Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

E-learning system of UCOM for improving student assessment feedback in Oman higher education

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper focused on the improvement of student’s assessment feedback and learning satisfaction in the higher education institutions in Oman using the E-learning system of University Communication Model (UCOM). During the study, an E-learning model was conceptualized using coursework program instruction, testing academic performance, faculty experience, and assessment method as the determinants. The aim of this work is to develop a ‘University Communication (UCOM) model for improving the student’s assessment method and evaluating their academic performance. In the first phase of this study, a systematic review of the existing literature was carried out to determine the suitable quantitative and qualitative criteria of feature selection, like student satisfaction and degree of learning. The next phase involved the generation of an E-learning model for assessing the feedback and approval processes. The final step is the design of the evaluation forms that can measure the satisfaction of the technology and enhance the assessment method. In this study, surveys were distributed to the students of Al-Buraimi University College (BUC), Oman, to assess their level of satisfaction in using a UCOM model which served as a link between them and the University. The results were tested for accuracy, reliability, and validity using smart PLS. The findings of this paper assisted positively in four of the deployed factors and approved the capability of the developed model in improving student’s assessment feedback using E-learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, R. F., & Kim, H. (2017). Enhancing future K-8 teachers’ computational thinking skills through modeling and simulations. Education and Information Technologies, 1–14.

  • Adwan, J. (2016). Dynamic online peer evaluations to improve group assignments in nursing E-learning environment. Nurse Education Today, 41, 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al Rubaish, A., Wosornu, L., & Dwivedi, S. N. (2011). Using deductions from assessment studies towards furtherance of the academic program: An empirical appraisal of institutional student course evaluation. iBusiness, 3(02), 220–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkharusi, H. (2011). Psychometric properties of the teacher assessment literacy questionnaire for preservice teachers in Oman. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1614–1624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Mahrooqi, R., Abrar-Ul-Hassan, S., & Cofie, C. (2016). Analyzing the use of motivational strategies by EFL teachers in Oman. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 8(1), 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balfour, S. P. (2013). Assessing writing in MOOCs: Automated essay scoring and calibrated peer review (tm). Research & Practice in Assessment, 8.

  • Barak, M., & Levenberg, A. (2016). Flexible thinking in learning: An individual differences measure for learning in technology-enhanced environments. Computers & Education, 99, 39–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasco-Arcas, L., et al. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourke, T., Ryan, M., & Lloyd, M. (2016). The discursive positioning of graduating teachers in accreditation of teacher education programs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 53, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caputi, V., & Garrido, A. (2015). Student-oriented planning of E-learning contents for Moodle. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 53, 115–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, M., Bower, M., Moloney, R., & Sweller, N. (2014). The effect over time of a video-based reflection system on preservice teachers' oral presentations. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 39(6), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H.-J. (2010). Linking employees’ e-learning system use to their overall job outcomes: An empirical study based on the IS success model. Computers in Education, 55, 1628–1639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chmiel, A. S., Shaha, M., & Schneider, D. K. (2017). Introduction of blended learning in a master program: Developing an integrative mixed method evaluation framework. Nurse Education Today, 48, 172–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chróinín, D. N., Tormey, R., & O’Sullivan, M. (2012). Beginning teacher standards for physical education: Promoting a democratic ideal? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(1), 78–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Formanek, M., Wenger, M. C., Buxner, S. R., Impey, C. D., & Sonam, T. (2017). Insights about large-scale online peer assessment from an analysis of an astronomy MOOC. Computers & Education, 113, 243–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models withunobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, K. S., Miller, M. T., Swearingen, B., & Wood, N. (2014). An examination of the self-directed learning practices of ESL adult language learners. Journal of Adult Education, 43(2), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamidi, H., & Chavoshi, A. (2018). Analysis of the essential factors for the adoption of mobile learning in higher education: A case study of students of the University of Technology. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 1053–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, L., Zhang, J., & Liu, Y. (2017). Antecedents of student MOOC revisit intention: Moderation effect of course difficulty. International Journal of Information Management, 37(2), 84–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, D., & Wells, J. (2013). An inquiry into the effectiveness of student generated MCQs as a method of assessment to improve teaching and learning. Creative Education, 4(07), 117.

  • Ifinedo, P., Pyke, J., & Anwar, A. (2018). Business undergraduates’ perceived use outcomes of Moodle in a blended learning environment: The roles of usability factors and external support. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, A. N. (2016). E-learning system use and its outcomes: Moderating role of perceived compatibility. Telematics and Informatics, 33(1), 48–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jachin, N., & Usagawa, T. (2017). Potential impact of blended learning on teacher education in Mongolia. Creative Education, 8(09), 1481–1494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joo, Y. J., So, H. J., & Kim, N. H. (2018). Examination of relationships among students' self-determination, technology acceptance, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use K-MOOCs. Computers & Education, 122, 260–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaleta, R., Skibba, K., & Joosten, T. (2007). Discovering, designing, and delivering hybrid courses. Blended learning: Research perspectives, 111143.

  • Kori, K., Pedaste, M., Leijen, Ä., & Mäeots, M. (2014). Supporting reflection in technology-enhanced learning. Educational Research Review, 11, 45–55.

  • Kurnaz, F. B., Ergün, E., & Ilgaz, H. (2018). Participation in online discussion environments: Is it really effective? Education and Information Technologies, 1–18.

  • Laurillard D, University of London. Institute of Education. Digital technologies and their role in achieving our ambitions for education. University of London, Institute of Education; (2008).

  • Lee, C., Yeung, A. S., & Ip, T. (2017). University english language learners' readiness to use computer technology for self-directed learning. System, 67, 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, L. (2005). Evaluating online learning applications: Development of quality-related models. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 1(3), 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y. (2016). The path choice of the localization course of MOOC in Chinese colleges and universities in the view of the disputes behind the MOOC. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4(08), 54–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas, A., Heather, C., Do, C. T., Brandman, R., Koller, D., & Ng, A. (2014). Offering verified credentials in massive open online courses: MOOCs and technology to advance learning and learning research (ubiquity symposium). Ubiquity, 2014(May), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, J., Byun, C., Gadepally, V., Samsi, S., Reuther, A., & Kepner, J. (2017). Learning by doing, high performance computing education in the MOOC era. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 105, 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nawrot, I., & Doucet, A. (2014). Building engagement for MOOC students: introducing support for time management on online learning platforms. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1077–1082). ACM.

  • Olanipekun, S. S. (2015). Analysis of students’ academic performance in general English in Kwara state College of Education (tech.), Lafiagi, Nigeria. Open access. Library Journal, 2(07), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oproiu, G. C. (2015). A study about using E-learning platform (Moodle) in university teaching process. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 426–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posey, L., & Pintz, C. (2017). Transitioning a bachelor of science in nursing program to blended learning: Successes, challenges & outcomes. Nurse Education in Practice, 26, 126–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). Smart PLS 2.0 M3, University of Hamburg. '^'eds.'): Book Smart Pls, 2, M3.

  • Rostaminezhad, M. A., Porshafei, H., & Ahamdi, A. A. (2018). Can effective study approaches mediate the negative effect of social networking on academic performance? Education and Information Technologies, 1–13.

  • Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Surkes, M. A., Wade, C. A., & Woods, J. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih, M., Feng, J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Research and trends in the field of e-learning from 2001 to 2005: A content analysis of cognitive studies in selected journals. Computers in Education, 51(2), 955–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanjers, I. A., Könings, K. D., Leppink, J., Verstegen, D. M., de Jong, N., Czabanowska, K., & van Merrienboer, J. J. (2015). The promised land of blended learning: Quizzes as a moderator. Educational Research Review, 15, 59–74.

  • Tawafak, R. M., Mohammed, M. N., Arshah, R. B. A., & Romli, A. (2018). Review on the Effect of Student Learning Outcome and Teaching Technology in Omani's Higher Education Institution's Academic Accreditation Process. In Proceedings of the 2018 7th International Conference on Software and Computer Applications (pp. 243–247). ACM.

  • Tawafak, R. M., Mohammed, M. N., Arshah, R. B. A., Shakir, M., & Mezhuyev, V. (2018a). Technology enhancement learning reflection on improving students’ satisfaction in Omani universities. Advanced Science Letters, 24(10), 7751–7757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tawafak, R. M., Romli, A. B., bin Abdullah Arshah, R., & Almaroof, R. A. S. (2018b). Assessing the impact of technology learning and assessment method on academic performance. EURASIA journal of mathematics. Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2241–2254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernadakis, N., Giannousi, M., Tsitskari, E., Antoniou, P., & Kioumourtzoglou, S. (2012). Comparison of student satisfaction between traditional and blended technology course offerings in physical education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(1).

  • Walker, D. M. (2012). Classroom assessment techniques: An assessment and student evaluation method. Creative Education, 3(6A), 903–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilby, K. J., Zolezzi, M., Rachid, O., & El-Kadi, A. (2017). Development of a college-level assessment framework in line with international accreditation standards: A middle eastern perspective. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 9(1), 115–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadegaridehkordi, E., Shuib, L., Nilashi, M., & Asadi, S. (2018). Decision to adopt online collaborative learning tools in higher education: A case of top Malaysian universities. Education and Information Technologies, 1–24.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Systems and Software Engineering, University Malaysia Pahang, 26300, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia

    Ragad M. Tawafak & Awanis BT Romli

  2. Information Technology Department, AlBuraimi University College, Buraimi, Oman

    Ragad M. Tawafak & Maryam Alsinani

Authors
  1. Ragad M. Tawafak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Awanis BT Romli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maryam Alsinani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ragad M. Tawafak.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tawafak, R.M., Romli, A.B. & Alsinani, M. E-learning system of UCOM for improving student assessment feedback in Oman higher education. Educ Inf Technol 24, 1311–1335 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9833-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9833-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation