Advertisement

Evaluating students experiences using a virtual learning environment: satisfaction and preferences

  • Nazire Burcin HamutogluEmail author
  • Orhan Gemikonakli
  • Ibrahim Duman
  • Ali Kirksekiz
  • Mubin Kiyici
Development Article

Abstract

Virtual learning environments (VLEs) are web-based software systems that enable students to interact with their teachers and classmates, access learning resources without restriction of time and place, and use cutting-edge Information and Communication Technologies. Nevertheless, VLEs are costly to develop and maintain. Clearly, many features of VLEs may not be as useful to learners as designers and stakeholders might think, resulting in waste of resources. With this possibility in mind, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the features of the VLE employed at Middlesex University. To that end, first, a scale with 11 items and 3 sub-dimensions was developed and tested through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to identify student perceptions of the (1) benefit, (2) satisfaction, and (3) guidance, aiming at identifying student views on how beneficial the system was, whether they were satisfied with it, and how they perceived the guidance provided through it, respectively. Next, the scale was administered to a sample of 278 students to determine whether the perceptions differed depending on campus location, and grade level. Finally, questions were also asked to pinpoint the features of the VLE that the students found most useful and beneficial. Data were analysed through ANOVA, correlation, and rank analyses. Results show that the students’ perception of the VLE did not significantly differ based on campus location or grade level. Two features of the VLE—lecture capture and key concept videos—were the most beneficial resources for the students, whereas “lecture capture with PowerPoint slides and audio only,” discussion forums, and chat rooms, were not preferred. The students were not much enthusiastic to have access to blogs, audio/video conferencing facilities, wikis, or chat either.

Keywords

Higher education Usefulness Satisfaction Benefit Guidance Virtual learning environment 

Notes

Funding

This study is not funded by any company or scholarship.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahmed, J., & Morley, G. (2010). VLE a blessing or a curse: VLE use by HE academic staff. Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010—Global Conference on Learning and Technology. Retrieved from http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/8901/.
  2. Akritidou, M., & Tsiatsos, T. (2008). Implementing a PLE: A VLE-based approach. Conference ICL2008, 24–26, Villach, Austria.Google Scholar
  3. Al Ghamdi, A., Samarji, A., & Watt, A. (2016). Essential considerations in distance education in KSA: Teacher immediacy in a virtual teaching and learning environment. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(1), 17–22.Google Scholar
  4. Arbaugh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with web-based courses: An exploratory study of two online MBA programs. Management and Learning, 33(3), 331–347.Google Scholar
  5. Assoodar, M., Vaezi, S., & Izanloo, B. (2016). Framework to improve e-learner satisfaction and further strengthen e-learning implementation. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 704–716.Google Scholar
  6. Awang, H., Aji, Z. M., & Osman, W. R. S. (2018, September). Measuring virtual learning environment success from the teacher’s perspective: Scale development and validation. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2016, No. 1, p. 020028). AIP Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Bagozzi, R. P., & Youjae, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.Google Scholar
  8. Bee, T. (2013). Making the most out of IT: Report to TELWG. Liverpool: University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
  9. Bergen, A., French, L., & Hawkins, L. (2012). Teaching and learning in a digital world: A developmental evaluation of virtual learning environments in the Upper Grand and York Region District School Boards. Retrieved from http://www.cesinstitute.ca/.
  10. Berlanga, A. J., Eshuism, J., Hermans, H., & Sloep, P. B. (2010). Learning networks for lifelong learning: An exploratory survey on distance learners’ preferences. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Ed), In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on networked learning 2010 (pp. 44–51). Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  11. Bourne, J., & Moore, J. C. (Eds.). (2003). Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction (Vol. 4). Needham: Olin College-Sloan-C.Google Scholar
  12. Browne, T., Jenkins, M., & Walker, R. (2006). A longitudinal perspective regarding the use of VLEs by higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(2), 177–192.Google Scholar
  13. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1999). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 8 for windows. New York: Routelge.Google Scholar
  14. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel, Prelis, and Simplis: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Cassidy, S. (2016). Virtual learning environments as mediating factors in student satisfaction with teaching and learning in Higher Education. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 5(1), 113–123.Google Scholar
  16. Cheng, K. W. (2011). The gap between e-learning managers and users on satisfaction of e-learning in the accounting industry. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 3, 1–9.Google Scholar
  17. Chua, C., & Montalbo, J. (2014). Assessing students’ satisfaction on the use of virtual learning environment (VLE): An input to a campus-wide e-learning design and implementation. Information and Knowledge Management, 3(4), 108–116.Google Scholar
  18. Conrad, D. L. (2002). Engagement, excitement, anxiety, and fear: Learners’ experiences of starting an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 205–226.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1604_2.Google Scholar
  19. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: University of Nebraska-Lincoln.Google Scholar
  20. Dillenbourg, P., Schneider, D., & Synteta, P. (2002). Virtual learning environments. In A. Dimitracopoulous (Ed). In Proceedings of the 3rd Hellenic Conference Information and Communication Technologies in Education, (pp. 3–18).Google Scholar
  21. Dutton, W. H., Cheong, P. H., & Park, N. (2004). The social shaping of a virtual learning environment: The case of a university-wide course management system. Electronic Journal of e-learning, 2(1), 69–80.Google Scholar
  22. Figlio, D., Rush, N., & Yin, L. (2010). Is it live or is it Internet? Experimental estimates of the effects of online instruction on student learning. Cambridge MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  23. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.Google Scholar
  24. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Frokjaer, E., Hertzum, M., & Hornbaek, K. (2000). Measuring usability: Are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘00). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 345–352.Google Scholar
  26. Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D. T., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2013). Investigating the relations between motivation, tool use, participation, and performance in an e-learning course using web-videoconferencing. Computers in Human Behaviour, 29(1), 285–292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.005.Google Scholar
  27. Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S. J. (2014). Video research in the learning sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Graven, O. H., Helland, M., & MacKinnon, L. (2006). The influence of staff use of a virtual learning environment on student satisfaction. In 2006 7th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (pp. 423–441). ITHET.Google Scholar
  29. Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tahtam, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Hamutoglu, N. B., Gemikonakli, O., Savasci, M., & Gultekin-Sezen, G. (2018). Development of a scale to evaluate virtual learning environment satisfaction. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 5(2), 201–222.Google Scholar
  31. Heaton-Shrestha, C., Gipps, C., Edirisingha, P., & Linsey, T. (2007). Learning and e-learning in HE: The relationship between student learning style and VLE use. Research Papers in Education, 22(4), 443–464.Google Scholar
  32. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Block Synderman, B. (1967). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Holmes, V., Clark, W., Burt, P., & Rienties, B. (2013). Engaging teachers (and students) with media streaming technology, the case of Box of Broadcasts. In L. Wankel & P. Blessinger (Eds.), Increasing student engagement and retention using mobile applications: Smartphones, Skype and texting technologies (Vol. 6D, pp. 211–240). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  34. Idemudia, E. C., & Negash, S. (2012). An empirical investigation of factors that influence anxiety and evaluation ın the virtual learning environment. In Proceedings of the Southern Association for Information Systems Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Isbulan, O. (2015). Review and development of teacher candidates’ educational Facebook usage according to Technology Acceptance Model, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Institute of Educational Sciences, Sakarya: Sakarya University.Google Scholar
  36. Kember, D., & Ginns, P. (2012). Evaluating teaching and learning: A practical handbook for colleges, universities and the scholarship of teaching. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Khlaisang, J., & Songkram, N. (2019). Designing a virtual learning environment system for teaching twenty-first century skills to higher education students in ASEAN. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(1), 41–63.Google Scholar
  38. Kim, K. J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 335–344.Google Scholar
  39. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lee, M. C. (2010). Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Computers & Education, 54(2), 506–516.Google Scholar
  41. Lee, J., Hong, N. L., & Ling, N. L. (2001). An analysis of students’ preparation for the virtual learning environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3), 231–242.Google Scholar
  42. Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 158–163.Google Scholar
  43. Liaw, S. S., Huang, H. M., & Chen, G. D. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1066–1080.Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. MacLeod, J., Yang, H. H., Zhu, S., & Li, Y. (2018). Understanding students’ preferences toward the smart classroom learning environment: Development and validation of an instrument. Computers & Education, 122, 80–91.Google Scholar
  46. Mai, M. Y., & Muruges, G. R. (2018). Primary school science teachers’ attitude towards using virtual learning environment (VLE) in teaching science. European Journal of Education, 1(3), 155–162.Google Scholar
  47. Maki, R. H., Maki, W. S., Patterson, M., & Whittaker, P. D. (2000). Evaluation of a web-based introductory psychology course: I. Learning and satisfaction in on-line versus lecture courses. Behaviour research methods, instruments, & computers, 32(2), 230–239.Google Scholar
  48. Martins, L. L., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2004). A model of business school students’ acceptance of a web-based course management system. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(1), 7–26.Google Scholar
  49. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 107–119.Google Scholar
  51. Mayorga-Toledano, M. C., & Fernández-Morales, A. (2004). Learning tools for Java-enabled phones: An application for actuarial studies. Learning with Mobile Devices, 95–98. Retrieved January 5, 2018 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.97.4405&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=104.
  52. Mertler, C. A., & Vanatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrzcak Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Murray, T. (2001). Characteristics and affordances of adaptive hyperbooks. In WebNet (pp. 899–904).Google Scholar
  54. Naveh, G., Tubin, D., & Pliskin, N. (2010). Student LMS use and satisfaction in academic institutions: The organizational perspective. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 127–133.Google Scholar
  55. Oblinger, D. D., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the net generation educause. Retrieved from. http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen.
  56. Ogba, I. E., Saul, N., & Coates, N. F. (2012). Predicting students’ attitudes towards advertising on a university virtual learning environment (VLE). Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(1), 63–75.Google Scholar
  57. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.Google Scholar
  58. Pagram, J., & Cooper, M. (2011). E-learning: An examination of the use and preferences of students using online learning materials. In Proceedings of ICCE (pp. 712–716).Google Scholar
  59. Reed, P., & Watmough, S. (2015). Hygiene factors: Using VLE minimum standards to avoid student dissatisfaction. E-learning and Digital Media, 12(1), 68–89.Google Scholar
  60. Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., Lygo-Baker, S., Ma, H. W. S., & Rees, R. (2016). Why some teachers easily learn to use a new virtual learning environment: A technology acceptance perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 539–552.Google Scholar
  61. Roberts, J. C. (2015). Evaluating the effectiveness of lecture capture: Lessons learned from an undergraduate political research class. Journal of Political Science Education, 11(1), 45–60.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2014.985104.Google Scholar
  62. Rogers, P. (2001). Designing instruction for technology enhanced learning. London: IRM Press.Google Scholar
  63. Santana-Mancilla, P. N., Montesinos-López, O. A., Garcia-Ruiz, M. A., Contreras-Castill, J. J., & Gaytan-Lugo, L. S. (2019). Validation of an instrument for measuring the technology acceptance of a virtual learning environment. Acta Universitaria, 29, e1796.  https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2019.1796.Google Scholar
  64. Šumak, B., Heričko, M., Pušnik, M., & Polančič, G. (2011). Factors affecting acceptance and use of Moodle: An empirical study based on TAM. Informatica, 35(1), 91–100.Google Scholar
  65. Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.Google Scholar
  66. Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9–31.Google Scholar
  67. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  68. Toni Mohr, A., Holtbrügge, D., & Berg, N. (2012). Learning style preferences and the perceived usefulness of e-learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(3), 309–322.Google Scholar
  69. Walker, R., Voce, J., Nicholls, J., Swift, E., Ahmed, J., Horrigan, S., et al. (2014). Survey of technology enhanced learning for higher education in the UK. Oxford: UCISA.Google Scholar
  70. Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414–426.Google Scholar
  71. Wells, P., De Lange, P., & Fieger, P. (2008). Integrating a virtual learning environment into a second-year accounting course: Determinants of overall student perception. Accounting & Finance, 48(3), 503–518.Google Scholar
  72. Westbrook, V. (2006). The virtual learning future. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 471–482.Google Scholar
  73. Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research of educational communications and technology (pp. 957–983). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  74. Williams, A., Birch, E., & Hancock, P. (2012). The impact of online lecture recordings on student performance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 199–213.Google Scholar
  75. Youn, S., Chyung, Y., & Vachon, M. (2005). An investigation of the profiles of satisfying and dissatisfying factors in e-learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(2), 97–113.Google Scholar
  76. Zerihun, Z., Beishuizen, J., & Van Os, W. (2012). Student learning experience as an indicator of teaching quality. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(2), 99–111.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nazire Burcin Hamutoglu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Orhan Gemikonakli
    • 2
  • Ibrahim Duman
    • 3
  • Ali Kirksekiz
    • 4
  • Mubin Kiyici
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Computer Education and Instructional TechnologyKırsehir Ahi Evran UniversityKirsehirTurkey
  2. 2.Middlesex UniversityLondonUK
  3. 3.Faculty of Education, Computer Education and Instructional TechnologyHakkari UniversityHakkariTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Computer Technologies, Karasu Vocational HighschoolUniversity of Applied ScienceSakaryaTurkey
  5. 5.Faculty of Education, Computer Education and Instructional TechnologySakarya UniversitySakaryaTurkey

Personalised recommendations