An analysis of educational outcomes and user satisfaction in webex following COVID-19: An expectation-confirmation model
Abstract
This study examines how Webex, a web conferencing programme, affects online learning outcomes and user happiness. This research uses the Expectation-Confirmation Model (ECM) to assess how Webex impacts students’ happiness and educational outcomes, as measured by their initial expectations. Five main questions lead the study: initial expectations, how well Webex satisfies them, user satisfaction, the association between expectation confirmation and satisfaction, and how satisfaction affects perceived educational results and Webex usage. High initial expectations may lower pleasure, while positive confirmation of expectations may increase it. Satisfaction is also expected to improve educational perceptions and Webex usage. University Technology Malaysia students and lecturers get a quantitative survey. Initial expectations, perceived performance, contentment, and educational achievements are the survey’s goals. Positive confirmation of initial expectations increases enjoyment, according to the findings. This satisfaction affects educational attainment and Webex use. The study emphasises the need of controlling user expectations and aligning Webex features with them to increase educational outcomes and user satisfaction. This book offers educators, educational institutions, and e-learning technology developers’ valuable information that encourages an integrated approach to e-learning tool deployment that considers technical and human factors. Demographic characteristics and the long-term consequences of satisfaction on academic achievement should be studied further.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Huang J, Tan X, Tlili A. Educational technology in the age of natural disasters: The case of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2020; 23(1): 1-12.
2. Tan CL, Teo TH, Shen L. The impact of COVID-19 on student learning in higher education: Insights from a comparative study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2021; 18: 21.
3. Arbaugh JB. System, scholar or students? Which most influences online MBA course effectiveness? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2014; 30(4): 349-362. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12048
4. Eom SB, Wen HJ, Ashill N. The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. 2016; 14(2): 135-158.
5. Li CH, Li Q. The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons.” Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange. 2016; 9(2): 31
6. Loudon K, Bitta AJD. Consumer Behavior: Concepts and Applications. McGraw-Hill; 2012.
7. Bower M. Web conferencing as a collaborative learning tool in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education.2011; 20(2): 161-175.
8. Abuhassna H, Yahaya N, et al. Trends on Using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) for Online Learning: A Bibliometric and Content Analysis. International Journal of Information and Education Technology. 2023; 13(1): 131-142. doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.1.1788
9. Abuhassna H, Busalim A, Yahaya N, et al. Study from Home! The Antecedents and Consequences of Collaborative Learning on Malaysian University Students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. 2023; 22: 071-095. doi: 10.28945/5074
10. Woodworth L, Raymond M, Chirbas K, et al. Online charter school study. Center for Research on Education Outcomes, Stanford University; 2015.
11. Pickering JD, Swinnerton BJ. The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2019; 12(6): 611-619.
12. Miller A. Exploring the effectiveness of online education in K-12 environments. Distance Education. 2020; 41(1): 125-140.
13. Choi S, Chung H. The impact of online learning on academic performance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparison across regions and income levels. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2021; 69: 2535-2556.
14. Sobaih AEE, Hasanein AM, Abu Elnasr AE. Responses to COVID-19 in Higher Education: Social Media Usage for Sustaining Formal Academic Communication in Developing Countries. Sustainability. 2020; 12(16): 6520. doi: 10.3390/su12166520
15. Wlodarczyk A, Basinska BA, Dåderman AM. Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: Relationships to job and living conditions and symptoms of depression and anxiety. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2021; 78(7): 457-463.
16. Gefen, Karahanna, Straub. Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model. MIS Quarterly. 2003; 27(1): 51. doi: 10.2307/30036519
17. Al-Mamary YH, Abubakar AA, Abdulrab M. The effects of the expectation confirmation model (ECM) and the technology acceptance model (TAM) on learning management systems (LMS) in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Interactive Learning Research.
18. Cheng X, Bao Y, Yang B, et al. Investigating Students’ Satisfaction with Online Collaborative Learning During the COVID-19 Period: An Expectation-Confirmation Model. Group Decision and Negotiation. 2023; 32(4): 749-778. doi: 10.1007/s10726-023-09829-x
19. Smith A, Doe B. The e-learning paradox: Unrealistic expectations often culminate in a stark satisfaction gap. Journal of Educational Technology. 2018; 45(2): 123-136.
20. Johnson C, et al. High initial expectations frequently precipitate user disappointment in MOOCs, reducing engagement and satisfaction. Educational Psychology. 2019; 32(4): 567-581.
21. Lee X, Kim Y. Investigation of the expectation-satisfaction dichotomy across digital education platforms: Adverse consequences of elevated initial expectations. Journal of Online Learning Research. 2017; 28(3): 301-316.
22. Davis R, Thomas S. Linkage between the level of expectations and user satisfaction in virtual classrooms: Prevalent trend of dissatisfaction among users with elevated initial expectations. International Journal of Educational Technology. 2021; 15(1): 45-62.
23. Patel J, Jones M. Profound impact of positive disconfirmation in e-learning platforms: Experiences surpassing expectations enhance user satisfaction and loyalty. Computers & Education. 2018; 72: 198-210.
24. Green P, et al. Direct correlation between exceeding user expectations in educational technology and elevated satisfaction and engagement levels. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2019; 41(3): 289-305.
25. Thompson L, White E. Role of expectation confirmation in bolstering user satisfaction with online learning tools. Educational Technology & Society. 2020; 23(1): 128-141.
26. Foster D, Nguyen H. Positive implications of meeting user expectations for satisfaction in digital learning environments: Direct link to increased usage and engagement. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies. 2017; 15(2): 58-74.
27. Mustapha AM, Zakaria egat AZM, et al. Students’ Motivation and Effective Use of Self-regulated Learning on Learning Management System Moodle Environment in Higher Learning Institution in Nigeria. International Journal of Information and Education Technology. 2023; 13(1): 195-202. doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.1.1796
28. Abuhassna H, Thuy Van N, Yahaya N, et al. Strategies for Successful Blended Learning—A Bibliometric Analysis and Reviews. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM). 2022; 16(13): 66-80. doi: 10.3991/ijim.v16i13.30739
29. Walters K, Richardson J. Strong connection between satisfaction with e-learning tools and improved academic performance: A pivotal factor in educational success. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 2018; 34(2): 189-204.
30. Harper S, Stone L. Vital role of user satisfaction in augmenting engagement and learning outcomes in online courses. Online Learning. 2019; 43(4): 123-138.
31. Bennett A, Green T. Direct correlation between satisfaction with educational technology and student achievement: Significance of user experience in these platforms. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2021; 39(5): 567-582.
32. Anderson J, Liu S. Influence of satisfaction with online learning platforms on overall educational success and long-term learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2020; 23(3): 189-204.
33. Gomez R, Lee M. Robust correlation between satisfaction and the likelihood of continued use of e-learning systems: Importance in user retention. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2019; 35(7): 563-577.
34. Clark D, Mayer L. Influence of satisfaction on the continued adoption of digital learning tools in higher education: Pivotal role in user decision-making. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2018; 45(1): 89-104.
35. Brooks E, Wilson K. Satisfaction as a significant predictor of long-term engagement with educational technologies: Direct influence on user loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021; 67: 123-135.
36. Nguyen P, Zhang Q. Critical role of user satisfaction in predicting the sustained use of online education platforms: Linking it to consistent user engagement and adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2020; 28(2): 239-256.
37. Adams R, Brown S. Impact of disconfirmation in virtual learning environments: Unmet expectations lead to significant user dissatisfaction. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2017; 20(2): 149-162.
38. Morgan L, Carter K. Effects of expectation disconfirmation on user satisfaction in online education settings: Negative consequences of unmet expectations. Distance Education. 2018; 41(3): 328-345.
39. Ellis M, Turner J. Adverse effects of failing to meet expectations on the perceived value and effectiveness of educational technology. Educational Media International. 2021; 38(1): 45-60.
40. Peterson H, Kim W. Ramifications of disconfirmation on user satisfaction and trust in online learning platforms: Unmet expectations can markedly reduce user trust and satisfaction. International Journal of Information Management. 2022; 42: 120-135
41. Bonk CJ, Zhang K. Web conferencing tools and the creation of e-learning opportunities.” Educational Technology Research and Development. 2016; 64(3): 441-458.
42. Gunesekera AI, Bao Y, Kibelloh M. The role of usability on e-learning user interactions and satisfaction: a literature review. Journal of Systems and Information Technology. 2019; 21(3): 368-394. doi: 10.1108/JSIT-02-2019-0024.
43. Keržič D, Alex JK, Pamela Balbontín Alvarado R, et al. Academic student satisfaction and perceived performance in the e-learning environment during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence across ten countries. PLoS ONE. 2021; 16(10): e0258807.
44. Sharif Nia H, Marôco J, She L, et al. Student satisfaction and academic efficacy during online learning with the mediating effect of student engagement: A multi-country study. PLoS ONE. 2023; 18(10): e0285315.
45. Hughey A, Chawla S, Khan Z. Using SERVQUAL to measure the quality of the classroom experience. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. 2003; 1(1): 75-85.
46. Yoo B, Donthu N. Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an Internet shopping site (SITEQUAL). Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce. 2001; 2(1): 31-47.
47. Yao J, Rao J, Jiang T, Xiong C. Factors Influencing Online Learning Satisfaction: A Study in Higher Education. Frontiers in Education. 2016; 1: 1-12. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2016.00001
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32629/jai.v7i5.1550
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Hassan Abuhassna, Samer Al nawajha, Fareed Awae, Mohamad Azrien Bin Mohamed Adnan, Syaima’a binti Aripin1, Mansoureh Ebrahimi, Muhammad Talhah Ajmain ima’ain, Bosede I. Edwards
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/