IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i10p4071-d358799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Hierarchical Model to Evaluate the Quality of Web-Based E-Learning Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Abdul Hafeez Muhammad

    (Department of Computer Sciences, Bahria University Lahore Campus, Punjab 54600, Pakistan)

  • Ansar Siddique

    (Department of Software Engineering, University of Gujrat, Punjab 50700, Pakistan)

  • Ahmed E. Youssef

    (College of Computer and Information Sciences (CCIS), King Saud University, Riyadh 11653, Saudi Arabia
    Department of Computers and Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering at Helwan, Helwan University, Cairo 11795, Egypt)

  • Kashif Saleem

    (Center of Excellence in Information Assurance (CoEIA), King Saud University, Riyadh 12372, Saudi Arabia)

  • Basit Shahzad

    (Department of Software Engineering, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan)

  • Adnan Akram

    (Department of Computer Sciences, Bahria University Lahore Campus, Punjab 54600, Pakistan)

  • Al-Batool Saleh Al-Thnian

    (College of Computer and Information Sciences (CCIS), King Saud University, Riyadh 11653, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

The rapid growth of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)—specifically, the Internet—has given emergence to e-learning. Resultantly, web-based e-learning systems are being increasingly developed to enhance the learning process. However, the utilization of such systems is low, mainly owing to poor quality content and overall design problems. To improve usage, it is imperative to identify the factors with the most significant impact on the quality of these systems so that the e-learning industry keeps these factors in consideration while developing e-learning systems. This study focused on the identification and prioritization of factors related to the design quality of e-learning systems through a hierarchical quality model. Thus, firstly, an extensive literature review was conducted to identify the factors that most affect the quality of web-based e-learning systems. Secondly, among the identified factors, only those with the most significant effect were considered. To identify the most important quality criteria, a survey was conducted. An instrument was deployed among 157 subjects, including e-learning designers, developers, students, teachers, and educational administrators. Finally, a second instrument was distributed among 51 participants to make a pairwise comparison among the criteria and rank them according to their relative importance. The identified and prioritized factors were classified into four main categories. Among these four factors, content was identified as the most important factor, whereas design was found to be the least important factor.

Suggested Citation

  • Abdul Hafeez Muhammad & Ansar Siddique & Ahmed E. Youssef & Kashif Saleem & Basit Shahzad & Adnan Akram & Al-Batool Saleh Al-Thnian, 2020. "A Hierarchical Model to Evaluate the Quality of Web-Based E-Learning Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:4071-:d:358799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4071/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4071/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Ying-Hueih & Hsu, I-Chieh & Lin, Chia-Chen, 2010. "Website attributes that increase consumer purchase intention: A conjoint analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(9-10), pages 1007-1014, September.
    2. Tse, Alan C. B. & Chan, Chi-Fai, 2004. "The Relationship between Interactive Functions and Website Ranking," Journal of Advertising Research, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(4), pages 369-374, December.
    3. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pham Ngoc Toan & Thanh-Tuan Dang & Le Thi Thu Hong, 2021. "E-Learning Platform Assessment and Selection Using Two-Stage Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach with Grey Theory: A Case Study in Vietnam," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(23), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Majid H. Alsulami & Mashael M. Khayyat & Omar I. Aboulola & Mohammed S. Alsaqer, 2021. "Development of an Approach to Evaluate Website Effectiveness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Dae-Ho Byun & Han-Na Yang & Dong-Seop Chung, 2020. "Evaluation of Mobile Applications Usability of Logistics in Life Startups," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martins, José & Costa, Catarina & Oliveira, Tiago & Gonçalves, Ramiro & Branco, Frederico, 2019. "How smartphone advertising influences consumers' purchase intention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 378-387.
    2. Sembada, Agung Y. & Koay, Kian Yeik, 2021. "How perceived behavioral control affects trust to purchase in social media stores," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 574-582.
    3. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Daniel Schatz & Rabih Bashroush, 0. "Economic valuation for information security investment: a systematic literature review," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-24.
    5. Sahar Validi & Arijit Bhattacharya & P. J. Byrne, 2020. "Sustainable distribution system design: a two-phase DoE-guided meta-heuristic solution approach for a three-echelon bi-objective AHP-integrated location-routing model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 290(1), pages 191-222, July.
    6. Chandratilake, S.R. & Dias, W.P.S., 2013. "Sustainability rating systems for buildings: Comparisons and correlations," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 22-28.
    7. Certa, Antonella & Hopps, Fabrizio & Inghilleri, Roberta & La Fata, Concetta Manuela, 2017. "A Dempster-Shafer Theory-based approach to the Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) under epistemic uncertainty: application to the propulsion system of a fishing vessel," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 69-79.
    8. Bertomeu, M. & Romero, C., 2001. "Managing forest biodiversity: a zero-one goal programming approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 197-213, June.
    9. Hyunjin Lim & Sunkuk Kim & Yonggu Kim & Seunghyun Son, 2021. "Relative Importance Analysis of Safety Climate Evaluation Factors Using Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-14, April.
    10. Wann-Yih Wu & Phan Thi Phu Quyen & Adriana A. Amaya Rivas, 2017. "How e-servicescapes affect customer online shopping intention: the moderating effects of gender and online purchasing experience," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 689-715, August.
    11. Ormerod, R.J., 2014. "Critical rationalism in practice: Strategies to manage subjectivity in OR investigations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 784-797.
    12. Carayannis, Elias G. & Goletsis, Yorgos & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2018. "Composite innovation metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 4-17.
    13. Sunita Guru & Jitendra Nenavani & Vipul Patel & Nityesh Bhatt, 2020. "Ranking of perceived risks in online shopping," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 47(2), pages 137-152, June.
    14. Rimvydas Labanauskis & Aurelija Kasparavičiūtė & Vida Davidavičienė & Dovilė Deltuvienė, 2018. "Towards quality assurance of the study process using the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(2), pages 799-819, December.
    15. Yusuf Ersoy & Ali Tehci, 2023. "Relationship marketing orientation in healthcare organisations with the AHP method," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 33(1), pages 35-45.
    16. Ali Yalcin & Fikri Bulut, 2007. "Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS and digital photogrammetric techniques: a case study from Ardesen (NE-Turkey)," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 41(1), pages 201-226, April.
    17. Dianfa Wu & Zhiping Yang & Ningling Wang & Chengzhou Li & Yongping Yang, 2018. "An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model and AHP Weighting Uncertainty Analysis for Sustainability Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Units," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-27, May.
    18. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    19. Mirza Sikalo & Almira Arnaut-Berilo & Adela Delalic, 2023. "A Combined AHP-PROMETHEE Approach for Portfolio Performance Comparison," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, March.
    20. Daji Ergu & Gang Kou, 2012. "Questionnaire design improvement and missing item scores estimation for rapid and efficient decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 5-23, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:4071-:d:358799. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.