So I have just finished my first year at University and my final assignment has just been handed up.
I though I'd share it with you:
How does
computer self-efficacy effect the success and failure of students using
E-learning systems in tertiary education?
Article by S,
Mawson
‘E-learning uses network technologies to
create, foster, deliver, and facilitate learning anytime, anywhere’ (Liaw, 2007).
Because of this, E-learning is becoming
the fastest growing method of teaching. E-learning
is being implemented in almost every learning platform; this includes primary
and secondary education, jobs and careers training for new employees. Even entire university courses can be
completed online in open universities. For
this reason it is important to discuss the factors that influence an
individual’s performance level, and what can be done to increase the success of
E-learning systems (ELS). This article
will look at how computer self-efficacy (CSE) effects the success and failure
of students using ELS in tertiary education, and what aspects of the current
systems encourage or hinder success. This article will also discuss the strengths
and weaknesses of learning in an online environment; how CSE plays a role in
the use of technology and quality of learning; and what needs to be improved,
not just in the ELS’s themselves, but also in the students’ information
computer technology (ICT) backgrounds. It
is the intent of this article to outline the importance of a strong and
well-designed foundation for all ELS programs to encourage success and increase
the CSE of learners.
There
are advantages and disadvantages to E-learning. The main advantages cited are
that E-learning can be accessed anywhere, at any time, with asynchronous
interaction, allowing greater possibilities for collaboration. In addition, new approaches to education are
being developed, with a greater emphasis on the integration of computer-based
learning (Capper, 2001).
In
the modern world being able to access tertiary education at the click of a
button is an incredibly valuable resource. The at-your-own-pace
in-your-own-time approach is attractive to a number of different would be
student cohorts. A range of students
will value the E-learning approach, for example: students with an ICT
background, and students who do not benefit from the social aspect of the
classroom, rural students, students whose preferred course is not offered in
their state, full-time working/mature aged students, and students responsible
for family or other commitments. Leidner
& Jarvenpaa (1995) suggest that students learn better when they control the
speed at which they learn, and discover information on their own. If this is
the case then why do studies such as Dutton & Perry (2002) state
substantially larger dropout rates among E-learning students than face-to-face
students? According to Marcus & Bouhnik (2006) this suggests something is
not working properly in e-learning systems.
Students
that struggle to maintain self-discipline or experience difficulties with time
management, meeting deadlines, and struggle to maintain motivation, may find
self-regulated learning a challenge (Convingtone, K 2012). In a survey
constructed by Marcus (2003) students using distance E-learning were asked to
identify what aspects of the ELS they found dissatisfying. Reasons listed include: lack of framework,
lack of supervision, absence of a “learning environment”, lack of student-to-student
interaction, and limitations due to communication over the internet. E-learning also requires students to dedicate
more time to learning the subject matter.
Marcus
& Bouhnik (2006) referenced many other studies that they believe produced
consistent results with Marcus’s (2003) survey. It is clear from this study
that there are areas that require improvement.
Many researchers have attempted to study the student characteristics and
circumstances that may result in lower satisfaction with ELS. Swan (2001) considers the lack of
self-motivation and the inability to structure one’s own learning; Roblyer (1999)
discusses an absence of previous experience with distance learning as a factor;
Saadé & Kira (2009) also suggest perceived ease of use (PEU), technology anxiety,
and CSE. A discussion encompassing this
body of literature is beyond the scope of this article but should be taken into
account when determining whether a student is suitable for and E-learning
environment, and also in the designing and implementation of ELS.
The
concept of self-efficacy incorporates the “beliefs in one’s capabilities to
mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources and courses of action needed to
meet situational demands” (Bandura & Cervone, 1986). Self-efficacy is an
easier concept for researchers to measure than confidence, and has more
academic influence. For this reason, when we look at how an ELS effects
students’ success, CSE is the main factor focused on. For the purposes of this
research we will be looking at how self-efficacy, anxiety and PEU all play a
part in the success of ELS users.
A quantitative
study by Saadé & Kira (2008) investigates the role of CSE in mediating
computer anxiety (C-ANX) on PEU. Put
simply, this study concluded that C-ANX has a direct relationship to PEU and
that CSE mediates this relationship. Increasing
CSE can lower C-ANX and thus increase the PEU.
According to Saadé & Kira (2008), having a higher PEU will make
using an ELS more beneficial.
“The
easier a system is to use, the less effort required to carry out a given task” (Davis,
Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1992, p. 1115). If
a student perceives the ELS as easy to use, then the student can spend more
time learning the content rather than learning how the ELS works. Sun et al (2006) suggests that PEU has a
direct effect on the attrition of students from ELS. The notion is endorsed by
Dajani (2014), who agrees that struggling to learn the ELS has a large impact
on dropout rates according, thus, it makes sense to create an ELS that is as
simple, intuitive and user-friendly as possible.
While
some researchers, such as Dajani (2014), have looked how the characteristics of
the individual effect their success when using an ELS, Chien (2011) suggests
that the effectiveness of an ELS is largely influenced by factors within the system.
Selim (2007) claim that the trustworthiness and the smoothness of the
infrastructure is important and needs to be concentrated on when creating ELS. Pituch
and Lee (2006) also suggests that the three factors influencing the effectiveness
of using ELS are (1) Functionality; how easy is the system to use? How
intuitive is it? How stable is it? (2) Interaction; how does it respond as a graphical
user interface (GUI)? How does the system evaluate or allow content to be
evaluated? (3) Response; how does the system respond to the user? Is the feedback
supportive or constructive? The results of Pituch and Lee (2006) show that
these factors have an influence on both the usage and confidence in using ELS.
Finally Chen & Hsu (2007) also suggest that if the ELS has a high quality interface
design and technology, that this will have a positive influence of learners’ PEU.
It is obvious that looking at the design of the ELS is paramount, but what else
can be done to increase PEU and CSE?
Another
approach to increasing CSE would be in the design of the ELS. Dominguez et al
(2012) suggests a “gamified” approach to the design of the ELS. “Video games
are interactive activities that continually provide challenges and goals to the
player, thus involving them in an active learning process to master the game
mechanics” (Koster, 2005). If this motivation can be harnessed in an
educational environment, the impact would be highly beneficial. Video games can be addictive, articles such
as Antonius et al (2009) highlight how computer games are designed to encourage
the player to keep playing through localised goal-setting and reward. The concept
is that “gamifying” ELSs will give the student a way of measuring experience,
and rewarding them for achieving short-term goals. This has been shown to
increase CSE as well as academic self-efficacy in general. The results of
Dominguez et al (2012) suggest that there are no measurable differences in the
academic outcomes for students using the gamified learning system. However, students’ attitudes towards learning
were more positive compared to the control group. There is evidence that a
gamified approach can benefit academic outcomes, although more research needs
to be done to make this approach more achievable.
Some
researchers suggest that ELSs need to be integrated into primary and secondary
level education in order to familiarise students with this environment early on
(Liaw, 2008; Dajani, 2014). When discussing first impression of a GUI, Saadé
and Otrakji (2004) state that a person’s initial impression plays an important
role is their intention to adopt the technology. This would suggest that a
focus on increasing ELS familiarity in younger students, and fostering a
positive ICT background, would increase CSE and lower the C-ANX levels in
students Saadé & Kira (2008). With this in mind it is important to make
sure that there is a positive first impression to an ELS in the early stages of
education. This would hopefully instil a high level of CSE in the students at
an early age. Sun et al (2006) also suggests that is may be helpful to include a
basic computer literacy course into every students’ first year of college or university. Students have reported that this approach is
beneficial in countries where they have been implemented, such as in America
and Taiwan.
A study
conducted by Chien (2011) on the use of ELS in the workplace to retrain
employees, has put a strong emphasis on the instructor. It was said that “the
instructor’s attitude, technical skill, and instructional method can enhance employee
training effectiveness” (Chien, 2011). In short, a highly enthusiastic,
friendly instructor with a high level of ICT knowledge, and a patient approach,
can reduce C-ANX, improve PEU, and increase the effectiveness of the ELS
course. Chien goes on to corroborate these findings with the conclusions of other
research, such as Volery and Lord (2000), and Webster and Hackley (1997),
however a discussion of these results and their implications are beyond the
scope of this article.
The findings
of this research conclude that positive PEU, low C-ANX, and high CSE are
factors that strongly effect the success of students using ELS in tertiary
education. A number of factors have been found to mediate these results. Prior computer knowledge and a positive
introduction to ELS at an early age have been shown to increase the PEU and CSE,
and lower the C-ANX of the user. Increasing
PEU can in fact lower the C-ANX thus increasing the CSE of the user. It is also vital that the ELS is
well-designed, easy to use, and has a strong focus on smooth performance. Regulated constructive feedback can also
increase the PEU and CSE. An interactive
instructor with a high ICT knowledge and an enthusiasm to teach the content of
the ELS is just as important as the ELS itself.
It is also extremely important that the student is able to maintain
self-discipline, structure his or her own learning, and has good time
management skills, however it could be argued that these traits are necessary
for success in any tertiary education environment.
This article
suggests that it is important that instructors of ELS implement a firm study
framework. ELS’s could also potentially
be used in conjunction with a normal classroom setting, this would allow for
students to benefit from the advantages of both systems simultaneously. If this is not feasible (for example with long
distance learning) there should be a strong focus on the selecting of an
instructor that is enthusiastic in the subject area, has a high level of ICT
knowledge, and is easily accessible to the student (i.e. quick response times
to online messaging or emails). Furthermore students considering entering an
E-learning course should reflect upon their own ICT background and what they
can do to improve on their ICT knowledge, this will improve the PEU of the ELS.
Finally, an extremely strong focus should be on the development of the ELS itself. Traits that a software development team
should consider when creating a well-designed ELS, are: a focus on
organisation, performance, and quality software that can be easily adapted to
suit the individual course, and hands out reliable constructive feedback to the
student. Finally, with the expansion of E-learning and the use of ELS in higher
education it is important to educate the younger generation and prepare them
for what is becoming an E-based world. A positive first impression is of the
upmost importance.
‘We need
technology in every classroom and in every student and teacher’s hand, because
it is the pen and paper of our time, and it is the lens through which we
experience much of our world.’ – David Warlick (2009)
Reference
list:
Antonius,
J., van Rooij, M.Sc.a, Tim M. Schoenmakers, Ph.D. Regina J.J.M. van de Eijnden,
Ph.D. & Dike van de Mheen, Ph.D.c (2009) Compulsive Internet Use: The Role
of Online Gaming and Other Internet Applications. Journal of Adolescent Health., Vol, 47. pp, 51–57.
Bandura,
A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive
mechanism governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes. Vol, 38. No, 1. Pp, 92-113.
Bouhnik,
D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interactions in distance-learning courses'. Journal of the American Society Information
Science and Technology, Vol, 57, No, 3, pp. 299-305.
Bandura,
A. (1986a). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory, Journal of Society and clinical Psychology,
Vol, 4, pp. 359-373.
Capper,
J. (2001). E-learning growth ad promise for the developing world.
TechKnowLogia, May/June. <http://www.techknowlogia.org/TKL_active_pages2/CurrentArticles/main.asp
?FileType=PDF&ArticleID=266>
viewed on 3/10/2014
Chen,
M.S. and Hsu, K.P. (2007), “The effects of asynchronous e-learning situation on
learning perception and usage intention”, Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 25-44 (in Chinese).
Chien,
T, C (2011), Computer self-efficacy and factors influencing E-learning
effectiveness. European journal of
Training and development, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 670-686
Covington,
K, C, D, (2012). Student Perceptions of E-learning environments, Self-Regulated
Learning, and Academic Performance. Doctor of Philosophy, Psychology.
Walden.edu: Walden University.
Davis,
F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation to use computers in the workplace.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 14, pp. 1111–1132.
Dutton,
J., & Perry, j. (2002). How do online students differ from lecture
students? Journal of management
information systems, Vol, 18, No 4, pp. 169-190.
Dajani,
F K, (2014). Examining social presence influence on students’ satisfaction with
online learning environments. Doctor of Philosophy. Prescott Valley, Arizona: North
central.
Domínguez,
A. Saenz-de-Navarrete, J. de-Marcos*, L. Fernández-Sanz, L. Pagés, C.
Martínez-Herráiz, J, J. (2012). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical
implications and outcomes. Computers
& Education., Vol, 63. Pp, 380-392.
Gist,
M., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its
determinants and malleability. Academy of
Management Review, Vol, 17, pp. 183-211.
Kennewell,
S., & Morgan, A. (2006). Factors influencing learning through play in ICT
settings. Computers & Education,
Vol, 46 No, 3, pp.265-279
Koster,
R. (2005). A theory of fun for gaming design.
Scottsdale, Arizona: Paraglyoh Press.
Leidner,
D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance
management school education: a theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, Vol, 19. No, 3, pp. 265-291.
Liaw, S (2007). ‘Investigating
students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of
e-learning: a case study of the blackboard leaning system’, Computers & Education, vol. 51, no.
2 pp. 864-873.
Marcus,
T. (2003). Communication, technology and education, the role of discussion
group in asynchronic distance-learning courses as a beneficial factor in the
learning process. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan,
Israel.
Pituch,
K.A. and Lee, Y.K. (2006), “The influence of system characteristics on
e-learning use”, Computers & Education, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 222-44.
Roblyer,
M.D. (1999). Is choice important in distance learning? A study of student
motives for taking internet base courses at high school and community college
levels. Journal of Research on computing
in education, Vol, 32, PP, 157-171.
Swan,
K. (2001). Virtual interactions: Design factors affecting student’s
satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, Vol, 22, No, 2, PP,
306-331.
Selim,
H.M. (2007), “Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: confirmatory
factor models”, Computers & Education, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 396-413.
Saadé, R., & Kira, D
(2008). ‘Computer anxiety in e-learning: the effect of computer self-efficacy',
Journal of Information Technology
Education, vol. 8, no. 1 pp. 1539-3585.
Sun, P,-C. Tsai, R, J. Finger,
G. Chen, Y, Y. Yeh, D (2008), What drives successful E-learning? An empirical
investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction, computer and education, Vol 50, pp
1183-1202
Venkatesh,
V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask direction? Gender, social influence, and their role in
technology acceptance and usage behaviour. MIS Quarterly, Vol, 24 No, 1,
pp. 115-139.
Volery,
T. and Lord, D. (2000), “Critical success factors in online education”, International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 216-23.
Webster,
J. and Hackley, P. (1997), “Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated distance
learning”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1282-309.
Warlick,
D. (2009) “2c worth of seeking the shakabuku” July (2009) viewed on 1 November
2014 http://2cents.onlearning.us/
Hope you liked it! I found the subject quite interesting..
Please come over and check me out on YouTube and feel free to Subscribe to my channel.
Thanks guys/girls,