students’ perceptions of e‐learning in university education
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 19 August 2014, At: 03:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Educational MediaPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjem19
Students’ Perceptions of E‐learning inUniversity EducationChristina Keller a & Lars Cernerud ba Jönköping International Business Schoolb Mälardalen University , SwedenPublished online: 07 Jul 2006.
To cite this article: Christina Keller & Lars Cernerud (2002) Students’ Perceptions of E‐learningin University Education, Journal of Educational Media, 27:1-2, 55-67
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1358165020270105
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Educational Media, Vol. 27, Nos. 1-2, 2002
Students' Perceptions ofE-learning in University EducationCHRISTINA KELLER1 & LARS CERNERUD2
1Jönköping International Business School, and 2Mälardalen University, Sweden
ABSTRACT This paper examines students' perceptions of e-learning taking students atJönköping University in Sweden as an example. The students had experiences from twoyears of e-learning on campus. Students (n = 150) filled in a questionnaire with closed aswell as open-ended questions. The answers were analysed in a multiple regression analysis,putting the students' perceptions in relation to gender, age, previous knowledge of comput-ers, attitudes to new technology, learning styles and the way of implementing e-learning atthe university. Advantages and disadvantages of e-leaming were categorized in a qualita-tive content analysis. The main conclusion from the study was that the strategy ofimplementing the e-leaming system at the university was more important in influencingstudents' perceptions than the individual background variables. Students did not regardaccess to e-learning on campus as a benefit. Male students, students with previousknowledge of computers and students with positive attitudes to new technologies were all lesspositive to e-leaming on campus than other students.
Introduction
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are becoming progressivelymore widespread throughout the education sector. ICTs are increasingly being usedin staff training in trade and industry as well as in university education. In universityeducation of today ICTs are used for distance tuition but also to create a comp-lement to teacher-controlled tuition on campus (Clegg et al., 2000; Hazemi &Hailes, 2002). E-learning is a relatively new concept implying learning by means ofdigital media such as computers, Web pages, video conference systems and CD-ROMs. In recent years computer programs for e-learning, consisting of tools such astext, graphics, video, three-dimensional objects and animations, have been devel-oped. Virtual classrooms can be used to broaden educational services (Husu, 2000).It is predicted that ICT will bring about major benefits to the learner and the teacheras it will include sharing of resources and learning environments and promotecollaborative learning (Wheeler, 2001).
However, the use of ICTs in university education is not a new phenomenon. Inthe 1980s online methodologies were developed to support campus-based and
ISSN 1358-1651 (print)/ISSN 1469-9443 (online)/02/012055-13©2002 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0305498032000045458
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014
56 C. Keller & L. Cemerud
distance education, under the headings 'computer-based' or 'computer-managedlearning', using e.g. bulletin board systems, electronic mail and computer-mediatedconferencing (Williams et ah, 1999). Since the 1980s text-based systems, audio-graphics and videoconferencing have been used in distance education (Mason,1994). Some of the systems delivering computer-based learning rely on real timeinteraction, while others can be accessed asynchronously. Asynchronous delivery oflearning material is independent of time and place and gives learners time to reflectand mull over ideas. Real-time, synchronous communication is an important motiv-ation factor for distance learners and provides quick feedback. When the WorldWide Web emerged, new opportunities were created providing access to educationwithout the limits of time and space. The World Wide Web integrates text, audioand video, and provides means for both real-time communication and asynchronousinteraction (Mason, 1998).
So far, most discussions on the use of e-learning in Higher Education havefocused on ways for the teacher to incorporate the new technology into theirteaching. Discussions, or even knowledge, about e-learning from the student per-spective seem to be very sparse. However, there are reports of students overwhelm-ingly preferring to take class using e-learning than a traditional course. They felt thate-learning was a helpful tool in their learning (Brotherton & Abowd, 2002). Thepresent study explores e-learning in Higher Education seen from the students' pointof view. It discusses their attitudes to and experience of e-learning used in regularuniversity training programmes. The focus is on e-learning in such programmesused as a supplement to teacher-controlled tuition on campus.
Students' perceptions of e-learning in university education may be influenced byspecific individual variables. In addition to the variables age and gender there are atleast three such characteristics: previous experience of computers, technologyacceptance and individual learning style.
Young students may have experienced e-learning in secondary schools. On theother hand, older students may for the first time have met computers for educationalpurposes at university. Irrespective of age, men are supposed to be more used tocomputers than women. Women typically display lower computer aptitude andhigher levels of computer anxiety. Research has indicated that men's technology-usage decisions are more strongly influenced by perceptions of usefulness. Incontrast, women are more influenced by perceptions of ease of use. Men and womenfocus on different aspects of using computers (Venkatesh & Morris, 2000). Hence,it could be hypothesized that young male students are more prone to adapt toe-learning than not so young female students. A variable concerning previousexperience of computers is included in the present analysis of students' perceptionsof e-learning.
There are theories of technology acceptance that should be considered in a studylike this. Rogers (1995) describes a general framework of technology acceptancewithin the theory of diffusion of innovations, including five different adoptercategories. The five 'adopter' categories (innovators, early adopters, early majority,late majority and laggards) will be regarded in this study.
Individual learning styles play an important part in adapting to new learning
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014
E-leaming in University Education 57
situations. Individuals differ in their general skills, attitudes and preferences forprocessing information, constructing meaning from it, and applying it to newsituations Qonassen & Grabowski, 1993). Hence, individuals would react and adaptdifferently to e-learning depending on their individual learning style.
Learning styles could, according to the American psychologist Kolb (Kolb &Fry, 1975), be classified in four dimensions: abstract, reflective, active and concrete.Abstract individuals comprehend information conceptually and symbolically. Theylearn best when they deal with models, theories, concepts and systems. Concreteindividuals apprehend by the tangible, felt qualities of immediate experience. Theyhave to practice what they learn. Active individuals extend the environment byexternal manipulation. They thrive in competitions and situations being in thespotlight. Reflective individuals exhibit intention by internal reflection on the exter-nal world. Before acting they perform careful intellectual analysis. These four typescan be contrasted in two pairs Qonassen & Grabowski, 1993), one for perception(abstract or concrete) and one for processing/transformation (active or reflective).These four specific learning styles, contrasted in pairs, will be regarded in this study.
The prerequisites of the study
The study was carried out at Jonkoping University in Sweden. Jonkoping is the tenthlargest city in Sweden (approximately 120 000 inhabitants) situated in the southernpart of the country. Jonkoping University comprises four separate schools, theInternational Business School, the School of Engineering, the School of Educationand Communication and the School of Health Sciences, each comprising approxi-mately 1500 students.
This study concerns the School of Engineering (SE) and the School of HealthSciences (SH). Both schools work at the undergraduate level with three-yearprogrammes leading to a Bachelor's degree, in some programmes with an additionalyear leading to a Master's degree. SE recruits mainly men (70-80%) for technicaleducation in mathematics, physics, chemistry and related subjects. SH recruitsmainly women (70-80%) for nursing, physiotherapy and social work education.
During 1998-1999 e-learning was introduced at SE and SH as a supplement totraditional training on campus. Both schools used the same Web platform and hadaccess to the same technical support and instruction for the teachers.
The opportunities offered by the specific Web platform introduced at SE and SHare summarized in Table I.
Though the platform provided many opportunities, not all of them were used.The schools mainly used the Noticeboard, the Library, the functions for Courseparticipants and Discussion forum. The Noticeboard was used to provide thestudents with essential course information in a fast and secure way. The Librarygave the students access to written course material as well as hyperlinks to theInternet connected to course content. The material presented in the Library con-sisted of assignments, lecture material, articles and hyperlinks to references on theInternet.
Course participants provided lists- of teacher and student data, such as names,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014
58 C. Keller & L. Cernerud
TABLE I. Opportunities offered by the Web platform used at the School of Engineering (SE) andSchool of Health Sciences (SH)
Function
Course introduction
Lecture
Examinations andqueriesLibrary
Notice boardCourse participants
Discussion forum
Chat
Questions
Messages
Exampleapplication
Text-basedintroductionText-, sound-,picture- or video-based lectureExamination, courseevaluationDocuments andhyperlinksImportant messagesShort presentation ofteachers andstudents includingnames, addressesand photographsAsynchronousdiscussions withattached documentsSynchronousdiscussionsAnswers tofrequently askedquestions (FAQ)E-mail messages tocourse participants
Direction ofcommunication
Teacher —> students
Teacher -» students
Teacher <-> students
Teacher —» students
Teacher —> studentsTeacher <-> students
Teacher <-> studentsStudents <-» students
Teacher <-> studentsStudents <-> studentsTeacher «-» students
Teacher -» students
Interactivity
No
No
Yes
No
NoNo
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
addresses, telephone numbers, etc. Asynchronous discussion groups and Discussionforum were mainly used for seminars on the Net on certain topics and students'group tasks. As documents could be attached to the discussions this was alsoconsidered to be a useful way of sharing drafts and assignments. Also, students'Bachelor theses were attached to messages to give teachers and discussants anopportunity to prepare the final exams.
Occasionally, a few teachers at both schools used Course introduction, Lectures,Questions and Messages. Examinations and queries and Chat were not used in anyof the schools.
The use of the platform differed somewhat between the two schools. Though theNoticeboard, the Library, Discussion forums and Course participants were used atboth schools, the use of the platform was more consistent at SH as all educationalprogrammes, courses and teachers were involved. The Web platform supplied thestudents with a stable and familiar course environment. At SE the use of theplatform depended on the teacher's interest and thus varied between different
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014
E-leaming in University Education 59
TABLE II. Major differences between School of Health Sciences (SH) and School of Engineering (SE)according to use and implementation of the Web platform
School of Health Sciences (SH) School of Engineering (SE)
A strategic goal regarding the use of theplatform was decided by the Board andpresident of the SchoolThe Web platform was used in all coursesand educational programmes
A clear and formal decision was made ofusing the Notice board, the Library and theDiscussion forum in every courseThe development work was organized andsupervised by a project group
No strategic goal was decided by themanagement of the School
The Web platform was used in two out of sixeducational programmes. The use of theplatform varied between different coursesNo guidelines were provided regarding theuse of the platform. The use depended onthe teacher's interestThe development work was not organizedor supervised in a formal way
courses. The platform was mainly used in two out of six educational programmes atSE, whereas it was used in all seven programmes at SH.
There were also some differences between the two schools regarding the strate-gies for implementation of e-learning. SH had a clear goal decided by the Board andstrongly supported by the President. Each step in the implementation process wassystematically monitored by a project group. The process involved all students andteachers. All programmes and courses should have reached a minimum level ofusage of the Web platform at a specific time. SE introduced the technology graduallyin relation to teachers' specific interests and no overall goal or minimum level wasdecided. Thus, there were students and teachers not having any contact withWeb-based learning at SE. There was no specific project group to monitor theprocess. The differences between the schools are summarized in Table II.
The aim of the study
The over-riding aim of this study was to analyse factors important to overcomeproblems of implementation of e-learning in campus-based education seen in thestudents' perspective. There were three specific aims of the study.
• First, to explore the students' general attitudes to e-learning.• Second, to analyse the relation between those attitudes and some specific student-
related background factors such as gender, age, previous experience of computers,attitudes to new technologies, and learning style.
• Third, to explore the most important advantages and disadvantages that thestudents experienced in connection with e-learning.
The material
The study was carried out during 2001. Both schools had then had experience of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014
60 C. Keller & L. Cemerud
working with the Web platform for at least two years. The study base was studentshaving used e-learning in at least two main courses during the last year. Thiscriterion was met by 750 students at SE and SH. From these students, 150 wererandomly selected for the study, 75 from each of the two schools, so that there wereequal numbers of female and male students. The age distribution was 56% in theage group 18-24, 22% aged 25-30 and 21% older than 30, reflecting the agedistribution at the two schools.
The 150 students got a questionnaire and an informative letter by post to theirhome addresses. They had 10 days to reply. The questionnaire was returned by 106students (71%), half from each school. 89% of the female students and 52% of themale students responded. The three age groups were fairly equally representedamong the respondents. The number of internal dropouts was very low.
The methods
The first aim
The attitudes of the students to e-learning referred to the following seven statementsand one question in the questionnaire:
1. The Web platform is easy to understand and use.2. The use of the Web platform has increased flexibility in my studies.3. The use of the Web platform has facilitated my studies.4. The use of the Web platform has improved communication with teachers and
tutors.5. The use of the Web platform has improved the pedagogic value of the courses.6. The use of the Web platform has improved communication with other students.7. The use of the Web platform has improved my possibilities to solve problems
connected to my training programme.8. To what extent has your use of the Web platform been disrupted by technical
problems?
There were five alternatives for the answers to statements 1-7: These were 'I agreetotally', 'I agree to a large extent', 'I do not know', 'I disagree to a large extent' and'I disagree totally'. For the final question (number 8) the alternatives were: 'Never','Sometimes', 'I do not know', 'Often', 'Very often'.
The percentages of the answers 'I agree totally/I agree to a large extent' and 'Idisagree totally/to a large extent' were calculated for all participating students forstatements 1-7. The percentage of the answers 'Very often/Often' to the question(number 8) were calculated for all participating students.
The percentages of the answers to numbers 1-8 were then calculated for SE andSH separately, the differences in the percentages were calculated and the lowerlimits of the 95% confidence intervals were determined. If the lower limits coveredzero it was decided that no statistically significant difference was present.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014
E-learning in University Education 61
The second aim
A factor analysis of statements 1-7 showed a close inter-relationship (factor scoremore than 0.5) between the questions. As the construction of the seven statementswas symmetrical, a data reduction was performed by creating an index. The indexwas formed by summing up the answers to statements 1-7 for each individual. 'I donot agree' was given the index value 1 and 'I agree totally' was given the index value5. All the seven statements were given the same weight in the total index. It couldthen vary between 7 and 35 for each individual.
The next step was to perform a multiple regression analysis (Greenland, 1998).The index created (Attitude) was the dependent variable (y-variable) in the analysis.
Seven independent variables (x-variables) were used in the analysis:
• gender;• age groups (three groups, see above);• SE or SH, denoting two different schools;• previous knowledge of computers (four grades: i.e. no knowledge, basic knowl-
edge, good knowledge, very good knowledge);• attitudes to new technology (five grades: i.e. innovator, early adopter, early
majority, late majority and laggards);• learning style (four characteristics: i.e. abstract, concrete, active and reflective,
contrasted in two pairs, abstract or concrete, and active or reflective. Thus, therewere two dichotomised independent variables concerning the learning style).
The correlation coefficient for each ^-variable was calculated with the p-value,denoting the probability for the correlation coefficient not being zero.
i?-square was calculated to denote how much of the variability in the attitudevariable (y-variable) could be explained by the influence of the x-variables.
The third aim
The students were asked to state the most important advantage and disadvantage(only one of each) in their opinion related to the use of a Web platform in theirlearning. They were asked to use their own words.
The written qualitative information was reduced and put through contentanalysis (Downe-Wambadt, 1992) leading to classification into main categories. Theproportion of students stating the most important advantage and disadvantage wascalculated for each category. Some characteristic quotations were selected to high-light each category.
Results
The first aim
The percentage of the answers to statements 1-7 concerning all participatingstudents is shown in Table III.
42% of the students answered 'Very often/Often' to question number 8. The
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014
62 C. Keller & L. Cernerud
TABLE III. Students' attitudes towards the Web platform
Statement
The Web platform is easy to understand and useThe use of the Web platform has increased flexibilityin my studiesThe use of the Web platform has facilitated mystudiesThe use of the Web platform has improvedcommunication with teachers and tutorsThe use of the Web platform has improved thepedagogic value of the coursesThe use of the Web platform has improvedcommunication with other studentsThe use of the Web platform has improved mypossibilities to solve problems connected to mytraining programme
I agree totally/I agree to alarge extent
48%35%
23%
19%
18%
13%
13%
I disagreetotally/
I disagree to alarge extent
45%58%
70%
67%
70%
7 1 %
75%
differences in distribution of the negative answers to statements 1-7 related to thetwo schools (SE and SH) with the lower limits for the 95% confidence intervals areshown in Table IV.
The table shows predominantly more negative attitudes at SE than at SH. 53%of the students at SE and 30% of the students at SH answered 'Very often' or'Often' to the question about technical problems (question number 8). The differ-ence was 23% with the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval 3%. Thus, therewas only one statement showing no statistically significant differences between thetwo schools, statement number 1.
The second aim
The relationship between the attitudes of the students towards using the Webplatform and some student background factors was calculated by multiple regressionanalysis.
There is a statistically significant relationship between the attitudes of thestudents and gender (women more positive than men); p<0.01, school (students atSH more positive than students at SE); p < 0.001, previous knowledge of computers(the less you know, the more positive you are); p < 0.01, attitudes to new technology(the later you accept new technologies, the more positive you are); p<Q.Q5. Themost powerful relationship exists between attitudes and school with an explainedvariation (R2) of 27%.
There are no statistically significant relationships between attitudes and agegroup or learning style.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014
E-leaming in University Education 63
TABLE IV. The differences in negative answers related to the two schools (SE and SH) with lowerlimits for the 95% confidence limits
I disagree totally/I disagree toa large extent SE SH Difference
Lower limit for95% confidence
interval
The Web platform is easy tounderstand and useThe use of the Web platformhas increased flexibility in mystudiesThe use of the Web platformhas facilitated my studiesThe use of the Web platformhas improved communicationwith teachers and tutorsThe use of the Web platformhas improved the pedagogicvalue of the coursesThe use of the Web platformhas improved communicationwith other studentsThe use of the Web platformhas improved my possibilitiesto solve problems connectedto my training programme
55%
76%
8 1 %
85%
87%
83%
87%
34%
4 1 %
59%
49%
58%
59%
62%
2 1 %
35%
22%
36%
29%
24%
25%
- 8 %
10%
2%
14%
9%
4%
5%
The third aim
The main categorized advantages related to the use of the Web platform withhighlighting quotations were:
1. The access to information was increased (44%)
Easy to get documents directly since they have been announced. Messagesare easy to get and read.
It is an advantage for us who live far away from the school to find messagesof cancelled or transferred lectures.
2. Flexibility in time and place was increased (15%)
The possibility to plan for your own study time.
It does not matter where I am, at home, at school or somewhere else.
3. There are no advantages (14%)
If used consistently it could be an advantageous source for communicationand information, but if the course organizers are not consequent,then ... no.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014
64 C. Keller & L. Cernerud
I can not see any advantage. Face to face and e-mail will do well to me.
4. Better access to communication with other students and teachers (11%)
It is easy to communicate with students not living close to the school. It isnot necessary to get to the school to have a dialogue to all student mates.
The study group can meet virtually when it is impossible to find a commontime at school.
5. Miscellaneous (16%)
The main categorized disadvantages related to the use of the Web platform withhighlighting quotations were:
(i) Inconsistent use of the platform in different courses (28%)
The teachers use the platform to a very small extent, less than half of them.You seem to believe that it is so very popular. It is not. The inconsistent usedecreases your enthusiasm for the system.
Some teachers give you a quick answer through the platform, some do not.This makes your studies hard to plan by yourself, sometimes I feel detainedby waiting for an answer.
(ii) Technical problems (23%)
The platform is slow and tricky. There must be better solutions. Youshould try hard to find them before hoping that we students will like theWeb-based learning.
The platform is hard to handle, it feels inconsistent throughout, it is notconsumer adapted, it is useless!
(iii) Too much dependence on computers (14%)
You seem to believe that we all have access to computers at home. That isnot true. You also think that we all are fond of computers. We are not. Youcourse organizers seem to overestimate the role of the Web platform.
If you do not have a modern computer at home you still have to go toSchool.
(iv) Lack of human contact (7%)
Working with a platform does not give the real contact between student andteacher. It is easier to misunderstand the teacher if you do not see theteacher face to face, when you can not sense that he looks into your eyes.
I miss the human interface. You could as well use the notice-board, itwould not be so expensive.
This is like isolation in a virtual prison. I have to meet students and teachersto get into the learning mood.
(v) Miscellaneous (28%)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014
E-leaming in University Education 65
Discussion
The main conclusion of this study is that the implementation strategy of ane-learning system plays an important role in influencing the students' perceptions. Inthis study, the differences in implementation strategy between the two schools weremore powerful in influencing students' attitudes than was the individual backgroundvariables, traditionally said to influence user perceptions (gender, age, previousknowledge of computers, attitude towards new technologies and learning style).Students at the School of Health Sciences (SH) were more positive towardse-learning than students at the School of Engineering (SE) irrespective of genderand age. The differences in implementation style may have influenced the students'perceptions at the two schools, explaining the significant differences.
It is known that the culture of an organisation is an important factor in adaptingto new technologies. Research in the implementation of new technologies has so farnot been successful in explaining the failure of certain implementations. However,specific factors have been identified as crucial for creating a successful implemen-tation process (Laudon & Laudon, 1998):
• management support;
• user participation;• degree of complexity and risk according to the new technology;• role of project management in the implementation process.
At SH the management supported the implementation in an active way and aproject group supervised the implementation process. This was not the case at SE.
Contrary to what was expected, women were more positive than men and therewas no relationship to age. Students having less knowledge of computers were morepositive to e-learning than students with more computer knowledge. These findingsmay be hard to explain. Male students and students used to computers may haveexpected more from the use of the platform than they actually got, and wereconsequently disappointed. However, there were no such specific clues present inthe qualitative part of the study. It may have been easier for students withoutpreconceived notions of being experienced computer users to appreciate the valuesoffered by the platform.
Students' perceptions were negatively related to attitudes to new technology, inthe sense that students identifying themselves as innovators or early adapters weremore negative than others. However, as many as 60% of the students in the studyidentified themselves as innovators or early adapters, which is very much greaterthan the corresponding figure of 16% in the literature (Rogers, 1995). Seen in thatperspective, the overwhelmingly negative perceptions found in this study are surpris-ing.
There was no relationship between students' perceptions of e-learning and theirlearning style. The definition of learning style in this study may be regarded as rathervague. Instead of using self-reported learning style, some experimental or observa-tional measurement might have given another outcome.
As a whole, the students' perceptions of e-learning in university education was
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014
66 C. Keller & L. Cernerud
discouraging at the two schools studied. More than two thirds of the studentsdisagreed totally or to a large extent that the Web platform had facilitated theirstudies, improved the communication with other students and teachers, improvedthe pedagogic value of the courses or improved their possibilities to solve problemsrelated to the courses.
The discouraging findings should preferably make the Board of each of the twoschools at jQnkoping University ask themselves "What went wrong?" or "What canwe do to regain the confidence of the students?" or even "Is it worthwhile tocontinue the process?".
It should be borne in mind that the study mirrors the specific situation at the twoschools and the type of Web platform used. Thus, the results should be generalizedto other universities with care. However, this study might give some suggestions toother universities being in a similar situation at the beginning of a transition processleading to the use of a Web platform as a complement to regular on-campuseducation.
If the study had included students with experience of e-learning used in distancelearning the results might have been different. There are many reasons to believethat distance learning is facilitated by the use of a Web platform. It should bestrongly emphasized that the results of this study only have bearing on situationswhere a Web platform is used as a complement to regular on-campus education.
Flexible and lifelong learning plays an increasingly important role in HigherEducation. The results of this study should be seen in the light of being just at thebeginning of a transition process. In a few years, when the concept of e-learning inHigher Education is more widespread, the perceptions of the students might bemore positive.
There may be some methodological shortcomings in the study. The focus of thestudy was students' perceptions of e-learning. First, it should be remembered thatthe concept of e-learning is more extensive than what is used in this study, which isrestricted to the use of a specific Web platform. E-learning is usually related todistance learning in the literature, but this study is restricted to the use of the Webplatform as a complement to education performed on campus.
Conclusion
From this study it can be concluded that the strategy of implementing e-learningmay play a crucial role for students' perception of the new technology. The use andimplementation strategy at the Schools seemed to overrule the individual back-ground variables traditionally said to influence user perceptions. Related to thisresult one might conclude that students do not necessarily regard access to a Webplatform in regular on-campus courses as a surplus. Furthermore, students previ-ously used to computers should not be expected to be more positive to e-learningthan other students. Further studies of e-learning in Higher Education shouldinclude the student perspective, and further factors influencing the students' percep-tions of e-learning in Higher Education need to be identified.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014
E-leaming in University Education 67
Notes on Contributors
CHRISTINA KELLER is a doctoral student and Lecturer in the Department ofInformatics at Jonkoping International Business School. She is Master of Sciencewith a degree in Informatics. She has been the main coordinator of a projectconcerning Web-based learning at the School of Health Sciences in Jonkoping,Sweden.
LARS CERNERUD is a Medical Doctor and Associate Professor in Public Healthat the Department of Caring and Public Health Sciences at the University ofMälardalen, Sweden. He was formerly President of the School of Health Sciences inJönköping, Sweden and the initiator of the project of Web-based learning at thatschool.
Correspondence: Christina Keller, Department of Informatics, Jonkoping Inter-national Business School, P.O. Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden; E-mail:[email protected]
REFERENCES
BROTHERTON, J.A. & ABOWD, G.D. (2002) eClass, in: R. HAZEMI & S. HAILES (Eds.) The digitaluniversity - building a learning community, pp. 71-93 (London, Springer).
CLEGG, S., KONRAD, J. & TAN, J. (2000) Preparing academic staff to use ICTs in support ofstudent learning, The International Journal for Academic Development, 5, pp. 138-148.
DOWNE-WAMBOLDT, B. (1992) Content analysis: method, applications and issues, Health Care forWomen International, 13, pp. 313-321.
GREENLAND, S. (1998) Introduction to regression modeling, in: K.J. ROTHMAN & S. GREENLAND(Eds) Modern Epidemiology, pp. 401-432 (Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott-Raven).
HAZEMI, R. & HAILES, S. (Eds.) (2002) The digital university - building a learning community(London, Springer).
Husu, J. (2000) Access to Equal Opportunities: Building of a virtual classroom within twoconventional schools, Journal of Educational Media, 25, pp. 217-228.
JONASSEN, D.H. & GRABOWSKI, B.L. (1993) Handbook of Individual Differences. Learning &Instruction (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
KOLB, D.A. & FRY, R. (1975) Toward an applied theory of experiential learning, in: C. COOPER(Ed.) Theories of Group Process, pp. 33-58 (New York, Wiley).
LAUDON, K.C. & LAUDON, J.P. (1998) Management Information Systems. New Approaches toOrganization and Technology (Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall).
MASON, R. (1994) Using Communications Media in Open and Flexible Learning (London, KoganPage).
MASON, R. (1998) Globalising education. Trends and applications (Routledge, London).ROGERS, E.M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations (New York, The Free Press).VENKATESH, V. & MORRIS, M.G. (2000) Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender,
social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24,pp. 115-139.
WHEELER, S. (2001) Information and Communication Technologies and the Changing Role ofthe Teacher, Journal of Educational Media, 26, pp. 7-17.
WILLIAMS, M.L., PAPROCK, K. & COVINGTON, B. (1999) Distance learning. The essential guide(Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f B
irm
ingh
am]
at 0
3:11
19
Aug
ust 2
014