MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032917702 · doi:10.1504/ijmie.2020.10029784

Factors that influence e-learning adoption by international students in Canada

2020· article· en· W3032917702 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amy Wong, Sarvananthan Jeganathan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Management in Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)UsabilityPsychologyAffect (linguistics)PerceptionHigher educationOrder (exchange)Medical educationApplied psychologyKnowledge managementComputer scienceBusinessPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the global higher education sector is increasingly adopting technology enhanced learning as part of the drive towards innovation in teaching and learning. In order to design and implement a successful e-learning environment, educational providers need to understand students' perceptions of e-learning. This pilot study examines the factors that affect students' intentions to adopt e-learning, namely individual user differences, perceived ease of use, perceived flexibility of use and student satisfaction. Data were collected from 151 international students studying in a Canadian public college via an online questionnaire. Multiple regression analyses revealed that the best predictor of student satisfaction was perceived ease of use, while the best predictor of intention to adopt was perceived flexibility of use. An examination of individual user differences such as gender, age, education, frequency of use and previous e-learning experience revealed that only frequency of use emerged as a predictor of intention to adopt e-learning. The findings provide important insights for colleges and higher educational institutions that are interested in the design and delivery of e-learning courses that would lead to student satisfaction and higher e-learning adoption rates. Further discussion and implications are provided.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Management in EducationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207