Example of Research Proposal

3rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC
2950 RESEARCH ( 3rd ICBER 2012 ) PROCEEDING

12 - 13 MARCH 2012. GOLDEN FLOWER HOTEL, BANDUNG, INDONESIA
ISBN: 978-967-5705-05-2. WEBSITE: www.internationalconference.com.my
FACTORS THAT AFFECT STUDENT PERFORMANCE:

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE I-LEARN AT A LOCAL UNIVERSITY
Mariam binti Setapa

maria135@johor.uitm.edu.my
Khairunnisa Rahman
khair330@johor.uitm.edu.my
Noorita Mohammad
noori545@johor.uitm.edu.my
Faculty of Business Management

Universiti Teknologi MARA Johor Malaysia
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to identify factors affecting the usage of I-Learn in UiTM towards students'
performance. In Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), it’s known as i-Learn method. A study conducted by
Hafizah Mohamad Hsbollah and Kamil Md. Idris (2009) found that there were six factors that influence the
use of e-learning among the lecturers. Therefore, this study also will examine these factors in terms of
university students. These factors are technological features and characteristics of the individual (students).
From the pilot study conducted on 20 students of UiTM Johor, found that students are aware of the system,
but do not practice it in total for various reasons. Therefore, this study is to identify the factors affecting the
usage of i-Learn in UiTM towards students' performance and to determine the most dominant factor affecting
the usage of i-Learn in UiTM towards students' performance. Data collected from students of Universiti
Teknologi MARA Johor only. Students involved in this study are students from Semester 1 (Part 1) a total of
60 persons consisting of two groups of students. Pilot test was conducted on 20 students to test the validity of
questionnaire. In addition, the internal consistency using Cronbach Alpha and exploratory factor analysis
will also used to verify the measurement used later. In addition, correlation and regression methods used to
identify the factors under study and to determine the most dominant factor affecting the usage of i-Learn in
UiTM towards students' performance. An expected result of this study was to see a clear correlation factors
are reviewed with student performance.
Keyword: I-Learn, technology features, students characteristics, performance, Universiti Teknologi MARA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been increased interest in the topic of technology uses in education especially higher
level of education. Almost all university and other institutions nowadays in this world using technology such
as Internet in their education. Malaysia nowadays encourages the students to use Internet to gain more
knowledge and information.
Universiti Technologi MARA (UiTM) Segamat, Johor also using the Internet in their daily education system.
It is known as i-Learn. I-Learn portal in UiTM is the system that will allow the lecturers to link the courses
taught for students to access all related resources for the course. I-Learn or other terms used by most
university such as E-Learning in this study are defined as a web-based educational system that utilizes
Information Technology (IT) and computer networks (internet and intranet). Meaning that, all students
studying and learning their lesson using a system and they got all their assessment and homework by this
system.
To be more specific, i-Learn in UiTM uses mixed method between component of learning care and face to
face teaching method. I-Learn is not just on study, but the lecturers also can use it to communicate with their
students. While the student use i-Learn to finish up their assessment, they also can use IT or Internet to do a
research. Benefits of using i-Learn include flexibility in terms of time and location. Meaning that, it doesn’t
require the lecturers to meet their student because it can be done anywhere as long as they have internet
access in campus area. Thus, it will save time.
Despite the benefits of using the Internet in the classroom, the current understanding of the adoption diffusion
of this technology is still limited. In reviewing the current literature, the following gaps were found; firstly,
much of the literature focuses on the adoption decision of the internet among firms. Besides that, by using i-
Learn system, the lessons give by lecturers not only limited in the classroom.
In this report, we would like to find out the factors that affect students’ performance in UiTM Segamat, Johor.
The main measurement is based on their quizzes that implemented in two ways. The first way is quiz
conducted manually which is the lecturer prepared the quiz and asked students to answer the quiz during
tutorial hour in class. Electronically, the second quiz is conducted via i-Learn system which is the lecturer
prepared the questions and asked students to answer the quiz. For this time, students are giving 5 days to
answer the questions and they are free to answer anytime (during the time given) and anywhere (in campus
area).
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
UiTM introduced i-Learn system because to help all the assessment and lesson given by lecturers will
delivered to the students smoothly and make them easier to get all the lessons and assessment without actually
meet face-to-face.
The main purpose of conducting the assessment was to determine whether the students can adopt themselves
with the facility and technology provided for them. Based on the pilot study done by reseachers to identify the
problem faced by students, there are few problems and contraints in implementing the system fully.
The main reason is the student does’t fuly utilize this system and they don’t use it frequently. Meaning that,
student don’t access this site frequently because not all lecturers use i-Learn to pass all the quizzes and
assignments. That’s why most of them don’t even know how to use i-Learn effectively.
Besides that, the other problem is degree of complexity in utilizing the i-Learn system. Meaning that, the
system was too complex and hard for lecturer and students to use. The server also always busy and it take
quite a time to access and open the page. UiTM also don’t create a campaign or coursess to teach students and
lecturers to properly use i-Learn.
i-Learn should not necessarily be used to replace classroom training as it is not suitable for everything. They
need to make sure that the learning needs drive the technology rather than the other way round, and the
technology itself can pose a multitude of problems. This is because to transfer the knowledge and information
with i-Learn is very efficient. However, if want to teach someone for application or practical, the experience
of the work is more important.
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study is to identify the factors affecting the usage of i-Learn in UiTM towards students’
performance. This study also investigates the dominant factors affecting the usage of i-Learn towards
students’ performance.
This study also would provide benefit to lecturer and management to understand the factors that affect the
usage i-Learn in UiTM. Through this study, we could also recommend to the organization to prepare a
suitable training program for ensuring the successful of the implementation of i-Learn in UiTM.
1.3 SCOPE OF RESEARCH
The scope of this research is focusing to Part 1, Diploma students in UiTM Segamat, Johor, Malaysia. They
come from various programme which is from Faculty of Business Management, Faculty of Accountancy and
Faculty of Information System.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Challenges to use of technological tools in the study were carried out since the 1990s. However, studies the
use of technology in the education system began 10 years ago. There is substantial evidence of discrepancies
in benefit from the technology acquired according to users and it has caused many problems in society
(Turner, S. and Turner, P., 2007). In addition, Ettinger, A. et al (2006) believe that the use of e-learning may
cause a lot of problems. They felt that e-learning should not be used to replace classroom learning. But its use
depends to the conditions and requirements. Furthermore, learning should be driven by technology and not
vice versa. If it happens, many problems will arise, especially in the time. Ebru, K. et al (2009) conducted a
study of 511 students at a college in the United State to identify the factors that influence students'
perceptions of e-learning. The study found that students did not choose to use this method. This likely occurs
because of the lack of guidelines for them and less emphasis from the administration. In addition, they also
think that learning in the classroom give more positive impact than e-learning. They are also more dependent
on visual and audio methods with a clear explanation.
According to the statements above, researchers interested in studying the factors that influence the
performance of students regarding i-Learn at UiTM Johor. In line with developments in technology today,
UiTM are not left to implement i-Learn system to all students. Admitting there is a positive impact on student
achievement, researchers have conducted a pilot study of 20 students to get a rough picture and response of
the system in UiTM. Focus of this study only on two factors, namely technology and students characteristics.
They choose not to use i-Learn because of the difficulty of access and lack of awareness of this system.
Although the initial response to the implementation of these system look like negative, but researchers believe
the results of the survey will provide a more positive impact. Based on some previous studies related to the
implementation of e-learning, it shows that it actually helps learning. A study conducted by Hafizah
Mohamad Hsbollah and Kamil Md. Idris (2009) on 244 respondents found that there was a positive
correlation between awareness of the benefits e-learning with the implementation of the system on an
individual. Increase in Internet and computer technology today has enabled a learning process implemented in
a more cost-effective. A case study carried out by Rentroia-Bonito, M.A. et al (2006) on a group of students
using e-learning methods called Virtual Learning Environment, which combines video and interactive web
site. The study found that there is a consistent and efficient communication among students.
Ng, W. and Nicholas, H. (2010) found that students who use online, interact differently depending on the type
of task assigned to them. Seven out of ten students successfully completed the assignment on time. The study
was conducted by Jennifer, I. et al (2009) to describe the new features of e-learning, improve the quality of e-
learning and the quality of student learning is assisted by the expertise of academic staff. Results of their
study, they found that, there are few of additional features to improve quality at the university level where
academic staffs play a key role. Johnson, R.D. et al (2009) explains that the age factor and technological
capabilities affecting performance. It also directly affects user satisfaction.
E-Leaning offer distance learning via the Internet, providing opportunities to students through interactive
learning experiences and effective. Through e-learning, distance learning partners will be able to learn much
knowledge, share information and get as many details about the courses more quickly (Guha, A.S. and Maji,
S., 2008). In line with the implementation of i-Learn and Blended Learning in UiTM, researchers hope this
study will provide benefits and ideas to the decision makers and the national education body.
A study done by Arani (2001) mentioned that computers have made a dramatic impact to our society,
particularly in the field of education. According to Ertmer et al. (1994), successful computer experiences
prepare students to participate effectively in a computer-dominated society. So, that, computer knowledge and
attitudes also play an important role in making educations system more effectively. Attitudes towards
computer technologies are associated with a concept known as computer self-efficacy (Delcourt and Kenzie,
1993).
In furthermore, the concept of self-efficacy was introduced by Bandura (1977) at the first time. According to
the writer, self-efficacy can be defined as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute
course of action required to attain designated types of performances. It is concerned not with the skills one
has but with judgments of what one can do with whatever skills one possesses”. The researcher also added
that “to beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources and courses of action
needed to meet situational demands”. As a conclusion, it can be say that self-efficacy influenced people’s
decisions, goals, their amount of effort in conducting a task, and the length of time they would persevere
through obstacles and difficulties.
However, a study done by Wallace (1999) found that four factors that influenced the development of
computer self-efficacy. These factors were computer anxiety, computer confidence, computer liking and
computer knowledge. He reported that computing students expressed low levels of computer anxiety, and
higher levels of computer knowledge, computer liking and computer confidence in comparison with
education students.
Self-efficacy beliefs are a main factor in someone’s decision making process. A main source of self-efficacy
expectations is one’s own successful performance. If a student completes a task with more or less feedback,
she/he develops positive expectations to handle new and unknown situations or problems.
2.1 FRAMEWORK
Independent Variables Dependent Variable
Factors Affecting The Usage

Of I-Learn
Technology Characteristics
Students’ Performance
1. Accessibility
2. Reliability The Marks Obtained
Students Characteristics Quiz via i-Learn
1. Self-efficacy
2. Motivation
Figure 2.1: Framework
Figure 2.1 above shows the framework of the study. In the left side, its shows the independent variables
which is factor affecting the usage of i-Learn. There are two categories falled into this variables which is
technology characteristics (accessibility and reliability) and second category is student characteristic (self-
efficacy and motivation). Other than that, in the right side, its shows the dependent variable which is students’
performance. Their performance will be measured by the quiz conducted via i-Learn system.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
In this section, the researchers were discussed about the methodology that being used throughout this study.
This study implemented exploratory research whereby it is conducted to clarify ambiguous problems.
Exploratory studies provide information to use in analyzing a situation. Besides that, this research also being
analyze by quantitative method using Statistical Package for Science Social (SPSS) software.
Based on our research, the population is referring to the all students in UiTM Johor because, basically, all
students should have their access to i-Learn system. However, as a sample, the researcher took only Diploma
Part 1 students.
To obtain the data, the researchers used survey questionnaire and distributed to all respondents that involved
in this study. The survey questionnaires divided into 3 parts namely Part A for demographic factors of the
student. Part B for technology which focusing on accessibility and reliability. Part C for student
characteristics which focusing on self-awareness and motivation. In this study, we have try to synthesized
data from surveys carried out in UiTM Johor.
Respondents that involved in this study come from Part 1 Diploma Students. For the first session, the quiz
was conducted manually which is lecturer prepared the quiz and give it during lecture session. For the second
session, the lecturer prepared the quiz via i-Learn and asked the students to answer all the questions within 5
days. They being selected as respondents in this study because the course that they’re took is required to
conducted using i-Learn. Therefore, their performance will be referred to the marks obtained by them after
taking quizzes. Data taken in two ways, namely primary (questionnaire) and secondary data (journals and
articles). Basically, the data obtained through questionnaires and interviews.
Feedback from respondents on the items in the two instruments are measured using the Likert scale. Likert
scale used where the subject or respondent is required to mark their answers on the statement based on a scale
from one extreme to another extreme. This option is a measurement to indicate the degree of agreement and
opinion on the strength of the respondents. This scale helps to make the interpretation of the question
presented in order of increasing or decreasing.
Mean and percentages used to identify factors affecting the usage of i-Learn in UiTM towards students'
performance. Pearson correlation method used to determine the degree of correlation between the dependent
variable that represents technology characteristics and students characteristics. Besides that, the Regression
will used to determine the most dominant factor of this study. The data collected from samples analyzed by
using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS).
4.0 RESULT & DISCUSSION
In this section, the researchers will discuss the analysis of data and finding according to the study.
Table 4-1: Gender of Respondents
Gender Frequency Percentage (%)
Male 45 21.5
Female 164 78.5
Total 209 100.00
Based on Table 4-1, most of the respondents are female which are 164 respondents (78.5%) and male are 45
respondents (21.5%). Its shows that, female respondents are higher than male respondents are and it is tell us
male respondents are minimum uses in term of the i-Learn system. Yet, the researchers want to determine the
problems that faced by male students.
Table 4-2: Comparison of Mark Obtained By Students
As mentioned earlier, the respondents seated two types of quiz that are manual and using i-Learn system. The
comparison of the result shown at Table 4-2 above. As u can see, started from Grade A until A-, students
who took the test by using i-Learn performed better than the students who did the test manually. However,
started from Grade B+ until C, students who took the test manually performed better than the students who
did the test using i-Learn. Thus, there are few of them failed in both methods.
Table 4-3: Having Own Computer, Laptop or Others
Question Frequency Percentage (%)

21 10.0
Yes, but I do not access i-Learn
35 16.7
No, I do not own a laptop or computer
153 73.2
Yes, and I access i-Learn
209 100.0
Total
In this part, the researchers want to know about how many of the respondents having their own computer,
laptop, or others that can access the i-Learn. Based on the Table 4-3, it is shows that 153 respondents (73.2%)
having their own computer and can access the i-learn. Its followed by 35 respondents (16.7%) of them not
having the computer, laptop or others and only 21 respondents (10.0%) having the computer, laptop or others
but don’t access the system. So, we can say that most of the students do not have any difficulties in accessing
the system.
Table 4-4: Accessibility
Yes 109 52.2
No 100 47.8
Total 209 100.00
For this part, the researchers willing to know the degree of accessible of the system. According to Table 4-4
above, its shows that 109 respondents (52.2%) can easily access the system. Therefore, 100 of them (47.8%)
having a difficulties in accessing the system.
Table 4-5: Locations

25 12.0
On campus computer lab
140 67.0
Campus housing
12 5.7
Phone line connection through a modem at
home
22 10.5
High speed Internet connection at home
10 4.8
I do not access the Internet
209 100.0
Total
Next, this section is to know about the preferable locations that the respondents access the system. Table 4-5
above shows that majority of them which is 140 respondents (67.0%) using campus housing as their centre of
accessing the system. However, only 25 respondents (12.0%) and 22 respondents (10.5%) using campus
computer lab and high speed Internet connection at home accordingly. Therefore, we can say that most of the
UiTM students do not have any problems in accessing the system in terms of locations. They also know what
is i-Learn system and know how to access the system.
Table 4-6: Campus Computer
Yes 157 75.1
No 52 24.9
Total 209 100.00
Besides that, most of the students are prefer to use campus computer that provided by university. Table 4-6
above shows that 75.1% student used campus computer to access the I-Learn.
Table 4-7: Resource
Yes 149 71.3
No 60 28.7
Total 209 100.00
University plays an important role in order to ensure that the system is accessible and the resources are
provided by them. Most of students or 71.3% agree that the university already provided enough resources for
them in implementing and using the system.
Reliability
Table 4-8: Register Class
Yes 176 84.2
No 33 15.8
Total 209 100.00
Table 4-8 above shows the percentage of students that used the system during registration courses. Most of
them or 84.2% of the student uses a computer to register for classes and Table 4-9 below shows the
percentage of students that used the computer in completing their assignment. Basically, 93.3% of them used
the computer and only 6.7% not prefer use the computer for completing their assignment.
Table 4-9: Assignment
Yes 195 93.3
No 14 6.7
Total 209 100.00
Table 4-9 above shows that 195 respondents (93.3%) using the i-Learn in completing their assignment.
Table 4-10: i-Learn
Yes 197 94.3
No 12 5.7
Total 209 100.00
Based on the total respondents, 94.3% of them preferred to use the I-learn system during class and do the test.
It is on Table 4-10 above.
Table 4-11: Class

2 1.9
0 classes
95 45.5
1 - 2 classes
87 41.6
3 - 5 classes
16 7.7
More than 5 classes
9 4.3
I do not know
209 100.0
Total
Most of them admitted that only 1 – 2 classes are implementing the i-Learn during class. Table 4-11 above
shows that 45.5% of their classes is using I-learn.
Students Characteristics
Self-efficacy
Table 4-12: Self-efficacy

108 51.7
I know how to access the i-Learn
101 48.3
I satisfied using i-learn
113 54.1
Difficulties
107 51.2
Anytime
109 52.2
Anywhere
Table 4-12 above shows 51.7% of students have moderate knowledge about the I-learn. Besides that, 48.3%
of them are satisfied with the system and 54.1% do not have any difficulties using i-learn. The students feel
confident that they can access the system anytime (51.2%) and anywhere (52.2%).
Motivation
Table 4-13: Motivation

86 41.1
i-Learn help me
105 50.2
Study easier
106 50.7
Good grade
110 52.6
Overall overage
Table 4-13 shows 41.1% of student belief that I-learn would help them in their study, 50.2% feel confident
that I-learn would make their study easier than other methods, 52.2% confident that using i-learn can help
them to get a good grade, 52.6% confident that i-learn will affect their overall average.
The data collected from samples analyzed by using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSSS).
Descriptive statistic is used to see the cross tabulation and to measure the demographic information about the
respondents. Pearson correlation used to identify the relationship between independent variable (technology
characteristics, student characteristics) towards dependent variable (student performance) and regression
analyses were carried out to examine the dominant factor influencing transfer of training.
Guilford’s Rule of Thumb used to analyze the strength relationship between trainee characteristics and
organizational factor towards transfer of training.
Correlation Interpretation
0.91-1.00 Very strength correlation
0.70-0.90 Strength correlation
0.50-0.70 Medium correlation
0.30-0.50 Low correlation
0.01-0.30 Weak correlation
0.00 No correlation
Figure 3.2 : Guliford, J.P and Fruncther, B (1973), “Fundamental Statistic In Psychology and
Education”. New York: Mc Graw Hill
4.0 RESULT & DISCUSSION
Table 4-1: Relationship between Technology Characteristics towards Students Performance

Student Students Technology
Performance Performance Characteristics
Students Pearson 1 .426(**)

Performance Correlation .000
Sig. (2- 209 209
tailed)
N
Technology Pearson .426(**) 1
Characteristics Correlation .000
Sig. (2 209 209
tailed)
N
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table 4.2: Relationship between Student Characteristics towards Students Performance

Student Student Student
Performance Performance Characteristics
Student Pearson 1 .378 (**)
Performance Correlation .000
Sig. (2- 209 209
tailed)
N
Student Pearson .378(**) 1
Characteristics Correlation .000
Sig. (2 209 209
tailed)
N
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table 4.3: Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted Std. Error of

R Square the Estimate
1 .441(a) .194 .162 .29662
Predictors: (Constant), Technology characteristics and students’ characteristics
Based on the analysis, there is a relationship between technology characteristic towards student performance,
which the value for Pearson correlation is 0.426 and there is also a relationship between the student
characteristics towards student performance which is 0.378.
Table 4.3 shows the expected relationships confirmed by technology characteristics and student
characteristics factors towards student performance but the strength is between independent variable and
dependent variable is low. This is support based on study by Baldwin and Ford (1988), Ford and Weissbein
(1997) Noe and Ford (1992) which they have found that the effects of individual’ factor such as trainee
ability, personality and motivation have an impact toward training effectiveness. Other study by Noe and
Schimitt (1986) found that trainees’ motivation and working environment have an impact towards training.
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.975 .326 6.058 .000
Self efficacy .047 .101 .047 .464 .643
motivation .042 .071 .075 .589 .557
accessibility .047 .063 .084 .737 .462
reliability .118 .087 .161 1.354 .178
a Dependent Variable: transfer of training
Figure 4-3: Dominant Factor Influencing Student Performance
Based on the Figure 4-3, the dominant factor influencing student performance is self-efficacy, 0.643,
followed by motivation that is 0.557 and accessibility that is 0.462.
This study demonstrated that the self-efficacy, motivation, accessibility and reliability positively related to
student performance. Among the four sub-dimensions factors, only student characteristic shows the dominant
impact on student performance. Possibly, due to the beliefs of participants used in this study, the student
characteristic is the main important point to be considered. This is mainly because the student self-efficacy
and motivation tend to use I-learn and it will influence student performance.
5.0 CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Since University Technology MARA have high technology of internet known as i-Learn portal and all
student study and learning their lesson using a system and they got all their assessment and homework by
using i-Learn and benefits of using i-Learn include flexibility in terms of time and location. Meaning that it
doesn’t require the lecturers to meet their students because it is done anywhere as long as they have internet
access.
The findings of this study provide the information that most of the student known about the system and use it
and the result shows those students who take the test by using I-Learn performed better (88%) than the
student who did the test manually (4%) that is not using I-Learn. The result show that technology and
student’s characteristics affecting the usage of i-Learn in UiTM towards students’ performance.
Based on the result we highly recommended that the university must make a lot of campaign in order to
encourage student to use the system. For example, they can make a contest like most of student who access
into the system will win a prizes or other remuneration. It is because there is much so much information in
the system that student can use in their studies. Moreover, UiTM management must also promote the student
to use i-learn system form the first time they coming here. It is because if they have been exposed with the
system from first semester, it will be their habit afterwards and they will use the system regularly.
Lecturers also must play their roles in order to encourage student to use the system to enhance their
performance. It is because we are noticed that most of lecturers don’t use the system in their lesson. When
students want to find the information about the subject related, they only got a few and less information in it.
Thus they won’t use the system again. We are recommending lecturers to use this system because the lesson
won’t stop in the class only. Lecturers can continues the lesson in the i-learn. For example, they can give a
quizzes or subject information in it and student can open it anywhere anytime.
6.0 REFERENCES
Alcock, M. (2007). Rapid E-Learning Software: What Should We Be Looking For? Emerald Group
Publishing Limited. Vol: 21 No. 6, 2007 pp. 15-17
Chen, L. et al (2009). Distance Education in China. The Current State of E-Learning. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited. Vol: 26 No. 2, 2009 pp. 82-89
Ebru, K. et al (2009). An Analysis of Factors Affecting Community College Students’ Expectations on E-

Learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Vol: 10 (4), 2009. pp. 351-361
Eke, H.N. (2010). The Perspective of E-Learning and Libraries in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities.
Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Vol: 59 No. 4, 2010 pp. 274-290
Ettinger, A. et al (2006). E-Learner Experiences: Key Questions to Ask When Considering Implementing e-
Learning. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Vol:38 No. 3, 2006 pp. 143-147
Guha, A.S. and Maji, S., (2008). E-Learning: The Latest Spectrum in Open and Distance Learning. Emerald
Group Publishing Limited. Vol:4 No. 3, 2008 pp. 297-305
Hafizah Mohamad Hsbollah and Kamil Md. Idris (2009). E-Learning Adoption: The Role of Relative
Advantages, Trialability and Academic Specialisation. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Vol:26 No. 1,
2009 pp. 54-70
Jennifer, I. et al (2009). Developing Quality in E-Learning: A Framework in Three Parts. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited. Vol:26 No. 1, 2009 pp. 54-70
Johnson, R.D. et al (2009). Technology, Trainees, Metacognitive Activity and E-Learning Effectiveness.
Journal of Managerial Psychology. Emerald Group Publishing Limited Vol. 24 No. 6, 2009 pp: 545-566
Macgregor, G. and Turner, J. (2009). Revisiting E-Learning Effectiveness: Proposing a Conceptual Model.
Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Vol: 6 No. 3, 2009 pp. 156-172
Ng, W. and Nicholas, H. (2010). A Progressive Pedagogy for Online Learning With High-Ability Secondary
School Students: A Case Study. The Gifted Child Quarterly: Summer 2010; 54, 3; ProQuest Education
Journals pp. 239
Rentroia-Bonito, M.A. et al (2006). An Integrated Evaluation Method for E-Learning: A Case Study.
Interactive Technology & Smart Education (2006) 1: 59-68
Siqueira, S.W.M et al (2007). Modeling E-Learning Content. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Vol: 3 No.
1/2, 2007 pp. 140-152
Turner, S. and Turner, P., (2007). Familiar Problem Re-Visited: The Cooperative Aspects of An E-Learning
Environment. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Interactive Technology & Smart Education (2007) 91-99
Vol: 4 No.2 May 2007.

Example of Research Proposal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Example of Research Proposal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC

2950 RESEARCH ( 3rd ICBER 2012 ) PROCEEDING

FACTORS THAT AFFECT STUDENT PERFORMANCE:

Mariam binti Setapa

Faculty of Business Management

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1.3 SCOPE OF RESEARCH

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Factors Affecting The Usage

Students Characteristics Quiz via i-Learn

Figure 2.1: Framework

4.0 RESULT & DISCUSSION

Table 4-1: Gender of Respondents

Gender Frequency Percentage (%)

Female 164 78.5

Total 209 100.00

Table 4-2: Comparison of Mark Obtained By Students

Table 4-3: Having Own Computer, Laptop or Others

Question Frequency Percentage (%)

Table 4-4: Accessibility

Question Frequency Percentage (%)

Yes 109 52.2

Total 209 100.00

Table 4-5: Locations

Question Frequency Percentage (%)

Table 4-6: Campus Computer

Question Frequency Percentage (%)

Yes 157 75.1

Total 209 100.00

Table 4-7: Resource

Question Frequency Percentage (%)

Yes 149 71.3

Total 209 100.00

Table 4-8: Register Class

Question Frequency Percentage (%)

Yes 176 84.2

Total 209 100.00

Table 4-9: Assignment

Question Frequency Percentage (%)

Yes 195 93.3

Total 209 100.00

Table 4-10: i-Learn

Question Frequency Percentage (%)

Yes 197 94.3

Total 209 100.00

Table 4-11: Class

Question Frequency Percentage (%)

Table 4-12: Self-efficacy

Question Frequency Percentage (%)

Table 4-13: Motivation

Question Frequency Percentage (%)

0.91-1.00 Very strength correlation

0.70-0.90 Strength correlation

0.50-0.70 Medium correlation

0.30-0.50 Low correlation

0.01-0.30 Weak correlation

4.0 RESULT & DISCUSSION

Table 4-1: Relationship between Technology Characteristics towards Students Performance

Students Pearson 1 .426(**)

Table 4.2: Relationship between Student Characteristics towards Students Performance

Table 4.3: Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted Std. Error of