Multi-dimensional alignment between online instruction and course technology: A learner-centered perspective

Abstract Compared with face-to-face instruction, online instruction in distance and hybrid education relies on the extensive use of course technology. Course technology supports multiple aspects of online instruction including objective specification, material organization, engagement facilitation, and outcome assessment. This study looks into different dimensions underlying the alignment between online instruction and course technology, and investigates the direct and indirect effects of involved constructs on student satisfaction as the outcome variable. The empirical evidence from a survey supports most research hypotheses, and suggests that instruction-technology fit is a partial mediator for online instruction and a full mediator for course technology in terms of their relationships with student satisfaction. Whereas all alignment dimensions but assessment fit are significant, engagement fit calls for closer attention than objective fit and material fit. That is, course technology has great potentials as well as a big space for improvement to facilitate the student engagement aspect of online instruction. From a learner-centered perspective, the findings offer researchers and practitioners helpful insights on how to utilize all kinds of e-learning tools for student success.

[1]  Alexandra Poulovassilis,et al.  Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a virtual world , 2010, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[2]  P. Bentler,et al.  Formative Constructs Implemented via Common Factors , 2011 .

[3]  Nada Dabbagh,et al.  Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning , 2012, Internet High. Educ..

[4]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning , 2002 .

[5]  Tanya J. McGill,et al.  How students and instructors using a virtual learning environment perceive the fit between technology and task , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[6]  R. Lennox,et al.  Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. , 1991 .

[7]  Shawn Bauldry,et al.  Three Cs in measurement models: causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates. , 2011, Psychological methods.

[8]  Dragutin Kermek,et al.  Using online assessments to stimulate learning strategies and achievement of learning goals , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[9]  Charoula Angeli,et al.  Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: an instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge , 2005, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[10]  Paul E. Spector.  Summated rating scale construction , 1991 .

[11]  Jiinpo Wu,et al.  The Efficacy Of Online Cooperative Learning Systems , 2006 .

[12]  I. E. Allen,et al.  Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. , 2013 .

[13]  Dale L. Goodhue,et al.  Development and Measurement Validity of a Task-Technology Fit Instrument for User Evaluations of Inf , 1998 .

[14]  Terry Anderson,et al.  E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice , 2016 .

[15]  Gi-Zen Liu,et al.  Innovating research topics in learning technology: Where are the new blue oceans? , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[16]  Mario Barajas,et al.  Implementing Virtual Learning Environments: Looking for Holistic Approach , 2000, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[17]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[18]  N. Venkatraman,et al.  The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research: Towards Verbal and Statistical Correspondence , 2018 .

[19]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[20]  Blaize Horner Reich,et al.  IT alignment: what have we learned? , 2007, J. Inf. Technol..

[21]  D. Watson,et al.  Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development , 1995 .

[22]  Barney Dalgarno,et al.  Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[23]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[24]  Andria Young,et al.  Assessing the quality of online courses from the students' perspective , 2006, Internet High. Educ..

[25]  S. Kurnia,et al.  Understanding students' perceptions of the benefits of online social networking use for teaching and learning , 2015, Internet High. Educ..

[26]  R. O’Brien,et al.  A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors , 2007 .

[27]  Ravi Kathuria,et al.  ORGANIZATIONAL ALIGNMENT AND PERFORMANCE: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE , 2007 .

[28]  Gi-Zen Liu,et al.  Towards the refinement of forum and asynchronous online discussion in educational contexts worldwide: Trends and investigative approaches within a dominant research paradigm , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[29]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research , 2007, MIS Q..

[30]  Donna Rogers,et al.  A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher education in the new millennium , 2000 .

[31]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research , 2014 .

[32]  Jill Winifred Fresen,et al.  A Taxonomy of Factors to Promote Quality Web-Supported Learning. , 2005 .

[33]  L. Fink,et al.  Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses , 2003 .

[34]  Paul Henry,et al.  E‐learning technology, content and services , 2001 .

[35]  Gi-Zen Liu,et al.  A taxonomy of Internet-based technologies integrated in language curricula , 2007, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[36]  Mark Warschauer,et al.  Participation, interaction, and academic achievement in an online discussion environment , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[37]  Robert F. DeVellis,et al.  Scale Development: Theory and Applications. , 1992 .

[38]  Xiaofeng Guo,et al.  Meeting the "Digital Natives": Understanding the Acceptance of Technology in Classrooms , 2013, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[39]  Jane E. Klobas,et al.  A task-technology fit view of learning management system impact , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[40]  Behiye Ubuz,et al.  The Effects of Metacognitive Knowledge on the Pre-service Teachers' Participation in the Asynchronous Online Forum , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[41]  Stuart R. Palmer,et al.  Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning , 2009, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[42]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[43]  Heimo H. Adelsberger,et al.  Web 2.0 and competence-oriented design of learning - Potentials and implications for higher education , 2010, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[44]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic - Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[45]  Ivan Marsá-Maestre,et al.  Design and evaluation of a learning environment to effectively provide network security skills , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[46]  Jun Sun,et al.  Tool Choice for E-Learning: Task-Technology Fit through Media Synchronicity. , 2014 .

[47]  Karen Swan,et al.  A collaborative, design-based approach to improving an online program , 2014, Internet High. Educ..

[48]  Edward E. Rigdon,et al.  Proportional structural effects of formative indicators , 2008 .

[49]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[50]  B. McCombs,et al.  A Learner-Centered Framework for E-Learning , 2005, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[51]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment , 2002, Inf. Manag..

[52]  Rosalie J. Hall,et al.  Item Parceling Strategies in SEM: Investigating the Subtle Effects of Unmodeled Secondary Constructs , 1999 .

[53]  Marco Aurélio Gerosa,et al.  Is the unfolding of the group discussion off-pattern? Improving coordination support in educational forums using mobile devices , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[54]  George Mangalaraj,et al.  Bolstering Teaching through Online Tools , 2010, J. Inf. Syst. Educ..

[55]  C. Candace Chou,et al.  Formative evaluation of synchronous CMC systems for a learner-centered online course , 2001 .

[56]  J. Hair.  Multivariate data analysis , 1972 .

[57]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  Ten Steps to Complex Learning: A Systematic Approach to Four-Component Instructional Design , 2007 .

[58]  L. Cronbach.  Essentials of psychological testing , 1960 .

[59]  Adamantios Diamantopoulos,et al.  Advancing formative measurement models , 2008 .

[60]  Margie Martyn,et al.  The Hybrid Online Model: Good Practice , 2003 .

[61]  Quality Matters,et al.  Quality Matters overview , 2016 .