Research Article

From Student’s Experience: Does E-learning Course Structure Influenced by learner’s Prior Experience, Background Knowledge, Autonomy, and Dialogue

Hassan Abuhassna 1 * , Abdelsalam H. Busalim 2 , Babakura Mamman 3 , Noraffandy Yahaya 1 , Megat Aman Zahiri Megat Zakaria 1 , Qusay Al-Maatouk 4 , Fareed Awae 1
More Detail
1 Faculty of Social Sciences & Humanities, School of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310, UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia2 Irish Institute of Digital Business, DCU Business School, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland3 Faculty of Education, University of Maiduguri, P.M.B. 1069, Maiduguri, Borno State Nigeria4 School of Digital, Technologies and Arts, Staffordshire University, Stoke on Trent, United Kingdom* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(1), January 2022, ep338, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11386
Published: 26 November 2021
OPEN ACCESS   2777 Views   2025 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Background: E-learning is increasingly becoming a preference in higher education institutions worldwide; this is intended to assist educational institutions in achieving objectives to meet the proportion of individuals with their educational opportunities. Nevertheless, instructors and students frequently have concerns with their capacity to succeed in E-learning environments.
Objectives: This study aimed to presents common eLearning challenges in regard to e-learning courses structure and its relations to various factors, for instance; students’ autonomy, prior knowledge and experience, students- students dialogue, and students- instructor dialogue, and proposes solutions to these challenges based on the transactional distance theory. Moreover, this study presents evidence from Malaysian higher institutions based on theoretical models for e-learning course structure and its relations to the factors mentioned above.
Methods: Data have been collected from 680 university learners all over Malaysia. Data were then examined using exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation modelling employing Smart PLS 3.0 software.
Results and conclusion: Research findings indicated that e-learning course structure was affected by all dimensions of overall path analysis findings: student autonomy, students background, student-instructor dialogue, and student-student dialogue. However, the e-learning course structure showed insignificant with students’ prior experience.
Implications: Implications for universities are discussed accordingly. Such findings provide vital support to the integrative association among collaborative control (CC) and transactional distance theory (TDT) regarding e-learning environments experience, which might support universities administrators in the higher education industry to implement, plan and evaluate online learning platforms applications in their institutions.
Keywords: e-learning courses structure, e-learning student background, e-learning student autonomy, e-learning dialogue

CITATION (APA)

Abuhassna, H., Busalim, A. H., Mamman, B., Yahaya, N., Megat Zakaria, M. A. Z., Al-Maatouk, Q., & Awae, F. (2022). From Student’s Experience: Does E-learning Course Structure Influenced by learner’s Prior Experience, Background Knowledge, Autonomy, and Dialogue. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(1), ep338. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11386

REFERENCES

  1. Abuhassna, H., & Yahaya, N. (2018). Students’ utilization of distance learning through an interventional online module based on Moore transactional distance theory. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(7), 3043-3052. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/91606
  2. Abuhassna, H., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahya, N., Megat Zakaria, M. A. Z., Mohd Kosnin, A. B., & Darwish, M. (2020). Development of a new model on utilizing online learning platforms to improve students’ academic achievements and satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00216-z
  3. Abuhassna, H., Megat, A., Yahaya, N., Azlina, M., & Al-rahmi, W. M. (2020). Examining Students’ satisfaction and learning autonomy through web-based courses. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering, 1(9), 356-370. https://doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2020/53912020
  4. Adams, D., Sumintono, B., Mohamed, A., & Noor, N. S. M. (2018). E-learning readiness among students of diverse backgrounds in a leading Malaysian higher education institution. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 227-256. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2018.15.2.9
  5. Akaslan, D., & Law, E. L.-C. (2011). Measuring student E-learning readiness: A case about the subject of Electricity in Higher Education Institutions in Turkey. In H. Leung, E. Popescu, Y. Cao, R. W. H. Lau, & W. Nejdl (Eds.), ICWL 2011. LNCS (vol. 7048, pp. 209-218). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25813-8_22
  6. Al-azawei, A., Parslow, P., & Lundqvist, K. (2017). Investigating the effect of learning styles in a blended elearning system: An extension of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2758
  7. Azhari, F. A., & Ming, L. C. (2015). Review of e-learning practice at the tertiary education level in Malaysia. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, 49(4), 248-257. https://doi.org/10.5530/ijper.49.4.2
  8. Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M, Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.005
  9. Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009). Addressing the context of e-learning: Using transactional distance theory to inform design. Distance Education Journal, 30(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910902845972
  10. Bolliger, D. U., & Inan, F. A. (2012). Development and validation of the online student connectedness survey (OSCS). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 41-65. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1171
  11. Bradford, P., Porciello, M., Balkon, N., & Backus, D. (2007). The blackboard learning system: The be all and end all in educational instruction? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 301-314. https://doi.org/10.2190/X137-X73L-5261-5656
  12. Chawdhry, A., Paullet, K., & Benjamin, D. (2011). Assessing Blackboard: Improving online instructional delivery. Information Systems Education Journal, 9(4), 20. http://isedj.org/2011-9/N4/ISEDJv9n4p20.html
  13. Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 655-690). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_29
  14. Chopra, G., Madan, P., Jaisingh, P., & Bhaskar, P. (2019). Effectiveness of E learning portal from students’ perspective: A structural equation model (SEM) approach. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(2), 94-116. https ://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-05-2018-0027
  15. Christensen, R. (2015). Research in schools. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 624-627). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483346397.n257
  16. Cidral, W. A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., & Aparicio, M. (2018). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computer Education, 122, 273-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001
  17. Dewey, E. A. (1972). Understanding children’s behaviour. The Counseling Psychologist, 3(2), 120-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/001100007200300217
  18. Eroglu, M., & Ozbek, R. (2018). The investigation of the relationship between attitudes towards e learning and self-directed learning with technology of secondary school students. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(5), 297-314. https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2018.05.019
  19. Falloon, G. (2011). Exploring the virtual classroom: What students need to know (and teachers should consider). Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 439-451.
  20. Farley, H., Murphy, A., Johnson, C., Carter, B., Lane, M., Midgley, W., Hafeez-Baig, A., Dekeyser, S., & Koronios, A. (2015). How do students use their mobile devices to support learning? A case study from an Australian Regional University. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 14(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.ar
  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313
  22. Furnborough, C. (2012). Making the most of others: Autonomous interdependence in adult beginner distance language learners. Distance Education, 33(1), 99-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667962
  23. Gamage, D., Fernando, S., & Perera, I. (2014). Factors affecting to effective e-Learning: Learners perspective. Scientific Research Journal, 2(5), 42-48.
  24. George, P. P., Papachristou, N., Belisario, J. M., Wang, W., Wark, P. A., Cotic, Z., Rasmussen, K., Sluiter, R., Riboli-Sasco, E., Car, L. T., Musulanov, E. M., Molina, J. A., Heng, B. H., Zhang, Y., Wheeler, E. L., Al Shorbaji, N., Majeed, A., & Car, J. (2014). Online elearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. Journal of Global Health, 4(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.04.010406
  25. Ghavifekr, S. & Rosdy, W.A.W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.23596
  26. Gilbert, J., Morton, S., & Rowley, J. (2007). E-learning: The student experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 560-573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00723.x
  27. Goyal, S. (2012). E-learning: Future of education. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(2), 239-242. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v6i4.168
  28. Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd Ed.), Sage Publication.
  29. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  30. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6
  31. Heirdsfield, Walker, S., Tambyah, M., & Beutel, D. (2011). Blackboard as an online learning environment: What do teacher education students and staff think? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(7), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n7.4
  32. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  33. Huang, X., Chandra, A., DePaolo, C. A., & Simmons, L. L., (2015a). Understanding transactional distance in web-based learning environments: An empirical study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 734-747. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12263
  34. Islam, A. M., Chittithaworn, C., Rozali, Z. A., & Liang, H. (2010). Factors affecting e learning effectiveness in a higher learning institution in Malaysia. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia, (Malaysian Journal of Education), 35(2),51-60.
  35. Islam, M. A., Abdul Rahim, N. A., Liang, T. C., & Momtaz, H. (2011). Effect of demographic factors on e-learning effectiveness in a higher learning institution in Malaysia. International Education Studies, 4(1), 112-121. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v4n1p112
  36. Jacobs, G. M., Renandya, W. A., & Power, M. (2016). Learner autonomy. In G. Jacobs, W. A. Renandya, & M. Power (Eds.), Simple, powerful strategies for student centered learning. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25712-9_3
  37. Jaques, D., & Salmon, G. (2007). Learning in groups: A handbook for face-to-face and online environments. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203016459
  38. Jethro, O. O., Grace, M. A., & Thomas, K. A. (2012). E-learning and its effects on teaching and learning in a global age. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(1), 203-210.
  39. Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29-49.
  40. Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: a constructivist perspective. Prentice Hall, Inc.
  41. Kassandrinou, A., Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2014). Transactional distance among Open University students. How does it affect the learning Progress? European Journal of Open. Distance and e-Learning, 16(1), 78-93. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2014-0002
  42. Kaur, N. (2014). Teacher-led initiatives in supporting learner empowerment among Malay tertiary learners. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 11, 101-126. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli.11.2014.7667
  43. Kearsley, G., & Lynch, W. (1996). Structural issues in distance education. Journal of Education for Business, 71(4), 191-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1996.10116783
  44. Kumar, A. (2017). E-learning and blended learning in orthodontic education. APOS Trends in Orthodontics, 7(4), 188. https://doi.org/10.4103/apos.apos_49_17
  45. Kuo, Y.-F., Wu, C.-M., & Deng, W.-J. (2009). The relationships among service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 887-896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.03.003
  46. Language Writing: Developing Self-regulated Learners (2013). Routledge.
  47. Lau, C. Y., & Shaikh, J. M. (2012). The impacts of personal qualities on online learning readiness at Curtin Sarawak Malaysia (CSM). Educational Research and Reviews, 7(20), 430-444. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR09.229
  48. Lee, H. J., & Rha, I. (2009). Influence of structure and interaction on student achievement and satisfaction in web-based distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 372 382.
  49. Lee, K., Tsai, P. S., Chai, C. S., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Students’ perceptions of self‐directed learning and collaborative learning with and without technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(5), 425-437. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12055
  50. Leong, L.-Y., Hew, T.-S., Lee, V.-H., & Ooi, K.-B. (2015). An SEM–artificial-neural-network analysis of the relationships between SERVPERF, customer satisfaction and loyalty among low-cost and full-service airline. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(19), 6620-6634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.04.043
  51. Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864-873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.005
  52. Madjar, N., Nave, A., & Hen, S. (2013). Are teachers’ psychological control, autonomy support and autonomy suppression associated with students’ goals? Educational Studies, 39(1), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2012.667871
  53. Massimo, P. (2014). Multidimensional analysis applied to the quality of the websites: Some empirical evidence from the Italian public sector. Economics and Sociology, 7(4), 128-138. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2014/7- 4/9
  54. Mathieson, K. (2012). Exploring student perceptions of audiovisual feedback via screen casting in online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 26(3), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2012.689166
  55. Ministry of higher education (2021). National strategic plan for higher education: Laying the foundation beyond 2020. http://www.ilo.org/dyn/youthpol/en/equest.fileutils.docHandle?p_uploaded_file_id=
  56. 477
  57. Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning.
  58. Moore, M. G. (2013). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 66-85). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203803738.ch5
  59. Noesgaard, S. S., & Orngreen, R. (2015). The effectiveness of e-learning: an explorative and integrative review of the definitions, methodologies and factors that promote e-learning effectiveness. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(4), 278-290.
  60. Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004
  61. Panyajamorn, T., Suthathip, S., Kohda, Y., Chongphaisal, P., & Supnithi, T. (2018). Effectiveness of E learning design and affecting variables in Thai public schools. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 15(1), 1-34.
  62. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). The University of Michigan.
  63. Raab, T. R., Ellis, W. W., & Abdon, R. B. (2002). Multisectoral partnerships in e-learning: A potential force for improved human capital development in the Asia Pacific. Internet and Higher Education, 4(3), 217-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00067-7
  64. Rabinovich, T. (2009). Transactional distance in a synchronous web-extended classroom learning environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boston University.
  65. Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604-612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.084
  66. Rasouli, A., Rahbania, Z., & Attaran, M. (2016). Students’ readiness for e-learning application in higher education. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(3), 51-64.
  67. Rhema, A., & Miliszewska, I. (2014). Analysis of student attitudes towards e-learning: The case of engineering students in Libya. Issues in informing science and information Technology, 11, 169-190. https://doi.org/10.28945/1987
  68. Rosenberg, H., Grad, H. A., & Matear, D. W. (2003). The effectiveness of computer-aid, self instructional programs in dental education: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Dental Education, 67(4), 524-532. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2003.67.5.tb03654.x
  69. Salim, H., Lee, P. Y., Ghazali, S. S., Ching, S. M., Ali, H., Shamsuddin, N. H., Mawardi, M., Kassim, P. S. J., & Dzulkarnain, D. H. A. (2018). Perceptions toward a pilot project on blended learning in Malaysian family medicine postgraduate training: a qualitative study. BMC Medical Education, 18(1), 206. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1315-y
  70. Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  71. Salmon, G. (2014). Learning innovation: A framework for transformation. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 17(1), 219-235. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2014-0031
  72. Salter, M. S., Pharm, B., Karia, A., Sanfilippo, M. F., & Clifford, M. R. (2014). Effectiveness of e-learning in pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 78(4), 1 12. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe78483
  73. Selvaraj, C. (2019). Success of e-learning systems in management education in chennai city-using user’s satisfaction approach. The Online Journal of Distance Education and E-learning, 7(2), 124.
  74. Shearer, R. L. (2010). Transactional distance and dialogue: An exploratory study to refine the theoretical construct of dialogue in online learning (Dissertation abstracts), International Section A, 71, 800.
  75. Squillante, J. (2014). Analyzing Blackboard: Using a learning management system from the student perspective (Master’s dissertation). http://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/mathcompcapstones/20/
  76. Stern, D. M., & Willits, M. D. (2011). Social media killed the LMS: Re-imagining the traditional learning management system in the age of blogs and online social networks. Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, 1, 347-373. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-9968(2011)0000001020
  77. Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 9, 65-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.003
  78. Strother, J. (2002). An assessment of the effectiveness of e-learning in corporate training programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v3i1.83
  79. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., & Tarhini, T. (2017). Examining the moderating effect of individual level cultural values on users’ acceptance of E-learning in developing countries: A structural equation modelling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 306-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1122635
  80. Tseng, L. M., Lin, J. R., & Chen, P. H. (2011). Evaluating the effectiveness of e-learning system in uncertainty. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(6), 869-889. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111144955
  81. Unwin, T. (2008). Survey of e-learning in Africa. Royal Holloway University of London.
  82. Valencia-Arias, A., Chalela-Naffah, S. & Bermúdez-Hernández, J. (2019). A proposed model of e-learning tools acceptance among university students in developing countries. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 1057-1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9815-2
  83. Vasala, P., & Andreadou, D. (2010). Student’s support from tutors and peer students in distance learning. Perceptions of Hellenic Open University “studies in education” postgraduate program graduates. Open Education – The Journal for Open and Distance Education and Educational Technology, 6(1-2), 123-137 (in Greek with English abstract).
  84. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
  85. Welsh, T. E., Wanberg, R. C., Brown, G. K., & Simmering, J. M. (2003). E-learning: emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-3736.2003.00184.x
  86. White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667312
  87. Wilson, J. W. (2007). The Blackboard jungle: A case study of instructor and student perceptions of the learning technology tool Blackboard (Doctoral dissertation). http://soar-dev.wichita.edu/bitstream/handle/10057/1184/t07060.pdf?sequence=1
  88. Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). Powering e-Learning in the new millennium: An overview of e-Learning and enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 207 218. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022609809036
  89. Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R., & Nunamaker, J. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & Management, 43(1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.004