Evaluation of the Functionality of a New E-Learning Platform vs. Previous Experiences in E-Learning and the Self-Assessment of Own Digital Literacy
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Theoretical Framework
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Objective and Problems
- -
- How do students and teachers evaluate the new e-learning platform?
- -
- What is the difference in the evaluation of elements of the new e-learning platform by teachers and students?
- -
- What is the relationship between the evaluation in terms of general course quality, professionally prepared materials, content usefulness, visual design, and the innovative character of the platform?
- -
- To what extent is the evaluation connected with previous experiences of e-learning and the self-evaluation of digital literacy?
- -
- Based on the data collected, which groups of users of the new platform can be identified?
2.2. Research Procedure
2.3. Sample Characteristics
2.4. Research Tools
- General evaluation of how the e-learning platform functioned, with a focus on the following elements: course quality, professionalism of the resources, usefulness of the content, graphic design, and modern character of the platform. Feedback was collected using the 5-degree Likert scale, where 1 is very poor and 5 is very good. The survey is an original tool with the following psychometric features:
Scale Reliability Statistics | |||
McDonald’s ω | Cronbach’s α | Gutmann’s λ6 | |
scale | 0.880 | 0.876 | 0.879 |
- Experiences with e-learning during the last year, including activities such as participation in online training that was mandatory in the official study curricula or required as part of career development, searching for appropriate resources on the Internet in order to complete online training, participation in free e-learning courses (e.g., foreign languages, ICT), participation in paid online courses, and participation in online study groups. The respondents provided answers where 1 is never and 5 is very often. The tool had the following psychometric features:
Scale Reliability Statistics | |||
McDonald’s ω | Cronbach’s α | Gutmann’s λ6 | |
scale | 0.680 | 0.666 | 0.651 |
- Self-evaluation of digital literacy, which included an evaluation of the skills and knowledge regarding the use of a text editor (e.g., Word), the use of a spreadsheet program (e.g., Excel, Calc), the ability to use presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint), the use of graphic software (e.g., Picasa, Gimp), and awareness of digital threats (e.g., cyberbullying, Internet addiction, sexting). The students evaluated their knowledge and skills using the 5-degree Likert scale where 1 is very low and 5 is very high.
Scale Reliability Statistics | |||
McDonald’s ω | Cronbach’s α | Gutmann’s λ6 | |
scale | 0.788 | 0.768 | 0.776 |
2.5. Limitations and Directions of Research
3. Results
3.1. Evaluation of the New E-Learning Platform
3.2. Evaluation of the New E-Learning Platform (Students vs. Teachers)
3.3. Correlation between the Assessment of Individual Elements of the Platform
3.4. Predictive Evaluation of the Platform
3.5. Platform Users—An Attempt to Group the Respondents
4. Discussion
5. Summary
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Appendix A.1. Model Fit
Chi-Square Test | |||
Model | Χ² | df | p |
Baseline model | 1274.046 | 105 | |
Factor model | 268.003 | 87 | <0.001 |
R-Squared | |
R² | |
General course quality | 0.734 |
Professionally prepared materials | 0.540 |
Content usefulness | 0.469 |
Visual design | 0.648 |
Innovative character of platform | 0.592 |
I took part in online courses required in the official study curriculum or as part of my professional development. | 0.289 |
I searched for relevant resources on the Internet to complete online classes. | 0.280 |
I took part in free e-learning courses (online courses such as foreign languages, ICT). | 0.424 |
I took part in paid online courses. | 0.264 |
I took part in online joint study groups. | 0.244 |
Using a text editor | 0.552 |
Using a spreadsheet software | 0.424 |
Using presentation software | 0.582 |
Using graphic software | 0.329 |
Awareness of digital threats | 0.270 |
Appendix A.2. Parameter Estimates
Factor Loadings | ||||||||
95% Confidence Interval | ||||||||
Factor | Indicator | Symbol | Estimate | Std. Error | z-Value | p | Lower | Upper |
Factor 1 | General course quality | λ11 | 0.771 | 0.050 | 15.382 | <0.001 | 0.673 | 0.869 |
Professionally prepared materials | λ12 | 0.545 | 0.044 | 12.308 | <0.001 | 0.458 | 0.632 | |
Content usefulness | λ13 | 0.483 | 0.043 | 11.201 | <0.001 | 0.399 | 0.568 | |
Visual design | λ14 | 0.796 | 0.057 | 14.018 | <0.001 | 0.684 | 0.907 | |
Innovative character of platform | λ15 | 0.752 | 0.057 | 13.128 | <0.001 | 0.640 | 0.865 | |
Factor 2 | I took part in online courses required in the official study curriculum or as part of my professional development. | λ21 | 0.628 | 0.088 | 7.128 | <0.001 | 0.456 | 0.801 |
I searched for relevant resources on the Internet to complete online classes. | λ22 | 0.454 | 0.065 | 7.000 | <0.001 | 0.327 | 0.581 | |
I took part in free e-learning courses (online courses such as foreign languages, ICT). | λ23 | 0.846 | 0.097 | 8.689 | <0.001 | 0.655 | 1.036 | |
I took part in online courses required in the official study curriculum or as part of my professional development. | λ24 | 0.713 | 0.105 | 6.779 | <0.001 | 0.507 | 0.919 | |
I searched for relevant resources on the Internet to complete online classes. | λ25 | 0.708 | 0.109 | 6.500 | <0.001 | 0.495 | 0.922 | |
Factor 3 | Using a text editor | λ31 | 0.500 | 0.043 | 11.674 | <0.001 | 0.416 | 0.584 |
Using a spreadsheet software | λ32 | 0.647 | 0.065 | 9.918 | <0.001 | 0.519 | 0.774 | |
Using presentation software | λ33 | 0.560 | 0.046 | 12.058 | <0.001 | 0.469 | 0.651 | |
Using graphic software | λ34 | 0.663 | 0.078 | 8.506 | <0.001 | 0.511 | 0.816 | |
Awareness of digital threats | λ35 | 0.435 | 0.057 | 7.580 | <0.001 | 0.322 | 0.547 |
95% Confidence Interval | |||||
Factor | Estimate | Std. Error | z-Value | Lower | Upper |
Factor 1 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
Factor 2 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
Factor 3 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Factor Covariances | ||||||||
95% Confidence Interval | ||||||||
Estimate | Std. Error | z-Value | p | Lower | Upper | |||
Factor 1 | ↔ | Factor 2 | 0.073 | 0.085 | 0.865 | 0.387 | −0.093 | 0.239 |
Factor 1 | ↔ | Factor 3 | 0.037 | 0.078 | 0.466 | 0.641 | −0.117 | 0.190 |
Factor 2 | ↔ | Factor 3 | 0.315 | 0.083 | 3.798 | <0.001 | 0.153 | 0.478 |
Residual Variances | ||||||
95% Confidence Interval | ||||||
Indicator | Estimate | Std. Error | z-Value | p | Lower | Upper |
General course quality | 0.216 | 0.031 | 6.867 | <0.001 | 0.154 | 0.277 |
Professionally prepared materials | 0.254 | 0.028 | 9.048 | <0.001 | 0.199 | 0.309 |
Content usefulness | 0.264 | 0.028 | 9.445 | <0.001 | 0.209 | 0.319 |
Visual design | 0.344 | 0.042 | 8.105 | <0.001 | 0.261 | 0.427 |
Innovative character of platform | 0.391 | 0.045 | 8.661 | <0.001 | 0.302 | 0.479 |
I took part in online courses required in the official study curriculum or as part of my professional development. | 0.969 | 0.111 | 8.693 | <0.001 | 0.751 | 1.188 |
I searched for relevant resources on the Internet to complete online classes. | 0.531 | 0.060 | 8.785 | <0.001 | 0.413 | 0.650 |
I took part in free e-learning courses (online courses such as foreign languages, ICT). | 0.973 | 0.136 | 7.129 | <0.001 | 0.706 | 1.241 |
I took part in paid online courses. | 1.422 | 0.159 | 8.934 | <0.001 | 1.110 | 1.734 |
I took part in online joint study groups. | 1.556 | 0.171 | 9.107 | <0.001 | 1.221 | 1.891 |
Using a text editor | 0.203 | 0.027 | 7.411 | <0.001 | 0.149 | 0.256 |
Using a spreadsheet software | 0.567 | 0.065 | 8.742 | <0.001 | 0.440 | 0.695 |
Using presentation software | 0.225 | 0.032 | 7.015 | <0.001 | 0.162 | 0.288 |
Using graphic software | 0.897 | 0.096 | 9.388 | <0.001 | 0.710 | 1.084 |
Awareness of digital threats | 0.510 | 0.053 | 9.698 | <0.001 | 0.407 | 0.613 |
References
- Kuzmanović, M.; Anđelković Labrović, J.; Nikodijević, A. Designing e-learning environment based on student preferences: Conjoint analysis approach. Int. J. Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ. 2019, 7, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Potyrała, K. iEdukacja: Synergia Nowych Mediów i Dydaktyki: Ewolucja, Antynomie, Konteksty; Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego: Kraków, Poland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Fazlollahtabar, H.; Muhammadzadeh, A. A knowledge-based user interface to optimize curriculum utility in an e-learning system. Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2012, 8, 34–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Galustyan, O.V.; Borovikova, Y.V.; Polivaeva, N.P.; Bakhtiyor, K.R.; Zhirkova, G.P. E-learning within the field of andragogy. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2019, 14, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stošić, L.; Bogdanović, M. M-learning—A new form of learning and education. Int. J. Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ. 2019, 1, 114–118. [Google Scholar]
- Abakumova, I.; Bakaeva, I.; Grishina, A.; Dyakova, E. Active learning technologies in distance education of gifted students. Int. J. Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ. 2019, 7, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tan, P.J.B. English e-learning in the virtual classroom and the factors that influence ESL (English as a Second Language): Taiwanese citizens’ acceptance and use of the Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2015, 54, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koehler, M.; Mishra, P. What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. 2009, 9, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Novković Cvetković, B.; Stošić, L.; Belousova, A. Media and Information Literacy-the Basis for Applying Digital Technologies in Teaching from the Discourse of Educational Needs of Teachers. Croat. J. Educ. 2018, 20, 1089–1114. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, P.J.B.; Hsu, M.H. Designing a System for English Evaluation and Teaching Devices: A PZB and TAM Model Analysis. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2018, 14, 2107–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oyelere, S.S.; Suhonen, J.; Wajiga, G.M.; Sutinen, E. Design, development, and evaluation of a mobile learning application for computing education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 467–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, P.J.B.; Hsu, M.H. Developing a system for English evaluation and teaching devices. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Applied System Innovation (ICASI), Sapporo, Japan, 13–17 May 2017; pp. 938–941. [Google Scholar]
- Sattari, A.; Abdekhoda, M.; Zarea Gavgani, V. Determinant Factors Affecting the Web-based Training Acceptance by Health Students, Applying UTAUT Model. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2017, 12, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tan, P.J.B. Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan. SAGE Open 2013, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lu, A.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Chang, T. Investigating the Determinants of Mobile Learning Acceptance in Higher Education Based on UTAUT. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Computer Symposium, Chiayi, Taiwan, 15–17 December 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demeshkant, N. Future Academic Teachers’ Digital Skills: Polish Case-Study. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 8, 3173–3178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bomba, L.; Zacharová, J. Blended learning and lifelong learning of teachers in the post-communist society in Slovakia. Int. J. Contin. Eng. Educ. Life-Long Learn. 2014, 24, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eger, L. E-learning a Jeho Aplikace. Bachelor’s Thesis, Zapadoceska Univerzita v Plzni, Plzen, Czech Republic, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Pozo-Sánchez, S.; López-Belmonte, J.; Fernández, M.F.; López, J.A. Análisis correlacional de los factores incidentes en el nivel de competencia digital del profesorado. Rev. Electron. Interuniv. Form. Profr. 2020, 23, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomczyk, Ł. Skills in the area of digital safety as a key component of digital literacy among teachers. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 471–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pozo-Sánchez, S.; López-Belmonte, J.; Rodríguez-García, A.M.; López-Núñez, J.A. Teachers’ digital competence in using and analytically managing information in flipped learning. Cult. Educ. 2020, 32, 213–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziemba, E. The Holistic and Systems Approach to the Sustainable Information Society. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2013, 54, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walter, N. Zanurzeni w Mediach. Konteksty Edukacji Medialnej; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu: Poznań, Poland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ziemba, E. The Contribution of ICT Adoption to the Sustainable Information Society. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2017, 59, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabiman, R.; Nurtanto, M.; Kholifah, N. Design and Development E-Learning System by Learning Management System (LMS) in Vocational Education. Online Submiss. 2020, 9, 1059–1063. [Google Scholar]
- Ammenwerth, E.; Hackl, W.O.; Hoerbst, A.; Felderer, M. Indicators for Cooperative, Online-Based Learning and Their Role in Quality Management of Online Learning. In Student-Centered Virtual Learning Environments in Higher Education; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Beqiri, E. ICT and e-learning literacy as an important component for the new competency-based curriculum framework in Kosovo. J. Res. Educ. Sci. 2010, 1, 7–21. [Google Scholar]
- Malik, S.I.; Mathew, R.; Al-Nuaimi, R.; Al-Sideiri, A.; Coldwell-Neilson, J. Learning problem solving skills: Comparison of E-Learning and M-Learning in an introductory programming course. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2019, 24, 2779–2796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tularam, G.A. Traditional vs. Non-traditional Teaching and Learning Strategies–the case of E-learning. Int. J. Math. Teach. Learn. 2018, 19, 129–158. [Google Scholar]
- Fedeli, L. Embodiment e Mondi Virtuali: Implicazioni Didattiche; F. Angeli: Milano, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Pham, L.; Williamson, S.; Berry, R. Student perceptions of e-learning service quality, e-satisfaction, and e-loyalty. Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2018, 14, 19–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tawafak, R.M.; Romli, A.B.; bin Abdullah Arshah, R.; Malik, S.I. Framework design of university communication model (UCOM) to enhance continuous intentions in teaching and e-learning process. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 817–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Qirim, N.; Tarhini, A.; Rouibah, K.; Mohamd, S.; Yammahi, A.R.; Yammahi, M.A. Learning orientations of IT higher education students in UAE University. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ze’ang, Z.; Jiawei, W. A study on cloud-computing-based education platform. Distance Educ. China 2010, 6, 66–68. [Google Scholar]
- Lai, C.; Shum, M.; Tian, Y. Enhancing learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning: The effectiveness of an online training platform. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2016, 29, 40–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, F.; Wang, Y. Teachers’ training based on moodle platform. Open Educ. Res. 2008, 5, 91–94. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, J.G.; Li, Z.G.; Zhang, W.T. Blended Training System Design based on Moodle Platform. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 644, 5745–5748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vlasenko, K.; Chumak, O.; Sitak, I.; Lovianova, I.; Kondratyeva, O. Training of mathematical disciplines teachers for higher educational institutions as a contemporary problem. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 2019, 7, 1892–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, C.W.J.; Lo, K.M.J. From Teacher-Designer to Student-Researcher: A Study of Attitude Change Regarding Creativity in STEAM Education by Using Makey Makey as a Platform for Human-Centred Design Instrument. J. STEM Educ. Res. 2019, 2, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomczyk, Ł.; Oyelere, S.S. ICT for Learning and Inclusion in Latin America and Europe; Pedagogical University of Cracow: Cracow, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Oyelere, S.S.; Tomczyk, L.; Bouali, N.; Agbo, F.J. Blockchain technology and gamification-conditions and opportunities for education. In Adult Education 2018-Transformation in the Era of Digitization and Artificial Intelligence; Česká andragogická společnost/Czech Andragogy Society: Praha, Czech Republic, 2019; pp. 85–96. [Google Scholar]
- Tomczyk, Ł.; Muñoz, D.; Perier, J.; Arteaga, M.; Barros, G.; Porta, M.; Puglia, E. ICT and preservice teachers. Short case study about conditions of teacher preparation in: Dominican republic, ecuador, uruguay and poland. Knowl. Int. J. 2019, 32, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
- Tomczyk, L.; Eliseo, M.A.; Costas, V.; Sanchez, G.; Silveira, I.F.; Barros, M.J.; Amado-Salvatierra, H.; Oyelere, S.S. Digital Divide in Latin America and Europe: Main Characteristics in Selected Countries. In Proceedings of the 2019 14th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Coimbra, Portugal, 19–22 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Oyelere, S.S.; Silveira, I.F.; Martins, V.F.; Eliseo, M.A.; Akyar, Ö.Y.; Costas Jauregui, V.; Caussin, B.; Motz, R.; Suhonen, J.; Tomczyk, Ł. Digital Storytelling and Blockchain as Pedagogy and Technology to Support the Development of an Inclusive Smart Learning Ecosystem. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 397–408. [Google Scholar]
- Martins, V.F.; Amato, C.; Tomczyk, Ł.; Oyelere, S.S.; Eliseo, M.A.; Silveira, I.F. Accessibility Recommendations for Open Educational Resources for People with Learning Disabilities. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 387–396. [Google Scholar]
- Martins, V.; Oyelere, S.; Tomczyk, L.; Barros, G.; Akyar, O.; Eliseo, M.; Amato, C.; Silveira, I. A Blockchain Microsites-Based Ecosystem for Learning and Inclusion. Braz. Symp. Comput. Educ. 2019, 30, 229–238. [Google Scholar]
- Oyelere, S.S.; Bin Qushem, U.; Costas Jauregui, V.; Akyar, Ö.Y.; Tomczyk, Ł.; Sanchez, G.; Munoz, D.; Motz, R. Blockchain Technology to Support Smart Learning and Inclusion: Pre-service Teachers and Software Developers Viewpoints. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 357–366. [Google Scholar]
- Tomczyk, L.; Oyelere, S.S.; Puentes, A.; Sanchez-Castillo, G.; Muñoz, D.; Simsek, B.; Akyar, O.Y.; Demirhan, G. Flipped learning, digital storytelling as the new solutions in adult education and school pedagogy. In Adult Education 2018-Transformation in the Era of Digitization and Artificial Intelligence; Česká andragogická společnost/Czech Andragogy Society: Praha, Czech Republic, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Martins, V.F.; Tomczyk, Ł.; Amato, C.; Eliseo, M.A.; Oyelere, S.S.; Akyar, Ö.Y.; Motz, R.; Barros, G.; Sarmiento, S.M.A.; Silveira, I.F. A Smart Ecosystem for Learning and Inclusion: An Architectural Overview. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, Cagliari, Italy, 1–4 July 2020; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2020; pp. 601–616. [Google Scholar]
- Wnęk-Gozdek, J.; Tomczyk, Ł.; Mróz, A. Cyberbullying prevention in the opinion of teachers. Media Educ. 2019, 59, 594–607. [Google Scholar]
- Tomczyk, Ł.; Włoch, A. Cyberbullying in the light of challenges of school-based prevention. Int. J. Cogn. Res. Sci. Eng. Educ. 2019, 7, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tomczyk, Ł.; Mróz, A.; Potyrała, K.; Wnęk-Gozdek, J. Digital inclusion from the perspective of teachers of older adults-expectations, experiences, challenges and supporting measures. Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pyżalski, J. Edukacja w Czasach Pandemii Wirusa COVID-19. Z Dystansem o Tym, co robimy Obecnie Jako Nauczyciele [Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. With the Distance about What We Are Currently Doing as Teachers]; EduAkcja: Warszawa, Poland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Fraihat, D.; Joy, M.; Masa’deh, R.; Sinclair, J. Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 102, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taufi, R.; Baharun, M.; Sunaryo, B.; Pudjoatmodjo, B.; Utomo, W.M. Indonesia: Covid-19 and E-learning in Student Attendance Method. SciTech Framew. 2020, 2, 12–22. [Google Scholar]
- Khlifi, J. An Advanced Authentication Scheme for E-evaluation Using Students Behaviors Over E-learning Platform. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2020, 15, 90–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz, R. Exploring the role of e-learning readiness on student satisfaction and motivation in flipped classroom. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 70, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues, M.W.; Isotani, S.; Zárate, L.E. Educational Data Mining: A review of evaluation process in the e-learning. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 1701–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ventayen, R.J.M.; Estira, K.L.A.; De Guzman, M.J.; Cabaluna, C.M.; Espinosa, N.N. Usability Evaluation of Google Classroom: Basis for the Adaptation of GSuite E-Learning Platform. Asia Pac. J. Educ. Arts Sci. 2018, 5, 47–51. [Google Scholar]
- Fryer, L.; Bovee, H.N. Supporting students’ motivation for e-learning: Teachers matter on and offline. Internet High. Educ. 2016, 30, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.C.; Quadir, B.; Chen, N.S.; Miao, Q. Effects of online presence on learning performance in a blog-based online course. Internet High. Educ. 2016, 30, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hölbl, M.; Welzer, T.; Nemec, L.; Sevčnikar, A. Student feedback experience and opinion using Moodle. In Proceedings of the 2011 22nd EAEEIE Annual Conference (EAEEIE), Maribor, Slovenia, 13–15 June 2011; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Tomczyk, Ł.; Oyelere, S.; Amato, C.; Farinazzo Martins, V.; Motz, R.; Barros, G.; Yaşar Akyar, O.; Muñoz, D. Smart Ecosystem for Learning and Inclusion—Assumptions, actions and challenges in the implementation of an international educational project. In Adult Education 2019 in the Context of Professional. Development and Social Capital, Proceedings of the 9th International Adult Education Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 11–12 December 2019; Charles University: Prague, Czech Republic, 2020; pp. 365–379. [Google Scholar]
Theory | Key Factors | Practical Training |
---|---|---|
TPACK | Technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge | Implementation of the new e-learning platform requires technological knowledge (digital competence), attractive and relevant educational content, methodological knowledge, and the ability to conduct digitally mediated classes [7,8,9]. |
The technology acceptance model (TAM) | Perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU); | The implementation of the new e-learning platform requires the content and functionality of the digital learning environment to be focused on the usability of content and tools and take into account ease of use [10,11,12]. |
UTAUT (The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) | Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions | The implementation of a new digital learning environment requires taking into account the efficiency of the solution, the ability to anticipate the effort required to operate the platform, anticipating the social impact (e.g., rapid dissemination of the tool or vice versa), and creating conditions to facilitate the operation of the platform [13,14,15]. |
Lifelong learning in digital competence | Continuous updating of knowledge and ability to improve key competences with a particular focus on digital skills | The ability to implement new digital learning solutions requires lifelong learning skills [16,17,18]. The issue of updating knowledge and skills mainly concerns the digital competence of teachers [19,20,21]. |
Development of the information society | The development of the information society is an intense and irreversible phenomenon. | The development of the information society is noticeable in almost all areas of social life. Education is also changing intensely through the development of new websites and digital devices [22,23,24]. |
MSA (Measure of Sampling Adequacy) | |
---|---|
Overall MSA | 0.758 |
General course quality | 0.859 |
Professionally prepared materials | 0.766 |
Content usefulness | 0.782 |
Visual design | 0.782 |
Innovative character of the platform | 0.763 |
I took part in online courses required in the official study curriculum or as part of my professional development. | 0.669 |
I searched for relevant resources on the Internet to complete online classes. | 0.656 |
I took part in free e-learning courses (online courses such as foreign languages, ICT). | 0.732 |
I took part in paid online courses. | 0.711 |
I took part in online joint study groups. | 0.783 |
Using a text editor | 0.707 |
Using a spreadsheet program | 0.767 |
Using presentation software | 0.679 |
Using graphics software | 0.763 |
Awareness of digital threats | 0.803 |
Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Uniqueness | |
---|---|---|---|---|
General course quality | 0.852 | 0.272 | ||
Professionally prepared materials | 0.765 | 0.406 | ||
Content usefulness | 0.711 | 0.489 | ||
Visual design | 0.796 | 0.361 | ||
Innovative character of platform | 0.735 | 0.437 | ||
I took part in online courses required in the official study curriculum or as part of my professional development. | 0.630 | 0.646 | ||
I searched for relevant resources on the Internet to complete online classes. | 0.582 | 0.684 | ||
I took part in free e-learning courses (online courses such as foreign languages, ICT). | 0.584 | 0.623 | ||
I took part in paid online courses. | 0.436 | 0.760 | ||
I took part in online joint study groups. | 0.481 | 0.735 | ||
Using a text editor | 0.769 | 0.457 | ||
Using a spreadsheet software | 0.672 | 0.526 | ||
Using presentation software | 0.781 | 0.447 | ||
Using graphic software | 0.563 | 0.631 | ||
Awareness of digital threats | 0.481 | 0.723 |
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. General course quality | — | ||||||||
2. Professionally prepared materials | 0.516 | *** | — | ||||||
3. Content usefulness | 0.502 | *** | 0.586 | *** | — | ||||
4. Visual design | 0.536 | *** | 0.444 | *** | 0.343 | *** | — | ||
5. Innovative character of platform | 0.557 | *** | 0.337 | *** | 0.338 | *** | 0.676 | *** | — |
6. Metrical age | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.043 | −0.150 | * | −0.106 |
(1) General Course Quality R = 0.182, R2 = 0.033, F = 0.738, p < 0.001 | (2) Professionally Prepared Materials R2 = 0.060, F = 1.376, p < 0.001 | (3) Content Usefulness R2 = 0.058, F = 1.343, p < 0.001 | (4) Visual Design R2 = 0.061, F = 1.405, p < 0.001 | (5) Innovative Character of Platform R2 = 0.026, F = 0.586, p < 0.001 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | t | p | β | t | p | β | t | p | β | t | p | β | t | p | |
Intercept | 8.44 | 0.00 | 9.77 | 0.00 | 11.44 | 0.00 | 7.00 | 0.00 | 7.03 | 0.00 | |||||
V1. I took part in online courses required in the official study curriculum or as part of my professional development | 0.09 | 1.14 | 0.25 | 0.03 | 0.39 | 0.70 | 0.10 | 1.24 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.11 | 1.43 | 0.15 |
V.2 I searched for relevant resources on the Internet to complete online classes. | −0.14 | −1.81 | 0.07 | −0.13 | −1.63 | 0.10 | −0.17 | −2.19 | 0.03 | −0.13 | −1.68 | 0.09 | −0.02 | −0.25 | 0.81 |
V.3 I took part in free e-learning courses (online courses such as foreign languages, ICT). | 0.14 | 1.79 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 2.13 | 0.03 | 0.17 | 2.11 | 0.04 | 0.14 | 1.81 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.50 | 0.62 |
V.4 I took part in paid online courses. | −0.08 | −1.04 | 0.30 | −0.04 | −0.49 | 0.63 | −0.08 | −1.06 | 0.29 | −0.07 | −0.86 | 0.39 | −0.05 | −0.70 | 0.49 |
V.5 I took part in online joint study groups. | 0.05 | 0.60 | 0.55 | −0.04 | −0.54 | 0.59 | −0.05 | −0.73 | 0.46 | 0.14 | 1.83 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 1.07 | 0.28 |
V.6 Using a text editor (e.g., Word) | 0.04 | 0.40 | 0.69 | 0.08 | 0.84 | 0.40 | 0.13 | 1.43 | 0.15 | 0.18 | 1.91 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.60 | 0.55 |
V.7 Using a spreadsheet program (e.g., Excel, Calc) | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.94 | −0.09 | −1.03 | 0.31 | 0.00 | −0.02 | 0.98 | −0.01 | −0.12 | 0.90 | 0.03 | 0.36 | 0.72 |
V.8 Using presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint) | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.98 | 0.16 | 1.66 | 0.10 | 0.00 | −0.01 | 0.99 | −0.07 | −0.73 | 0.47 | −0.07 | −0.73 | 0.46 |
V.9 Using graphic software (e.g., Picasa, Gimp) | −0.01 | −0.08 | 0.94 | −0.06 | −0.74 | 0.46 | −0.10 | −1.20 | 0.23 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.91 | −0.01 | −0.14 | 0.89 |
V.10 Awareness of digital threats (e.g., cyberbullying, Internet addiction, sexting) | −0.05 | −0.63 | 0.53 | −0.03 | −0.42 | 0.68 | −0.06 | −0.82 | 0.41 | −0.10 | −1.31 | 0.19 | −0.06 | −0.71 | 0.48 |
Group 1 | Group 2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | Standard Deviation | Variance | Mean | Standard Deviation | Variance | |
V1. General course quality | 4.34 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 4.27 | 0.89 | 0.79 |
V2. Professionally prepared materials | 4.48 | 0.82 | 0.68 | 4.54 | 0.69 | 0.48 |
V3. Content usefulness | 4.44 | 0.76 | 0.58 | 4.55 | 0.67 | 0.45 |
V4. Visual design | 4.09 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 3.99 | 1.01 | 1.01 |
V5. Innovative character of platform | 4.20 | 1.00 | 1.01 | 4.14 | 0.97 | 0.94 |
V6. I took part in online courses required in the official study curriculum or as part of my professional development. | 4.35 | 0.81 | 0.65 | 3.53 | 1.25 | 1.56 |
V7. I searched for relevant resources on the Internet to complete online classes. | 4.66 | 0.48 | 0.23 | 4.10 | 0.97 | 0.94 |
V8. I took part in free e-learning courses (online courses such as foreign languages, ICT). | 4.15 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 2.78 | 1.19 | 1.43 |
V9. I took part in paid online courses. | 3.21 | 1.47 | 2.17 | 1.54 | 0.86 | 0.74 |
V10. I took part in online joint study groups. | 4.00 | 1.20 | 1.44 | 2.20 | 1.11 | 1.23 |
V11. Using a text editor (e.g., Word) | 4.65 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 4.25 | 0.72 | 0.52 |
V12. Using a spreadsheet software (e.g., Excel, Calc) | 3.93 | 0.84 | 0.70 | 2.94 | 0.89 | 0.79 |
V13. Using presentation software (e.g., PowerPoint) | 4.60 | 0.58 | 0.34 | 4.20 | 0.78 | 0.61 |
V14. Using graphic software (e.g., Picasa, Gimp) | 3.84 | 0.89 | 0.80 | 2.72 | 1.10 | 1.21 |
V.15 Awareness of digital threats (e.g., cyberbullying, Internet addiction, sexting) | 4.34 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 4.27 | 0.89 | 0.79 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tomczyk, Ł.; Potyrała, K.; Włoch, A.; Wnęk-Gozdek, J.; Demeshkant, N. Evaluation of the Functionality of a New E-Learning Platform vs. Previous Experiences in E-Learning and the Self-Assessment of Own Digital Literacy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310219
Tomczyk Ł, Potyrała K, Włoch A, Wnęk-Gozdek J, Demeshkant N. Evaluation of the Functionality of a New E-Learning Platform vs. Previous Experiences in E-Learning and the Self-Assessment of Own Digital Literacy. Sustainability. 2020; 12(23):10219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310219
Chicago/Turabian StyleTomczyk, Łukasz, Katarzyna Potyrała, Anna Włoch, Joanna Wnęk-Gozdek, and Nataliia Demeshkant. 2020. "Evaluation of the Functionality of a New E-Learning Platform vs. Previous Experiences in E-Learning and the Self-Assessment of Own Digital Literacy" Sustainability 12, no. 23: 10219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310219
APA StyleTomczyk, Ł., Potyrała, K., Włoch, A., Wnęk-Gozdek, J., & Demeshkant, N. (2020). Evaluation of the Functionality of a New E-Learning Platform vs. Previous Experiences in E-Learning and the Self-Assessment of Own Digital Literacy. Sustainability, 12(23), 10219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310219