Advertisement

The Complexity of an E-Learning System: A Paradigm for the Human Factor

  • Adriana Schiopoiu Burlea
Chapter

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to investigate how an e-learning platform — TESYS — contributes to learning development activities. This chapter is aimed at contributing to the increase of the understanding of the influence of the information systems on building new learning perspectives for different categories of users. The results reveal that there are statistically significant differences regarding the ages of the persons considered in the research, but their expectations and needs referring to the e-learning platform seem to be the same. The real differences come from the difficulties of the individual use of the facilities offered by the information systems and from the human factor's level of involvement in the improvement of this system. Consequently, there are visible discrepancies in the use of the e-learning platform and these disparities are not only age - and sex - related but also related to the person's knowledge in the field.

Keywords

Human Factor Team Project Soft Skill Active Learning Strategy High Motivational Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Burdescu, D.D. and Mihaescu, C. (2006) TESYS: E-Learning Application Built on a Web Platform, International Conference on E-Business, Setubal, Portugal, pp. 315–319.Google Scholar
  2. Burlea Schiopoiu A. (2003) The Role of Strategic Intellectual Capital in the Management of Organizational Change, The Sixth International Symposium on Economic Informatics, Bucharest, pp.1088–1093.Google Scholar
  3. Horwath, A. (1999) Novice Users' Reaction to a Web-Enriched Classroom. Virtual University Journal, 2, 49–57.Google Scholar
  4. Galagan, P.A. (2000) E-Learning Revolution, Training and Development, 54(12), 25–30.Google Scholar
  5. Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. MacKenzie, D. and Wajcman, J. (1999) The Social Shaping of Technology, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 3–27.Google Scholar
  7. Orlikowski, W.J. and Iacono, C.S. (2001) Research commentary: desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research — a call to theorizing the IT artifact, Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pukkhem, N. and Vatanawood, W. (2005) Instructional Design Using Component-Based Development and Learning Object Classification. Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'05), pp. 492–494.Google Scholar
  9. Slaton, A. and Abbate, J. (2001) The Hidden Lives of Standards:Technical Prescriptions and the Transformation of Work in America, in Allen, M.T. et al. (Eds), Technologies of Power, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 95–144.Google Scholar
  10. Swanson, S. (2001) E-Learning Branches Out, Information Week, February, pp. 42–60.Google Scholar
  11. Varlamis, I. Apostolakis, I. and Karatza, M. (2005) A framework for monitoring the unsupervised educational process and adapting the content and activities to students' needs. WISE Workshops 2005, pp. 124–133.Google Scholar
  12. Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adriana Schiopoiu Burlea

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations