Informatica Economic vol. 18, no.

3/2014 77

Models for Measuring E-Learning Success in Universities: A Literature

Review
Iuliana DOROB
The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania
[email protected]

It is obvious that in the Internet era the higher education institutions (HEIs) must innovate the
services they offer by integrating ICT (Information and Communication Technology) in the
learning process. According to the theoreticians and practitioners insights in the matter, the
e-learning systems offer many advantages and compensate the weaknesses of the traditional
learning methods. In consequence, it emerged the need for developing a model that measures
the success of the e-learning systems. This paper presents results of the research conducted in
order to develop a comprehensive model for measuring e-learning system success in universi-
ties.
Keywords: E-Learning, Blended Learning, E-Learning Systems, E-Learning Systems Success,
Measuring E-Learning System Success

1 Introduction
The fundamental terms that define the
paradigm of the contemporary society are in-
offer.
The students learning experience continues
to be influenced by the modality in which
formation, knowledge and communication. teachers integrate information and ICT in
The European Programs (FP6, FP7) are is- their university courses.
sued in order to sustain, between 2010 and Since it is obvious that the use of the ICT is
2030, the passage from an information socie- not absolutely necessary only for universities
ty to a knowledge society. The formation and that provide distance learning programs and
consolidation of a knowledge society implies it is more and more encouraged in order to
setting priorities. Among these priorities, I improve students experience, universities
mention the investment in education, which have focused their attention to determine a
aims at increasing the level of human capital, model for integrating ICT in the learning
the fluidization of the knowledge use and process, so as to provide students know-how
dissemination, as well as the existence of an and skills adapted to our current and future
efficient innovative system that should in- society. Thus, we notice that universities
clude universities that allow the increase of make efforts to implement or develop e-
the knowledge global stock, the assimilation, learning systems adapted to their organiza-
adjustment, creation of new technologies and tional structure and to use blended learning in
the development through the use of ICT. their academic programs.
The knowledge society provides new dimen- The e-learning systems offer significant im-
sions to the learning process and, as such, in provements to the learning process and con-
the higher education system it emerges the siderably reduce the negative effects of the
need to introduce modern teaching tech- singular application of traditional teaching
niques, based on the use of the ICT. methods. Hence, the success of e-learning
In order to achieve the educational reform systems implementation (and its measure-
aligned with the European standards, to with- ment) is imperative:
stand the challenges of an increasingly com- to be able to determine their added value;
petitive environment and to increase the aca- to understand the overall effect on the ac-
demic reputation, the Romanian universities tivity and the learning process within the
perform steps for a strategic shift by ac- HEIs, and
knowledging the university- knowledge bi- to justify the investment into such sys-
nomial and thus innovate the services they tems.

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
78 Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014

2 E-learning, E-Learning Systems and as the user's (student's) preferred modality

Blended Learning (by means of study or experience) to assimi-
In a broad sense, by e-learning, one under- late new knowledge and skills. This does not
stands the totality of education situations mean that all the knowledge and know-how
where the ICT is significantly used. In a re- of the student will be assimilated in the same
stricted sense, e-learning is a type of distance manner, but only that to him/her this learning
education, as a planned teaching-learning ex- style is more efficient [1]. By adapting the
perience organized by a HEI that provides learning process to the students individual
(using an e-learning technology and the web learning styles, two important benefits are
browser as the main interaction tool) study obtained: students become aware of their in-
materials in a sequential and logical order, so dividual learning style (an important factor of
as to be assimilated by students in their own personal and professional development) and
manner. the improvement of the students response to
The e-learning technology refers to an online the learning process [2].
system that replicates and adapts the tradi-
tional didactic endeavor components: plan- 3 Measuring the Success of the E-Learning
ning, specific content and methodology, in- Systems
teraction, support and assessment. The e- Assessing the success of e-learning systems
learning systems are platforms facilitating the was done by using multiple criteria and ap-
learning process [3] that aim at the learning proaches especially due to the numerous
process flexibility [4] and the adaptation of ways of defining the e-learning term [10],
the teaching methods to the individual learn- [55]. I have identified four such approaches
ing style of students. Because of the signifi- in the academic literature:
cant differences between traditional teaching the DeLone and McLean (D&M) model;
methods and online teaching methods, the the TAM model (Technology Acceptance
conversion of the traditional courses into Model);
online courses needs careful planning, moni- models focused on users satisfaction;
toring and control [5]. models focused on the e-learning quality.
In the academic literature, there is only one
globally valid definition that can comprise all 3.1 The D&M Model
the aspects related to the blended learning The success and quality of an e-learning sys-
concept. Blended learning (or com- tem may be measured in the same manner
bined/hybrid/integrative) aims at achieving like the success and quality of an IS (Infor-
the learning objectives through the applica- mation System).
tion of specific technologies in order to cus- One of the most prolific models that have
tomize the act of learning and to transfer been used for measuring the success of an e-
knowledge and skills to the right person at learning system is the D&M model, which
the right time. Blended means the combi- was first presented in 1992 and, since then, it
nation of several teaching methods: asyn- has been used in over 300 scientific papers
chronous and synchronous, off-site and on- [6]. This model includes six components: the
site, offline and online, individual and col- quality of the system, the quality of the in-
laborative, structured and non-structured. formation, the use of the system, the user sat-
The biggest advantage of applying the blend- isfaction, the individual impact and the or-
ed learning concept is the adapting of teach- ganizational impact; the relations between
ing methods to the learning individual style. them are emphasized in Figure 1.
An individual learning style may be defined

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014 79

Fig. 1. The D&M 1992 model [6].

Till 2003, the relations between the compo- research carried out between 1992 and 2003
nents/constructions of this model have made (on the overall, 16 scientific papers with re-
the subject matter of several scientific under- markable results were identified by Delone
takings [6]. The number of scientific papers and McLean [30]) this model was revised in
drawn up for each and every such relation is 2003 by its authors.
presented in Figure 2. Based on the scientific

Fig. 2. The D&M 1992 model validation (adapted after [6]).

For the time being, the D&M model includes use the system; the user satisfaction; the ben-
six dimensions [6], [7], [8]: the system quali- efits of using the system. The relations be-
ty; the information quality; the services tween the model components are presented in
quality; the use of the system/the intention to Figure 3.

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
80 Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014

Fig. 3. The D&M 2003 model [6].

The brief description of each component is to be found in Table 1.

Table 1. D&M2003 factors [21].

Component Description
The system quality The system performance.
The information quality The quality of the system output.
The services quality The efficiency of the support services provided for the system us-
ers.
The intent to use| The perceived behavior of system use|
The use of the system The actual behavior of system use.
The user satisfaction The general perspective of users on the system.
Benefits The advantages of using an IS.

The use of the D&M model with a view to tion of functions in to the system men-
measuring the success of the e-learning sys- us[17], [21];
tems was criticized, because one did not take Information quality, I identified the fol-
into account aspects related to culture, the lowing impact measuring indicators:
trainers perspective, the relation between the mandatory information and content [7],
model components [7], the loyalty of the user [52], [22]; timely information and content
to the system [52], etc. In the academic lit- [7], [20]; optional/related information and
erature, I identified numerous papers aiming content [7], [20], [52]; useful information
at analyzing indicators that allow the measur- and content [7], [52], [24]; complete in-
ing of the impact of the D&M model compo- formation and complete content [17],
nents (in these papers, after an analysis of [52], [11], [10], [7]; intelligible infor-
these indicators, the authors usually propose mation and content [7], [10], [11], [25];
new versions of the model subject to survey). updated information and updated content
Thus, for the component: [7], [52], [10], [12], [22]; exact, precise
System quality, I identified the following information and exact content [20],[52],
impact measuring indicators: easy access [21]; well structured content and infor-
[7], [10], [11]; easy use [7],[10], [12]; us- mation [10];
er friendly interface [7],[10], [13]; inter- Services quality, I identified the follow-
activity [7],[10], [11], [14]; personaliza- ing impact measuring indicators: provid-
tion [7], [10], [11]; attractivity [7], [15]; ing guidance and support services [10],
system speed [7], [52]; security [10]; fia- [21], [7]; request response time [20]; re-
bility [10], [12]; design [5], [10], [17], flecting users opinions in design and de-
[18]; usability [10], [19]; maintenance velopment [7]; courses management [20],
[10], [12], [18]; flexibility[18], [20], easy [10], [11], [26]; the promptness of pro-
integration [20]; aesthetics and distribu- vided services [52];

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014 81

User satisfaction, I identified the follow- [42]; the tendency to use the system [52],
ing impact measuring indicators: percep- [43], [21];
tion on the system usefulness [7], [26], The use of the system, I identified fol-
[27], [28], [13]; the users satisfaction in lowing impact measuring indicators: the
relation with the system performance [7], system use frequency [29], [22], [7], [25];
[27], [29], [11]; maintenance of a high the system use duration [10].
level of the users satisfaction [30], [31]; In 2006, Holsapple and Lee-Post [30] pre-
providing the users training needs [32], sented a version of the D&M2003 model,
[33], [34]; winning the users trust [35], adapted so as to measure the success of an e-
[36], [37]; learning system. This model comprises a se-
Benefits, I identified the following im- ries of matrixes emphasized in figure 4,
pact measuring indicators: improvement which were subject to analysis, with a view
of performances/training efficiency [32], to confirming the dependency relations be-
[38], [30], [7], [13]; acquiring new tween the model components. The authors
knowledge [39]; the users autonomy suggest that future research should focus on
[40], [41], [39]; cost reduction [17], [13], validating the associations done between the
[7]; time economy [17], [30], [13], [7], three dimensions of success: the design and
[22]; the development of the system, the use of the
The intent to use the system, I identified system and the system outcome. Lee-Post ac-
the following impact measuring indica- complished and presented subsequent refin-
tors: the conviction that the use of the eries of this model in 2009 [54].
system provides advantages/benefits[52],

Fig. 4. The Holsapple and Lee-Post 2006 model [30].

Also in 2006, Lin and Lee presented a suc- cess of an online community, and developed
cess model for the online community, which a model by translating components of the
was developed starting from the same model D&M2003 model in the social context of vir-
[52]. In 2008, Lin [53] presented a series of tual communities. Thus, the component
determining factors, which provide the suc- Use was replaced by the component

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
82 Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014

Sense of belonging, while the component view to providing the success of virtual
Benefits was replaced by the component communities. The conclusions of this study
Member loyalty. This study also empha- is: System quality and Information quali-
sized the impact of the system characteristics ty are closely related to Sense of belong-
(as defined by the components System qual- ing, while out of the social factors, only
ity and Information quality) and some so- Trust has a significant influence on the
cial factors (Trust and Usefulness) with a component Sense of belonging (Figure 5).

Fig. 5. The 2008 Lins virtual communities model [53].

Other components extensively investigated The users loyalty, with the following in-
by Hassanzadeh, Kanaaniand and Elahi [52], dicators standing out: dependence on to
which led to the appearance in 2012 of a new the system [22], [7]; promotion of the
release of the D&M model, called MELSS system [32], [30], [31], [52].
(presented in figure 6) are:

Fig. 6. The MELSS model [52].

The quality of the education services etc. into the system [31]; communication
provided by the system, with the follow- facilities among students [45], [31], [46];
ing indicators standing out: the existence the adaptability of the system to individ-
of some functionalities like chat, forum, ual learning styles [47], [48]; facilities for

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014 83

active and collaborative learning [49]; cide upon how and when they are going to
The attaining of goals, with the following use the new technology:
indicators standing out: learning objec- Perceived usefulness or the extent to
tives accomplishment [50]; personal ob- which a user believes that, by using a cer-
jectives accomplishment [50], [51]. tain system, he/she will obtain increased
professional performance;
3.2. The TAM model Perceived ease-of-use or the extent to
TAM is an IS (Information Systems) theory which a user believes that he/she will
that models how users accept and use a new make considerably less efforts, by using
technology. The first release of this model this system, in order to fulfill his/her cur-
was created by Fred Davis in 1989 [56]. This rent tasks.
model (Figure 7) suggests that the users are
influenced by certain factors when they de-

Fig. 7. The 1998 TAM model [9], [56].

In the academic literature, between 1985 and papers emphasizing its applicability (an ex-
2013, there were published over 10 scientific cerpt from these papers may be found in [9]).
papers that aimed at developing the model; The second version of the TAM model was
over 20 scientific papers published exten- issued by Venkatesh and Davis, and pub-
sions of this model, and over 30 scientific lished in 2000 [9] (Figure 8).

Fig. 8. The 2000 TAM model [9].

In 2006, Roca et al. [23] combined the EDT increasing its relevance in the context of the
(Expectancy Disconfirmation theory) and the assessment of the e-learning systems (like the
TAM model, in order to create a new model creation of a four-dimension model: trainer,
for measuring the continuity of the intention student, technology and support, and their
to use an e-learning system (figure 9). Other separate analysis [42] or the introduction and
researchers, Selim in 2007 [42], Ngai et al. in analysis of the interdependences of some
2007 [16] adopted the TAM model and made components like Attitude and Technical
some essential changes on it, with a view to support [16]).

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
84 Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014

Fig. 9. The Roca model (adapted after [23]).

In 2008, Venkatesh and Bala published ver- 3.3 Models focused on the users satisfaction
sion 3 of the TAM model adapted for e- The users satisfaction is considered to be
commerce, which includes the effects of one of the most important criteria that may
components like Trust and Risk on the be applied for the assessment of an e-learning
system use degree [44]. system's success. In 2008, Sun et al. [26]
classified the critical factors leading to the
success of an e-learning system, using six
dimensions: student, trainer, course, technol-
ogy, design and context (Figure 10).

Learner dimension
-Learner attitude toward computers
-Learner computer anxiety
-Learner Internet self-efficacy

Instructor dimension
-Instructor response timeliness
-Instructor attitude toward e-learning

Course dimension Perceived

-E-learning course flexibility e-learner
-E-learning course quality satisfaction

Technology dimension
-Technology quality
- Internet quality

Design dimension
-Perceived usefulness
- Perceived ease of use

Environmental dimension
-Diversity in assessment
-Learner perceived interaction with others
Fig. 10. Dimensions of perceived e-learner satisfaction [26]

Other studies that used this approach for system were performed by Shee and Wang
measuring the success of an online training [12] in 2008 or Wu et al. [27] in 2010. One

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014 85

of the resulting models is BELS (Blended E- [27].

Learning System) presented in Figure 11

Fig. 11. The research model for BELS learning satisfaction [27].

3.4 Models focused on the e-learning quality system and not only on the quality of the ser-
Scientific papers that adopted this approach vices. Such a model was created by Lee and
for measuring the success of an e-learning Lee in 2008 [4] (Figure 12).
system focused on the overall quality of the

Fig. 12. The Lee and Lee 2008 research model [4].

4 Proposed Model and Future Research the e-learning systems. A simplified version
Direction is presented in figure 13. Each ELSS model
As a result of the above performed analysis I component is detailed in figure 14. In the fu-
propose a more comprehensive model for the ture I intend to explore more the Education-
evaluation of an E-Learning System Success al system quality component with the intent
(ELSS). This model is based on four perspec- to quantify the influence of the User learn-
tives: overall system quality, user perceived ing style indicator on the overall user satis-
control, usefulness and user satisfaction, user faction and (I identified only few scientific
attitude, social factors and benefits of using papers that focus on this matter).

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
86 Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014

Fig. 13. The simplified ELSS model.

I also aim to explain the causal relationships in-house that facilitates the applying of the
established between the constructs of the blended learning concept. After validation I
model and to validate these hypotheses by intend to compare the results of my study
conducting a study in the Bucharest Univer- (thus, the model) with similar results that
sity of Economic Studies. The support of this have been briefly presented above.
study will be an e-learning system developed

Fig. 14. The proposed ELSS model.

5 Conclusions ments and extensions [9], [52]. In conse-

In this paper I presented previous studies quence, by combining these previous models,
conducted in order to provide models for I propose a more comprehensive model
evaluating the e-learning systems success. ELSS. The testing of the models hypothesis
Even if these identified models were updated and the overall validation will be the subject
several times over the years, by many re- of a future study.
searchers, there is still room for improve-

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014 87

References [11] A. Oztekin, Z.J. Kong, O. Uysal,

[1] J. Liegle, T. Janicki, The effect of learn- UseLearn: A novel checklist and usabil-
ing styles on the navigation needs of ity evaluation method for eLearning sys-
Web-based learners, Computers in Hu- tems by criticality metric analysis, In-
man Behavior, vol. 22, pp. 885898, ternational Journal of Industrial Ergo-
2006. nomics, vol. 40, pp. 455469, 2010.
[2] H. Henke, Learning Theory: Applying [12] D.Y. Shee, Y.S. Wang, Multi-criteria
Kolbs Learning Style Inventory with evaluation of the web-based e-learning
Computer Based Training, Course on system: A methodology based on learner
Learning Theory, 2001. satisfaction and its applications, Com-
[3] B.J. Ferdousi, A Study of Factors that Af- puters & Education, vol. 50, pp. 894
fect Instructors Intention to Use E- 905, 2008.
Learning Systems in Two-Year Colleges, [13] M.A. Parker, F. Martin, Using virtual
PhD. Thesis, Nova Southeastern Univer- classrooms: Student perceptions of fea-
sity, 2009. tures and characteristics in an online and
[4] J.K. Lee, W.K. Lee, The relationship of a blended course, MERLOT Journal of
e-Learners self-regulatory efficacy and Online Learning and Teaching, vol. 6,
perception of e-Learning environmental pp. 135147, 2010.
quality, Computers in Human Behavior, [14] P.S.D. Chen, A.D. Lambert, K.R.
vol. 24, pp. 3247, 2008. Guidry, Engaging online learners: The
[5] V. Cantoni, M. Cellario, M. Porta, Per- impact of Web-based learning technology
spectives and challenges in e-learning: on college student engagement, Com-
Towards natural interaction paradigms, puters & Education, vol. 54, pp. 1222
Journal of Visual Languages and Compu- 1232, 2010.
ting, vol. 15, pp. 333345, 2004. [15] M. Wrzesien, M.A. Raya, Learning in
[6] W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean, The De- serious virtual worlds: Evaluation of
Lone and McLean model of information learning effectiveness and appeal to stu-
systems success: A ten-year update, dents in the e-junior project, Computers
Journal of Management Information Sys- & Education, vol. 55, pp. 178187, 2010.
tems, vol.19, pp. 930, 2003. [16]E. Ngai, J. Poon, Y. Chan, Empirical
[7] Y.S. Wang, H.Y. Wang, D.Y. Shee, examination of the adoption of WebCT
Measuring e-learning systems success in using TAM, Computers & Education,
an organizational context: Scale devel- vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 250-267, 2007.
opment and validation, Computers in [17] C.L. Ho, R.J. Dzeng, Construction
Human Behavior, vol. 23 pp. 17921808, safety training via e-Learning: Learning
2007. effectiveness and user satisfaction,
[8] J.H. Wu, Y.M. Wang, Measuring KMS Computers & Education, vol. 55, pp.
success: A respecification of the DeLone 858867, 2010.
and McLeans model, Information & [18] M. Cukusic, N. Alfirevic, A. Granic, Z.
Management, vol. 43, pp. 728739, 2006. Garaca, E-Learning process manage-
[9] N. Marangunic, A. Granic, Technology ment and the e-learning performance: Re-
acceptance model: a literature review sults of a European empirical study,
from 1986 to 2013, Universal Access in Computers & Education, vol. 55, pp.
the Information Society, 2014. 554565, 2010.
[10] S. Ozkan, R. Koseler, Multi- [19] J.R. Chou, S.W. Hsiao, A usability
dimensional students evaluation of e- study on humancomputer interface for
learning systems in the higher education middle-aged learners, Computers in
context: An empirical investigation, Human Behavior, vol. 23, pp. 2040
Computers & Education, vol. 53, pp. 2063, 2007.
12851296, 2009. [20] N. Au, E.W.T. Ngai, T.C.E. Cheng,

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
88 Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014

Extending the understanding of end user online learning: Testing a model of self-
information systems satisfaction for- determination theory, Computers in
mation: An equitable needs fulfillment Human Behavior, vol. 26, pp. 741752,
model approach, MIS Quarterly, vol. 32, 2010.
pp. 4366, 2008. [30] C.W. Holsapple, A. Lee-Post, Defin-
[21] W.T. Wang, C.C. Wang, An empirical ing, assessing, and promoting e-learning
study of instructor adoption of web-based success: An information systems perspec-
learning systems, Computers & Educa- tive, Decision Sciences Journal of Inno-
tion, vol. 53, pp. 761774, 2009. vative Education, vol. 4, pp. 6785, 2006.
[22] Y.S. Wang, Y.-W. Liao, Assessing e- [31] M.C. Lee, Explaining and predicting
Government systems success: A valida- users continuance intention toward e-
tion of the Delone and Mclean model of learning: An extension of the expecta-
information systems success, Govern- tionconfirmation model, Computers &
ment Information Quarterly, vol. 25, pp. Education, vol. 54, pp. 506516, 2010.
717733, 2008. [32] Y. Duan, Q. He, W. Feng, D. Li, Z. Fu,
[23] J. Roca, C.Chiu, F.Martnez, Under- A study on e-learning take-up intention
standing e-learning continuance intention: from an innovation adoption perspective:
An extension of the Technology Ac- A case in China, Computers & Educa-
ceptance Model, International Journal tion, vol. 3, pp. 110, 2010.
of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 64, no. [33] B.C. Lee, J.O. Yoon, I. Lee, Learners
8, pp. 683-696, 2006. acceptance of e-learning in South Korea:
[24] ODell, T., Generational differences in Theories and results, Computers & Edu-
satisfaction with e-learning environment, cation, vol. 53, pp. 13201329, 2009.
PhD. Thesis. College of Education Uni- [34] Z. Sheng, Z. Jue, T. Weiwei, Extending
versity of Houston. TAM for Online Learning Systems: An
[25] D. Kember, C. McNaught, F.C.Y. Intrinsic Motivation Perspective, Tsing-
Chong, P. Lam, K.F. Cheng, Under- hua science and technology, vol. 13, pp.
standing the ways in which design fea- 312317, 2008.
tures of educational websites impact upon [35] E. Diez, B.S. McIntosh, A review of
student learning outcomes in blended the factors which influence the use and
learning environments, Computers & usefulness of information systems, Envi-
Education, vol. 55, pp. 11831192, 2010. ronmental Modelling & Software, vol. 24,
[26] P.C. Sun, R.J. Tsai, G. Finger, Y.Y. pp. 588602, 2009.
Chen, D. Yeh, What drives a successful [36] H.M. Hutchins, D. Hutchison, Cross-
e-Learning? An empirical investigation of disciplinary contributions to e-learning
the critical factors influencing learner sat- design: A tripartite design model, Jour-
isfaction, Computers & Education, vol. nal of Workplace Learning, vol. 20, pp.
50, pp. 11831202, 2008. 364380, 2008.
[27]J.H. Wu, R.D. Tennyson, T.L. Hsia, A [37] A. Molla, P.S. Licker, E-commerce
study of student satisfaction in a blended systems success: An attempt to extend
e-learning system environment, Com- and respecify the DeLone and McLean
puters & Education, vol. 55, pp. 155 model of IS success, Journal of Elec-
164, 2010. tronic Commerce Success,pp. 111, 2001.
[28] M. Abdous, M. Yoshimura, Learner [38]A. Gonzalez, L. Jover, E. Cobo, P.
outcomes and satisfaction: A comparison Munoz, A web-based learning tool im-
of live video-streamed instruction, satel- proves student performance in statistics:
lite broadcast instruction, and face-to-face A randomized masked trial, Computers
instruction, Computers & Education, & Education, vol. 55, pp. 704713, 2010.
vol. 55, pp. 733741, 2010. [39]Ssemugabi, S., Usability evaluation of a
[29] K.C. Chen, S.J. Jang, Motivation in web-based e-learning application: a

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014 89

study of two evaluation methods, Master [49]H. EL-Deghaidy, A. Nouby, Effective-

thesis, University Of South Africa, 2006. ness of a blended e-learning cooperative
[40] C.M. Chiu, E.T.G. Wang, Understand- approach in an Egyptian instructor educa-
ing Web-based learning continuance in- tion programme, Computers & Educa-
tention: The role of subjective task val- tion, vol. 51, pp. 9881006, 2008.
ue, Information & Management, vol. 45, [50] B. Beldagli, T. Adiguzel, Illustrating an
pp. 194201, 2008. ideal adaptive e-learning: A conceptual
[41] G. Piccoli, R. Ahmad, B. Ives, Web- framework, Procedia Social and Behav-
based virtual learning environments: A ioral Sciences, vol. 2: 57555761, 2010.
research framework and a preliminary as- [51] K.M.Y. Law, V.C.S. Lee, Y.T. Yu,
sessment of effectiveness in basic IT Learning motivation in e-learning facili-
skills training, MIS Quarterly, vol. 25, tated computer programming courses,
pp. 401426, 2001. Computers & Education, vol. 55, pp.
[42]H.M. Selim, Critical success factors for 218228, 2010.
e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory fac- [52]A. Hassanzadeh,F. Kanaani, S. Elahi, A
tor models, Computer & Education, vol. model for measuring e-learning systems
49, pp. 396413, 2007. success in universities, Expert Systems
[43] G. Naveh, D. Tubin, N. Pliskin, Stu- with Applications, vol. 39, pp.10959
dent LMS use and satisfaction in academ- 10966, 2012.
ic institutions: The organizational per- [53] H.F. Lin, Determinants of successful
spective, Internet and Higher Education, virtual communities: Contributions from
vol. 13, pp. 127133, 2010. system characteristics and social factors,
[44]V. Venkatesh, H. Bala, Technology Ac- Information & Management, vol. 45, no.
ceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda 8, pp. 522527, 2008.
on Interventions", Decision Sciences, vol. [54] A. Lee-Post, e-Learning Success Mod-
39, no. 2, pp. 273315, 2008. el: an Information Systems Perspective,
[45] H. Fardoun, F. Montero, V.L. Jaquero, Electronic Journal of e-Learning, vol. 7,
eLearniXML: Towards a model-based no. 1, pp. 61 70, 2009.
approach for the development of e- [55] A. Y. Alsabawy, A. Cater-Steel, J. Soar,
Learning systems considering quality, Measuring E-Learning System Success
Advances in Engineering Software, vol. (ResearchIn Progress), in Proc. Pacific
40, pp. 12971305, 2009. Asia Conference on Information Systems,
[46] S. Lonn, S.D. Teasley, Saving time or art.15, 2011, published by AISeL.
innovating practice: Investigating percep- [56] F. D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, per-
tions and uses of learning management ceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
systems, Computers & Education, vol. information technology", MIS Quarterly,
53, pp. 686694, 2009. vol. 13, no.3, pp.319340, 1989.
[47] M.S. Kerr, K. Rynearson, M.C. Kerr,
Student characteristics for online learn- Acknowledgments
ing success, Internet and Higher Educa- This paper was co-financed from the Europe-
tion, vol. 9, pp. 91105, 2006. an Social Fund, through the Sectorial Opera-
[48] N. Vernadakis, P. Antoniou, M. Gian- tional Programme Human Resources Devel-
nousi, E. Zetou, E. Kioumourtzoglou, opment 2007-2013, project number
Comparing hybrid learning with tradi- POSDRU/159/1.5/S/138907 Excellence in
tional approaches on learning the Mi- scientific interdisciplinary research, doctoral
crosoft Office Power Point 2003 program and postdoctoral, in the economic, social and
in tertiary education, Computers & Edu- medical fields - EXCELIS, coordinator The
cation, vol. 56, pp. 188199, 2011. Bucharest University of Economic Studies.

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07
90 Informatica Economic vol. 18, no. 3/2014

Iuliana DOROB has graduated the Faculty of Economic Studies, Univer-

sity Dunrea de Jos, Galai in 2002. She holds a PhD diploma in Cybernet-
ics and Economic Statistics from March 2010. She is an ERP system consult-
ant and from 2005 she joined the staff of the Bucharest Academy of Econom-
ic Studies, teaching. Currently she is a senior lecturer within the Department
of Economic Informatics and Cybernetics at the Faculty of Cybernetics, Sta-
tistics and Economic Informatics from the Academy of Economic Studies.
She is the author of over 25 papers in the field of information systems published in national
and international journals or conference proceedings. She was a research member in 8 nation-
al and international research projects. Her work focuses on the analysis of ERP systems im-
plementations, Business process modeling, ERP training, e-learning, e-learning systems,
blended learning.

DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07