Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Üniversite Öğrencilerinin E-Öğrenme Ortamına Yönelik Memnuniyetini Etkileyen Faktörlerin İncelenmesi

Year 2024, Volume: 15 Issue: 1, 1 - 28, 30.04.2024

Erhan Ünal Talha Yıldız Gülin Ütebay Kadir Süzme

https://doi.org/10.54558/jiss.1192458

Abstract

Amaç: Memnuniyet değişkeni e-öğrenmenin başarısını belirlemede ve değerlendirmede anahtar role sahip olduğu vurgulanmaktadır. Bu bağlamda araştırmada, üniversite öğrencilerinin e-öğrenme ortamına yönelik memnuniyet düzeylerini etkileyen faktörlerinin belirlenmesi hedeflenmiştir.
Yöntem: Araştırma kapsamında Bilgi Sistemleri Başarı Modeli ve e-öğrenme ortamlarındaki psikososyal değişkenler kullanılarak bir araştırma modeli kurulmuştur. Kesitsel tarama modeline göre yürütülen çalışmaya 305 üniversite öğrencisi katılmıştır. Toplanan veriler kısmi en küçük kareler yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ile analiz edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Analiz sonuçlarına göre bilgi kalitesi değişkeni ve öğrenci etkileşimi ve iş birliği değişkeni üniversite öğrencilerinin e-öğrenme ortamındaki memnuniyet düzeylerini pozitif ve anlamlı bir şekilde yordamıştır. Diğer değişkenlerin üniversite öğrencilerinin e-öğrenme memnuniyeti üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisinin olmadığı bulunmuştur.
Sonuç: Bilgi Sistemleri Başarı Modeli kapsamında bilgi kalitesi, e-öğrenme ortamlarına yönelik psikososyal değişkenlerden öğrenci etkileşimi ve iş birliği e-öğrenme memnuniyetini etkileyen önemli faktörler olarak bulunmuştur. Buna göre öğretim elemanlarının öğrencilerin beklenti ve ihtiyaçları doğrultusunda, anlaşılabilir, güncel bilgiler içeren ders içerikleri tasarlamaları ve sunmaları önemlidir. E-öğrenme ortamında öğrencilerin etkileşim ve iş birliğini destekleyecek etkinliklerin devamlılığı önemlidir. Bu noktada öğretim elemanları derslerinde etkileşim ve iş birliğini destekleyen stratejiler kullanmalıdır.
Özgünlük: Çalışmada e-öğrenme ortamına yönelik üniversite öğrencilerinin memnuniyet düzeylerini etkileyen faktörleri araştırmak kurulan model Bilgi Sistemleri Başarı Modeli ve e-öğrenme ortamları psikososyal değişkenleri çerçevesinde hazırlanmış ve test edilmiştir.

Keywords

Bilgi sistemi e-öğrenme memnuniyet öğrenme ortamı psikososyal değişkenler.

References

  • Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M. ve Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in human behavior, 102, 67-86. AlMulhem, A. (2020). Investigating the effects of quality factors and organizational factors on university students’ satisfaction of e-learning system quality. Cogent Education, 7(1).
  • Alzahrani, L. ve Seth, K. P. (2021). Factors influencing students’ satisfaction with continuous use of learning management systems during the COVID-19 pandemic: An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6787–6805.
  • Angelaki, C. ve Mavroidis, I. (2013). Communication and social presence: The impact on adult learner’s emotions in distance learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 16(1), 78-93.
  • Baber, H. (2021). Modelling the acceptance of e-learning during the pandemic of COVID-19-A study of South Korea. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(2), 100503.
  • Bilgiç, H. G. ve Tüzün, H. (2015). Yükseköğretim kurumları web tabanlı uzaktan eğitim programlarında yaşanan sorunlar. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(3), 26-50.
  • Börü, L. (2019). Adi konkordatoda alacaklıların alacaklarını bildirmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 173.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Cai, L. ve Zhu, Y. (2015). The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era. Data Science Journal, 14(2), 1-10.
  • Chang, V., Liu, M., Xu, Q. A. ve Xiong, C. (2022). Factors affecting student satisfaction in e-learning. International Journal of Business and Systems Research, 16(4), 401-422.
  • Chiang, C.-Y., Boakye, K. ve Tang, X. (2019). The investigation of e-learning system design quality on usage ıntention. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 59(3), 256-265.
  • Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
  • Cidral, W. A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M. ve Aparicio, M. (2018). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers & Education, 122, 273-290.
  • Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort –based online learning. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1-20.
  • Çelik, K. ve Ayaz, A. (2022). Validation of the Delone and McLean information systems success model: a study on student information system. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 4709-4727.
  • Çelik, K. ve Sökmen, A. (2018). Algılanan performansın e-öğrenme kullanıcılarının memnuniyetleri üzerindeki etkisi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(21), 73-92.
  • Dahalan, N., Hasan, H., Hassan, F., Zakaria, Z. ve Wan Mohd Noor, W. A. (2013). Engaging students on-line: does gender matter in adoption of learning material design? World Journal on Educational Technology, 5(3), 413-419.
  • Dastidar, S. G. (2021). The impact of students’ perceptions of online learning environments on students’ satisfaction in the context of Covid-19 pandemic. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 61-72. doi: 10.46627/silet.v2i3.84
  • DeLone, W. H. ve 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. ve 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.
  • DeLone, W. H. ve McLean, E. R. (2016). Information systems success measurement. Foundations and trends in Information Systems, 2 (1), 1–116.
  • Domun, M. ve Bahadur, G. K. (2014). Design and development of a self-assessment tool and ınvestigating its effectiveness for e-learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 17(1), 1-25.
  • Efiloğlu Kurt, Ö. (2016). Bilgi sistemleri başarı modeli ile bir e-öğrenme sistemi değerlendirmesi. Yöneti̇m Bi̇li̇şi̇m Si̇stemleri̇ Dergi̇si̇, 2(2), 140-149.
  • Efiloğlu Kurt, Ö. (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.
  • Etoom, M., Aldaher, K. N., Abdelhaq, A. A., Alawneh, A. ve Alghwiri, A. A. (2022). Predictors of distance learning in physiotherapy students during COVID-19 outbreak. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 1-6.
  • Fleming, J., Becker, K. ve Newton, C. (2017). Factors for successful e-learning: does age matter?. Education and Training, 59(1), 76-89.
  • Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  • Fotiadou, A., Angelaki, C. ve Mavroidis, I. (2017). Learner autonomy as a factor of the learning process in distance education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 20(1), 95-110.
  • Freeze, R. D., Alshare, K. a, Lane, P. L. ve Joseph Wen, H. (2010). IS success model in e-learning context based on students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 173-184.
  • Garrison, D.R. (2016). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice (3rd ed.). Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315667263
  • Gedik, N., Kiraz, E. ve Ozden, M. Y. (2013). Design of a blended learning environment: Considerations and implementation issues. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1).
  • Giray, G. (2021). An assessment of student satisfaction with e-learning: An empirical study with computer and software engineering undergraduate students in Turkey under pandemic conditions. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6651-6673.
  • Grant, M. R. ve Thornton, H. R. (2007). Best practices in undergraduate adult-centered online learning: Mechanisms for course design and delivery. Journal of online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 346-356.
  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M. ve Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
  • Hair, Joseph F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M. ve Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
  • Herrington, J. ve Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3), 219-236.
  • Herrington, J., Oliver, R. ve Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59-71.
  • Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C. ve Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York: Routledge.
  • Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., Oliver, R. ve Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3-29.
  • Hurajova, A., Kollarova, D. ve Huraj, L. (2022). Trends in education during the pandemic: modern online technologies as a tool for the sustainability of university education in the field of media and communication studies. Heliyon, 8(5).
  • Ifinedo, P. (2011). An empirical analysis of factors influencing Internet/e-business technologies adoption by SMEs in Canada. International journal of information technology & decision making, 10(04), 731-766.
  • Jiang, H., Islam, A. Y. M. A., Gu, X. ve Spector, J. M. (2021). Online learning satisfaction in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A regional comparison between Eastern and Western Chinese universities. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6747-6769.
  • Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: Vol. II (s. 215-239) içinde. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey: Springe.
  • Ke, F. ve Kwak, D. (2013). Constructs of student-centered online learning on learning satisfaction of a diverse online student body: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(1), 97-122.
  • Kim, K., Trimi, S., Park, H. ve Rhee, S. (2012). The ımpact of cms quality on the outcomes of e-learning systems in higher education: An empirical study subject areas: cms benefits, course management system (cms), e-learning, e-learning success, ınformation quality, ınstructional quality, user satisfact. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(4), 575-587.
  • Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37-50.
  • Maatuk, A. M., Elberkawi, E. K., Aljawarneh, S., Rashaideh, H. ve Alharbi, H. (2022). The COVID-19 pandemic and e-learning: challenges and opportunities from the perspective of students and instructors. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 34(1), 21-38.
  • Mailizar, M., Burg, D. ve Maulina, S. (2021). Examining university students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended TAM model. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7057-7077.
  • Moore, M. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. Keegan, D., ed. "Theoretical Principles of Distance Education ss. 22-38. Routledge.
  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
  • Moos, R. H. (1974). Systems for the assessment and classification of human environments: An overview. In R.H. Moos and P. M. Insel (Eds.), Issues in social ecology: Human milieus (s. 5-29). National Press Books.
  • Moos, R. H. (1996). Understanding environments: The key to improving social processes and program outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 193-201.
  • Mtebe, J. S. ve Raphael, C. (2018). Key factors in learners’ satisfaction with the e-learning system at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 107-122.
  • Muda, I. ve Erlina, A. A. (2019). Influence of human resources to the effect of system quality and information quality on the user satisfaction of accrual-based accounting system. Contaduría y Administración, 64(2), 1-25.
  • Nachtigall, V., Shaffer, D. W. ve Rummel, N. (2022). Stirring a secret sauce: A literature review on the conditions and effects of authentic learning. Educational Psychology Review, 1-38.
  • Ohliati, J. ve Abbas, B. S. (2019). Measuring students satisfaction in using learning management system. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 14(4), 180.
  • Ouajdouni, A., Chafik, K. ve Boubker, O. (2021). Measuring e-learning systems success: data from students of higher education institutions in morocco. Data in Brief, 35.
  • Ozkan, S. ve Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers and Education, 53(4), 1285-1296.
  • Özkök, A., Walker, S. L. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Reliability and validity of a Turkish version of the DELES. Learning Environments Research, 12(3), 175-190.
  • Rokhman, F., Mukhibad, H., Bagas Hapsoro, B., Nurkhin, A. ve Choo Koo, A. (2022). E-learning evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic era based on the updated of Delone and McLean information systems success model. Cogent Education, 9(1).
  • Saba, T. (2012). Implications of E-learning systems and self-efficiency on students outcomes: a model approach. Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences, 2(1), 1-11.
  • Sahin, F. ve Sahin, Y. L. (2021). Examining the acceptance of e-learning systems during the pandemic: the role of compatibility, enjoyment and anxiety. International Technology and Education Journal, 5(1), 1-10.
  • Sahin, S. (2006). The relationship between learner characteristics and the perception of distance learning and satisfaction with web-based courses (Yayımlanmamış doktora lisans tezi). Iowa State University.
  • Shahzad, A., Hassan, R., Aremu, A. Y., Hussain, A. ve Lodhi, R. N. (2021). Effects of COVID-19 in E-learning on higher education institution students: the group comparison between male and female. Quality & quantity, 55(3), 805-826.
  • Shams, M. S., Niazi, M. M., Gul, H., Mei, T. S. ve Khan, K. U. (2022). E-Learning Adoption in higher education ınstitutions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multigroup analysis. Frontiers in Education, 6.
  • Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102-120.
  • Stankovska, G., Dimitrovski, D., Ibraimi, Z. ve Memedi, I. (2021). Online learning, social presence and satisfaction among university students during the covıd-19 pandemic. Bulgarian Comparative Education Society, 19, 181-188.
  • Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y. ve Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1183-1202. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
  • Teräs, H. ve Herrington, J. (2014). Neither the frying pan nor the fire: In search of a balanced authentic e-learning design through an educational design research process. The international review of research in open and distributed learning, 15(2).
  • Urbach, N. ve Müller, B. (2012). The updated DeLone and McLean model of information systems success. In Information systems theory (pp. 1–18). Springer, New York, NY.
  • Vanitha, P. S. ve Alathur, S. (2021). Factors influencing e-learning adoption in ındia: learners’ perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5199-5236.
  • Walker, S. L. (2003). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: the distance education learning environments survey (deles) (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Curtin University of Technology Perth, Western Australia.
  • Walker, S. L. ve Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(3), 289-308.
  • Yakubu, N. ve Dasuki, S. (2018). Measuring e-learning success in developing countries: applying the updated DeLone and McLean model. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17(1), 183-203.
  • Yekefallah, L., Namdar, P., Panahi, R. ve Dehghankar, L. (2021). Factors related to students' satisfaction with holding e-learning during the Covid-19 pandemic based on the dimensions of e-learning. Heliyon, 7(7).
  • Yosep, Y. (2015). Analysis of relationship between three dimensions of quality, user satisfaction, and e-learning usage of binus online learning. Communication and Information Technology Journal, 9(2), 67-72.
  • Yunusa, A. A. ve Umar, I. N. (2021). A scoping review of critical predictive factors (CPFs) of satisfaction and perceived learning outcomes in E-learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 1223-1270.
  • Zalat, M. M., Hamed, M. S. ve Bolbol, S. A. (2021). The experiences, challenges, and acceptance of e-learning as a tool for teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic among university medical staff. PLoS One, 16(3).

Exploring the Factors Affecting University Students’ Satisfaction Towards E-Learning Environment

Year 2024, Volume: 15 Issue: 1, 1 - 28, 30.04.2024

Erhan Ünal Talha Yıldız Gülin Ütebay Kadir Süzme

https://doi.org/10.54558/jiss.1192458

Abstract

Purpose: It is emphasized that the satisfaction has a crucial role in determining and evaluating the success of e-learning. Therefore, the aim of the study was to explore the factors affecting the satisfaction levels of university students towards e-learning environment.
Method: A research model was proposed based on the Information Systems Success Model and psychosocial variables in e-learning environment. The cross-sectional survey model was employed, where 305 university students participated in the study. The data were analyzed through partial least squares structural equation modelling.
Findings: According to the results, variables of information quality and student interaction and collaboration positively and significantly predicted the university students' satisfaction levels towards e-learning environment. It was found that other variables did not have a significant effect on university students' e-learning satisfaction.
Implications: Information quality which is the dimension of the Information Systems Success Model and student interaction and collaboration among psychosocial variables for e-learning environments were found to be significant factors affecting e-learning satisfaction. Accordingly, it is important for the instructors to design and present course contents that are understandable and incorporate up-to-date information in line with the expectations and needs of the students. In the e-learning environment, the continuity of the activities that will support the interaction and collaboration of the students is important. Thus instructors should use strategies that support interaction and collaboration in their courses.
Originality: The model was developed within the framework of Information Systems Success Model and psychosocial variables of e-learning environments and tested to investigate the factors affecting the satisfaction levels of university students towards e-learning environments in the study.

Keywords

Information system e-learning satisfaction learning environment psychosocial variables

References

  • Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M. ve Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in human behavior, 102, 67-86. AlMulhem, A. (2020). Investigating the effects of quality factors and organizational factors on university students’ satisfaction of e-learning system quality. Cogent Education, 7(1).
  • Alzahrani, L. ve Seth, K. P. (2021). Factors influencing students’ satisfaction with continuous use of learning management systems during the COVID-19 pandemic: An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6787–6805.
  • Angelaki, C. ve Mavroidis, I. (2013). Communication and social presence: The impact on adult learner’s emotions in distance learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 16(1), 78-93.
  • Baber, H. (2021). Modelling the acceptance of e-learning during the pandemic of COVID-19-A study of South Korea. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(2), 100503.
  • Bilgiç, H. G. ve Tüzün, H. (2015). Yükseköğretim kurumları web tabanlı uzaktan eğitim programlarında yaşanan sorunlar. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(3), 26-50.
  • Börü, L. (2019). Adi konkordatoda alacaklıların alacaklarını bildirmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 173.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Cai, L. ve Zhu, Y. (2015). The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era. Data Science Journal, 14(2), 1-10.
  • Chang, V., Liu, M., Xu, Q. A. ve Xiong, C. (2022). Factors affecting student satisfaction in e-learning. International Journal of Business and Systems Research, 16(4), 401-422.
  • Chiang, C.-Y., Boakye, K. ve Tang, X. (2019). The investigation of e-learning system design quality on usage ıntention. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 59(3), 256-265.
  • Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
  • Cidral, W. A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M. ve Aparicio, M. (2018). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers & Education, 122, 273-290.
  • Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort –based online learning. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1-20.
  • Çelik, K. ve Ayaz, A. (2022). Validation of the Delone and McLean information systems success model: a study on student information system. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 4709-4727.
  • Çelik, K. ve Sökmen, A. (2018). Algılanan performansın e-öğrenme kullanıcılarının memnuniyetleri üzerindeki etkisi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(21), 73-92.
  • Dahalan, N., Hasan, H., Hassan, F., Zakaria, Z. ve Wan Mohd Noor, W. A. (2013). Engaging students on-line: does gender matter in adoption of learning material design? World Journal on Educational Technology, 5(3), 413-419.
  • Dastidar, S. G. (2021). The impact of students’ perceptions of online learning environments on students’ satisfaction in the context of Covid-19 pandemic. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 61-72. doi: 10.46627/silet.v2i3.84
  • DeLone, W. H. ve 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. ve 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.
  • DeLone, W. H. ve McLean, E. R. (2016). Information systems success measurement. Foundations and trends in Information Systems, 2 (1), 1–116.
  • Domun, M. ve Bahadur, G. K. (2014). Design and development of a self-assessment tool and ınvestigating its effectiveness for e-learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 17(1), 1-25.
  • Efiloğlu Kurt, Ö. (2016). Bilgi sistemleri başarı modeli ile bir e-öğrenme sistemi değerlendirmesi. Yöneti̇m Bi̇li̇şi̇m Si̇stemleri̇ Dergi̇si̇, 2(2), 140-149.
  • Efiloğlu Kurt, Ö. (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.
  • Etoom, M., Aldaher, K. N., Abdelhaq, A. A., Alawneh, A. ve Alghwiri, A. A. (2022). Predictors of distance learning in physiotherapy students during COVID-19 outbreak. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 1-6.
  • Fleming, J., Becker, K. ve Newton, C. (2017). Factors for successful e-learning: does age matter?. Education and Training, 59(1), 76-89.
  • Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  • Fotiadou, A., Angelaki, C. ve Mavroidis, I. (2017). Learner autonomy as a factor of the learning process in distance education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 20(1), 95-110.
  • Freeze, R. D., Alshare, K. a, Lane, P. L. ve Joseph Wen, H. (2010). IS success model in e-learning context based on students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 173-184.
  • Garrison, D.R. (2016). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice (3rd ed.). Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315667263
  • Gedik, N., Kiraz, E. ve Ozden, M. Y. (2013). Design of a blended learning environment: Considerations and implementation issues. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1).
  • Giray, G. (2021). An assessment of student satisfaction with e-learning: An empirical study with computer and software engineering undergraduate students in Turkey under pandemic conditions. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6651-6673.
  • Grant, M. R. ve Thornton, H. R. (2007). Best practices in undergraduate adult-centered online learning: Mechanisms for course design and delivery. Journal of online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 346-356.
  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M. ve Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
  • Hair, Joseph F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M. ve Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
  • Herrington, J. ve Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3), 219-236.
  • Herrington, J., Oliver, R. ve Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59-71.
  • Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C. ve Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York: Routledge.
  • Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., Oliver, R. ve Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 3-29.
  • Hurajova, A., Kollarova, D. ve Huraj, L. (2022). Trends in education during the pandemic: modern online technologies as a tool for the sustainability of university education in the field of media and communication studies. Heliyon, 8(5).
  • Ifinedo, P. (2011). An empirical analysis of factors influencing Internet/e-business technologies adoption by SMEs in Canada. International journal of information technology & decision making, 10(04), 731-766.
  • Jiang, H., Islam, A. Y. M. A., Gu, X. ve Spector, J. M. (2021). Online learning satisfaction in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A regional comparison between Eastern and Western Chinese universities. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6747-6769.
  • Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: Vol. II (s. 215-239) içinde. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey: Springe.
  • Ke, F. ve Kwak, D. (2013). Constructs of student-centered online learning on learning satisfaction of a diverse online student body: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(1), 97-122.
  • Kim, K., Trimi, S., Park, H. ve Rhee, S. (2012). The ımpact of cms quality on the outcomes of e-learning systems in higher education: An empirical study subject areas: cms benefits, course management system (cms), e-learning, e-learning success, ınformation quality, ınstructional quality, user satisfact. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(4), 575-587.
  • Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: An exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37-50.
  • Maatuk, A. M., Elberkawi, E. K., Aljawarneh, S., Rashaideh, H. ve Alharbi, H. (2022). The COVID-19 pandemic and e-learning: challenges and opportunities from the perspective of students and instructors. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 34(1), 21-38.
  • Mailizar, M., Burg, D. ve Maulina, S. (2021). Examining university students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended TAM model. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7057-7077.
  • Moore, M. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. Keegan, D., ed. "Theoretical Principles of Distance Education ss. 22-38. Routledge.
  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
  • Moos, R. H. (1974). Systems for the assessment and classification of human environments: An overview. In R.H. Moos and P. M. Insel (Eds.), Issues in social ecology: Human milieus (s. 5-29). National Press Books.
  • Moos, R. H. (1996). Understanding environments: The key to improving social processes and program outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 193-201.
  • Mtebe, J. S. ve Raphael, C. (2018). Key factors in learners’ satisfaction with the e-learning system at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 107-122.
  • Muda, I. ve Erlina, A. A. (2019). Influence of human resources to the effect of system quality and information quality on the user satisfaction of accrual-based accounting system. Contaduría y Administración, 64(2), 1-25.
  • Nachtigall, V., Shaffer, D. W. ve Rummel, N. (2022). Stirring a secret sauce: A literature review on the conditions and effects of authentic learning. Educational Psychology Review, 1-38.
  • Ohliati, J. ve Abbas, B. S. (2019). Measuring students satisfaction in using learning management system. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 14(4), 180.
  • Ouajdouni, A., Chafik, K. ve Boubker, O. (2021). Measuring e-learning systems success: data from students of higher education institutions in morocco. Data in Brief, 35.
  • Ozkan, S. ve Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers and Education, 53(4), 1285-1296.
  • Özkök, A., Walker, S. L. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Reliability and validity of a Turkish version of the DELES. Learning Environments Research, 12(3), 175-190.
  • Rokhman, F., Mukhibad, H., Bagas Hapsoro, B., Nurkhin, A. ve Choo Koo, A. (2022). E-learning evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic era based on the updated of Delone and McLean information systems success model. Cogent Education, 9(1).
  • Saba, T. (2012). Implications of E-learning systems and self-efficiency on students outcomes: a model approach. Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences, 2(1), 1-11.
  • Sahin, F. ve Sahin, Y. L. (2021). Examining the acceptance of e-learning systems during the pandemic: the role of compatibility, enjoyment and anxiety. International Technology and Education Journal, 5(1), 1-10.
  • Sahin, S. (2006). The relationship between learner characteristics and the perception of distance learning and satisfaction with web-based courses (Yayımlanmamış doktora lisans tezi). Iowa State University.
  • Shahzad, A., Hassan, R., Aremu, A. Y., Hussain, A. ve Lodhi, R. N. (2021). Effects of COVID-19 in E-learning on higher education institution students: the group comparison between male and female. Quality & quantity, 55(3), 805-826.
  • Shams, M. S., Niazi, M. M., Gul, H., Mei, T. S. ve Khan, K. U. (2022). E-Learning Adoption in higher education ınstitutions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multigroup analysis. Frontiers in Education, 6.
  • Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102-120.
  • Stankovska, G., Dimitrovski, D., Ibraimi, Z. ve Memedi, I. (2021). Online learning, social presence and satisfaction among university students during the covıd-19 pandemic. Bulgarian Comparative Education Society, 19, 181-188.
  • Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y. ve Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1183-1202. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
  • Teräs, H. ve Herrington, J. (2014). Neither the frying pan nor the fire: In search of a balanced authentic e-learning design through an educational design research process. The international review of research in open and distributed learning, 15(2).
  • Urbach, N. ve Müller, B. (2012). The updated DeLone and McLean model of information systems success. In Information systems theory (pp. 1–18). Springer, New York, NY.
  • Vanitha, P. S. ve Alathur, S. (2021). Factors influencing e-learning adoption in ındia: learners’ perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5199-5236.
  • Walker, S. L. (2003). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: the distance education learning environments survey (deles) (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Curtin University of Technology Perth, Western Australia.
  • Walker, S. L. ve Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(3), 289-308.
  • Yakubu, N. ve Dasuki, S. (2018). Measuring e-learning success in developing countries: applying the updated DeLone and McLean model. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17(1), 183-203.
  • Yekefallah, L., Namdar, P., Panahi, R. ve Dehghankar, L. (2021). Factors related to students' satisfaction with holding e-learning during the Covid-19 pandemic based on the dimensions of e-learning. Heliyon, 7(7).
  • Yosep, Y. (2015). Analysis of relationship between three dimensions of quality, user satisfaction, and e-learning usage of binus online learning. Communication and Information Technology Journal, 9(2), 67-72.
  • Yunusa, A. A. ve Umar, I. N. (2021). A scoping review of critical predictive factors (CPFs) of satisfaction and perceived learning outcomes in E-learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 1223-1270.
  • Zalat, M. M., Hamed, M. S. ve Bolbol, S. A. (2021). The experiences, challenges, and acceptance of e-learning as a tool for teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic among university medical staff. PLoS One, 16(3).
There are 77 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research
Authors

Erhan Ünal 0000-0002-5349-4193

Talha Yıldız 0000-0002-2553-8777

Gülin Ütebay 0000-0001-7309-6785

Kadir Süzme 0000-0002-1810-8066

Publication Date April 30, 2024
Submission Date October 21, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2024 Volume: 15 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Ünal, E., Yıldız, T., Ütebay, G., Süzme, K. (2024). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin E-Öğrenme Ortamına Yönelik Memnuniyetini Etkileyen Faktörlerin İncelenmesi. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.54558/jiss.1192458
 Download Cover Image

Creative Commons Lisansı
Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.