FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LEARNING PERFORMANCE OF u-LEARNING SYSTEMS

SangHee Lee, DongMan Lee

Abstract

This study examines the factors that are associated with user satisfaction of ubiquitous learning (u-Learning), where in four major factors are identified that influence interaction and learning performance. A survey of 226 u-Learning users was conducted and the data collected was used to test theoretically expected relationships. To verify the research model, the validity through the model’s factor and reliability analyses was inspected. The results of the analyses, by LISREL, are as follows. First, the ubiquitous characteristics such as pervasive connectivity and context awareness had significant influence on the effectiveness of the u-Learning systems. Second, the learner's characteristics such as academic motivation and flow played an important role in the effectiveness of u-Learning systems. Third, the learner's interaction factors had an important influence regarding the performance of u-Learning systems.

References

  1. Balawati, T., “Increasing student persistence in Indonesian post-secondary distance education”, Distance Education, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1998, pp. 60-71.
  2. BenMoussa, C., “Workers on the move: New opportunities through mobile commerce”, UKAIS Conference, Vol. 16, 2003, pp. 22-23.
  3. Biner, P. M., R. S. Dean, and A. E. Mellinger, “Factors underlying distance learner satisfaction with televised college-level courses”, The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 8, 1994. pp.60- 71.
  4. Burgoon, J. K., J. A. Bonito, Bengtsson B., A. Ramirez Jr., N. E. Dunbar and N. Miczo, “Testing the interactivity model: Communication process Partner assessments and the quality of collaborative work”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2000, pp. 33-56.
  5. Chute, A. G., M. M. Thompson and B. W. Hancock, The McGraw-Hill handbook of distance learning, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999.
  6. Csikszenntmihalyi, M., Optimal experience: Psychological of flow in consciousness. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
  7. Coldeway, D. O., “Methodological issues in distance educational research”, The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 5, No 2, 1988, pp. 47-52.
  8. Coutaz, J., J. L. Crowley, S. Dobson and D. Garlan, “Context is Key”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2005, pp. 49-53.
  9. Chen, L. D., “Consumer Acceptance of Virtual Stores: A Theoretical Model and Critical Success Factors for Virtual Stores”, Doctoral Thesis, The University of Memphis, 2000.
  10. Eager, J. F., R. D. Blackwell, and P. W. Miniard, Customer Behavior, 6th Ed., Chicago: The Dryden Press, 1990.
  11. Fortin, D. R. and R. R. Dholakia, “Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, 2005, pp. 387-396.
  12. Ghani, J. A., R. Supnick and P. Rooney, “The Experience of Flow in Computer Mediated and in Face-to-Face Groups”, in 12th internet, Conference on Information Systems, 1991, pp. 16-18.
  13. Gibson. P. M., “Generalized doubly stochastic and permutation matrices over a ring”, Linear Algebra Appl., Vol. 30, 1980, pp. 101-107.
  14. Harasim, L., Online education: Perspectives on a new environment, In L. Harasim, eds., New York: Praeger Publisher, 1990.
  15. Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham and W. C. Black, Multivariate data analysis(4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs.: Prentice-Hall, 1995.
  16. Heeter, C., Implications of New Interactive Technologies for Conceptualizing Communication, in Media Use in the Information Age: Emerging Patterns of Adoption and Computer Use, J. L. Salvaggio and J. Bryant, eds., Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989.
  17. Hicks, W. D. and R. J. Klimosky, “Entry into Training Outcomes: A Field Experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 30, 1987, pp. 542-552.
  18. Hoffman, D. L. and T. P. Novak, “Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, 1996, pp. 50-68.
  19. Hult, G. T. and D. Ketchen, “Does market orientation matter?: a test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 9, 2001, pp. 899-906.
  20. Jarvenpaa, S. J. and P. A. Todd, “Consumer reactions to eletronic shopping on the world wide web”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1997, pp. 59-88.
  21. Jonassen, D., “Instructional design models for wellstructured and ill-structured problem solving learning outcomes”, ETR&D, Vol. 45, No. 1, 1997.
  22. Junglas, I. A. and R. T. Watson, “U-Commerce: An Experimental Investigation of Ubiquity and Uniqueness”, 24th ICIS, 2003, pp. 414-426.
  23. Kalakota, R. and M. Robinson, M Business, McGraw-Hill Company, 2002.
  24. Kannan, P., A. Chang and A. Whinston, “Wireless Commerce”, Marketing Issues and Possibilities, 34th HICCS, Vol. 9, No. 9, 2001, pp. 15-21.
  25. Khan, B. H., Factors to consider when evaluating a webbased instruction course; A survey, Khan, B. H. (Ed.), Web-based Instruction, Educational Technology Publications, 1997.
  26. Kenny, D. and J. Marshall, “Contextual Marketing”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78, No. 6, 2000, pp. 119-125.
  27. Knowles, M. S., Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers, Englewood: Prentice Hall, 1975.
  28. Lim C. P., “Object of the activity systems as a major barrier to the creative use of ICT in schools”, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 17, No. 3, 2001, pp. 295-312.
  29. Lyytinen, K. and Y. Yoo, “Issues and Challenges in Ubiquitous Computing”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45, No. 12, 2002, pp. 63-65.
  30. McMillan. S. J. and J. S. Hwang, “Measures of Perceived Interactivity; An Exploration of the Role of Direction of Communication, User Control and Time in Shaping Perception of Interactivity”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2002, pp. 41- 54.
  31. Moore, M. G., “Three types of interaction”, American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1989, pp. 1-6.
  32. Moore, M. G., and G. Kearsley, Distance Education. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1996.
  33. Newhagen, J. E. and S. Rafaeli, “Why communication researchers should study the Internet: A dialogue”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 46, 1996, pp. 4-13.
  34. Novak, T. P., D. L. Hoffman, and Y. F. Young, “Measuring the Customer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach”, Marketing Science, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2000, pp. 22-42.
  35. Rafaeli, S., “Interactivity: From New Media to Communication in Advancing Communication Science”, Sage Annual Review of Communication Research, Vol.16, Sage Publications, 1988, pp. 110- 134.
  36. Rogers, E. M., Communication Technology; The New Media in Society, New York; The Free Press, 1986.
  37. Srinivassan, S., A. Rolph, and P. Kishore, “Customer loyalty in e-Commerce: an exploration of its antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78, 2002, pp. 41-50.
  38. Steuer, J., “Defining Virtual Reality; Dimensions Determining Telepresence”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 42, No. 4, 1992, pp. 73-93.
  39. Sukpanich, N. and L. Chen, “Antecedents of Desirable Consumer Behaviors in Electronic Commerce”, Association of Information Systems Conference, 1999.
  40. Treffinger, D. J., S. G. Isakesen and K. B. Dorval, Creative Problem Solving: An Overview, In M.A. Runco. (eds.). Norwood: Albex, 1994.
  41. Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Mass: Haevard University Press, 1978.
  42. Wu, G., “The Mediating Role of Perceived Interactivity in the Effect of Actual Interactivity on Attitude toward the Web-site”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2005, pp. 55-72.
  43. Yuping, L. and L. J. Shrum, “What Is Interactivity and Is It Always Such a Good Thing? Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2002, pp. 53-64.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Lee S. and Lee D. (2008). FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LEARNING PERFORMANCE OF u-LEARNING SYSTEMS . In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 5: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8111-40-1, pages 352-358. DOI: 10.5220/0001689203520358


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis08,
author={SangHee Lee and DongMan Lee},
title={FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LEARNING PERFORMANCE OF u-LEARNING SYSTEMS},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 5: ICEIS,},
year={2008},
pages={352-358},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0001689203520358},
isbn={978-989-8111-40-1},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 5: ICEIS,
TI - FACTORS INFLUENCING THE LEARNING PERFORMANCE OF u-LEARNING SYSTEMS
SN - 978-989-8111-40-1
AU - Lee S.
AU - Lee D.
PY - 2008
SP - 352
EP - 358
DO - 10.5220/0001689203520358