Quality Requirements for Continuous Use of E-learning Systems at Public vs. Private Universities in Spain
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2021.40.33-50Keywords:
Education, e-learning, ICT, public and private higher education, quality, institutional support, continuous useAbstract
During the later years of technological innovation, e-learning systems have demonstrated to be an effective way to improve educational quality and overcome time and place constraints. Virtual communication, instruction and evaluation have become an important part of the higher education. However, although e-learning has been implemented extensively, its operation and success might differ between organisations, due to institutional capacity and resources. With this in mind, the objective of this research is to distinguish between public and private universities, in the sense of the e-learning system quality and the perceived institutional support, as means to achieve users’ intention to continue using e-learning. Analysing the information from 270 Spanish teachers and students in e-learning systems at public and private universities, we concluded that information, service and educational quality determine e-learning continuous use at public universities, while perceived institutional support acts as a mediator between the information and educational quality and the continued use, in the case of the private universities. Valuable recommendations for higher-education institutions’ management suggest that innovative tools for interaction and organisation, cooperation of public and private universities, and investment in technology and human resources, are vital for continuity of e-learning systems.
References
Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238-256. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036.
Al-Husseini, S., & Elbeltagi, I. (2016). Transformational leadership and innovation: a comparison study between Iraq's public and private higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 159-181. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.927848.
Al-Samarraie, H., Teng, B. K., Alzahrani, A. I., & Alalwan, N. (2018). E-learning continuance satisfaction in higher education: a unified perspective from instructors and students. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 2003-2019. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1298088
Almutairi, B. M., & Albraithen, M. A. (2018). A Framework on the Critical Success Factors of Virtual School System Implementation: A Systematic Literature Review. In 2018 1st International Conference on Computer Applications & Information Security (ICCAIS) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Ameen, N., Willis, R., Abdullah, M. N., & Shah, M. (2019). Towards the successful integration of e‐learning systems in higher education in Iraq: A student perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1434-1446. doi:10.1111/bjet.12651
Aparicio, M., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2017). Grit in the path to e-learning success. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 388-399. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.009
Arheiam, A. A., El Tantawi, M., Al-Omami, M., Peeran, S. W., & Elmisalati, W. (2019). Perceptions of Stress Among Dental Students Living in a War-Affected Zone. Journal of dental education, 83(1), 48-55. doi:10.21815/JDE.019.006
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94. doi:10.1007/BF02723327
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. http://webcom.upmf-grenoble.fr/LIP/Perso/DMuller/GSERM/Articles/Journal%20of%20Personality%20and%20Social%20Psychology%201986%20Baron.pdf
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351-370. doi:10.2307/3250921
Chatterjee, A., Ghosh, K., & Chatterjee, B. (2020). A Study on Content Selection and Cost-Effectiveness of Cognitive E-Learning in Distance Education of Rural Areas. In Emerging Technology in Modelling and Graphics (pp. 783-786). Springer, Singapore. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-7403-6_69
Chung, C., & Babin, L. A. (2017). New technology for education: Moodle. In The Customer is NOT Always Right? Marketing Orientationsin a Dynamic Business World (pp. 661-661). Springer, Cham.
Cidral, W. A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., & Aparicio, M. (2018). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers & Education, 122, 273-290. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001
Ćukušić, M., Alfirević, N., Granić, A., & Garača, Ž. (2010). e-Learning process management and the e-learning performance: Results of a European empirical study. Computers & Education, 55(2), 554-565. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.017
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information systems research, 3(1), 60-95. doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of management information systems, 19(4), 9-30. doi:10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of marketing research, 38(2), 269-277. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.269.18845
Dias-Trindade, S., & Moreira, J. A. (2019). Pedagogical Scenarios Enriched with Audiovisual Technologies and Their Impact on the Promotion of the Learning Skills of Inmate Students in Portugal. Digital Education Review, 35, 97-110.
Evans, J. C., Yip, H., Chan, K., Armatas, C., & Tse, A. (2020). Blended learning in higher education: professional development in a Hong Kong university. Higher Education Research & Development, 1-14. doi:10.1080/07294360.2019.1685943
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.
Fichten, C., Olenik-Shemesh, D., Asuncion, J., Jorgensen, M., & Colwell, C. (2020). Higher Education, Information and Communication Technologies and Students with Disabilities: An Overview of the Current Situation. In Improving Accessible Digital Practices in Higher Education (pp. 21-44). Palgrave Pivot, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-37125-8_2
Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008
Gunn, C. (2010). Sustainability factors for e-learning initiatives. ALT-J, 18(2), 89-103. doi:10.1080/09687769.2010.492848
Hadullo, K., Oboko, R., & Omwenga, E. (2018). Status of e-learning Quality in Kenya: Case of Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology Postgraduate Students. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1), 138-160. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3322
Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Sage Publications.
Hassanzadeh, A., Kanaani, F., & Elahi, S. (2012). A model for measuring e-learning systems success in universities. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(12), 10959-10966. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.028
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1), 115-135. doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. S. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley.
Ifinedo, P. (2017). Examining students' intention to continue using blogs for learning: Perspectives from technology acceptance, motivational, and social-cognitive frameworks. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 189-199. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.049
Johnson, A., Galloway, C., Friedlander, E., & Goldenberg, C. (2019). Advancing educational quality in Rwanda: Improving teachers’ literacy pedagogy and print environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 134-145. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2019.08.016
Jung, I. (2011). The dimensions of e-learning quality: from the learner’s perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 445-464. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9171-4
Kang, Y. S., & Lee, H. (2010). Understanding the role of an IT artifact in online service continuance: An extended perspective of user satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 353-364. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.006
Kettunen, J. (2008). A conceptual framework to help evaluate the quality of institutional performance. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(4), 322-332. doi:10.1108/09684880810906472
Khan, I. U., Hameed, Z., Yu, Y., & Khan, S. U. (2017). Assessing the determinants of flow experience in the adoption of learning management systems: the moderating role of perceived institutional support. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(11), 1162-1176. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2017.1362475
Kim, K., Trimi, S., Park, H., & Rhee, S. (2012). The impact of CMS quality on the outcomes of e‐learning systems in higher education: an empirical study. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(4), 575-587. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2012.00360.x
Kim, H. J., Lee, J. M., & Rha, J. Y. (2017). Understanding the role of user resistance on mobile learning usage among university students. Computers & Education, 113, 108-118. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.015
Kurt, Ö. E. (2019). Examining an e-learning system through the lens of the information systems success model: Empirical evidence from Italy. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1173-1184. doi:10.1007/s10639-018-9821-4
Lee, Y., Hsieh, Y., & Ma, C. (2011). A model of organizational employees' e-learning systems acceptance. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(3), 355-366. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2010.09.005
Li, Y., Duan, Y., Fu, Z., & Alford, P. (2012). An empirical study on behavioural intention to reuse e‐learning systems in rural China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 933-948. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01261.x
Lin, W. S. (2012). Perceived fit and satisfaction on web learning performance: IS continuance intention and task-technology fit perspectives. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(7), 498-507. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.01.006
Martínez-Argüelles, M. J., & Batalla-Busquets, J. M. (2016). Perceived service quality and student loyalty in an online university. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(4), 264-279. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i4.2518
McGill, T. J., & Klobas, J. E. (2009). A task–technology fit view of learning management system impact. Computers & Education, 52(2), 496-508. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.002
McGill, T. J., Klobas, J. E., & Renzi, S. (2014). Critical success factors for the continuation of e-learning initiatives. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 24-36. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.001
MCIU (Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades) (2019). Datos y cifras del sistema universitario español. Publicación 2018-2019. Accessed 13 September 2020. http://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/dam/jcr:2af709c9-9532-414e-9bad-c390d32998d4/datos-y-cifras-sue-2018-19.pdf
Mohammadi, H. (2015). Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 359-374. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.044
Mushtaq, N., & Malik, A. B. (2018). The Role of Public and Private Universities of Pakistan as Learning Organization. Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 6(1), 277-290. https://search.proquest.com/openview/03a356a0cdc150f11a900e716a06475c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2030756
Naidu, P., & Derani, N. E. S. (2016). A comparative study on quality of education received by students of private universities versus public universities. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 659-666. doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00081-2
Nijman, D. J., & Gelissen, J. (2011). Direct and indirect effects of supervisor support on transfer of training. In Supporting workplace learning (pp. 89-106). Springer, Dordrecht.
Petter, S., & McLean, E. R. (2009). A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean IS success model: An examination of IS success at the individual level. Information & Management, 46(3), 159-166. doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.12.006
Pham, L., Williamson, S., & Berry, R. (2018). Student perceptions of e-learning service quality, e-satisfaction, and e-loyalty. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 14(3), 19-40. doi:10.4018/IJEIS.2018070102
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Pucciarelli, F., & Kaplan, A. (2016). Competition and strategy in higher education: Managing complexity and uncertainty. Business Horizons, 59(3), 311-320. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.01.003
Raposo-Rivas, M., & de la Serna, M. C. (2019). Technology to Improve the Assessment of Learning. Digital Education Review, (35).
Rey, E. D. & Romero, L. (2004). Competition between public and private universities: quality, prices and exams. Documentos de trabajo. Economic series (Universidad Carlos III. Departamento de Economía), 23, 1-24. https://ideas.repec.org/p/cte/werepe/we046423.html
Queiros, D. R., & de Villiers, M. R. (2016). Online learning in a South African higher education institution: Determining the right connections for the student. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5), 165-185. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2552
Uppal, M. A., Ali, S., & Gulliver, S. R. (2018). Factors determining e‐learning service quality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 412-426. doi:10.1111/bjet.12552
Vernadakis, N., Antoniou, P., Giannousi, M., Zetou, E., & Kioumourtzoglou, E. (2011). Comparing hybrid learning with traditional approaches on learning the Microsoft Office Power Point 2003 program in tertiary education. Computers & Education, 56(1), 188-199. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.007
Wang, H. C., & Chiu, Y. F. (2011). Assessing e-learning 2.0 system success. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1790-1800. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.009
Wang, Y. S., & Liao, Y. W. (2008). Assessing eGovernment systems success: A validation of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success. Government information quarterly, 25(4), 717-733. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.06.002
Wang, Y. S., Wang, H. Y., & Shee, D. Y. (2007). Measuring e-learning systems success in an organizational context: Scale development and validation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1792-1808. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.006
Wilkinson, R., & Yussof, I. (2005). Public and private provision of higher education in Malaysia: A comparative analysis. Higher Education, 50(3), 361-386. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6354-0
Williams, C., & Beam, S. (2019). Technology and writing: Review of research. Computers & Education, 128, 227-242. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.024
Wu, H. Y., & Lin, H. Y. (2012). A hybrid approach to develop an analytical model for enhancing the service quality of e-learning. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1318-1338. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.025
Yakubu, N., & Dasuki, S. (2018). Measuring e-learning success in developing countries: applying the updated DeLone and McLean model. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. http://shura.shu.ac.uk/21526/
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Digital Education Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication.
- The texts published in Digital Education Review, DER, are under a license Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4,0 Spain, of Creative Commons. All the conditions of use in: Creative Commons,
- In order to mention the works, you must give credit to the authors and to this Journal.
- Digital Education Review, DER, does not accept any responsibility for the points of view and statements made by the authors in their work.
