0 Voti positivi0 Voti negativi

13 visualizzazioni172 paginedissertation on eLearning facilities evaluation

Feb 23, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

dissertation on eLearning facilities evaluation

© All Rights Reserved

13 visualizzazioni

dissertation on eLearning facilities evaluation

© All Rights Reserved

- Principles: Life and Work
- Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance
- On Writing Well, 30th Anniversary Edition: An Informal Guide to Writing Nonfiction
- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values
- Unfu*k Yourself: Get out of your head and into your life
- Unfu*k Yourself: Get Out of Your Head and into Your Life
- Leonardo da Vinci
- What Every BODY is Saying: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Speed-Reading People
- Rich Dad Poor Dad: What The Rich Teach Their Kids About Money - That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not!
- Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Surprising Science Behind Why Everything You Know About Success is (Mostly) Wrong
- Erotic Stories for Punjabi Widows: A Novel
- The Law of The Big Mo: Lesson 16 from The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership
- The Law of Intuition: Lesson 8 from The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership
- The Mind Illuminated: A Complete Meditation Guide Integrating Buddhist Wisdom and Brain Science for Greater Mindfulness
- Awaken the Giant Within: How to Take Immediate Control of Your Mental, Emotional, Physical and Financial
- Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are
- The Effective Executive: The Definitive Guide to Getting the Right Things Done
- The Effective Executive: The Definitive Guide to Getting the Right Things Done
- The Effective Executive: The Definitive Guide to Getting the Right Things Done

Sei sulla pagina 1di 172

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

Dissertation

Acknowledgements

Dissertation

Table of Contents

1.2 Brief description of e-learning...............................................................................................................2

1.3 Need for evaluation of e-learning systems............................................................................................5

1.4 Research problem..................................................................................................................................7

1.5 Research Questions................................................................................................................................8

1.6 Research aim..........................................................................................................................................9

1.7 Research Objectives:.............................................................................................................................9

1.8 Research Methodology..........................................................................................................................9

1.9 Significance of study...........................................................................................................................10

1.10 Limitation...........................................................................................................................................11

2.0 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................13

2.1 Introduction to e-learning....................................................................................................................13

2.2 History of Learning..............................................................................................................................13

2.3 Advantages of eLearning.....................................................................................................................14

2.4 The benefits and drawbacks of e-learning...........................................................................................17

2.4.1 Benefits........................................................................................................................................17

2.4.2 Drawbacks....................................................................................................................................20

2.5 Stages in the Development of Learning Technology...........................................................................22

2.6 concept of SDQ....................................................................................................................................23

2.6.1 Relationship between teacher and infrastructure service........................................................25

2.6.2 Relationship between student and infrastructure service........................................................26

2.6.3 Relationship between University support and infrastructure service.....................................26

2.6.4 Relationship between system quality and information quality....................................................27

2.6.5 Relationship between system quality, information quality and e-learning SDQ.........................27

2.7 evaluations of e-learning facilities.......................................................................................................29

2.7.1 Tools and instruments for evaluation of e-learning.....................................................................31

2.8 Ways through which costs of evaluating e-learning facilities can be reduced....................................40

2. 9 How an e-learning facility can be evaluated from a student perspective...........................................42

3.0 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................53

3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................53

3.1 Research tradition................................................................................................................................54

3.2 Research setting...................................................................................................................................55

3.3 Research philosophy............................................................................................................................55

3.4 Research trustworthiness.....................................................................................................................57

3.4.1 Credibility....................................................................................................................................58

3.4.2 Transferability..............................................................................................................................58

3.4.3 Dependability....................................................................................................................................59

3.4.4 Conformability.............................................................................................................................60

3.5 Research delimitation..........................................................................................................................61

3.6 Participants (population and sample)...................................................................................................62

3.7 Instruments..........................................................................................................................................63

3.7.1 Questionnaires..............................................................................................................................64

3.7.2 Interviews.....................................................................................................................................66

3.7.3 Secondary data sources................................................................................................................68

3.8 Questionnaire reliability and validity..................................................................................................69

3.9 Design..................................................................................................................................................71

3.10 Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................................72

3.10 Ethical considerations........................................................................................................................73

4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: SUMMARY OF QUANTITATIVE RESULTS.......................................................74

5.0 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSION OF RESULTS....................................................................................105

6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations........................................................................................................168

Dissertation

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

It will also be advantageous as the trainee can learn from anywhere, with no need

to travel.

14

Dissertation

done from any location, but in many cases where training environment is not so

In Online Training you dont need any hard copy of training material. This is

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

b) To look for an evaluator who may be able to get independent funding. The main

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

e) Look for an evaluator who has experience in evaluating programs like yours.

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:

b. The usability of the web-based portal site

c. The selection of materials.

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).

Eighty-four percent would take a similar e-course if offered again.

Thirty-eight percent said they generally preferred e-learning to classroom training.

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

RES 150 4.34 .622 .051

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

RES 150 3.73 .988 .081

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

RES 150 4.27 .757 .062

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

RES 150 4.43 .727 .059

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

RES 150 4.57 .628 .051

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

RES 150 4.49 .632 .052

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

RES 150 4.41 .626 .051

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

RES 150 4.53 .610 .050

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

RES 150 4.60 .579 .047

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

RES 150 4.55 .586 .048

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

RES 150 4.48 .653 .053

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

RES 150 4.37 .747 .061

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

RES 150 3.47 .816 .067

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

RES 150 3.41 .779 .064

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

RES 150 4.53 .587 .048

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

RES 150 4.57 .548 .045

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

RES 150 4.53 .552 .045

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

RES 150 4.60 .543 .044

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

RES 150 4.48 .552 .045

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

RES 150 4.44 .549 .045

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

RES 150 4.43 .549 .045

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

RES 150 4.51 .552 .045

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

RES 150 4.48 .552 .045

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

RES 150 4.49 .621 .051

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

RES 150 4.57 .549 .045

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

RES 150 4.65 .531 .043

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

RES 150 4.61 .541 .044

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

RES 150 4.66 .529 .043

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

RES 150 4.63 .525 .043

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

RES 150 4.51 .540 .044

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

RES 150 4.45 .538 .044

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

RES 150 4.42 .534 .044

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

RES 150 4.45 .538 .044

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

RES 150 4.49 .540 .044

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

RES 150 4.34 .622 .051

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

RES 150 3.73 .988 .081

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

RES 150 4.27 .757 .062

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

RES 150 4.43 .727 .059

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

RES 150 4.57 .628 .051

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

RES 150 4.49 .632 .052

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

RES 150 4.41 .626 .051

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

RES 150 4.53 .610 .050

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

RES 150 4.60 .579 .047

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

RES 150 4.55 .586 .048

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

RES 150 4.48 .653 .053

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

RES 150 4.37 .747 .061

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

RES 150 3.47 .816 .067

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

RES 150 3.41 .779 .064

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

RES 150 4.53 .587 .048

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

RES 150 4.57 .548 .045

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

RES 150 4.53 .552 .045

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

RES 150 4.60 .543 .044

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

RES 150 4.48 .552 .045

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

RES 150 4.44 .549 .045

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

RES 150 4.43 .549 .045

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

RES 150 4.51 .552 .045

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

RES 150 4.48 .552 .045

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

RES 150 4.49 .621 .051

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

RES 150 4.57 .549 .045

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

RES 150 4.65 .531 .043

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

RES 150 4.61 .541 .044

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

RES 150 4.66 .529 .043

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

RES 150 4.63 .525 .043

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

RES 150 4.51 .540 .044

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

RES 150 4.45 .538 .044

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

RES 150 4.42 .534 .044

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

RES 150 4.45 .538 .044

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

RES 150 4.49 .540 .044

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

There is a positive correlation 4

There is no positive correlation 1

Total 5

150

Dissertation

positive correlation; 80%

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

Use of students survey 3

Use of eLearning data 2

embedded technologies

Total 5

151

Dissertation

students surveys; 60%

students surveys eLearning data embeded systems

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:

System interactivity 3

Ease of use 4

Motivational levels 2

security 5

Multimedia used 2

Learner ability 3

Learner environment 4

Cost of evaluation 1

eLearning flexibility 2

Availability of support 1

Learner background 1

Mode of delivery 1

Total 29

153

Dissertation

ease of use

motivational background;

security 3% multimedia used learner ability learner environment cost of evaluation

mode of delivery; 3%

support availability; 3%

system interactivity; 10%

eLearning flexibility; 7%

ease of use; 14%

cost of evaluation; 3%

motivational levels; 7%

learner environment; 14%

learner ability; 10%

security; 17%

multimedia used; 7%

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

Undertake constant eLearning 3

evaluation

Invest in state of the art 1

eLearning technology.

TOTAL 4

155

Dissertation

constant eLearning reviews, evaluation and monitoring; 75%

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

NO 5

Total 5

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.

category response the the

development development

of eLearning of eLearning

evaluation evaluation

framework framework

Individual Learning history 4.27 YES

leaner Physical characteristics 4.43 YES

variables Learner attitudes 4.57 YES

Motivational level 4.49 YES

Familiarity with 4.41 YES

technology

Learning Physical learning 4.53 YES

environment environment

variables Subject environment 4.60 YES

Institutional/organizationa 4.55 YES

l factors

Contextual Socio-economic factors 4.48 YES

variables Geographical factors 4.37 YES

Cultural background 3.47 YES

Political factors 3.41 NO

Usability connectivity 4.53 YES

factors interactivity 4.53 YES

Mode of delivery 4.57 YES

presentation 4.60 YES

Application proactivity 4.48 YES

Pedagogical Level of learner support 4.43 YES

factors Accessibility level 4.51 YES

Flexibility 4.48 YES

Assessment and 4.49 YES

evaluation

Learner autonomy 4.57 YES

Security Data privacy 4.65 YES

Data integrity 4.61 YES

Data availability 4.66 YES

Data confidentiality 4.63 YES

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

Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Bergstedt, S., Wiegreffe, S., Wittmann, J., &Mller, D. (2003, July). Content management

systems and e-learning systems-a symbiosis?. In Advanced Learning Technologies, 2003.

Proceedings. The 3rd IEEE International Conference on (pp. 155-159). IEEE.

Beyth-Marom, R., Chajut, E., Roccas, S., &Sagiv, L. (2003). Internet-assisted versus traditional

distance learning environments: factors affecting students preferences. Computers &

Education, 41(1), 65-76

Boverie, P., Mulcahy, D. S., &Zondlo, J. A. (1994). Evaluating the effectiveness of training

programs. The 1994 annual: Developing human resources, 279-293.

Bradburn, N., Sudman, S., &Wansink, B. (2004).Asking Questions: The Definitive

Guide to Questionnaire Design. Jossey-Bass

Bregman, P., & Jacobson, H. (2000). Yes, You Can Measure the Business Results of

Training. Training, 37(8), 68-72.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods, Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, pp. 1-60

Byun, J., &Loh, C. S. (2015). Audial engagement: Effects of game sound on learner engagement

in digital game-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 129-

138.

Callister, T. A., &Burbules, N. C. (1990). Computer literacy programs in teacher education:

What teachers really need to learn. Computers & Education, 14(1), 3-7.

Cantoni, L., &Rega, I. (2004). Looking for fixed stars in the eLearning community: a research

on referenced literature in SITE Proceeding Books from 1994 to 2001. In EdMedia:

World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (Vol. 2004, No. 1, pp. 4697-

4704).

163

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2008). Data Collection Methods for

Program Evaluation: Questionnaires. Evaluation Briefs, available at

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief14.pdf

Chimalakonda, S. (2010). Towards Automating the Development of a family of eLearning

Systems (Doctoral dissertation, International Institute of Information Technology

Hyderabad, India).

Christmann, E. P., &Badgett, J. L. (2003). A meta-analytic comparison of the effects of

computer-assisted instruction on elementary students' academic

achievement. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 91-104.

Cox, M. J. (2013). Formal to informal learning with IT: research challenges and issues for e

learning. Journal of computer assisted learning, 29(1), 85-105.

Crawford, C. M., Gannon-Cook, R., &Rudnicki, A. (2002). Perceived and actual interactive

activities in elearning environments. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning

in Corp., Govt., Health, & Higher Ed (pp. 917-920).

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches.

California: Sage Publications, Chapter 1, pp. 1-17.

Deepwell, F. (2007).Embedding quality in e-learning implementation through evaluation.

Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 34-43.

Denscombe, M. (2010).Ground rules for social research: Guidelines for good practice.

Maidenhead: Open University Press

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.).(1994). Handbook of qualitative research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

DeRouin, R. E., Fritzsche, B. A., & Salas, E. (2004). Optimizing elearning: Researchbased

guidelines for learnercontrolled training. Human Resource Management, 43(23), 147-

162.

Devedi, V., Jovanovi, J., &Gaevi, D. (2007). The pragmatics of current e-learning

standards. Internet Computing, IEEE, 11(3), 19-27.

Ewing-Taylor, J. (1999). Student attitude toward web-based courses.Retrieved August, 23, 2005.

Ghauri, P. N. (2004). Designing and Conducting Case Studies in International Business

Research, in Marschan-Piekkari, R./Welch, C. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative

Research Methods for International Business, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.

109124

Gliner, J.A & Morgan, G.A. (2000).Research Methods in Applied Settings: An

Integrated Approach to Design and Analysis. London: Routledge

Govindasamy, T. (2001). Successful implementation of e-learning: Pedagogical considerations.

The internet and higher education, 4(3), 287-299.

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a

digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take

now?. Educational researcher, 38(4), 246-259.

Guba, E.G. (1981).Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.

Educational Communication and Technology Journal 29, 7591

Guru, C., &Drillon, D. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of an international eLearning

system: The case of Montpellier Business School. InProceedings of the International

Conference on e-Learning (pp. 174-181).

Guri-Rosenblit, S., &Gros, B. (2011). E-learning: Confusing terminology, research gaps and

inherent challenges. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 25(1).

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.

learning. Academy of management journal, 40(6), 1282-1309.

Wegner, S. B., Holloway, K. C., &Garton, E. M. (1999). The effects of Internet-based

instruction on student learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 98-

106.

Whelan, R., &Plass, J. (2002). Is eLearning effective? A review of Literature from 1993-2001.

In Proceedings of World Conference on e-learning in Corp., Health, & Higher Ed (pp.

1026-1028).

Willcoxson, L., & Prosser, M. (1996). Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (1985): Review and

further study of validity and reliability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(2),

247-257.

Wilson, G., & Stacey, E. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to

teach online. Australasian journal of educational technology, 20(1), 33-48.

Zygouris-Coe, V., Swan, B., & Ireland, J. (2009). Online learning and quality

assurance. International Journal on E-learning, 8(1), 127-146.

168

- Evaluating E-learning; A Guide to the Evaluation of E-learning- Graham AttwellCaricato daGraham Attwell
- ICTCaricato daJay-Ar Mario
- EDULEARN13TOCCaricato daAida De Haro Garcia
- Ave Mejia - Presentation on M&E IndicatorsCaricato daAve Mejia
- October 2010 Ink SpotCaricato datesha_christensen
- elearninCaricato da3153899
- personal project and evalution cheryl katherine washCaricato daapi-270455377
- projectevaluationreportCaricato daapi-329899690
- Challenges in Quality: Use of ICTin Educationin ThailandCaricato damartyles
- ICT Month Celebration (HCDG Week) - 2010 - As of June 15Caricato damameltan
- 7 Things You Should Read About Evaluating Faculty Development Programs (261951793)Caricato daEDUCAUSE
- Job DesignsCaricato damarlon matusalem
- ecp12073038.pdfCaricato daelka priela
- initial-revised ed tech definitionsCaricato daapi-254598695
- professionallearningmatriCaricato daapi-276289740
- sash reflectCaricato daapi-286009245
- m6 updating edtl 6360 resources projectfor edtl 6320Caricato daapi-303028308
- professional resourcesCaricato daapi-283597245
- uis350 spivey stacy k-12 online learning article reviewCaricato daapi-337457106
- British Council Seminar Series - Call for Proposals 2015 - 16Caricato daAdel Ali
- McFatridge Collaborative Digcit FRIT7739Caricato daLee McFatridge
- overall refelectionCaricato daapi-385153255
- Action Plan in IctCaricato daBert Binonz
- A Systems Definition of Educational Technology in SocietyCaricato daMatroni Polyzou
- LR Plan Hibunaon ESCaricato daHaidee Daroy Apuya
- BSED_Filipino.pdfCaricato daNicole Aizel V. Balanac
- EDUCATE - BESACaricato daLakshya Vij
- assignment.pdfCaricato daSaad Khan
- OpenlearningCaricato daKris Ann Tacluyan
- fve3Caricato daapi-344972038

- Anomalistic psychology.pdfCaricato dacabezadura2
- Kings HandbookCaricato daEldrex Irada Caldeo
- The LEGO Group Responsibility Report 2014Caricato daAle Lun
- TESOL-Program.pdfCaricato daAustin Vo
- 1421044282_Edusec profile.pdfCaricato daWellington Polanco Gonzalez
- kenny robert king recommendation letter 2Caricato daapi-251243533
- OO0514Caricato daAnonymous 9eadjPSJNg
- wyatt mashkuri q3 narritiveCaricato daapi-377824398
- Report in Teaching Professions by Maurice Mikkelssen Philippe DCaricato daPhilippe Camposano
- carlena lowell 501 parent pamphlet 3Caricato daapi-201770784
- syllabus trgda polyCaricato daPrashant Madnavat
- Mapping Report FinalCaricato daMarina Peshovska
- How Common Core ELA Standards Place College Readiness at RiskCaricato daShane Vander Hart
- Atlan, Henri - Enlightenment to Enlightenment - Intercritique of Science and MythCaricato daTobyBennett
- Institutional Syllabus IIICaricato daWilson Gerardo Monar Solano
- THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CURRICULUM IN THE REALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES BY Bayo Soneye, NCE, B.Sc. Ed, M.Ed, Ph.D (in view) Lecturer, Diploma Programme Redeemer’s University Lagos, Nigeria +2348034971806 bayosoneye2010@gmail.com Rose Agbonluare (Miss), NCE, B.Sc. (in View) Teacher, Civic Education Lagos, Nigeria Rose.agbonluare@facebook.com +2348132767244Caricato daBayo Soneye
- 39 Modern India I (MDS)Caricato daSrinivas Vamsi
- Inter LanguageCaricato daRestu Mustaqim
- Daily Lesson Plan Benta BaruCaricato daMuhd Faisal Samsudin
- Lesson PlanCaricato dadule83
- 0580_w10_ms_41 mathCaricato daKhaled Said
- Special Consideration FormCaricato daTodd Delfs
- Acr Teacher PUNE UNICaricato daKMAHESSHA9881
- Age and Critical Period HypothesisCaricato daHeather Goodman
- ME 361 Course Outline - Mahmud HasanCaricato daAbu Jafar Rasel
- hstes student-parent handbook 2015Caricato daapi-277634706
- tusgb3.pdfCaricato daYohanes Anri
- parent newsletter - brittany bachantCaricato daapi-430388379
- PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND POLITICAL SCIENCECaricato daMuhammad Asif
- amanda picot observation 4-9-19 - copyCaricato daapi-348560961

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.