| Literature DB >> 32836471 |
Arfan Shahzad1, Rohail Hassan1, Adejare Yusuff Aremu1, Arsalan Hussain1, Rab Nawaz Lodhi2.
Abstract
In response to the emerging and ever solution to the COVID-19 outbreak. This study proposes a theoretical framework based on literature and model to determined E-learning portal success. The study compared males and females to E-learning portal usage. The study objective is to check the difference between male and female E-learning portals' accessibility among the students' perspective. The study included service quality, system quality, information quality, user satisfaction, system use, and E-learning portal success. The empirical data of 280 students participated from the different universities of Malaysia through google surveys analyzed using the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling. The study further divided the full model into two domains, which are female and male. In the male model, information quality and system quality have direct relationships with user satisfaction. Information quality also supported the relationship with system use. At the same time, there is a positive relationship between user satisfaction and E-learning portals. Likewise, in the female model, E-service quality and Information quality both are supported by system use and user satisfaction. Similarly, system quality has a positive relationship with user satisfaction, and user satisfaction has a positive relationship with E-learning portals. The study will be further helpful for the Malaysian universities policy-makers such as top management, ministry of higher education, Malaysian universities union in designing the policies and programs on E-learning Portal Success in the country. The findings of the study reveal that males and females have a different level of in terms of usage of towards E-learning portals in Malaysian Universities. © Springer Nature B.V. 2020.Entities:
Keywords: E-learning portal; Gender; Higher education institution; Information quality; System quality
Year: 2020 PMID: 32836471 PMCID: PMC7402545 DOI: 10.1007/s11135-020-01028-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Qual Quant ISSN: 0033-5177
Fig. 1Updated DeLone and McLean IS Success Model (D&MISSM)
Source: Delone and McLean (2003)
Fig. 2The research Framework of the present study
Student Participated in the Survey based on the Program enrolled
| Program enrolled | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Postgraduate | 68 | 24.2 |
| Undergraduate | 212 | 75.7 |
| Total | 280 | 100 |
Demographic Profile of Respondents (N = 280)
| Demographics respondents percentage (%) | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 90 | 32.1 |
| Female | 190 | 67.9 |
| Less than 20 years | 18 | 6.4 |
| 21-30 years | 212 | 75.7 |
| 31-40 Years | 36 | 12.9 |
| More than 41 years | 14 | 5.0 |
| Less than 1 year | 30 | 10.7 |
| More than 1 to 2 years | 151 | 53.9 |
| More the 3 | 99 | 35.0 |
Assessment Result for the measurement model
| Assessment Result for the measurement model | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Construct/Associated Items | Loading | CR | AVE | ||||||
| Reflective | Full model | Female | Male | Full Model | Female | Male | Full Model | Female | Male |
| 0.968 | 0.969 | 0.963 | 0.883 | 0.888 | 0.868 | ||||
| ELP1 | 0.942 | 0.940 | 0.944 | ||||||
| ELP2 | 0.941 | 0.943 | 0.935 | ||||||
| ELP3 | 0.943 | 0.942 | 0.942 | ||||||
| ELP4 | 0.932 | 0.943 | 0.906 | ||||||
| 0.954 | 0.947 | 0.966 | 0.776 | 0.749 | 0.826 | ||||
| ESQ1 | 0.885 | 0.880 | 0.895 | ||||||
| ESQ2 | 0.886 | 0.879 | 0.901 | ||||||
| ESQ3 | 0.867 | 0.854 | 0.892 | ||||||
| ESQ4 | 0.885 | 0.869 | 0.916 | ||||||
| ESQ7 | 0.871 | 0.844 | 0.911 | ||||||
| ESQ8 | 0.892 | 0.866 | 0.937 | ||||||
| 0.945 | 0.948 | 0.942 | 0.812 | 0.821 | 0.801 | ||||
| IQ1 | 0.891 | 0.892 | 0.894 | ||||||
| IQ3 | 0.895 | 0.916 | 0.862 | ||||||
| IQ4 | 0.916 | 0.913 | 0.919 | ||||||
| IQ5 | 0.903 | 0.903 | 0.904 | ||||||
| 0.949 | 0.949 | 0.951 | 0.789 | 0.787 | 0.796 | ||||
| SQ1 | 0.865 | 0.853 | 0.889 | ||||||
| SQ2 | 0.918 | 0.919 | 0.914 | ||||||
| SQ3 | 0.892 | 0.888 | 0.896 | ||||||
| SQ4 | 0.887 | 0.890 | 0.888 | ||||||
| SQ5 | 0.879 | 0.883 | 0.874 | ||||||
| 0.851 | 0.848 | 0.856 | 0.662 | 0.658 | 0.667 | ||||
| SU1 | 0.910 | 0.924 | 0.872 | ||||||
| SU2 | 0.884 | 0.887 | 0.875 | ||||||
| SU3 | 0.614 | 0.577 | 0.689 | ||||||
| 0.951 | 0.945 | 0.962 | 0.830 | 0.810 | 0.864 | ||||
| USAT1 | 0.905 | 0.877 | 0.945 | ||||||
| USAT2 | 0.907 | 0.898 | 0.919 | ||||||
| USAT3 | 0.896 | 0.892 | 0.905 | ||||||
| USAT4 | 0.937 | 0.931 | 0.949 | ||||||
Fig. 3Full Measurement Model
Fig. 4Female measurement Model
Fig. 5Male measurement Model
Discriminant Validity full model
| E Service Quality | E-Learning Portal Success | Information Quality | System Quality | System USE_ | User Satisfaction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E Service Quality | ||||||
| E-Learning Portal Success | 0.663 | |||||
| Information Quality | 0.817 | 0.658 | ||||
| System Quality | 0.777 | 0.704 | 0.772 | |||
| System USE_ | 0.595 | 0.484 | 0.625 | 0.540 | ||
| User Satisfaction | 0.858 | 0.720 | 0.857 | 0.797 | 0.655 |
The bolded diagonal shown in Table 4 represent the square route of average whilst those of the diagonal represent latent variable correlations
Measurement invariance test using MICOM
| Composite | C value (= 1) | 95% confidence | Compositional invariance |
|---|---|---|---|
| E Service Quality | 1.000 | [1.000, 1.000] | Yes |
| E-Learning Portal Sucess | 1.000 | [1.000, 1.000] | Yes |
| Information Quality | 1.000 | [1.000, 1.000] | Yes |
| System Quality | 1.000 | [0.999, 1.000] | Yes |
| System USE_ | 0.992 | [0.996, 1.000] | Yes |
| User Satisfaction | 1.000 | [1.000, 1.000] | Yes |
Assessment of group differences
| Path Coefficients Original (Female) | Path Coefficients Original (Male) | t-Value (Female) | t-Value (Male) | Path coefficient differences | Supported | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E Service Quality → System USE_ | 0.285** | 0.165 | 2.253 | 1.090 | 0.120 | 0.268 | 0.284 | 0.271 | No/no |
| E Service Quality → User Satisfaction | 0.503*** | 0.204 | 6.925 | 1.608 | 0.298 | 0.029 | 0.015 | 0.022 | Yes/yes |
| Information Quality → System USE_ | 0.388*** | 0.354** | 3.337 | 2.381 | 0.034 | 0.431 | 0.431 | 0.428 | No/no |
| Information Quality → User Satisfaction | 0.287*** | 0.551*** | 3.700 | 5.171 | − 0.264 | 0.031 | 0.025 | 0.023 | Yes/yes |
| System Quality → System USE_ | 0.063 | 0.074 | 0.662 | 0.413 | − 0.011 | 0.487 | 0.477 | 0.479 | No/no |
| System Quality → User Satisfaction | 0.181** | 0.220** | 2.997 | 2.127 | − 0.038 | 0.383 | 0.368 | 0.375 | No/no |
| System USE_ → E-Learning Portal Success | 0.008 | 0.017 | 0.099 | 0.192 | − 0.010 | 0.476 | 0.471 | 0.468 | No/no |
| User Satisfaction → E-Learning Portal Success | 0.701*** | 0.744*** | 10.429 | 9.783 | − 0.043 | 0.318 | 0.348 | 0.335 | No/no |
Comparison Analysis
| Relationship | Full Model Result | Decision | Female | Decision | Male | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E Service Quality → System USE_ | 0.229 ** | Supported | 0.285** | Supported | 0.165 | Not Supported |
| E Service Quality → User Satisfaction | 0.389*** | Supported | 0.503*** | Supported | 0.204 | Not Supported |
| Information Quality → System USE_ | 0.392*** | Supported | 0.388*** | Supported | 0.354** | Supported |
| Information Quality → User Satisfaction | 0.388*** | Supported | 0.287*** | Supported | 0.551*** | Supported |
| System Quality → System USE_ | 0.074 | Not Supported | 0.063 | Not Supported | 0.074 | Not Supported |
| System Quality → User Satisfaction | 0.194** | Supported | 0.181** | Supported | 0.220** | Supported |
| System USE_ → E-Learning Portal Success | 0.023 | Not Supported | 0.008 | Not Supported | 0.017 | Not Supported |
| User Satisfaction → E-Learning Portal Success | 0.705*** | Supported | 0.701*** | Supported | 0.744*** | Supported |
p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01***
Fig. 6Structure model
Fig. 7Female Structure model
Fig. 8Male Structure model