Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identification of operational risks impeding the implementation of eLearning in higher education system

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Higher education institutions are in a consistent pursuit of technological adoption through digital transformation techniques since the beginning of the technology revolution. The transformation from traditional to eLearning education system faces the challenges of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and operational risks. The operational risks in ICT mainly prevent the efficient utilization of eLearning systems. In the higher education system, faculty experience in eLearning, resistance to change, and quality of the Learning Management System (LMS) are the core sources of operational risks. This study endeavors to measure the impact of operational risks in eLearning implementation in higher education institutions. We employed a quantitative research design through a self-administered survey questionnaire and used the Partial Least Square approach of Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to analyze the data. The findings indicated that eLearning implementation is positively influenced by faculty experience in eLearning and LMS quality. However, faculty resistance is not only negatively related to eLearning implementation, but it inversely influences the LMS quality as well. The study has important practical and theoretical implications discussed in the end.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abouammoh, A. M. (2018). The regeneration aspects for higher education research in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In Researching higher education in Asia (pp. 327-352): Springer.

  • Ahmad, S., Omar, R., & Quoquab, F. (2020). Family firms’ sustainable longevity: The role of family involvement in business and innovation capability. Journal of Family Business Management.

  • Al-Asmari, A. M., & Rabb Khan, M. S. (2014). E-learning in Saudi Arabia: Past, present and future. Near and Middle Eastern Journal of Research in Education, 2.

  • Al-Rahmi, W. M., Alias, N., Othman, M. S., Marin, V. I., & Tur, G. (2018). A model of factors affecting learning performance through the use of social media in Malaysian higher education. Computers & Education, 121, 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, S., & McKenzie, J. (1998). An evaluation of information technology projects in university learning, Department of Employment. Education and Training and Youth Affairs, Australian Government Publishing Services, Canberra.

  • Almodaires, A. A., Alayyar, G. M., Almsaud, T. O., & Almutairi, F. M. (2019). The effectiveness of flipped learning: A quasi-experimental study of the perceptions of Kuwaiti pre-service teachers. International Education Studies, 12(1), 10–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alwi, N. H. M., & Fan, I.-S. (2010). E-learning and information security management. International Journal of Digital Society (IJDS), 1(2), 148–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asoodar, M., Vaezi, S., & Izanloo, B. (2016). Framework to improve e-learner satisfaction and further strengthen e-learning implementation. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 704–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandara, I., Ioras, F., & Maher, K. (2014). Cyber security concerns in e-learning education.

  • Blackmon, B. (2013). Social work and online education with all deliberate speed. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(5), 509–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bousbahi, F., & Alrazgan, M. S. (2015). Investigating IT faculty resistance to learning management system adoption using latent variables in an acceptance technology model. The Scientific World Journal, 2015, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. A. (2012). Seeing web 2.0 in context: A study of academic perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 50–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryce, C., Webb, R., & Adams, J. (2011). Internal loss data collection implementation: Evidence from a large UK financial institution. Journal of Risk Research, 14(10), 1161–1176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cidral, W. A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., & Aparicio, M. (2018). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers & Education, 122, 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W., (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research, 295(2),295–336.

  • Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai, N. H. P., András, K., & Zoltán, R. (2016). E-learning security risks and counter measures. Engineering research and solutions in ICT, 1, 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, E. A. (2004). Faculty development for problem-based learning. European Journal of Dental Education, 8(2), 59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., Jaccard, J., Davidson, A. R., Ajzen, I., & Loken, B. (1980). Predicting and understanding family planning behaviors. In Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior: Prentice Hall.

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice: Routledge.

  • Gaytan, J. (2015). Comparing faculty and student perceptions regarding factors that affect student retention in online education. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(1), 56–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golden, S., McCrone, T., Walker, M., & Rudd, P. (2006). Impact of e-learning in further education: Survey of scale and breadth. National Foundation for Educational Research: Research Report, 745, 1–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). ‘Distance education’and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing. Higher Education, 49(4), 467–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, M. (2013). Autonomy and foreign language learning in a virtual learning environment: A&C black.

  • Hara, K. J. E. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative research approaches in education. 115(3), 351-356.

  • Hassan, M., Gumaei, A., Huda, S., & Almogren, A. (2020). Increasing the trustworthiness in the industrial IoT networks through a reliable cyber-attack detection model. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics.

  • Hayashi, A., Chen, C., Ryan, T., & Wu, J. (2020). The role of social presence and moderating role of computer self efficacy in predicting the continuance usage of e-learning systems. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(2), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing (Vol. 20, pp. 277-319): Emerald Group publishing limited.

  • Hino, M., Field, C. B., & Mach, K. J. (2017). Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard risk. Nature Climate Change, 7(5), 364–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humbert, M. (2007). Adoption of blended learning by faculty. In The challenges of educating people to lead in a challenging world (pp. 423-436): Springer.

  • Jorion, P. (2005). Bank trading risk and systemic risk. National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Kallenberg, K. (2007). The role of risk in corporate value: A case study of the ABB asbestos litigation. Journal of Risk Research, 10(8), 1007–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khajeh-Hosseini, A., Greenwood, D., Smith, J. W., & Sommerville, I. (2012). The cloud adoption toolkit: Supporting cloud adoption decisions in the enterprise. Software: Practice and Experience, 42(4), 447–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, E., & Boyatt, R. (2015). Exploring factors that influence adoption of e-learning within higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1272–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolekar, S. V., Pai, R. M., & MM, M. P. (2019). Rule based adaptive user interface for adaptive E-learning system. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 613–641.

  • Koohang, A., & Harman, K. (2005). Open source: A metaphor for e-learning. Informing Science, 8.

  • Li, M. (2014). Using the websites in interactive-based english language learning. Academic Research International, 29(1), 24–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maina, E. M., Oboko, R. O., & Waiganjo, P. W. (2017). Using machine learning techniques to support group formation in an online collaborative learning environment. International Journal of Intelligent Systems & Applications, 9(3), 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, E., & Webb, D. (2001). Is e-learning good learning. The ethics and equity of e-learning in higher education, Melbourne: Victoria University, 4960.

  • Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning: ERIC.

  • Momani, A. M., & Jamous, M. (2017). The evolution of technology acceptance theories.

  • Muijs, D. (2010). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS: Sage.

  • Noesgaard, S. S., & Ørngreen, R. (2015). The effectiveness of E-learning: An explorative and integrative review of the definitions, methodologies and factors that promote e-learning effectiveness. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 13(4), 278–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’neill, K., Singh, G., & O’donoghue, J. (2004). Implementing eLearning programmes for higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 3(1), 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patomviriyavong, S., Samphanwattanachai, B., & Suwannoi, T. (2006). eLearning operational risk Assesment and management: A case study of the M. Sc in management program. International Journal of Computers, the Internet and Management, 14, 44.41–44.45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollex, H., Johnson, C., & Wood, A. (2007). Why eLearning. Can J Nurs Inform, 2(3), 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rjaibi, N., Rabai, L. B. A., Aissa, A. B., & Louadi, M. (2012). Cyber security measurement in depth for e-learning systems. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering (IJARCSSE), 2(11), 107–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, M. W., Isotani, S., & Zárate, L. E. (2018). Educational data mining: A review of evaluation process in the e-learning. Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1701–1717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roumell, E. A., & Salajan, F. D. (2016). The evolution of US e-learning policy: A content analysis of the National Education Technology Plans. Educational Policy, 30(2), 365–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salloum, S. A., Al-Emran, M., Shaalan, K., & Tarhini, A. (2019). Factors affecting the E-learning acceptance: A case study from UAE. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 509–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smedley, J. (2010). Modelling the impact of knowledge management using technology. OR insight, 23(4), 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, B., & Simonian, M. Using mobile learning to enhance integrated multimedia learning at DeVry online. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning, 2014 (pp. 546–552): Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  • Stenholm, D., Catic, A., & Bergsjö, D. (2019). Knowledge reuse in industrial practice: Evaluation from implementing engineering checksheets in industry. Design Science, 5.

  • Suo, Y., Miyata, N., Morikawa, H., Ishida, T., & Shi, Y. (2008). Open smart classroom: Extensible and scalable learning system in smart space using web service technology. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21(6), 814–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, Imam AbdulRahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

    Ali Murad Syed, Shabir Ahmad, Adel Alaraifi & Waleed Rafi

Authors
  1. Ali Murad Syed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shabir Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adel Alaraifi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Waleed Rafi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shabir Ahmad.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Syed, A.M., Ahmad, S., Alaraifi, A. et al. Identification of operational risks impeding the implementation of eLearning in higher education system. Educ Inf Technol 26, 655–671 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10281-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10281-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation