An Empirical Study in Evaluating the E-learning Dimension of Blended Model

The purpose of this study is to offer a methodological framework for assessing e-learning capacities in blended educational scheme, based on users’ experiences, with an ultimate goal of getting a clearer view of what should be improved within existing systems of this kind. Accordingly, a survey among sixty students at the post graduate level and ten experienced instructors was conducted at “Mediterranean” University in Montenegro. An assessment model based on a particular combination of binary and Saaty’s matrix approaches was used for adding the quantitative dimension to the considered issue, with an intention to generate more specific directions for redesigning and improving key features of contemporary web-based e-learning systems (WBEL) in the blended environment by making them more valuable and user-friendly ones.

REFERENCES:

• Azliza, Y., et al. (2012). Students Awareness Toward E-Learning in Education, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 67, 93 - 101.
• Bauk, S., Kopp, M., & Avramović, Z. (2013). A Case Study on Introducing E-learning into Seafarers’ Education, JITA- Journal of Information Technology and Applications, 3 (1), 34 - 43. URL: http://www.jita-au.com/Public/PDF/JITA_Vol%203_Issue1.pdf (last access 20th March, 2014).
• Bauk, S., Šćepanović, S., & Kopp, M. (2014) Estimating Students’ Satisfaction with Web-based Learning System in Blended Learning Environment, Education Research International Journal, In press. URL: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/aip/731720/ (last access 20th March, 2014).
• Daniel, Y.S., & Wang, Y-S. (2008). Multi-criteria evaluation of the web based e-learning system: A methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications, Computer & Education, 50, 894 - 905.
• Hassanzadeh, A., Kanaani, F., & Elahi, S. (2012) A model for measuring e-learning system success in universities, Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 10959 - 10966.
• Lee, B-C., Yoon, J-O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners’ acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results, Computers & Education, 53, 1320 - 1329.
• Ozkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009) Student’s multi-dimensional evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation, Computers & Education, 53, 1285 - 1296.
• Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction, Computers & Education, 54, 222 - 229.
• Saaty, T. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary, European Journal of Operational Research, 145, 85 - 91.
• Saaty, T. (1994). Homogeneteity and clustering in AHP ensures the validity of the scale, European Journal of Operational Research, 72, 589 - 601.
• Saaty, T. (1994). How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Interfaces, 24(6), 19 - 43.
• Saaty, T. (1990). Multicriteria decision making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications: Pittsburgh.
• Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Mc Graw-Hill: New York.
• Shikin, E.V., & Chhartishvili, A.G. (2000). Mathematical methods and models in management, Дело: Moscow (in Russian).
• Shu-Sheng, L., & Hsiu-Mei, H. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefullness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning envinronments, Computers & Education, 60, 14 - 24.
• Sivilevičius, H., & Maskeliunaite, L. (2010). The criteria for identifying the quality of passengers’ transportation by railway and their ranking using AHP method, Transport 25(4), 368 - 381.
• Sun, J., & Hsu, Y. (2012). An experimental study of learner perceptions of the interactivity of web-based instruction, Interacting with Computers, 24, 35 - 48.
• Sun, P-C., Tsai, R.J., Finger, G., Chen, Y-Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction, Computers & Education, 50, 1183 - 1202.
• Wang, Y-S. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems, Information & Management, 41, 75 - 86.