Development of a Scale to Evaluate Virtual Learning Environment Satisfaction

Objective & Hypothesis:Recent advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) have resulted in improvements in the delivery of education.

📊

Key Findings & Data:The dimensions of the scale are contribution (CONT), satisfaction (SAT), and communication (COM), and the scale is formed of 13 items.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:The overall reliability of the scale was 0.92.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:irtual learning environment · Scale · Reliability

Abstract

Recent advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) have resulted in improvements in the delivery of education. It is a well-known fact that learning technologies currently have a pivotal role in education. Amongst them, Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) are widely used in education. The role of VLEs in improving quality and interaction in education as well as enabling better achievement through the use of a wealth of activities in teaching and learning is widely reported in the literature. However, there is a gap regarding the development of measurement instruments, especially in the Turkish context. Therefore, this study reports the development of a scale to evaluate students’ satisfaction with respect to the use of VLEs in educational settings to address this gap. The dimensions of the scale are contribution (CONT), satisfaction (SAT), and communication (COM), and the scale is formed of 13 items. The sample consists of students enrolled in the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, studying on blended and face-to-face learning programs. First, the reliability of the instrument was calculated by Cronbach Alpha coefficient and test-retest reliability correlation coefficient. The Cronbach Alpha coefficients were found to be 0.87, 0.83, and 0.81 for CONT, SAT, and COM sub-dimensions respectively. The overall reliability of the scale was 0.92. EFA and CFA were conducted on the data collected from two different sample groups (206 and 186 students for EFA and CFA respectively) for the validity analyses of the scale. Results confirm that the scale is valid and reliable. While the t-test analysis shows no significant difference between gender groups, ANOVA revealed significant differences when year of study is considered.

Özet

Recent advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) have resulted in improvements in the delivery of education. It is a well-known fact that learning technologies currently have a pivotal role in education. Amongst them, Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) are widely used in education. The role of VLEs in improving quality and interaction in education as well as enabling better achievement through the use of a wealth of activities in teaching and learning is widely reported in the literature. However, there is a gap regarding the development of measurement instruments, especially in the Turkish context. Therefore, this study reports the development of a scale to evaluate students’ satisfaction with respect to the use of VLEs in educational settings to address this gap. The dimensions of the scale are contribution (CONT), satisfaction (SAT), and communication (COM), and the scale is formed of 13 items. The sample consists of students enrolled in the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, studying on blended and face-to-face learning programs. First, the reliability of the instrument was calculated by Cronbach Alpha coefficient and test-retest reliability correlation coefficient. The Cronbach Alpha coefficients were found to be 0.87, 0.83, and 0.81 for CONT, SAT, and COM sub-dimensions respectively. The overall reliability of the scale was 0.92. EFA and CFA were conducted on the data collected from two different sample groups (206 and 186 students for EFA and CFA respectively) for the validity analyses of the scale. Results confirm that the scale is valid and reliable. While the t-test analysis shows no significant difference between gender groups, ANOVA revealed significant differences when year of study is considered.

Keywords

irtual learning environment Scale Reliability Validity Virtual learning environment

🔖

Cite This Article

HAMUTOGLU, N. B., GULTEKİN, G. S., GEMİKONAKLİ, O., SAVASCİ, M. (2022). Development of a Scale to Evaluate Virtual Learning Environment Satisfaction. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 201–222. https://ajindex.com/articles/540197

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

Al-Khalifa, H. S. (2009). JUSUR: The Saudi Learning Management System. In Proceedings of 2nd Annual Forum on e-Learning Excellence in the Middle East, Dubai, UAE. 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.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Barker, J., & Gossman, P. (2013). The learning impact of a virtual learning environment: students’ views teacher education advancement network. Journal University of Cumbria, 5(2), 19-38.
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various χ 2 approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 16(2), 296-298.
Bell, M., & Farrier, S. (2008). Measuring success in e-learning – a multi-dimensional approach. The Electronic Journal of e- Learning, 6(2), 99-110.
Beluce, A. C., & Oliveira, K. L. D. (2015). Students’ motivation for learning in virtual learning environments. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 25(60), 105-113.
Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Bermingham V. (2016). Student feedback. In C. Ashford & J. Guth (Eds.), The legal academic’s handbook (pp. 99-101). London, the UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., & de Vreede, G. J. (2008). The yield shift theory of satisfaction and its application to the IS/IT domain. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(5), 267-293.
Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., & de Vreede, G. J. (2014). An empirical field study of the Yield Shift Theory of satisfaction. 47th Hawaii International Conference on In System Sciences (HICSS), 492-499.
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1999). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 8 for Windows. A guide for social scientists. London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara:
Pegem Yayıncılık. Cokluk, O., Sekercioglu, G., & Buyukozturk, S. (2012).