SavedAdd your journal

Journals / IOJET / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3

THE SCALES FOR ACCEPTANCE, USABILITY, AND SATISFACTION FOR WEB-BASED MONITORING AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS

0000-0002-4662-5503
0000-0003-3567-0779
0000-0001-9458-7831
0000-0002-6486-0486
0000-0002-9184-6110
0000-0003-0941-9070
Journal
IOJET
Pages
563–580
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As aresult of the analyses, one-factor, 6-item “SIDES Satisfaction Scale”; 3-factor, 14-item“SIDES Acceptance Scale” and 3-factor, 19-item “SIDES Usability Scale” were developed.These scales may be used or considered as examples for examining the effectiveness of webbased monitoring and support systems.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to develop three scales to assess some features of a web-basedmonitoring and support system for internship processes of trainees which was namedMonitoring and Support System (SIDES).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Satisfaction, acceptanceand usability scales have item pools with 6, 17 and 27 questions respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As aresult of the analyses, one-factor, 6-item “SIDES Satisfaction Scale”; 3-factor, 14-item“SIDES Acceptance Scale” and 3-factor, 19-item “SIDES Usability Scale” were developed.These scales may be used or considered as examples for examining the effectiveness of webbased monitoring and support systems.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop three scales to assess some features of a web-basedmonitoring and support system for internship processes of trainees which was namedMonitoring and Support System (SIDES). These scales are: “SIDES Satisfaction Scale”,“SIDES Acceptance Scale”, and “SIDES Usability Scale”. We developed these scales as anassessment model within the scope of a project. In development phases, the scopes and thenames of the scales were formed by results of the literature review. Satisfaction, acceptanceand usability scales have item pools with 6, 17 and 27 questions respectively. The scales weresubmitted to 10 field experts for taking opinions for validity. After taking expert opinions, thescales were applied to 56 senior students who used the SIDES in an experimental condition inan academic term within the scope of the teaching practice classes in Sakarya UniversityComputer and Instructional Technologies Teaching Bachelor Program. To examine theconstruct validity of the scales, the Exploratory Factor Analyses was used. Cronbach's Alphainternal consistency coefficients were calculated for internal consistency reliabilities. As aresult of the analyses, one-factor, 6-item “SIDES Satisfaction Scale”; 3-factor, 14-item“SIDES Acceptance Scale” and 3-factor, 19-item “SIDES Usability Scale” were developed.These scales may be used or considered as examples for examining the effectiveness of webbased monitoring and support systems.

🔖

Cite This Article

0000-0002-4662-5503, 0., 0000-0003-3567-0779, 0., 0000-0001-9458-7831, 0., 0000-0002-6486-0486, 0., 0000-0002-9184-6110, 0., 0000-0003-0941-9070, 0. (2022). THE SCALES FOR ACCEPTANCE, USABILITY, AND SATISFACTION FOR WEB-BASED MONITORING AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS. IOJET, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3, 563–580. https://ajindex.com/articles/542293

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Abazoğlu, İ. (2014). Dünyada öğretmen yetiştirme programları ve öğretmenlere yönelik mesleki gelişim uygulamaları. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(5), 1-46. AFT (American Federation of Teachers) (2008). Principles for Professional Development. Reached from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/pd_principles_2008.pdf on 26.07.2017.
  2. Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS Uygulamaları (1. Baskı). İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık: İstanbul.
  3. Akgun, O. E., Kıyıcı, M., Horzum, M. B., Hamutoğlu, N. B., Güngören, Ö. C. & Duman, İ. (2015a). Determination of learning outcomes, learning tasks and measurementassesment tools on-site teaching practice for student teachers. ERPA International Congresses on Education. Akgun, Ö. E., Gökmen, Ö. F., Özer, E. A., Kaymak, Z. D., Horzum, M. B., & Kıyıcı, M. (2015b). Öğretmenlik uygulamasına destek vermek için geliştirilecek bilişim sistemine yönelik ihtiyaç analizi sonuçları. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 5(2), 54-72.
  4. Aladwani, A. M. & Palvia, P. C. (2002). Developing and validating an instrument for measuring user-perceived web quality. Information & management, 39(6), 467-476.
  5. Aydin, F., & Akgun, Ö. E. (2014). Eğitim fakültesi BÖTE son sınıf öğrencilerinin okul deneyimi ve öğretmenlik uygulaması derslerinde karşılaştıkları sorunlar. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 1-14.
  6. Aytaçlı, B. (2012). İlköğretim matematik öğretmenliği lisans programında yer alan okul deneyimi ve öğretmenlik uygulaması derslerinin değerlendirilmesi (Master’s thesis). Ege Üniversitesi,
  7. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İzmir.
  8. Buyukozturk, Ş. (2011). Veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara:
  9. Pegem A Yayıncılık. Çakmak, E. K., Güneş, E., & Tahsin, M. (2011). Web sitesi kullanılabilirlik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: geçerlik, güvenirlik analizi ve uygulama sonuçları. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 1(2), 31-40.
  10. Canan-Güngören, Ö., Bektaş, M., Öztürk, E., & Horzum, M. B. (2014). Tablet bilgisayar kabul ölçeği-geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(176), 69-79.
  11. Cansaran, A., İdil, Ö. & Kalkan. M. (2006). Fen bilgisi eğitimi anabilim dallarındaki “okul deneyimi” uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(1), 83-99.
  12. Dallmer, D. (2004). Collaborative relationships in teacher education: A personal narrative of conflicting roles. Curriculum Inquiry, 34(1), 29-45.
  13. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a compa