Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Development of Fuzzy Exploratory Factor Analysis for Designing an E-Learning Service Quality Assessment Model

  • Published:
International Journal of Fuzzy Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) method is regarded as one of the most well-known statistical multivariate analysis methods, which is used to discover the underlying structure of a relatively large set of variables. The EFA has a wide range of applications due to its properties such as data reduction. In this paper, the fuzzy EFA (FEFA) method was developed to maintain the uncertain nature of the data related to the variables. The FEFA method is used to construct an e-learning service quality assessment model. Several assignment criteria have been classified to identify the strengths and weaknesses of an e-learning system, to provide an information system for educational institutions, and rank these information systems. The assessment measures of an e-learning service are determined from the students’ and users’ perspectives by exploring previous models and using open questionnaires. In addition, due to the typical uncertainty of assessment indicators, a questionnaire was designed with triangular fuzzy numbers to increase the value of the information collected from evaluating e-learning users. By implementing the developed FEFA, an e-learning assessment model was constructed with 13 latent variables including reliable infrastructure, benefits and financial support, government support, perception and knowledge, educational facilities, quality of holding classes, entrance conditions, meeting the needs of students, process of education, planning, flexibility of courses, professors’ opinion, and information exchange.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AHP:

Analytic hierarchy process

ANP:

Analytic network process

CIT:

Critical incident technique

EFA:

Exploratory factor analysis

EFQUEL:

European Foundation for Quality in e-learning

FA:

Factor analysis

FEFA:

Fuzzy exploratory factor analysis

FMEA:

Failure mode and effects analysis

IPA:

Interaction process analysis

TOPSIS:

Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution

References

  1. Cidral, W.A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., Aparicio, M.: E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Comput. Educ. 122, 273–290 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang, R., Yan, Z., Liu, K.: An empirical study: Measuring the service quality of an E-learning system with the model of ZOT SERVQUAL. International conference on E-business and E-government, Guangzhou, China. 5379- 5382 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEE.2010.1345

  3. Ren, Y., Dai, Z., Zhao, X., Fei, M., Gan, W.: Exploring an on-line course applicability assessment to assist learners in course selection and learning effectiveness improving in e-learning. Learn. Individ. Differ. 60, 56–62 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mohammadi, H.: Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: an integration of TAM and IS success model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 45, 359–374 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Petruta Pavel, A., Fruth, A., Neacsu, M.N.: ICT and E-learning—catalysts for innovation and quality in higher education. Procedia Econ. Finance 23, 704–711 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00409-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ehlers, U.D., Hilera, J.R.: Special issue on quality in e-learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 28(1), 1–3 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00448.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Misut, M., Pribilova, K.: Measuring of quality in the context of e-learning. Proced. Soc. Behav. Sci 177, 312–319 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Xu, H., Fan, Z.P., Liu, Y., Peng, W.L., Yu, Y.Y.: A method for evaluating service quality with hesitant fuzzy linguistic information. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 20(5), 1523–1538 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-018-0476-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stănescu, M., Muşat, N.: Quality analysis model of the e-learning training system for sports occupations. Proced. Soc. Behav. Sci. 180, 1351–1356 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Uppal, M., Gulliver, S., Ali, S.: Factors determining e-learning service quality. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 49(3), 412 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kenneth, C.L.: Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm, 12th edn. Pearson Education, London (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hassanzadeh, A., Kanaani, F., Elahi, S.: A model for measuring e-learning systems success in universities. Expert Syst. Appl. 39(12), 10959–10966 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Martinez-Argulles, M., Castan, J., Juan, A.: How do students measure service quality in e-learning? A case study regarding an internet-based university. Electron. J. E-learn 8(2), 151–160 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wang, H.C., Chiu, Y.F.: Assessing e-learning 20 system success. Comput. Educ. 57(2), 1790–1800 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheng, M.Y.: Effects of quality antecedents on e-learning acceptance. Internet Res. 22(3), 361–390 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211235699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Saba, T.: Implications of e-learning systems and self-efficacy on students outcomes: a model approach. Human Comput. Inf. Sci 2(6), 2–11 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1962-2-6

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tajuddin, R., Baharudin, M., Hoon, T.S.: System quality and its influence on students’ learning satisfaction in UiTM Shah Alam. Proced. Soc. Behav. Sci. 90, 677–685 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chang, C.C.: Exploring the determinants of e-learning systems continuance intention in academic libraries. Libr. Manag. 34(1/2), 40–55 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121311298261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Machado-Da-Silva, F.N., Meirelles, F.D.S., Filenga, D., Filho, M.B.: Student satisfaction process in virtual learning system: considerations based in information and service quality from Brazil’s experience. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 15(3), 122–142 (2014). https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.52605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Aparicio, M., Bacao, F., Oliveira, T.: Grit in the path to e-learning success. Comput. Hum. Behav. 66, 388–399 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sayyadi Tooranloo, H., Ayatollah, A.S.: Pathology the internet banking service quality using failure mode and effect analysis in interval-valued intuitionistic Fuzzy environment. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 19(1), 109–123 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-016-0265-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jung, I.: The dimensions of e-learning quality: from the learner’s perspective. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 59(4), 445–464 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9171-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Anderson, T., Elloumi, F.: Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University Press, Canada (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ehlers, U., Pawlowski, J.M.: Handbook on quality and standardisation in e-learning. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Meyer, K.A.: Quality in distance education: focus on online learning: ASHE-ERIC higher education report, 29, First edition, Jossey-Bass (2002)

  26. Dondi, C., Moretti, M., Nascimbeni, F.: Quality of e-learning: negotiating a strategy. Implementing a policy, pp. 31–50. Springer, Berlin (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-32788-6_3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Brosser, L., Vrabie, C.: The quality initiative of e-learning in Germany (QEG)-Management for quality and standards in e-learning. Proced. Soc. Behav. Sci. 186, 1146–1151 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Al-Samarraie, H., Teng, B.K., Alzahrani, A.I., Alalwan, N.: E-learning continuance satisfaction in higher education: a unified perspective from instructors and students. Stud. High0 Educ. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1298088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen, L.H., Kuo, Y.F.: Understanding e-learning service quality attributes of a commercial bank by using Kano’s model. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 22(1), 99–116 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2010.532345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Li, W., Yu, S., Pei, H., Zhao, C., Tian, B.Z.: A hybrid approach based on fuzzy AHP and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic method for evaluation in-flight service quality. J. Air Transp. Manag. 60, 49–64 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Büyüközkan, G., Çifçi, G.: A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 39(3), 2341–2354 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yu, M.C., Keng, I., Chen, H.X.: Measuring service quality via a fuzzy analytical approach. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 17(2), 292–302 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-015-0006-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hsu, W.: A fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making system for analyzing gaps of service quality. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 17(1), 256–267 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-015-0018-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mishra, A.R., Jain, D., Hooda, D.S.: Exponential intuitionistic fuzzy information measure with assessment of service quality. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 19(3), 788–789 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-016-0278-6

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Nakamori, Y., Sato, K., Watada, J.: Fuzzy space model for fuzzy data. J. Jpn. Soc. Fuzzy Theory Syst. 9(1), 99–107 (1997). https://doi.org/10.3156/jfuzzy.9.1_99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tzeng, G.H., Jen, W., Hu, K.H.: Fuzzy factor analysis for selecting service quality factors—a case of the service quality of city bus service. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 4(4), 910–921 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lu, J., Zhang, G.: Cost benefit factor analysis in e-service. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 14(5), 570–595 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230310500237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Trombley, D., Lee, K.: Web-based learning in corporations: who is using it and why? who is not and why? J. Educ. Media. 27(3), 137–146 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165020270305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Docimini, G., Palumbo, F.: How to build an e-learning product: factors for student/customer satisfaction. Bus. Horiz. 56(1), 87–96 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.09.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Chapman, D.W.: The management and administration of education across Asia: changing challenges. Int. J. Educ. Res. 29(7), 603–626 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(98)00052-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Baker, D.P.: Schooling all the masses: reconsidering the origins of American schooling. Soc. Educ. 72(4), 197–215 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2307/2673153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ebily, K., Hadavandi, M.R.: Assessing the quality of training courses offered by educational institutions to Iran Khodro. J. Psychol. Educ. 34(1), 99–126 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sallis, E.: Comprehensive quality management in education. Havaye Tazeh Publisher, Tehran (1993). (In Persian)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wanzare, Z., Ward, K.: Rethinking staff development in Kenya: agenda for the twenty first cntury. Int J. Educ. Manag. 14(6), 265–275 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540010348052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Abdullah, F., Ward, R.: Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 56, 238–256 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., Tarhini, T.: Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of E-learning in developing countries: a structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interact. Learn. Environ. 25(3), 308–328 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1122635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Prasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L.: SERVQUAL a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 64(1), 12–40 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  48. DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 60–95 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.3.1.60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kettinger, W.J., Lee, C.C.: Pragmatic perspectives on the measurement of information system service quality. MIS Q. 21(2), 223–240 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2307/249421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Gllis, L.: Quality standards for evaluating multimedia and online training, 1st edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  51. McNaught, C.: Quality assurance of online courses: from policy to process to improvement. Meeting at Crossroads, 435-442 (2013). http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne01/pdf/papers/mcnaughtc.pdf

  52. Frydenberg, J.: Quality standards in e-learning: a matrix of analysis. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 3(2), 1–15 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Strother, J.B.: An assessment of the effective of e-learning in corporate training programs. Int Revi Res Open Distance Learn. 3(1), 1492–3831 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Swedish National Agency for Higher Education: E-learning quality aspects and criteria for evaluation of e-learning in higher education. Stockholm: Hogskoleverkets repportseries, https://norgesuniversitetet.no/files/attachment/2659/e-learning-quality-hogskoleverket.pdf, (2008)

  55. MEST: A report on comprehensive evaluation of cyber universities in 2008. Seoul: Korean ministry of education science and technology, (2008)

  56. Phipps, R.A., Merisotis, J.P.: Quality on the line: benchmarks for success in internet-based education. Washington DC, USA: National Education Association. http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/m-r/QualityOnTheLine.pdf, (2013)

  57. Cashion, J., Palmieri, P.: The secret is the teacher. The learner’s view of online learning. http://www.ncver.edu.au/research/proj/nr0F03a.pdf, (2013)

  58. Ehlers, U.: Quality in e-learning from a learner’s perspective, European Journal for Distance and Open Learning, www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Online_Master_COPs.html, (2013)

  59. Gamage, D., Fernando, S., Perera, I.: Factors affecting to effective eLearning: learners Perspective. Sci. Res. J. 2(5), 42–48 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Flangan, J.C.: The critical incident technique. Psychol. Bull. 51(4), 327–358 (1954)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sharma, S.: Applied multivariate analysis. Wiley, Hoboken (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Lin, C.W., Shiu, J.Y., Tzeng, G.H.: Combined fuzzy factor analysis and fuzzy integral to evaluate strategic of hybrid electric vehicle trial. Int. J. Oper. Res 8(4), 59–71 (2011)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  63. Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L.: Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making method and application. Springer-Verlag, New York (1992)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the anonymous referees whose valuable comments contributed to the quality of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vahid Baradaran.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baradaran, V., Ghorbani, E. Development of Fuzzy Exploratory Factor Analysis for Designing an E-Learning Service Quality Assessment Model. Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 22, 1772–1785 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-020-00901-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-020-00901-1

Keywords

Navigation