Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance measurement of e-learning using student satisfaction analysis

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze e-learning system quality through the analysis of student satisfaction and the usage of learning materials. This analysis takes into consideration both online and traditional students who are using the same e-learning system. The goal of the analysis is to identify factors which influence student satisfaction and to address heterogeneous styles and needs of both groups of students, so that future pedagogical and motivational methods in teaching and learning can be appropriately selected, developed and implemented. It was of particular interest to explore student satisfaction with quality of an e-learning system and online study approach. Reasons that may influence opinions of online and traditional students are examined and presented. The results are used to give recommendations for e-learning improvements and to propose the model with 4 groups of dimensions for performance measurement each of which best represents satisfaction of both groups of students.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

LMS:

Learning Management System

PMS:

Performance Management System

TQM:

Total Quality Management

JSP:

JavaServer Pages

References

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barolli, L., Koyama, A., Durresi, A., & Marco, G. (2006). A web-based e-learning system for increasing study efficiency by stimulating learner’s motivation. Information Systems Frontiers, 8(4), 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, M., Slack, F., & Armitt, G. (2005). Collaboration and teamwork: Immersion and presence in an online learning environment. Information Systems Frontiers, 7(1), 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhuasiri, W., Haymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., & Rho, J. J. (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58, 843–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carchiolo, V., Longheu, A., Malgeri, M., & Mangioni, G. (2007). A model for a web-based learning system. Information Systems Frontiers, 9(2–3), 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, G. J. M. & Silva, N. S. A. (2010). Knowledge versus content in e-learning: A philosophical discussion. Information Systems Frontiers, 12(4), 399–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis Jr, F. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  • DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLone, W. H. & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, A. (2010). Measuring business student satisfaction: A review and summary of the major predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3), 251–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higher education statistics agency, UK, https://www.hesa.ac.uk/

  • Holsapple, C. & Lee-Post, A. (2006). Defining, Assessing, and Promoting E-Learning Success: An Information Systems Perspective. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(1), 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee. (2001). IEEE Computer Society, Draft standard for learning technology – learning technology systems architecture (LTSA). IEEE P1484.1/D9, 2001-11–30.

  • Jankulovic, A., & Raspopovic, M. (2013). Performance measures analysis for online and traditional studies. 7th International Quality Conference, Kragujevac, Serbia, 423–428.

  • Jung, I. (2012). Asian learners’ perception of quality in distance education and gender differences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R., & Norton D. (1996). The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Harvard Business Press.

  • Kim, S. W. & Lee, M. G. (2008). Validation of an evaluation model for learning management systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 284–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Song, S., Sambamurthy, V., & Lee, Y. (2012). Entrepreneurship, knowledge integration capability, and firm performance: An empirical study. Information Systems Frontiers, 14(5), 1047–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Y. (2008). An empirical development of critical value factors (CVF) of online learning activities: An application of activity theory and cognitive value theory. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1664–1675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mai, L. (2005). A comparative study between UK and US: The student satisfaction in higher education and its influential factors. Journal of Marketing Management, 21(7–8), 859–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., & Cheng, J. (2008). National student survey of teaching in UK universities: Dimensionality, multilevel structure, and differentiation at the level of university and discipline: Preliminary results. Retrieved June, 23(2010), 603–641.

  • Mun, Y. Y. & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 431–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, M. (1995). Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15(4), 80–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neely, A., Filippini, R., Forza, C., Vinelli, A., & Hii, J. (2001). A framework for analysing business performance, firm innovation and related contextual factors: perceptions of managers and policy makers in two European regions. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12(2), 114–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozkan, S. & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1285–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peinl, R. & Maier, R. (2011). SimKnowledge—Analyzing impact of knowledge management measures on team organizations with multi agent-based simulation. Information Systems Frontiers, 13(5), 621–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pituch, K. A. & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47(2), 222–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramayah, T. & Chow Lee, J. W. (2012). System Characteristics, Satisfaction and E-Learning Usage: A Structural Equation Model (SEM). Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(2), 196–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raspopovic, M., Jankulovic, A., Runic, J., & Lucic, V. (2014). Success factors for e-learning in a developing country: A case study of Serbia. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selim, H. M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education, 40(4), 343–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49(2), 396–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shee, D. Y. & Wang, Y.-S. (2008). Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-learning system: A methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Computers & Education, 50(3), 894–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H.-Y. & Lin, H.-Y. (2012). A hybrid approach to develop an analytical model for enhancing the service quality of e-learning. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1318–1338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work presented here was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (project III44006).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Belgrade Metropolitan University, Tadeusa Koscuska 63, Belgrade, 11 000, Serbia

    Miroslava Raspopovic & Aleksandar Jankulovic

Authors
  1. Miroslava Raspopovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aleksandar Jankulovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miroslava Raspopovic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raspopovic, M., Jankulovic, A. Performance measurement of e-learning using student satisfaction analysis. Inf Syst Front 19, 869–880 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9636-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9636-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation