Examining Effects of Technology-Assisted Learning on Learning Effectiveness and Satisfaction: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Examining students’ learning effectiveness and satisfaction is critical to the ultimate success of technology-assisted learning that has been deployed at a fast-growing pace. The accumulated results from prior research are mostly equivocal. Based on how technologyassisted learning may influence students’ learning process, we analyze technology-assisted learning and synthesize relevant prior research, and propose a factor model that explains learning effectiveness and satisfaction. We empirically test that model with a quasiexperiment that involves 212 university students, observing their learning of Adobe Photoshop. We test the hypothesized effects of technology-assisted learning and its moderating role in influencing students’ learning effectiveness and satisfaction. According to our results, the use of technology-assisted learning adversely affects student engagement. This, in turn, negatively influences their learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Student engagement in learning activities appears to mediate the impact of technology-assisted learning on learning effectiveness. Furthermore, the influence of technology-assisted learning on learning satisfaction is mediated by both student engagement and learning effectiveness. Technology-assisted learning shows no significant moderating effects on learning effectiveness or satisfaction. Our empirical results have several important implications for technology-assisted learning research and practice.

[1]  Robert M. Bernard,et al.  How Does Distance Education Compare With Classroom Instruction? A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature , 2004 .

[2]  Christa George,et al.  Measuring and Enhancing Student Engagement With Learning , 2006 .

[3]  Anne S. Tsui,et al.  Journal of Management on Behalf Of: Southern Management Association Journal and Article Identification Content Review Cultural Values Used Topics Studied Type I Studies—culture as Independent Variable Figure 1 Two Types of Cross-national, Cross-cultural Studies on Individuals and Teams in Organizati , 2022 .

[4]  Jeffery D. Wilfong.  Computer anxiety and anger: the impact of computer use, computer experience, and self-efficacy beliefs , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[5]  J. Keller.  Motivational Design of Instruction , 1983 .

[6]  Chao-Min Chiu,et al.  Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[7]  Milton Chen.  Gender and Computers: The Beneficial Effects of Experience on Attitudes , 1986 .

[8]  Alfred P. Rovai,et al.  On-Line Course Effectiveness: An Analysis of Student Interactions and Perceptions of Learning , 2007 .

[9]  Paul Jen-Hwa Hu,et al.  Technology-Assisted Learning and Learning Style: A Longitudinal Field Experiment , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[10]  Blake Ives,et al.  Web-based Virtual Learning Environments: a Research Framework and a Preliminary Assessment of Effectiveness in Basic It Skills Training Author(s): Piccoli Et Al./web-based Virtual Learning Environments Web-based Virtual Learning Environments: a Research Framework and a Preliminary Assessment of Effe , 2022 .

[11]  R. Clark.  Media will never influence learning , 1994 .

[12]  David F. Larcker,et al.  Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics: , 1981 .

[13]  Sean B. Eom,et al.  The Determinants of Students' Perceived Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction in University Online Education: An Empirical Investigation* , 2006 .

[14]  Barbara L. Grabowski,et al.  The effects of computer self-efficacy on direction-following behavior in computer assisted instruction , 1992 .

[15]  Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.  Instructional Design Theories and Models : An Overview of Their Current Status , 1983 .

[16]  Dongsong Zhang,et al.  Virtual Mentor and the Lab System — Toward Building an Interactive, Personalized, and Intelligent E-Learning Environment , 2004, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[17]  Ofelia R. Nikolova,et al.  Influence of gender and academic ability in a computer‐based Spanish reading task , 2004 .

[18]  Mark Bullen,et al.  What’s the Difference: A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education by Ronald Phipps and Jamie Merisotis , 1999 .

[19]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test , 1995, MIS Q..

[20]  Mark Campbell,et al.  What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning , 2005, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[21]  Irwin M. Rubin,et al.  Organizational Behavior: An Experiential Approach , 1994 .

[22]  Olga Dziabenko,et al.  Game-Based Learning in Universities and Lifelong Learning: "UniGame: Social Skills and Knowledge Training" Game Concept , 2004, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[23]  Dianna J. Spence,et al.  Engagement with Mathematics Courseware in Traditional and Online Remedial Learning Environments: Relationship to Self-Efficacy and Achievement , 2007 .

[24]  Lorraine Angelino,et al.  Strategies to Engage Online Students and Reduce Attrition Rates. , 2007 .

[25]  E. Blass,et al.  Building on solid foundations: establishing criteria for e-learning development , 2003 .

[26]  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 Voice Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 1996, ICIS.

[27]  George A. Marcoulides,et al.  Modern methods for business research , 1998 .

[28]  Theo J. Bastiaens,et al.  The impact of intrinsic motivation on e-learning in authentic computer tasks , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[29]  Charlotte L. Neuhauser.  Learning Style and Effectiveness of Online and Face-to-Face Instruction , 2002 .

[30]  J. Arbaugh.  How Classroom Environment and Student Engagement Affect Learning in Internet-based MBA Courses , 2000 .

[31]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: Two extensions , 1991 .

[32]  R. Ladyshewsky.  E-learning compared with face to face: Differences in the academic achievement of postgraduate business students , 2004 .

[33]  J. D. Baker,et al.  Gender Differences in Online Learning: Sense of Community, Perceived Learning, and Interpersonal Interactions. , 2005 .

[34]  I. E. Allen,et al.  Making the Grade: Online Education in the United States, 2006. , 2006 .

[35]  Yi-Shun Wang,et al.  Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[36]  Ronald A. Phipps,et al.  What''s the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning , 1999 .

[37]  S. Young,et al.  Does gender matter in online learning , 2001 .

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

[39]  Douglas M. Hawkins,et al.  Interactive LISREL : user's guide , 2001 .