Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Task Value and Technology Satisfaction in Student Performance in Graduate-Level Online Courses

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Though it is well-accepted that Task-Technology Fit theory is a useful framework for examining university student success in online courses, the effectiveness of the theory has rarely been studied with graduate-level students or with a sample representing more than a few universities or programs. The current study investigated learners’ perceived performance in a national sample of students in over 400 graduate-level online learning environments through a path analysis involving five theoretically important constructs in the context of Task-Technology Fit theory. The results demonstrate that learners’ perceived performance will by and large be most greatly influenced by the value of the task. Task value was the strongest predictor after controlling for other variables in the model, followed by quality of content. Learner performance depends on how they perceive both the quality of the content as well as the design of the course itself. The Ease of use, relationships between users, and technology satisfaction had weaker relationships with performance, all leading to the understanding that online education organizations and information systems companies worldwide should emphasize usability when designing LMSs if the goal is to boost learners’ performance and satisfaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alanazi, A. (2016). A critical review of constructivist theory and the emergence of constructionism. American Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alanazi, A. A. (2019). Online Learning Environments: Investigating the Factors Influencing Social Presence. University of Kansas: Doctoral dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alanazi, A., Niileksela, C., Lee, S. W., Frey, B. B., & Nong, A. (2017). A Predictive Study of Learners’ Perceived Performance in Higher Education Online Learning Environments. In Proceedings of the EDSIG Conference ISSN (Vol. 2473, p. 3857).

  • Alanazi, A. A., Niileksela, C., Templin, J. (2019, June). Analyzing the relationships among CoI Framework: What Forms Learners’ Online Educational Experience. Paper presented at the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE2019), Philadelphia, PA.

  • Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online Report Card: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, D. J., & Armstrong, K. R. (2018). A Comprehensive View of Individual Problem Solving Performance. Association for Information Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bere, A., Deng, H., & Tay, R. (2018, November). Investigating the Impact of eLearning Using LMS on the Performance of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. In 2018 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e) (pp. 6-10). IEEE.

  • Bradley, D. J. (2019). Effective Online Learning for Adults: Ragan's Principles Applied, In Outcome-Based Strategies for Adult Learning (pp. 115-124). PA, USA IGI Global: Hershey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, Z., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta- analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, D. L., & Kosloski, M. F. (2015). Analysis of student perceptions of the psychosocial learning environment in online and face-to-face career and technical education courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume, 16(4), 7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao, C. M., & Yu, T. K. (2019). The moderating effect of technology optimism: How it affects students’ weblog learning. Online Information Review, 43(1), 161–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, Y. M. (2019). How does task-technology fit influence cloud-based e-learning continuance and impact? Education+ Training, 61(4), 480–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiasson, M., Kelley, H., & Downey, A. (2015). Understanding Task-Performance Chain Feed-Forward and Feedback Relationships in E-health. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(3), 167–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cigdem, H., & Topcu, A. (2015). Predictors of instructors’ behavioral intention to use learning management system: A Turkish vocational college example. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Ambra, J., Wilson, C. S., & Akter, S. (2013). Application of the task-technology fit model to structure and evaluate the adoption of E-books by Academics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 48–64.

  • Epskamp, S. (2017). semPlot: Path Diagrams and Visual Analysis of Various SEM Packages' Output. R package version 1.1. with contributions from Simon Stuber. https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=semPlot.

  • Epskamp, S., Epskamp, M. S., & MplusAutomation, S. (2019). Package ‘semPlot’.

  • Erskine, M. A., Gregg, D. G., Karimi, J., & Scott, J. E. (2019). Individual decision- performance using spatial decision support systems: a geospatial reasoning ability and perceived task-technology fit perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(6), 1369–1384.

  • Francescucci, A., & Rohani, L. (2019). Exclusively synchronous online (VIRI) learning: The impact on student performance and engagement outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(1), 60–69.

  • Fryer, L. K., & Ainley, M. (2017). Supporting interest in a study domain: A longitudinal test of the interplay between interest, utility-value, and competence beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 60, 252–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 213–236.

  • Green, R. A., Whitburn, L. Y., Zacharias, A., Byrne, G., & Hughes, D. L. (2018). The relationship between student engagement with online content and achievement in a blended learning anatomy course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 11(5), 471–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harackiewicz, J. M., Smith, J. L., & Priniski, S. J. (2016). Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 220–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harasim, L. (2017). Learning theory and online technologies. Taylor & Francis..

  • Harrati, N., Bouchrika, I., & Mahfouf, Z. (2017). Investigating the uptake of educational systems by academics using the technology to performance chain model. Library Hi Tech, 35(4), 629–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C. M., Berger, D., Jacob, B., Loeb, S., & Hill, M. (2019). Online learning, offline outcomes: Online course taking and high school student performance. AERA Open, 5(1).

  • Howard, M. C., & Rose, J. C. (2019). Refining and extending task–technology fit theory: Creation of two task–technology fit scales and empirical clarification of the construct. Information & Management, 56(6), 103134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K. Y., & Chuang, Y. R. (2016). A task–technology fit view of job search website impact on performance effects: An empirical analysis from Taiwan. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1253943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, T. C., Chen, C. C., & Chou, Y. W. (2016). Animating eco-education: To see, feel, and discover in an augmented reality-based experiential learning environment. Computers & Education, 96, 72–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, O., Abdullah, Z., Ramayah, T., & Mutahar, A. M. (2017). Internet usage, user satisfaction, task-technology fit, and performance impact among public sector employees in Yemen. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. R., Hewapathirana, G. I., & Bowen, M. M. (2019). Faculty Development for Online Teaching. In Handbook of Research on Virtual Training and Mentoring of Online Instructors (pp. 40–55). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, I. U., Hameed, Z., Yu, Y., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z., & Khan, S. U. (2018). Predicting the acceptance of MOOCs in a developing country: Application of task-technology fit model, social motivation, and self-determination theory. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 964–978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leighton, L. J., & Crompton, H. (2017). Augmented reality in K-12 education in mobile technologies and augmented reality in open education. IGI Global, 281-290.

  • 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 

  • Mathner, R. P., & Martin, C. L. (2012). Sport management graduate and undergraduate students’ perceptions of career expectations in sport management. Sport Management Education Journal, 6(1), 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misopoulos, F., Argyropoulou, M., & Tzavara, D. (2018). Exploring the factors affecting student academic performance in online programs: A literature review, In On the Line (pp. 235-250). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mtebe, J. (2015). Learning management system success: Increasing learning management system usage in higher education in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 11(2).

  • Muirhead, W. D. (2000). Online education in schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(7), 315–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogilvie, J., Agnihotri, R., Rapp, A., & Trainor, K. (2018). Social media technology use and salesperson performance: A two study examination of the role of salesperson behaviors, characteristics, and training. Industrial Marketing Management, 75, 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang, Y., Tang, C., Rong, W., Zhang, L., Yin, C., & Xiong, Z. (2017). Task-technology fit aware expectation-confirmation model towards understanding of MOOCs continued usage intention. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

  • Pai, F. Y., & Huang, K. I. (2011). Applying the technology acceptance model to the introduction of healthcare information systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(4), 650–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. (2019). Exploring a new determinant of task technology fit: Content characteristics. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 27(3), 100–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna: Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, J., & Byeon, S. C. (2011). Technology level evaluation methodology based on the technology growth curve. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,78(6), 1049-1059.

  • Sampson, S., Bradley, K. D., Arrowsmith, H., & Mensah, R. (2018). Implementing a Measurement Framework to Assess and Evaluate Student Readiness for Online Learning and Growth. In Handbook of Research on Digital Content, Mobile Learning, and Technology Integration Models in Teacher Education (pp. 315-331). IGI Global.

  • Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Computers & Education, 71, 247–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade Increase: Tracking Distance Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheshadri, A., Gitinabard, N., Lynch, C. F., Barnes, T., & Heckman, S. (2019). Predicting student performance based on online study habits: a study of blended courses. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.07331.

  • Shin, W. S., & Kang, M. (2015). The use of a mobile learning management system at an online university and its effect on learning satisfaction and achievement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3).

  • Simpson, O. (2018). Supporting students in online, open and distance learning. Routledge.

  • Sinha, A., Kumar, P., Rana, N. P., Islam, R., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Impact of internet of things (IoT) in disaster management: a task-technology fit perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 283(1-2), 759–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staples, D. S., & Seddon, P. (2004). Testing the technology-to-performance chain model. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 16(4), 17–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tam, C., & Oliveira, T. (2016). Understanding the impact of m-banking on individual performance: DeLone & McLean and TTF perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 233–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, R. A., West, R. E., & Borup, J. (2017). An analysis of instructor social presence in online text and asynchronous video feedback comments. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tian, M., & Xu, G. (2017, April). Exploring the determinants of users' satisfaction of WeChat official accounts. In Information Management (ICIM), 2017 3rd International Conference on (pp. 362-366). IEEE.

  • Walker, D. S., Lindner, J. R., Murphrey, T. P., & Dooley, K. (2016). Learning management system usage. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(2), 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S. L., & Hong, H. T. (2018). The roles of collective task value and collaborative behaviors in collaborative performance through collaborative creation in CSCL. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 937–953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, L. H., & Thurusamy, R. (2018). An examination of the effects of task technology fit and hospital information system satisfaction in public hospital Malaysia: a structural model. Advanced Science Letters, 24(2), 1479–1483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidert, J. M., Wendorf, A. R., Gurung, R. A., & Filz, T. (2012). A survey of graduate and undergraduate teaching assistants. College Teaching, 60(3), 95–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadova, E. N., Bubnov, G., & Pluzhnik, E. (2016). Efficient implementation of high technologies in educational process. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 29, p. 02046). EDP Sciences.

  • Yerdelen-Damar, S., Boz, Y., & Aydın-Günbatar, S. (2017). Mediated effects of technology competencies and experiences on relations among attitudes towards technology use, technology ownership, and self efficacy about technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(4), 394–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yi, Y. J., You, S., & Bae, B. J. (2016). The influence of smartphones on academic performance: The development of the technology-to-performance chain model. Library Hi Tech, 34(3), 480–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • You, J. W. (2018). Testing the three-way interaction effect of academic stress, academic self- efficacy, and task value on persistence in learning among Korean college students. Higher Education, 76(5), 921–935.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the University of Kansas School of Education for funding support to complete this study. Also, we would like to thank Taibah University for fellowship support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Taibah University, Medina, Saudi Arabia

    Ahmed A. Alanazi & Fahad Alharbi

  2. Educational Psychology Department, University of Kansas, 1122 West Campus Road, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA

    Ahmed A. Alanazi, Bruce B. Frey, Chris Niileksela, Steve W. Lee & Alan Nong

Authors
  1. Ahmed A. Alanazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruce B. Frey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris Niileksela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steve W. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alan Nong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fahad Alharbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed A. Alanazi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Informed consent

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained before the data collection.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix. Scale items

Appendix. Scale items

Performance:

  • I really enjoyed completing this course.

  • Performing well in this course made me feel good about myself.

  • I felt that doing well in this course was imperative for me.

  • Completing this course moved me closer to attaining my career goals.

  • I feel able to perform well in this course.

Ease Of Use:

  • The technology is easy to use.

  • The technology is user-friendly.

  • I learned how to use the technology quickly.

  • The technology does everything that I would expect it to do.

Task Value:

  • I liked the subject matter of this course.

  • I will be able to use what I learned in this course in my job.

  • In the long run, I will be able to use what I learned in this course.

  • This course provided a great deal of practical information.

  • I was very interested in the content of this course.

Relationship between Users:

  • The instructor provided feedback in a timely fashion.

  • I felt comfortable conversing through the online medium.

  • The instructor is responsive to student needs.

  • The instructor provides timely feedback about student progress.

  • There was a lot of student-instructor interaction.

Technology Satisfaction:

  • Technological problems hurt my participation.

  • I had to spend time dealing with technological problems and glitches.

  • My internet connection limits my access to this course.

  • I can't use my own device to access this course.

  • The website makes it difficult for me to complete my work for this class on time.

Quality of Content:

  • This course included many interesting activities.

  • The knowledge I gained by taking this course can be applied in many different situations.

  • The quality of instruction is excellent.

  • I feel confident in my ability to learn this material.

  • I felt motivated to explore content related questions.

  • I can apply the knowledge created in this course to my work or other non-class related activities.

  • Learning activities helped me construct explanations/solutions.

  • I can describe ways to test and apply the knowledge created in this course.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alanazi, A.A., Frey, B.B., Niileksela, C. et al. The Role of Task Value and Technology Satisfaction in Student Performance in Graduate-Level Online Courses. TechTrends 64, 922–930 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00501-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00501-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation