CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …
Tiêu đề
Exploring sex and status differences in perceptions, acceptance, and outcomes in e-learning
Tác giả
Kamali A.
Năm xuất bản
2016
Source title
International Journal on E-Learning: Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education
Số trích dẫn
0
DOI
Liên kết
Tóm tắt
The integration of electronic technologies in teaching and learning has been a top priority in higher education. However, there is a great deal of controversy in the literature regarding its effectiveness. This bears the question, to what extent are the outcomes (e.g., the student success) in an e-learning environment comparable with that of a face-to-face course? Hence, this study assessed the environmental conditions that lead to positive expectations of e-learning by collecting data on a random sample of 742 students—approximately 13% of the theoretical population—in a small Midwestern Liberal Arts and Science university (about 6000 student body) in the United States. The data reflected the preference that the respondents have shown for aspects of e-learning constructs (i.e. course structure and instructional clarity, course content quality, technical constraints, personal skills and comfort level, and e-learning acceptance). Although the general sentiment toward e-learning is positive, the female students in this study, particularly the non-traditional female students, showed more favorable attitude toward e-learning. © 2016, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. All rights reserved.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Agarwal R., Prasad J., The antecedent and consequences of user perceptions in information technology adoption, Decision Support Systems, 22, 1, pp. 15-29, (1998); Agarwal R., Prasad J., A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in domain of information technology, Information System Research, 9, 2, pp. 204-215, (1998); Albert L., Johnson C., Socioeconomic status-and-gender-based differences in students’ perception of e-learning systems, Journal of Innovative Education, 9, 3, pp. 421-436, (2011); Alexander S., E-learning developments and experiences, Education + Training, 43, 4, pp. 240-248, (2001); Alobiedat A., AlTafila Technical University students’ perception of electronic learning, European Journal of Scientific Research, 46, 3, pp. 391-400, (2010); Ausburn L., Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online education environments: An American perspective, Educational Media International, 41, pp. 327-337, (2004); Baily J., Pearson S., Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction, Management Science, pp. 530-545, (1983); Brewer S., Klein L., Types of positive interdependence and affiliation motives in an asychronous, collaborative learning environment, Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 14, 4, pp. 331-354, (2006); Chu R., Chu A., Weng C., Tsai C., Lin C., Transformation for adults in an Internet-based learning environment—is it necessary to be self-directed?, British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 2, pp. 2205-2216, (2012); Cross R., Sproull L., More than an answer: Information relationships for actionable knowledge, Organization Science, 15, 4, pp. 446-462, (2004); Dillenbourge P., Overscripting OSCL: The risk of blending collaborative learning with Instructional design, Three Worlds of OSCL: Can We Support OSCL? Heerlin, Holand: Open University of the Netherland., (2002); Dukic D., Andrijanic C., E-learning in Croatian higher education: An analysis of students’ perceptions, LAENG Transactions on Engineering Technology, 4, pp. 228-242, (2010); Fuller R., Vician C., Brown S., E-learning and individual characteristics: The role of computer anxiety and communication apprehension, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46, 4, pp. 103-113, (2006); Hellsten I., The paradox of inform@tion technology in primary schools: E-learning is new but gender patterns are old!, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50, 1, pp. 1-21, (2006); Hill Y., Lomas L., Macgregor J., Students’ perception of quality in higher education, Quality Assurance in Education, 11, 1, pp. 15-20, (2003); Horn L., Carroll D., Nontraditional undergraduates: Trends in enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and persistence and attainment among 1989-90 beginning postsecondary students, National Center for Education Statistics, (1996); Huddlestone D., The Faculty App is Coming (Finally)., (2011); Lee J., Lee W., The relationship of e-learner’s self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-learning environmental quality, Computers in Human Behavior, 28, pp. 32-47, (2008); Kamali A., Antecedents of adopting e-learning: Toward a model of academic e-learning acceptance culture, Information System Education Journal, 11, 2, pp. 4-14, (2013); King W., An androgogy model for IS and management education, International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 1, 3, pp. 186-209, (2005); Mackeog K., Fox S., Strategies for embedding e-learning in traditional universities: Drives and barriers, Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 7, 2, pp. 147-154, (2009); Markus B., E-learning experiences, Geographia Technica, 2, pp. 45-55, (2011); Mertler C., Vannetta R., Advanced and Multivariate Statistical Methods: Practical Application and Interpretation, (2002); Monette D., Sullivan T., Dejong C., Applied Social Research: Tools for the Human Services, (2010); Mossberger K., Tolbert C., Stansbury M., Virtual Inequality, (2003); Nachmias C., Frankfort C., Nachmias D., Research Methods in the Social Sciences, (2007); Nagel L., Kotze T.G., Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals about teaching presence in a large online class, The Internet and Higher Education, 13, (2010); Who is nontraditional: Definition and data, U.S. Department of Education.; Ndubisi N., Gender differences in entrepreneurial traits, perceptions and usage of information and communication technologies, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 14, 2, pp. 107-121, (2008); Nicolaou C., Nicolaidou I., Constantinou C., The e-Leaming movement as a process of quality improvement in higher education, Educational Research and Evaluation, 11, 6, pp. 605-622, (2005); Neuman L., Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, (2011); O'Hara M., Cultivating Consciousness Carl R. Rogers’s Person-Centered Group Process as Transformative Androgogy, Journal of Transformative Education, 1, 1, pp. 64-79, (2003); Oh C., Information communication technology and the new university: A view on e-learning, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585, pp. 134-153, (2003); Oyaid A., Secondary student’s perceptions of information and communication technology and their usage of IT inside and outside of school in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia, International Journal of Applied Education Studies, 7, 1, pp. 27-42, (2009); Ozkan S., Kosler R., Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in higher education: An empirical investigation, Computers and Education, 53, pp. 1285-1296, (2009); Paechter M., Maier B., Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning, Internet and Higher Education, 13, pp. 292-297, (2010); Pepicello R., Maintaining Academic Integrity Online at University of Phoenix, (2009); Rai A., Lang S., Welker R., Assessing the validity of IS success models: An empirical test and theoretical information analysis, Information System Research, 13, 1, pp. 50-69, (2002); Renfro-Michel E., O'Halloran K., Delaney M., Using technology to enhance adult learning in the counselor education classroom, Adultspanjournal, 9, 1, pp. 14-25, (2010); Saade R.G., Kira D., Computer anxiety in e-learning: The effect of computer self-efficacy, Journal of Information Technology Education, 8, pp. 177-191, (2009); Schofield J., Toys for Boys and Girls. the Guardian—online Supplement, pp. 23-24, (2005); Sehoole C., Moja T., Pedagogical issues and gender in cyberspace education: Distance education in South Africa, African and Asian Studies, 2, 4, pp. 475-496, (2003); Selim-Ahmed H., Hybrid e-learning acceptance model: Learner perceptions, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8, 2, pp. 313-346, (2009); Selwyn N., E-Learning or she-learning? Exploring students’ gendered perceptions of education technology, British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 4, (2007); Shee D., Wang Y., Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-learning system: A methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications, Computers & Education, 50, pp. 894-905, (2008); Swanson E., Ramiller N., Innovating mindfully with information technology, MIS Quarterly, 28, 4, pp. 553-583, (2004); Teo T., Gender differences in the intention to use technology: A measurement invariance analysis, British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 6, pp. 120-123, (2010); Thatcher J., Stepina L., Srite M., Liu Y., Culture, overload and personal innovativeness with information technology: Extending the nomological net, Journal of Computer Information System. Fall, pp. 74-81, (2003); Vandenbroeck M., Verschelden G., Boonaert T., E-learning in a low-status female profession: The role of motivation, anxiety and social support in the learning divide, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, pp. 181-190, (2008); Vaughn S., Schumm J., Singagub J., Focus Group Interview in Education and Psychology, (1996); Venkatesh V., Morris M., Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior, MIS Quarterly, 24, 1, pp. 115-139, (2000); Volman M., van Eck E., Equity and information technology in education: The second decade, Review of Educational Research, 71, 4, pp. 613-634, (2001); Whitely B., Gender differences in computer related attitudes and behavior: A meta analysis, Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 1, pp. 1-22, (1997); Wong W., Huang H., The effects of learning system service quality and user’s acceptance on organizational learning, International Journal of Business and Information, 6, 2, pp. 205-225, (2011); Yazon J., Mayer-Smith J., Redfield R., Does the medium change the message? The impact of a Web-based genetics course on university students’ perspectives on learning and teaching, Computers & Education, 38, pp. 267-285, (2002); Yu T., Yu T., Modeling the factors that affect individuals’ utilization of online learning systems: An empirical study combining the task technology fit model with the theory of planned behavior, British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 6, pp. 1003-1017, (2010)
Nơi xuất bản
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
Hình thức xuất bản
Article
Open Access
Nguồn
Scopus