Dissertation Success,
LLC. Available at
http://dissertationrecipes.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/AssumptionslimitationsdelimitationsX
.pdf
Sluijsmans, D. M., Moerkerke, G., Van Merrienboer, J. J., &Dochy, F. J. (2001). Peer
assessment in problem based learning. Studies in educational evaluation, 27(2), 153-173.
Soe, K., Koki, S., & Chang, J. M. (2000). Effect of Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) on
Reading Achievement: A Meta-Analysis.
Steimle, J., Gurevych, I., &Mhlhuser, M. (2007).Notetaking in University Courses and its
Implications for eLearning Systems.In DeLFI (Vol. 5, pp. 45-56).
Strother, J. B. (2002). An assessment of the effectiveness of e-learning in corporate training
programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(1).
Surma, D. R., Geise, M. J., Lehman, J., Beasley, R., & Palmer, K. (2012). Computer literacy:
167
what it means and do today's college students need a formal course in it?. Journal of
Computing Sciences in Colleges, 28(1), 142-143.
Tarozzi, L &Luigina, M. (2010). phenomenology as philosophy of research: an
introductory Essay.
Available at http://www.zetabooks.com/download2/Tarozzi-Mortari_sample.pdf
Thurmond, V., &Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A
review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance
Learning, 1(1).
Torgerson, C. J., &Elbourne, D. (2002). A systematic review and metaanalysis of the
effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) on the teaching of
spelling. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(2), 129-143.
Trevio, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (1999). The stakeholder research tradition: Converging
theoristsnot convergent theory. Academy of management review, 24(2), 222-
227.
Urquhart, C., Chambers, M., Connor, S., Lewis, L., Murphy, J., Roberts, R., & Thomas, R.
(2002). Evaluation of distance learning delivery of health information management and
health informatics programmes: a UK perspective. Health Information & Libraries
Journal, 19(3), 146-157.
Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4),
221-235.
Vithal, R., & Jansen, J. (1997).Designing your first research proposal: A manual for
researchers in education and the social sciences. Kenwyn: Juta.
168