SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning / 2021 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 3

Development of the learning management systems evaluation scale based on transactional distance theory

Esra BARUT TUĞTEKİN
Pages
503–515
Publication Date
2021-09-30
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)

The overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale was calculated as 0.94.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aimed to develop the Learning Management Systems Evaluation Scale (LMSES) with reference to Transactional Distance Theory (TDT).
📊
Key Findings & Data:At the first stage of the scale development, it was observed that 19 items with three factors explained 63.73% of the total variance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale was calculated as 0.94.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Öğrenme Yönetim Sistemleri · Transaksiyonel Uzaklık Kuramı · Ölçek geliştirme

Abstract

This study aimed to develop the Learning Management Systems Evaluation Scale (LMSES) with reference to Transactional Distance Theory (TDT). At the first stage of the scale development, it was observed that 19 items with three factors explained 63.73% of the total variance. The variance amounts explained by the scale factors are Dialogue (D=8 items, 23.06%), Structure (S=7 items, 25.74%), and Autonomy (A=4 items, 14.93%). As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis performed at the second stage of the scale development, it was determined that the scale had a sufficient reliability coefficient (Cronbach's alpha S=0.90, D=0.89, A=0.82) and fit indices (χ2=252.78; sd=146; χ2/sd =1.73; CFI=0.95, NFI=0.90, GFI=0.89, AGFI=0.85, SRMR=0.06, RMSEA=0.06; p<0.001). The overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale was calculated as 0.94. Furthermore, the structural reliability of the scale (Sω=0.90, SAVE=0.57; Dω=0.88, DAVE=0.49; Aω=0.82, AAVE=0.54) and the results of the HTMT (rS-D=0.68, rA-D=0.80, rA-S=0.76) correlation ratio analysis were examined, and the evidence for the validity of the scale was supported. According to these research findings, the LMSES has the potential to provide a statistically verified measurement structure based on TDT and support advanced theoretical and statistical studies.

🔖

Cite This Article

TUĞTEKİN, E. B. (2021). Development of the learning management systems evaluation scale based on transactional distance theory. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 3, 503–515. https://ajindex.com/articles/776086

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Author (YEAR). Hidden for blind-review process. Akbulut, Y. (2010). Using SPSS in social sciences: Frequently used statistical analyses and solved problems. İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık. Aldrich, J. (1997). R.A. Fisher and the making of maximum likelihood 1912-1922. Statistical Science, 12(3), 162-176. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1030037906
  2. Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136.
  3. Ateş, A. (2013). Eğitsel web sitelerini değerlendirmeye yönelik bir ölçek önerisi [A scale proposal for evaluation of the educational web sites]. Eğitim Teknolojileri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.et-ad.net/.
  4. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, The Guilford Press.
  5. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assess-ing model fit. In: K. Bollen & J. S. Long, eds. Testing structural equation models, 136–162.
  6. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bryne, B. M. (2000). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (16. Baskı). Ankara:
  7. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. Byrd, R. (2018). Using appropriate E-learning systems to optimize teaching and learning. GSTF Journal on Computing, 2(3). Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programmings. London, Lawrence Erlbaum Assocatiates, Publishers.
  8. Çakmak, E. K., Güneş, E., Çiftçi, S., & Üstündağ, M. T. (2011). Developing a web site usability scale: The validity and reliability analysis & implementation results. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 1(2), 31-40.
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed). London and New York: Routledge. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (2nd edition). Ankara:
  10. Pegem Akademi. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). Interpretation and application of factor analytic results. In: A First Course on Factor Analysis (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Demirkol, D., & Şeneler, Ç. (2018). A Turkish translation of the system usability scale: The SUS-TR.