Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.

2'& 2'13

www.iiste.org

If I Upload it, will They Come? using Lazy User Theory to Explain Student Use of Optional Online Learning esour!es
)a*eron +ut,rie -ni.ersit/ of 0oulouse - 0oulouse 1usiness Sc,ool& 0oulouse& 2rance c.gut,rie3t4s-education.fr "#stra!t Instructors are encouraged to pro.ide a ric, arra/ of co*ple*entar/ learning resources to students to cater to t,eir different learning st/les. 5ore and *ore of t,ese resources are 4eing *ade a.aila4le online. 0,e wa/ students c,oose a*ongst different optional learning resources is poorl/ understood. 0,e paper reports t,e findings of a stud/ t,at e6a*ined differences in student perceptions of different we4-4ased learning support ser.ices suc, as groupware and online courses. 1ased on a sa*ple of 55 undergraduate 4usiness sc,ool students in an e-co**erce *a7or& t,e findings indicate t,at effort *ini*i8ation strongl/ influences student use of ad*inistrati.e ser.ices 4ut less so *ore learning related ser.ices. 0,e results ,a.e i*portant i*plications for trainers and teac,ers in.ol.ed in t,e design and i*ple*entation of we4 4ased learning resources and ser.ices. $eywords% 9earning resources& learning *anage*ent s/ste*& la8/ user t,eor/& tec,nolog/ acceptance *odel &' Introdu!tion 0oda/:s learning *anage*ent s/ste*s offer a .ast arra/ of possi4ilities. Educators *ust c,oose a*ongst a nu*4er of functionalities to acti.ate and pro.ide to students in *odern learning *anage*ent s/ste*s. 2or e6a*ple& 5oodle& a popular open source learning *anage*ent s/ste*& lists o.er 1'' additional acti.ities& suc, as foru*s& assign*ents and ;ui88es t,at instructors can use to e6tend 4asic functionalit/ of a class we4site. <ow s,ould instructors select w,ic, functionalities to acti.ate and w,ic, to ignore= <ow do students c,oose 4etween a.aila4le online resources t,at are on offer= 0,is paper was *oti.ated 4/ a desire to answer t,ese ;uestions. #ne e6planation for differences in student use of optional learning resources *a/4e t,e wa/ t,e/ allocate effort to learning acti.ities. 0,e first part of t,is paper re.iews t,e e6isting literature and leads to t,e de.elop*ent of a researc, ,/pot,esis. 0,e *et,odolog/ is t,en outlined followed 4/ a presentation and discussion of results. (' )re*ious resear!h 2.1 Optional resources and class web sites >e4 tec,nologies are widel/ used toda/ to pro.ide students wit, 2%?7 online resources and ser.ices as support for face-to-face classes. >,ile t,e use of inno.ati.e tec,nologies and pedagogies suc, as e-learning platfor*s and .arious social *edia ,as 4een widel/ reported& t,e role of t,e class we4 site ,as 4een neglected. @ class we4 site is an online platfor* t,at can pro.ide a .ariet/ of learner-teac,er (2@As& contact for*s & learner-learner (groupware and discussion foru*s and learner-content (online class preparation and lecture notes interactions (5iller B 5iller& 1((( . Instructors are encouraged to pro.ide a di.ersit/ of resources to Coffer students opportunities to recei.e learning t,roug, *et,ods and *odels t,at 4est support t,eir needs& interests& and personal situationsD (Eic,ardson& 2''2& p. %! . Students are often e6pected to decide for t,e*sel.es ,ow to use t,e a.aila4le resources and Fintegrate t,e* into t,eir own conte6t of use t,at *aGe sense to t,e*.C (9ooi& 2''1& p. 15 . @ growing nu*4er of studies ,a.e e6a*ined student use of resources in a F4lendedD or F,/4ridD pedagog/. 9ittle attention ,as 4een paid ,owe.er to t,e use of online resources to support 1''H face-to-face instruction. 2.2 Student use of online resources Se.eral difficulties wit, using class we4 sites ,a.e 4een ,ig,lig,ted in t,e literature. Students *a/ 4e o.erw,el*ed wit, t,e a*ount of resources and ,a.e difficult/ prioriti8ing t,e* (@r*atas& <olt& B Eice& 2''3 & t,e/ *a/ 4e unaware t,at t,e/ e6ist or ,ow t,e/ can 4e used (Iono.an B NaG,le,& 2''7 or t,e/ *a/ si*pl/ underuse t,e a.aila4le resources and tools (9ust& $andewaetere& )eule*ans& Elen& B )lare4out& 2'11 . Iifferences in student learning preferences *a/ account for so*e of t,e .ariance in student use of online resources. Ja8lausGas B Eo4inson (2'11 found t,at so*e students prefer to learn in face-to-face en.iron*ents and 4/ reading and listening in set stud/ en.iron*ents rat,er t,an using *ore recent podcast tec,nolog/. Iillard-Eggers et al. (2''! studied t,e use of optional and re;uired on-line ,o*eworG 4/ 233 students in ! accounting classes. #nl/ ,alf of all students 4elie.ed t,e s/ste* i*pro.ed t,eir learning and 31H preferred Fpencil and paperD ,o*eworG. #nl/ 1KH of students 4elie.ed t,e s/ste* sa.ed t,e* ti*e stud/ing. 0,e aut,ors conclude t,at different perceptions and uses can 4e e6plained 4/ t,e Fdi.erse student population& wit, different e6periences& sGills and a4ilities& and also different learning st/lesD (p.13 .

5(

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.2'& 2'13

www.iiste.org

+ra4e B ),ristop,erson (2''! studied t,e use of online lecture resources 4/ students. 0,e/ found t,at students *ade .er/ little use of t,e audio recordings co*pared to te6t-4ased lecture su**aries. 0,e/ suggest t,at students *a/ consider audio recordings as less efficient and less useful t,an ot,er resources. So*e students su4stituted online lecture resources for p,/sical attendance. 0,is result was confir*ed 4/ 9arGin (2'1' w,o found t,at t,e *inorit/ of students t,at downloaded online recordings of lectures used t,e* to i*pro.e t,eir understanding of face-to-face lectures or replace a lecture t,at t,e/ could not attend. 9ust et al (2'11 studied online tool use 4/ first /ear Educational Science undergraduates in a 4lended learning course at t,e Jat,olieGe -ni.ersiteit 9eu.en. 0,e aut,ors found large differences in student use of )5S tools liGe t,e discussion 4oard& practice ;ui88es& scaffold tool and we4 linGs. 0,ree tool-use patterns e*ergedL t,e first group was students w,o did not use t,e a.aila4le toolsM t,e second pattern was t,e Finco,erent usersD w,o onl/ used online tools wit, a clear linG to t,e face-to-face conte6tM t,e t,ird pattern was t,e intensi.e users t,at used all a.aila4le tools. Not all students profit fro* t,e learning affordances t,at online tools pro.ide. 9earners seeG to control t,eir learning in different wa/s and learning en.iron*ents need to 4e adapted accordingl/. Inglis et al. (2'11 also found t,at students did not F4lendD t,e different learning resources at t,eir disposal 4ut instead *ade ,ea./ use of onl/ one learning resource or none at all. 0,e aut,ors concluded t,at students adopt different stud/ strategies for using optional learning resources. 0,e/ ,ig,lig,t t,e need for furt,er researc, Fto deter*ine ,ow students decide on w,ic, strategies to adopt in 4lended learning en.iron*entsD #ne e6planation for differences in use of online resources is t,e ti*e allocation 4e,a.iors of students. Studies ,a.e s,own t,at students allocate ti*e so as to i*pro.e t,eir o.erall acade*ic ac,ie.e*ent (5c2adden B Iart& 1((2 . 0o e6plain student c,oice of online resources in a learning conte6t we draw on& adapt and test t,e Fla8/ user t,eor/D& a t,eor/ of online ser.ice use de.eloped in t,e infor*ation s/ste*s literature. 2.3 Student allocation of effort 9a8/ user t,eor/ (9-0 purports t,at an indi.idual will *ost often c,oose t,e solution t,at will fulfil ,is or ,er needs wit, t,e least effort. Solution selection depends on t,e attri4utes of t,e need itself and t,e userNs situation or state at t,e ti*e of t,e need. 0,e userNs state li*its t,e set of a.aila4le solutions to fulfil ,is or ,er need. 0,e t,eor/ was de.eloped 4/ 0etard B )ollan (2''( 4ased on pre.ious worG on t,e pat, of least resistance in p,/sics and t,e t,eor/ of least effort in infor*atics. 0,e/ studied t,e use of *o4ile p,one ser.ices and used t,e t,eor/ to draw a nu*4er of reco**endations on ,ow *o4ile de.ices and ser.ices s,ould 4e designed.

-ser need

defines

-ser state

Set of possi4le solutions to fulfill need

Selection of solution 4ased on t,e lowest le.el of effort

li*its

2igure 1. 9a8/ user t,eor/ of solution selection (adapted fro* 0etard B )ollan& 2''( 0,e user need can 4e ;ualified 4/ a nu*4er of c,aracteristics suc, as its t/pe and its urgenc/. 0,e need defines t,e uni.ersal set of possi4le solutions a.aila4le to fulfil it. 0,e possi4le solutions include 4ot, *aterial and i**aterial o47ects and can 4e deli.ered 4/ different products& de.ices& or ser.ices& depending on t,e need. 0,e user state is t,e circu*stances t,at surround t,e user at t,e *o*ent w,en t,e user need arises& including ,is or ,er location and a.aila4le ti*e and resources. 0,e user state li*its t,e set of possi4le solutions a.aila4le. 9-0 assu*es t,at t,e user will select t,e solution to fulfil t,e need t,at de*ands t,e least effort gi.en t,e user:s state. Effort can 4e in t,e for* of Fti*e used& *one/ used& energ/ used (p,/sical worG& *ental worG & or a co*4ination of t,eseD (0etard B )ollan& 2''(& p. 3 . Iifferent solutions re;uire different le.els of effort and indi.iduals *a/ need to e6ert different le.els of effort for t,e sa*e solution. >e 4elie.e t,at 9-0 can 4e applied to a learning en.iron*ent. 9earners ,a.e 4ot, needs and states and t,e a.aila4le learning resources can 4e considered a portfolio of c,oices. @ growing 4od/ of researc, on student use of ti*e and su4stitution of learning resources supports t,e .iew t,at students are dri.en 4/ efficienc/ considerations in t,eir allocation of ti*e to different acti.ities. 5c2adden B Iart (1((2 e6a*ined ,ow 1%3 4usiness sc,ool students allocated t,eir ti*e 4etween different su47ects taGen in t,e learning institution. 0,e/ found t,at students opti*i8ed t,e allocation of t,eir ti*e on different courses in order to *a6i*i8e t,eir o.erall grade a.erage. 0,e/ spend *ore ti*e on courses w,ere t,e/ consider t,eir grades too low& and spread t,eir ti*e e;uall/ across ot,er classes. 0,e/ also found t,at students do not read unassigned *aterials purel/ out of interest.

K'

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.2'& 2'13

www.iiste.org

Student ti*e allocation is also influenced 4/ t,e ti*e t,e/ wis, to spend on e6tracurricular acti.ities. Students effectuate ti*e trade-offs 4/ co*paring t,e in.est*ent 4enefits of stud/ing wit, t,e consu*ption 4enefits of ot,er acti.ities suc, as paid worG and leisure (Ste.ens B >eale& 2''% . Students *a/ e.en resent t,e CintrusionC of courseworG on t,eir personal ti*e (0rout& 1((7 . In a stud/ of ti*e use 4/ 2'( 9it,uanian -ni.ersit/ students& 1agdonas& Ea*anausGiene and SG.ern/s (2''( found t,at students li*it stud/ ti*e to o4ligator/ classes& lectures& and ,o*eworG and spend two to t,ree ti*es *ore ti*e on .arious for*s of entertain*ent. Students also ,a.e an accurate idea of t,e a*ount of effort necessar/ to succeed in an acade*ic en.iron*ent. 9a**ers et al. (2''5 asGed 3!7 4usiness sc,ool students and 52 facult/ at )alifornia State -ni.ersit/ 9a**ers ,ow *uc, ti*e t,e/ t,oug,t was necessar/ to spend on a nu*4er of different learning acti.ities to ac,ie.e @& 1& ) and I grades. 0,e/ found t,at students and facult/ *e*4ers s,are perceptions regarding ,ow ,ard students ,a.e to worG to ac,ie.e different grade le.els. Students picG and c,oose t,e learning resources and ser.ices to opti*i8e t,eir use of ti*e. 0,e/ learn in response to a need and select resources to *eet t,at need. F>,en people cannot see t,e need for w,at:s 4eing taug,t& t,e/ ignore it& re7ect it& or fail to assi*ilate it in an/ *eaningful wa/. )on.ersel/& w,en t,e/ ,a.e a need& t,en& if t,e resources for learning are a.aila4le& people learn effecti.el/ and ;uicGl/D (1rown B Iuguid& 2''' . 9il7e B Peat (2''K studied t,e use of an online learning resource for ad.anced first /ear ,u*an 4iolog/ students in a 4lended learning class at t,e -ni.ersit/ of S/dne/. 0,e/ o4ser.ed *arGed differences in usage patterns 4etween students and across resources. 0,e/ concluded t,at t,is Cindicates *an/ students are at least using a strategic approac, to learning 4/ using co*ponents w,en t,e/ percei.e t,e need.C +ut,rie (2'1' found a si*ilar result in ,is stud/ of t,e use of online resources 4/ 4usiness sc,ool students in a pro7ect-4ased pedagog/. Students largel/ focused on online classes t,at de.eloped t,eoretical concepts suc, as definitions& *et,ods and .oca4ular/. Students focused on t,e resources t,at t,e/ found t,e *ost efficient to co*plete t,e pro7ect. >,en asGed a4out t,eir preferred instruction *et,od& t,e/ preferred in class instruction as it was seen as less ti*e consu*ing and *ore producti.e as it afforded greater interacti.it/ t,an online instruction. Pre.ious researc, indicates t,at students seeG learning efficiencies. 0,is in.ol.es spending ti*e on learning acti.ities and resources t,at pro.ide t,e ,ig,est potential gain in ter*s of learning outco*es. +' Con!eptual model and hypotheses 0o stud/ online resource selection and use& we draw on a t,eoretical *odel t,at ,as 4een de.eloped and e*piricall/ tested in t,e infor*ation s/ste*s literatureM t,e 0ec,nolog/ @cceptance 5odel (0@5 (Ia.is& 1(!( . 0,e 0@5 t,eori8es t,at infor*ation s/ste* use is deter*ined 4/ an indi.idual:s perceptions of its potential to en,ance 7o4 perfor*ance (Fpercei.ed usefulnessD and its facilit/ of use (Fpercei.ed ease of useD (Ia.is& 1(!( . Percei.ed ease of use refers to Ct,e degree to w,ic, a person 4elie.es t,at using a particular s/ste* would 4e free of effortC (p.32' . @s effort is a finite resource& an indi.idual is liGel/ to accept a tec,nolog/ w,en ,e or s,e percei.es it as easier to use t,an anot,er (Eander B Eot,c,ild& 1(75 . Percei.ed ease of use s,ould also positi.el/ influence user perceptions of s/ste* usefulness. 0,e effects of e6ternal factors on s/ste* use suc, as training and *oti.ation& are *ediated 4/ percei.ed usefulness and percei.ed ease of use (Ia.is& 1(!( . In an educational conte6t it would see* reasona4le to assu*e t,at students c,oose t,e *eans to attain t,eir sc,olastic o47ecti.es in a rational *anner& preferring to use s/ste*s t,at t,e/ percei.e as relati.el/ useful and eas/ to use. 0,e 0@5 ,as pre.iousl/ 4een s,own to 4e a satisfactor/ tool to e6plain t,e acceptance of educational tec,nologies (e6. 5artins B Jeller*anns& 2''%M ParG& 2''(M Seli*& 2''3 . 2or t,e purposes of t,is paper& t,e 0@5 is adopted as an appropriate e6plicati.e *odel of online learning resource use. In lig,t of t,e pre.ious discussion on 9-0& t,e le.el of effort re;uired to use a resource *a/ deter*ine t,e percei.ed usefulness of t,is resource. In t,e 0@5& effort is *easured 4/ t,e ease of use construct. >e argue t,at t,e percei.ed ease of use of a learning resource will affect t,e percei.ed usefulness of a resource and& in turn a student:s intention to use it. 0,e conceptual *odel is presented in figure 1.
Perceived usefulness

Intention to use

Actual use

Perceived ease of use

2igure 2. 0,e conceptual *odel (4ased on Ia.is& 1(!(

K1

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.2'& 2'13

www.iiste.org

>,en online resources and ser.ices ,a.e no direct learning 4enefit it is e6pected t,at t,eir use 4/ students will depend on effort *ini*i8ation. If we4site ser.ices ,a.e an offline e;ui.alent t,en students will c,oose t,e solution t,at *ini*i8es t,eir effort. >,en online resources and ser.ices are i*portant to learning acti.ities and ,a.e no real offline alternati.e& t,e influence of percei.ed ease of use on percei.ed usefulness will 4e low. 0,e ,/pot,esis to 4e tested is stated 4elow. Perceived ease of use will have a higher positive direct effect on the perceived usefulness of administrative resources and services than on learning resources and services. ,' -ethodology 4.1 The sample 0,e sa*ple consisted of 55 undergraduate 2renc, 4usiness sc,ool students pursuing a two-*ont, course in e4usiness and infor*ation tec,nolog/ *anage*ent (Fe-4usinessD . 0,e two *ont, course in.ol.ed 15' ,ours of classroo* instruction. 0,e teac,ing approac, in.ol.ed t,eoretical classes& case studies and pro7ect worG. 0,e sa*ple consisted onl/ of students in t,is specialisation and& t,erefore& was non-rando*. Auestionnaires were distri4uted and co*pleted in class following a s,ort presentation of t,e pro7ect:s o47ecti.es. 0o ensure confidentialit/ of responses& personal infor*ation was not re;uired. @ll 55 students co*pleted and returned usea4le ;uestionnaires. 0,e course was supported 4/ a we4 site co*prising a total of 12 resources or ser.icesL course news& s/lla4us download& 2@A& lecture notes download& 4ulletin 4oards& course progra**e& groupware& e-learning& curriculu* .itae& student e.aluations& and t,e possi4ilit/ to *odif/ personal infor*ation suc, as password. -se of t,e we4 site was optional and students could follow t,e course wit,out using t,e we4 site alt,oug, two ser.ices specificall/ targeted i*pro.ed learning outco*esL t,e groupware ser.ice was offered to ,elp i*pro.e group pro7ect producti.it/M t,e e-learning ser.ice was pro.ided so t,at students could 4est prepare two instructor led session. 0,e different ser.ices are su**ari8ed in ta4le 1. 0a4le 1. 9ist of ser.ices a.aila4le on-line Ser.ice Iescription <o*e pageL course news News and announce*ents concerning course ad*inistration and interns,ip opportunities. S/lla4us download Iownload t,e detailed course s/lla4us 2re;uentl/ asGed ;uestions @sG t,e course ad*inistrator and lecturers ;uestions Electronic li4rar/ Iownload lecture notes& ot,er docu*ents and student reports fro* pre.ious /ears Iiscussion foru* @ free access 4ulletin 4oard for students )ourse progra* 9ist of sessions wit, pre-reading and linGs to class preparation *aterial and ;ui88es +roupware 2ile and *essage e6c,ange to support student:s worG in groups NetworGing 9ist of pre.ious interns,ips undertaGen 4/ t,e 1'' or so alu*ni #nline courseworG #nline self-learning *odules on we4 site creation and t,e use of a pro7ect *anage*ent tool. 1ot, *odules were prere;uisites for a face-to-face class. )urriculu* .itae Pu4lis, and update a )$ t,at is .isi4le to t,e course ad*inistrator and all lecturers Session e.aluations Student e.aluations of eac, session Personal profile Possi4ilit/ to *odif/ personal infor*ation suc, as password Eac, student was assigned a password t,at was used at eac, connection to reac, t,e *ain page of t,e we4 site. 4.2 Measures Eig,t .aria4les were *easured in t,e ;uestionnaireL four learning st/les& percei.ed ease of use (PE- & percei.ed usefulness (P- & intention to use (IN0EN0 and actual use (-SE of t,e target learning support ser.ice. PE-& P-& IN0EN0 and -SE were *easured separatel/ for groupware& e-learning and ad*inistrati.e (t,e re*aining 1' we4 ser.ices. 0a4le 2 pro.ides descripti.e statistics for t,e .aria4les *easured.

K2

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.2'& 2'13

www.iiste.org

0a4le 2. Iescripti.e statistics of t,e .aria4les at test $aria4le Eange 5in 5a6 5ean S.I. dministrative services PK-%2 21 %2 3%.25 5.3% PE%-2! 1% 2! 25.5! 2.%! IN0EN0 1-7 1 7 K.'( 1.51 -SE 1-K 2 K 3.!7 1.'% $aria4le Eange 5in 5a6 5ean S.I. !roupware service PK-%2 12 %2 2!.3K !.5K PE%-2! 1K 2! 23.33 %.27 IN0EN0 1-7 2 7 5.33 1.%% -SE 1-K 1 K 1.!7 1.'( "#learning service PK-%2 17 %2 33.(1 7.1! PE%-2! K 2! 22.KK 5.%3 IN0EN0 1-7 3 7 K.13 1.'K -SE 1-K 1 5 1.!% '.!3 %.2.1 Percei.ed usefulness Percei.ed usefulness was *easured 4ased on Ia.is: (1(!( original instru*ent re;uiring students to appreciate t,e difficult/ of using t,e we4site for t,eir course worG on a 7 point liGert-t/pe scale. Students were asGed si6 ;uestions pertaining to t,e usefulness of t,e online ser.ice (or ser.ices . Eesponses for eac, of t,e si6 ite*s were aggregated to calculate an aggregate score for percei.ed usefulness of eac, target ser.ice. 0,e )ron4ac, alp,a statistics of '.!5& '.(K and '.(3 for standard we4 ser.ices& groupware and e-learning ser.ices respecti.el/& were all satisfactor/. %.2.2 Percei.ed ease of use Students were asGed fi.e ;uestions pertaining to t,e ease of use of all ad*inistrati.e we4 ser.ices and t,e two learning oriented we4 ser.ices. 0,e *easure*ent of percei.ed ease of use was adapted fro* @da*s& Nelson B 0odd (1((2 wit, t,e wording 4eing c,anged to fit t,e specific tec,nologies under stud/. 0,e first ite* F9earning to operate Ot,e target ser.iceP would 4e eas/ for *eD was deleted fro* t,e ease-of-use scale as it did not correlate well wit, t,e ot,er ite*s. 0,e )ron4ac, alp,a statistic i*pro.ed fro* '.55 to '.7%. It was '.!5 and '.(2 for t,e ease-of-use *easures of groupware and e-learning ser.ices respecti.el/. 0,e responses on t,e re*aining four ite*s were used to calculate a cu*ulati.e score for percei.ed ease of use of eac, target tec,nolog/. %.2.3 Intention to use Students self-rated t,eir intention to use t,e target tec,nolog/ on a 7-point liGert-t/pe scale 4ased on @da*s& Nelson B 0odd:s (1((2 *easure. Students were asGed to rate t,eir le.el of agree*ent wit, t,e state*ent FIf t,e Otarget tec,nolog/P was a.aila4le in a future class& I would use it oftenD. %.2.% @ctual use @ctual use was reported 4/ students along a K-point liGert-t/pe scale ranging fro* FI ne.er used t,e Otarget tec,nolog/PD to FI used t,e Otarget tec,nolog/P se.eral ti*es per da/D. .' esults 0,e data were anal/sed using S*artP9S (Eingle& >ende& B >ill& 2''5 . S*artP9S is a software progra* t,at i*ple*ents structural e;uation or causal *odelling according to Partial 9east S;uares (FP9SD . 0,e P9S *et,od is particularl/ suita4le for s*all sa*ple si8es (),in& 5arcolin& B Newsted& 2''3 . ),in (1((( reco**ends t,at t,e sa*ple si8e 4e greater t,an (1 ten ti*es t,e scale wit, t,e largest nu*4er of for*ati.e indicators& or (2 ten ti*es t,e largest nu*4er of structural pat,s directed at a particular construct in t,e *odel. @s t,ere are a no for*ati.e indicators in our *odel and a *a6i*u* of two structural pat,s directed at an/ one construct& t,e sa*ple si8e of 55 indi.iduals easil/ e6ceeds t,ese sa*ple si8e reco**endations. Eelia4ilit/ and .alidit/ tests were conducted to e.aluate t,e ;ualit/ of *easures used. 0,e results are presented in ta4le %. 0,e ),ron4ac, alp,a statistics are a4o.e t,e reco**ended accepta4le le.el of '.7' (Nunnall/& 1(7! indicating ade;uate internal consistenc/. 0,e a.erage .ariance e6tracted le.els are a4o.e t,e '.5 t,res,old (2ornell B 9arcGer& 1(!1 indicating t,e con.ergent .alidit/ of t,e instru*ent ite*s. 0,e uni-di*ensionalit/ of 4locGs of .aria4les is confir*ed 4/ Iillon-+oldstein:s r,o (Fco*posite relia4ilit/D t,at is ,ig,er t,an '.7 (0enen,aus& $in8i& ),atelin& B 9auro& 2''5 .

K3

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.2'& 2'13

www.iiste.org

0a4le 3. Eelia4ilit/ and .alidit/ statistics for t,e structural *odel Statistic @d*inistrati.e +roupware E-learning ser.ices Perceived $sefulness @.erage .ariance e6tracted '.5( '.!3 '.73 )o*posite relia4ilit/ '.!( '.(7 '.(% )ron4ac, alp,a '.!5 '.(K '.(3 Perceived "ase of $se @.erage .ariance e6tracted '.K5 '.K( '.!' )o*posite relia4ilit/ '.!5 '.(' '.(% )ron4ac, alp,a '.7% '.!5 '.(2 >e tested t,e discri*inant .alidit/ of eac, construct 4/ co*paring s;uare root of t,e @$E wit, its correlations wit, ot,er constructs. #ur constructs de*onstrate ade;uate discri*inant .alidit/. @ *odel was esti*ated for eac, of t,e t,ree online resource t/pes. 0,e results are presented 4elow. 0,e ;ualit/ of eac, *odel was e.aluated 4ased on its predicti.e power (),in& 1((! . 0,e loadings on all significant structural pat,s were a4o.e t,e '.2' t,res,old indicating t,at t,e/ were all *eaningful. %.1 dministrative services 0,e percei.ed ease of use of standard we4site ser.ices e6plained %3H of t,e .ariance in student perceptions of usefulness of t,ese ser.ices. Percei.ed usefulness in turn e6plains intention to use and actual use. 0,e results for our *odel are presented in figure 3. 0,e significant pat,s are s,own 4/ t,e 4old arrows.
R2 0.43 0.47** (6.13) 0.36** (4.70)

Perceived usefulness
0.66** (24.78)

Intention to use
R2 $0.14 (1.2!) 0.1!

Actual use
R2 0.13

Perceived ease of use

Pat" coefficients #it" t$values in %arent"eses. * %&0.0!' ** %&0.01

2igure 3. @d*inistrati.e ser.ices Students used t,ese resources as t,e/ were eas/ to use. Percei.ed usefulness t,en deter*ines intention to use and actual use& as predicted 4/ t,e 0@5. 0,is result confir*ed our t,eoretical e6pectations. 0,e strong positi.e relations,ip 4etween percei.ed ease of use and percei.ed usefulness and t,e ,ig, E2 .alue supports la8/ user t,eor/. %.2 !roupware services 2igure % present student acceptance of t,e we4 4ased pro7ect producti.it/ ser.ice. Percei.ed ease of use e6plains 22H of student perceptions of t,e usefulness of t,is ser.ice. 0oget,er wit, percei.ed usefulness& percei.ed ease of use also directl/ e6plains 5'H of .ariance in intentions to use t,is resource.
R2 0.22 0.4(** ((.03) 0.40** (8.!1)

Perceived usefulness
0.46** ((.28)

Intention to use
R2 0.32** (4.82) 0.!0

Actual use
R2 0.16

Perceived ease of use

Pat" coefficients #it" t$values in %arent"eses. * %&0.0!' ** %&0.01

2igure %. +roupware ser.ices

K%

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.2'& 2'13

www.iiste.org

0,is result differs fro* t,e acceptance of we4 4ased ad*inistrati.e ser.ices insofar as percei.ed ease of use deter*ines intention to use 4ot, indirectl/ (.ia percei.ed usefulness and directl/. Students are attracted to t,ese ser.ices 4/ 4ot, t,eir percei.ed usefulness to t,e learning process and t,e a*ount of effort re;uired in using t,e*. %.3 "#learning services Percei.ed ease of use of class preparation resources e6plains onl/ 11H of t,e .ariation in percei.ed usefulness. Effort *ini*i8ation ,ad little influence on student use of t,ese ser.ices. Percei.ed usefulness was largel/ deter*ined 4/ so*e ot,er factor. Percei.ed usefulness in turn e6plains intention to use. 0,ese positi.e perceptions translate in turn into actual use. Student use of class preparation resources is presented in figure 5.
R2 0.11 0.41** (!.2!) 0.21** (2.42)

Perceived usefulness
0.34** (!.62)

Intention to use
R2 0.08 (0.(7) 0.1(

Actual use
R2 0.0!

Perceived ease of use

Pat" coefficients #it" t$values in %arent"eses. * %&0.0!' ** %&0.01

2igure 5. E-learning resources 0,e influence of percei.ed ease of use on percei.ed usefulness was ,ig,est for ad*inistrati.e ser.ices. 0,e ease of use of t,ese ser.ices e6plains %3H of t,e .ariance in percei.ed usefulness. Students are attracted to class preparation ser.ices in part 4/ t,e low effort re;uired to use t,e* 4ut& as was t,e case for t,e e-learning ser.ice& ot,er unidentified factors largel/ deter*ined student perceptions of usefulness. 0,ese results support our researc, proposition. /' 0is!ussion #ur researc, was *oti.ated 4/ a need to 4etter understand ,ow students percei.e different online ser.ices pro.ided .ia class we4sites. 1ased on 0etard B )ollan:s (2''( 9a8/ -ser 0,eor/ we ,/pot,esi8ed t,at student use of ad*inistrati.e online resources would depend on a trade-off 4etween t,eir percei.ed utilit/ and t,e effort necessar/ to use t,e*. #ur results support t,is con7ecture. >e first studied t,e use of we4-4ased ad*inistrati.e ser.ices. 0,ese ser.ices included t,e news ite*s& t,e download page& t,e 2@A& online instructor e.aluations& t,e electronic li4rar/& t,e course progra**e page& t,e personal )$ and profile pages. #ur results confir*ed our e6pectation t,at student perceptions of ease of use influence t,e percei.ed usefulness of t,ese ser.ices to t,e learning process. >e found a si*ilar result wit, t,e second t/pe of we4 ser.ice& we4-4ased groupware. Student intentions to use t,is ser.ice were influenced 4ot, directl/ and indirectl/ 4/ perceptions of ease of use. 0,is *a/ 4e e6plained 4/ t,e nature of t,is ser.ice. It was a producti.it/ tool. If students found it difficult to use t,en producti.it/ gains fro* using it would 4e low. 0,e t,ird t/pe of we4 site ser.ice studied was we4 4ased class preparation. 0,is ser.ice directl/ concerned student learning. Percei.ed usefulness *ainl/ e6plained student intention to use t,ese ser.ices and percei.ed ease of use ,ad onl/ a s*all influence on percei.ed usefulness (E2Q11H . Student use of learning *aterials was *ainl/ influenced 4/ t,eir percei.ed usefulness. >,ile t,e ease of using t,e different ser.ices influences t,e perceptions of usefulness for all t,ree different t/pes of we4 ser.ices& t,is influence is 4/ far strongest for we4-4ased ad*inistrati.e ser.ices. >,en faced wit, a collection of resources& ease of use influences student use of non-essential ad*inistrati.e ser.ices 4ut is less i*portant w,en resources ,a.e a ,ig,er potential learning outco*e. #ne e6planation *a/ 4e t,at students find it easier to use offline alternati.es to satisf/ t,eir ad*inistrati.e needs. 0,ere are se.eral i*plications for t,e design of learning s/ste*s. Instructors s,ould consider t,e set of possi4le solutions a.aila4le to students w,en t,e/ c,oose online resources. If ot,er alternati.es are a.aila4le t,at re;uire lesser effort& t,en students *a/ o.erlooG online ser.ices. >,en ser.ices are pro.ided& t,e focus s,ould 4e on reducing t,eir percei.ed ease of use t,roug, clear classroo* pro*otion and e6planation. Ie.elopers s,ould also design new ser.ices following usa4ilit/ guidelines. 2uture researc, could in.estigate t,e deter*inants of percei.ed ease of use and e6plore usage differences in t,e t/pes of ad*inistrati.e or non-critical resources t,at K5

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.2'& 2'13

www.iiste.org

are pro.ided 4/ instructors. 1' Con!lusion 0oda/:s instructors are e6pected to pro.ide a ric, arra/ of online resourcesL student e6pectations& accreditation processes and t,e e6panding capa4ilities of we4 4ased learning *anage*ent s/ste*s are all increasing pressure on facult/ to cater to different student needs. Ret t,e wa/ students c,oose a*ongst different optional learning resources is poorl/ understood. -sing 9a8/ -ser 0,eor/ we e6a*ined student perceptions and use of t,ree different t/pes of online learning resourcesL ad*inistrati.e& pro7ect producti.it/ and e-learning. >e found t,at effort *ini*i8ation strongl/ influenced t,e use of ad*inistrati.e resources& partiall/ influenced student use of online groupware and ,ad little effect on learning resources. 1/ acGnowledging t,at students ,a.e a portfolio of possi4le solutions for t,eir different learning needs and 4/ i*pro.ing t,e ease of use of online resources& instructors can ,elp students 4enefit fro* ric, online offerings and ,elp institutions i*pro.e t,e increasingl/ online e6perience t,e/ pro.ide to students. eferen!es @da*s& I.@.& Nelson& E.E.& B 0odd& P.@. . (1((2 . FPercei.ed usefulness& ease of use& and usage of infor*ation tec,nolog/L @ replicationD M&S 'uarterl() 1*(2 & 227-2%7. @r*atas& )& <olt& I& B Eice& 5. (2''3 . FI*pacts of an #nline-Supported& Eesource-1ased 9earning En.iron*entL Ioes #ne Si8e 2it @ll=D +istance "ducation) 24(2 & 1%1-15!. 1agdonas& E& Ea*anausGiene& J& B SG.ern/s& $. (2''( . F@re students reall/ o.erloaded=D Paper presented at t,e ,ew pproaches and -esults in Time $se -esearch) 31st .onference of the &nternational ssociation for Time $se -esearch& 9eup,ana -ni.ersit/ 9Sne4urg& +er*an/. 1rown& J.S.& B Iuguid& P. (2''' . The social life of information. 1oston& 5@L <ar.ard 1usiness Sc,ool Press. ),in& >. >. (1((! . FIssues and #pinion on Structural E;uation 5odelingD M&S 'uarterl() 22(1 & .ii T 6.i. ),in& >. >. (1((( . FStructural E;uation 5odeling @nal/sis wit, S*all Sa*ples -sing Partial 9east S;uaresD In E. E. <o/le (Ed. & Statistical Strategies for Small Sample -esearch (pp. 3'7-3%1 . 0,ousand #aGs& )@L Sage Pu4lications. ),in& >. >.& 5arcolin& 1. 9.& B Newsted& P. E. . (2''3 . F@ Partial 9east S;uares 9atent $aria4le 5odeling @pproac, for 5easuring Interaction EffectsL Eesults fro* a 5onte )arlo Si*ulation Stud/ and an Electronic5ail E*otion?@doption Stud/D &nformation S(stems -esearch) 14(2 & 1!(-23K. Ia.is& 2. (1(!( . FPercei.ed -sefulness& Percei.ed Ease of -se& and -ser @cceptance of Infor*ation 0ec,nolog/D M&S 'uarterl() 13(3 & 31!-3%2. Iillard-Eggers& J& >ooten& 0& ),ilds& 1& B )oGer& J. (2''! . FE.idence on t,e effecti.eness of on-line ,o*eworGD .ollege Teaching Methods / St(les 0ournal) 4(5 & (-1K. Iono.an& >& B NaG,le,& 5. (2''7 . FStudent -se of >e4-1ased 0utorial 5aterials and -nderstanding of ),e*istr/ )onceptsD 0ournal of .omputers in Mathematics and Science Teaching) 2*(% & 2(1-327. 2ornell& ).& B 9arcGer& I. 2. (1(!1 . FStructural E;uation 5odels wit, -no4ser.a4le $aria4les and 5easure*ent ErrorsD 0ournal of Mar1eting -esearch) 12(1 & 3(-5'. +ra4e& 5.& B ),ristop,erson& J. (2''! . F#ptional Student -se of #nline 9ecture EesourcesL Eesource Preferences& Perfor*ance and 9ecture @ttendanceD 0ournal of .omputer ssisted 3earning) 24(1 & 1-1'. +ut,rie& ). (2'1' . F0owards +reater 9earner )ontrolL >e4 Supported Pro7ect-1ased 9earningD 0ournal of &nformation S(stems "ducation) 21(1 & 121-13'. Inglis& 5.& Palipana& @.& 0ren,ol*& S.& B >ard& J. (2'11 . FIndi.idual differences in studentsN use of optional learning resourcesD 0ournal of .omputer ssisted 3earning) 24(K & %('-5'2. Ja8lausGas& @& B Eo4inson& J. (2'11 . FPodcasts are not for e.er/oneD 5ritish 0ournal of "ducational Technolog() 43(2 & 321-33'. 9a**ers& <. 1& Jiesler& 0& )urren& 5. 0.& )ours& I& B )onnett& 1. (2''5 . U <ow <ard Io I <a.e to >orG= Student and 2acult/ E6pectations Eegarding -ni.ersit/ >orGD 0ournal of "ducation for 5usiness) 26(% & 21'213. 9arGin& <. E. (2'1' . F1ut t,e/ wonNt co*e to lectures ... 0,e i*pact of audio recorded lectures on student e6perience and attendanceD ustralasian 0ournal of "ducational Technolog() 2*(2 & 23!-2%(. 9il7e& #su& B Peat& 5ar/. (2''K . F-se and perceptions of use of a 4lended learning resourceL are students engaging wit, t,e *aterials=D Paper presented at t,e 7th Pacific -ime .onference 8irst 9ear in :igher "ducation) "ngaging Students. 9ooi& ).J. (2''1 . FEn,ancing learning ecolog/ on t,e InternetD 0ournal of .omputer ssisted 3earning) 14& 132'.

KK

Journal of Education and Practice ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper ISSN 2222-2!!" (#nline $ol.%& No.2'& 2'13

www.iiste.org

9ust& +& $andewaetere& 5& )eule*ans& E& Elen& J& B )lare4out& +. (2'11 . F0ool-use in a 4lended undergraduate courseL In Searc, of user profilesD .omputers / "ducation) %4& 2135T21%%. 5arc,ewGa& J. 0.& 9iu& )& B Jostiwa& J. (2''7 . F@n application of t,e -0@-0 *odel for understanding student perceptions using course *anage*ent softwareD .ommunications of the &&M ) 4(2 & (3-1'%. 5artins& 9.& B Jeller*anns& 2. (2''% . F@ *odel of 4usiness sc,ool studentsN acceptance of a we4-4ased course *anage*ent s/ste*D cadem( of Management 3earning / "ducation) 3(1 & 7-27. 5asro*& 5aslin. (2''7 . F0ec,nolog/ @cceptance 5odel and E-learningD Paper presented at t,e 12th &nternational .onference on "ducation& Sultan <assanal 1olGia, Institute of Education& -ni.ersiti 1runei Iarussala*. 5c2adden& J& B Iart& J. (1((2 . F0i*e *anage*ent sGills of undergraduate 4usiness studentsD 0ournal of "ducation for 5usiness) K!(2 & !%-!!. 5iller& S.5.& B 5iller& J.9. (1((( . F-sing Instructional 0,eor/ 0o 2acilitate )o**unication in >e4-4ased )oursesD "ducational Technolog( / Societ() 2(3 & 1'K-11%. Nunnall/& J. (1(7! . Ps(chometric Theor(. New RorGL 5c+raw-<ill. ParG& S. R. (2''( . F@n @nal/sis of t,e 0ec,nolog/ @cceptance 5odel in -nderstanding -ni.ersit/ StudentsN 1e,a.ioral Intention to -se e-9earningD. "ducational Technolog( / Societ() 12(3 & 15'-1K2. Eander& E.& B Eot,c,ild& 5. (1(75 . F#n t,e allocation of effortD. 0ournal of "conomic Theor() 1'& 35!-37K. Eic,ardson& @. (2''2 . F@n ecolog/ of learning and t,e role of elearning in t,e learning en.iron*entD Paper presented at t,e !lobal Summit 2662. Eingle& ). 5.& >ende& S.& B >ill& @. (2''5 . S*artP9S ($ersion 2.' (4eta . <a*4urg& +er*an/L S*artP9S. Seli*& <. 5. (2''3 . F@n e*pirical in.estigation of student acceptance of course we4 sitesD .omputers / "ducation) %'(% & 3%3-3K'. Ste.ens& P,.& B >eale& 5. (2''% . 3a;( Students< stud( of student time use. National Institute of Econo*ic and Social Eesearc, (No. 233 . 0enen,aus& 5& $in8i& $. E& ),atelin& R-5& B 9auro& ). (2''5 . FP9S pat, *odelingD. .omputational Statistics / +ata nal(sis) 42(1 & 15(-2'5. 0etard& 2& B )ollan& 5. (2''( . F9a8/ -ser 0,eor/L @ I/na*ic 5odel to -nderstand -ser Selection of Products and Ser.icesD Paper presented at t,e 42nd :awaii &nternational .onference on S(stem Sciences. 0rout& P. (1((7 . FIisengaged students and t,e decline of acade*ic standardsD cademic 'uestions) 16(2 & %K5K.

K7

This academic article was published by The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE). The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open Access Publishing service based in the U.S. and Europe. The aim of the institute is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing. More information about the publisher can be found in the IISTE’s homepage: http://www.iiste.org CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS The IISTE is currently hosting more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals and collaborating with academic institutions around the world. There’s no deadline for submission. Prospective authors of IISTE journals can find the submission instruction on the following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ The IISTE editorial team promises to the review and publish all the qualified submissions in a fast manner. All the journals articles are available online to the readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Printed version of the journals is also available upon request of readers and authors. MORE RESOURCES Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/ Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/ IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial Library , NewJour, Google Scholar

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.