Published by Basic Research Journal of Education Research and Review

Basic Research Journal of Education Research and Review ISSN 2315-6872 Vol. 3(3) pp. 24-28 May 2014
Available online http//www.basicresearchjournals.org
Copyright 2014 Basic Research Journal


Case report


Investigation of effectiveness of E-learning in higher
education; A case study

Maryam Behnoodi, Nafiseh Peyman

(M.A Student at Virtual Learning Course), Department of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Tehran University,
Tehran, Iran.

*Corresponding author email: peymann.ut@gmail.com

Accepted 22 May, 2014

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the efficacy of E-learning on higher education based on university
professors and students perspectives. To do so, 15 questionnaires among university professors and
123 questionnaires were distributed among students at Isfahan University, Iran. A researcher-made
questionnaire was used to obtain respondents points of view on a Likert scale on how they consider
the effectiveness of E-learning on educational achievement. Using SPSS statistics to analyze the data,
we found that both professors and students agreed on some aspects of E-learning regarding its
effectiveness in higher education. Although the findings verified those of previous research, there were
some significant differences between other aspects of E-learning which have been elaborated in the
present study.

Keywords: E-learning, Higher Education, Educational Achievement, Educational Setting.


INTRODUCTION

According to Wilson (2001) E-learning is defined, in a
number of settings, such as distance learning, online
learning and networked learning. In the context of this
study, as Holley (2002) delineates, all of these definitions
will be considered to describe learning that utilizes
information communications technology (ICT) to promote
educational interaction between students, lecturers and
learning communities. Volery (2000) believes that
because of swift the spread of Internet and modern
technology most universities and educational centers are
seeking to find a way to use E-learning courses. He
argues (2000) that one of the means for universities to
compete for students is utilization of E-learning programs.
Furthermore, Ribiero (2002) has a parallel point of view
and assumes that universities must be aware of the
characteristics of E-learning courses so that all of the
advantages and disadvantages of E-learning should be
taken into consideration.
OHearn (2000) argues that application of E-learning
needs the cooperation of all the individuals involved in
the process. Fry (2001) contends that E-learning is an
important means for a university to excel over other
competing universities. His findings were in line with
those of Darling (2002) who added that E-learning is not
itself an end, but a means to achieve an end. Hartley
(2000) finally elaborates some of the precautions along
with E-learning such as: high cost; educational setting
preparation; students level of proficiency; and familiarity
with mass media and Internet.


E-learning in literature

One of the important research studies on effectiveness of
E-learning was the study reproved by Russel (1997) so-
called Russel Theory. Not believing too much in E-
Published by Basic Research Journal of Education Research and Review




learning, he compared two groups of students, one group
taught by E-learning and other group by traditional
method. Russel found out that E-learning had a number
of advantages over traditional method.
Investigating educational achievement of computer
engineering students at Khajeh Nasir Tousi, Iran, Khan
(2004, 12) emphasized the importance and efficacy of E-
learning courses. In a follow-up study Momenirad (2010)
did a research on Information Technology (IT) at the
same university and verified the results of previous
studies.
Unlike other research studies, Zoulfaghari et al. (2009)
and Karimkhani et al. (2011) found out that there was no
significant difference between E-learning and traditional
methods. One of the findings that Ong (2004, 8) in his
study obtained was the importance of E-learning
utilization in Information Technology (IT).
According to Khan (2004, 4), E-learning can be used
for all proficiency levels in different times and places. He
continues that E-learning would be considered as a
means to link teachers and students which are separated
in this method.
Furthermore, Alestalo and Peltola (2006, 251) verified
the effectiveness of E-learning, elaborating that both
teachers and students can communicate via E-learning
and internet facilities. Ebadi et al. (2010, 24) mentioned a
number of E-learning advantages including: 1- students
do not have to pay for transportation fares 2- education is
available for all individuals with different proficiency levels
3- educational contents and resources would be
accessible to all of the students 4-It is possible to have
access to all of the sources at any time. According to
Steve et al. (2001), the most noticeable importance of E-
learning is to provide feedback on the part of students
during the educational process and whenever the
expected outcomes have not met all of the educational
resources are to be changed. So far, we merely
discussed some of the advantages of E-learning and now
it is time to take a look at other side and indicate the
disadvantages of it briefly. Ebadi (2004, 25) mentioned
some of the demerits of E-learning including high costs,
lack of familiarity of students and no access to internet
and mass media.
Steve et al. (2001, 19) believed that in most of the
cases there are some limitations regarding upgrading and
promoting educational contents. Nasiri (2004, 19) in his
research concluded that lack of face to face
communication between teachers and students as well
as lack of communication among students are some of
the problems of E-learning. Wentz (2003) detailed that
since E-learning is done at inappropriate times
effectiveness of E-learning tends to decrease. Dividing E-
learning into two categories, that is, concurrent and no-
concurrent, Nichols (2003) declares that students can
apply both in order to enhance their proficiency. Mcgorry
(2003) displayed E-learning planning process and
emphasized the importance such factors as flexibility,
Peyman and Behnoodi. 25



cooperation and feedback. His results verified by Song
(2014).Rabiee (2011) did a research on effectiveness of
E-learning on the part of the university professors and
students points of view at Ferdowsi University, Iran. He
concluded that university professors believe that E-
learning is effective and students think that E-learning
courses have a mild effect on their progress.
Because of importance of E-learning and the need to
utilize it in higher education, the present research is to
answer following questions:
1- What are university professors points of view on E-
learning at higher education?
2- What are university students points of view on E-learning
at higher education?
3- Are their points of view the same?


METHODOLOGY

According to Greg Kearsly (2000), the main elements
contributing to a successful E-learning include: 1-
educational content 2- teaching-learning 3- page design
4- educational content regulation 5- feedback 6- flexibility
7- amount of activity 8- cooperation 9-motivation 10-
assessment. Studying the literature of the research, we
used Greg Kearslys factors for this research. To do so,
for each of them one statement based on a 5-choice
Likert Scale was designed and thus a 40-item
questionnaire obtained. In order to get the validity of the
questionnaire it was reviewed by five university
professors and all of their comments were applied.
Cronbach alpha was used to get reliability which was
89% for professors and 91% for students;
respectively.123 questionnaires among students and 15
questionnaires among professors were distributed. At the
end, 104 complete questionnaires from students and 15
questionnaires from professors were obtained.


Data analysis

As was mentioned before, the first research question was
to get university professors points of view on E-learning
at higher education. The overall data analysis of
university professors-test has been shown in table 1.
As is obvious from table 1, at =0.05, variables
including educational content (t=8.604), page design
(t=4.001), educational content regulation (t=7.101),
flexibility (t=4.431), activity (t=5.009), and assessment (t=
5.823) for university professors were significant. Thus,
university professors at Isfahan University verify the
importance of above-mentioned factors in E-learning and
believe that other variables including teaching-learning
(t=-0.722), feedback= (-0.811), cooperation (t= -1.737),
and motivation (t= 0.724) were not significant and it
means that for university professors such variables were
negligible.
Published by Basic Research Journal of Education Research and Review
26. Basic Res. J. Educ. Res. Rev.



Table 1. T-test results for university professors

Index
Variable

No.

Mean

SD

t

Deg. of Freedom

Sig.
Educational
Content

15

29.325

4.031

8.604

14

0.001
Teaching-
Learning

15

18.535

2.004

-0.722

14

0.631
Page Design 15 26.642 4.923 4.001 14 0.007
Educational
Content
Regulation

15

21.000

3.151

7.101

14
0.0001
Feedback 15 12.511 3.483 -0.811 14 0.492
Flexibility 15 18.802 3.301 4.431 14 0.0001
Activity 15 44.781 3.229 5.009 14 0.002
Cooperation 15 14.231 3.922 -1.737 14 0.189
Motivation 15 12.501 1.966 0.724 14 0.739
Assessment 15 13.751 1.772 5.823 14 0.000
Total 15 192.01 8.745 8.937 14 0.000



Table 2. T-test results for university students

Index
Variable

No.

Mean

SD

T

Deg. of Freedom

Sig.
Educational
Content

104

18.033

2.002

4.897

103

0.000
Teaching-
Learning

104

16.403

3.603

-5.199

103

0.000
Page Design 104 21.101 5.987 6.628 103 0.000
Educational
Content
Regulation

104

9.356

3.203

-0.371

103
0.533
Feedback 104 9.768 1.799 -1.623 103 0.042
Flexibility 104 12.005 3.899 -1.291 103 0.001
Activity 104 44.781 3.229 2.991 103 0.001
Cooperation 104 10.943 2.771 -7.429 103 0.000
Motivation 104 9.342 2.966 -2.105 103 0.000
Assessment 104 14.789 2.207 -3.262 103 0.000
Total 104 102.01 10.745 -0.537 103 0.251


Overall analysis indicated that since for university
professors t=8.937 it should be concluded that E-learning
courses have an acceptable effect on students skills and
this effect was high for most of the variables.
The second research question was to obtain university
students points of view on E-learning at higher
education. Data analysis of students is shown in table 2.
According to table 2, the variables which are significant in
E-learning courses based on students points of view
include 1- educational content (t= 4.897), page design
(t=6.628), activity (t=4.897) at =0.05. Other variables are
educational content regulation (t=-0.371), feedback (t=-
1.623), and flexibility (t=-1.291) at which are not
significant =0.05 so these variables have a negligible

effect on E-learning. Furthermore, variables include
teaching-learning (t=-5.311), cooperation (t=-7.429),
motivation (t=-2.105) and assessment (t=-0.537) at
=0.05 are not significant. Thus, university students at E-
learning in higher education have a mild point of views on
effectiveness of these courses.
The third question focuses on the differences and
similarities between points of view of university
professors and students. Table 3 shows the t-test results
for both groups.
Overall analysis of independent t-test results (table 3)
indicated that since t=-2.906 at =0.05 university
professors points of view were more positive than those
of students on the effectiveness of E-learning courses.


Published by Basic Research Journal of Education Research and Review
Peyman and Behnoodi. 27



Table 3. Independent T-test results for professors and students

Index

Variable





No.


Mean


SD


t
Deg. of Freedom

Sig.
E-learning
Effectiveness
Professors 15 134 6.505 -2.906

118


0.000

Students

104

12

10.745

-0.537




CONCLUSION

As was mentioned earlier, both professors and students
had a positive point of view on educational content and
page design since mean of two groups were over the
middle. This finding was in line with a number of previous
researches such as Song (2014) and Rahmani (2004).
Regarding flexibility variable at E-learning course in
higher education, university professors had a more
positive point of view than that of students. This finding
was consistent with previous research study which
consider flexibility factor crucial. (Mcgorry, 2003, Song,
2014).
Relating to assessment in E-learning courses, unlike
students, university professors had a positive point of
view. In a research study by Karimkhani (2011) it was
concluded that assessment in E-learning was
unacceptable for both professors and students. However,
in another study Rabiee (2008) indicated that only
professors had a more positive point of view on
assessment of E-learning courses.
Moreover, professors had a positive point of view on
educational content, flexibility, and activity and for them
motivation variable was middle. In contrast, students had
a middle point of view on educational content and
flexibility and activity acceptable point of view and
motivation for them was unacceptable.
Finally, it should be noted here, compared to students
points of view, in general professors of E-learning higher
education had a positive point of view on effectiveness of
E-learning.


Research limitations

Like any other research, the present study had its own
limitation. First, it was difficult for the researchers to get
data from more than 15 university professors since others
did not believe in the effectiveness of such courses and
in some cases found no difference between E-learning
and other teaching methods.
Second, at the time of doing this research, E-learning
PhD. Courses were not held and that is why researchers
were not able to get some PhD. candidates to participate
in the research.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Researchers would like to thank all of the students and
university professors at Isfahan University who kindly
answered the questionnaire.


REFERENCES

Alestalo MH, Peltola U (2006). The problem of a market - oriented
university. Higher Education, 52(2): 251-281.
Darling L (2002). Your ELearning Strategy: Make sure it's learning for
results. Training, 39(3):2.
Ebadi S, Abdi S, Ebadi M (2010). The Impact of Information Technology
to Transform Traditional Methods of Learning to Student-Centered
Learning Methods. Islamic Azad University, Karaj - educational and
cultural center Sama; 20(3): 22.
Fry K (2001). ELearning Markets and Providers: some issues and
prospects. Training and Education, 43(4): 233-239.
Hartley D (2000). All Aboard the ELearning Train. Training &
Development, 54(7): 37.
Karimkhani N (2011). The Comparison of university students of
pharmacy in English lesson in virtual and traditiondical al methods.
Medical Advancements Journal. 6(2): 13-16.
Khan BH (2004). People, process and product continuum in e-learning:
The e-learning P3 model. Educational Technology, 44(5): 33-40.
Mcgorry SY (2003). Measuring quality in online programs. Internet and
Higher Education. 6(2): 159-177.
Momenirad M (2011). Investigation of students proficiency of
Information Technology at E-learning courses at Khajeh Nasir Tousi
University, Iran. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, Allameh University,
Tehran, Iran.
Nasiri A (2004). Management of virtual universities and E-learning
centers. Tehran, Tehran University Publications.
Nichols M (2003). A theory for e-learning. Educational Technology and
Society, 6(2): 1-10.
OHearn J (2000). Challenges for service leaders: setting the agenda for
the virtual learning organization. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(2): 97-106.
Ong P (2004). A descriptive study to identify deterrents to participation
in employer-provided e-learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Capella University, Degree PhD.
Rabiee M (2008). Review the Effectiveness of Virtual Training Course
from the Perspective of Teachers and Students of Ferdowsi
University of Mashhad [Masters Thesis]. [Ferdowsi University of
Mashhad]; P.120
Ribiero T (2002). From a distance: Look at distance learnings
increased following. Education, 152(9): 85.
Russel TL (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Chapel
Hill, NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina
University.
Song H (2014). The perceptions of college students regarding the
instructional quality of online courses delivered via Web CT. A
dissertation presented to the faculty of the college of education
university of Houston.


Published by Basic Research Journal of Education Research and Review
28. Basic Res. J. Educ. Res. Rev.



Steve R, Scott B, Freeman H (2001). The virtual university: The internet
and resource-based learning. London, Sterling: Kogan Page Limited.
Volery T (2000). Critical success factors in online education. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), pp. 216-
223.
Wentz M (2003). Learning effectiveness from a students perspective.
Retrieved fromwww2.uwstout.edu/content/bpa/ir/laptop/learning.pdf.




Zolfaghari M, Sarmadi M, Negarandeh R, Zandi B, Ahmadi F (2009).
Attitude Research under the Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery.
Tehran University of Medical Sciences School of Nursing and
Midwifery. Tehran University of Medical Sciences (LIFE).15(1):39-31.