IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Analysis of Emerging Barriers for e-Learning Models: An Empirical Study

Listed author(s):
  • Nuria Calvo
  • Paolo Rungo

The diffusion of the e-learning model during the last decade has contributed to solve many problems concerned with education at the workplace. Technological progress has significantly contributed to eliminating most limitations of the traditional education model, through improved access, diffusion of information, and the adaptation to individual needs. However, e-learning is an instrument, which does not ensure the automatic achievement of intended goals. Some studies have demonstrated that the mere conversion of course materials into an e-learning course may reduce motivation and thus, the level of effective learning. In addition, appropriate design of course materials for e-learning programs might not be sufficient to achieve optimal results. In order to maximize the benefits of implementing an e-learning program, it is if fact necessary to take into account organizational issues, such as the existence of incentives, the distribution of time for learning at the workplace, or the management system being used, for example. This paper analyzes some organizational features, which are linked to learning in organizations and might help to better explain success of an e-learning program. In particular, we attempt to assess the impact of both incentives and the assignment of a specific period of time for education to personal satisfaction and the level of learning. To this end, we proposed a specific survey to users of e-learning courses at a consulting company, which includes questions about satisfaction, self-assessed learning and monetary or long-term (career) incentives, among others. The impact of different organizational characteristics on satisfaction and learning has been then estimated by a bivariate ordered probit model, which allows for considering both the nature of dependent variables and the possible correlation between equations. The analysis sheds light on key practical organizational features, which should be taken into account in order to improving results of e-learning programs The main goal of this analysis has been to provide evidences to support policies aimed to increase effectiveness of e-learning models. We have based on the e-learning experience of a consulting company, evaluating the effectiveness of this new model in terms of two variables: learning perceived and level of satisfaction of participants. In order to analyze the determinants of both learning and satisfaction, we collected data from participants of e-learning programs. We found out that self-assessed satisfaction and perceived learning are likely to be affected by the same set of variables. On considering these relationships, and the nature of available data, both a simultaneous bivariate ordered probit model and a simultaneous bivariate probit model have been used in order to assess the impact of different factors on both satisfaction and perceived learning.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by European Research Studies Journal in its journal European Research Studies Journal.

Volume (Year): XIII (2010)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 33-44

in new window

Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xiii:y:2010:i:4:p:33-44
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Dawson, Peter & Dobson, Stephen, 2010. "The influence of social pressure and nationality on individual decisions: Evidence from the behaviour of referees," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 181-191, April.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xiii:y:2010:i:4:p:33-44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marios Agiomavritis)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.