Quality parameterization of educational resources from the perspective of a teacher

Abstract

Objective assessment of the quality of available educational resources presupposes the existence of specific quality standards and specific evaluation tools which consider the specificities of digital products with educational ambitions. The study presents the results of research conducted on a representative sample of teachers who commented on issues related to the importance of measuring the quality of available educational resources and the hierarchy of the key characteristics of such devices. The research results clearly confirmed teachers' interest in knowing the quality of educational resources available and they requested a presentation of the resulting evaluation together with the methodological guidelines on a separate website. The teachers identified clearness, ease of use and adequacy of the educational content as the key and fundamental characteristics of such resources from a user perspective.

Towards integrating quality in theoretical models of acceptance: An extended proposed model applied to e‐learning services

“…In the e-learning environment, the teachers identified e-learning content as the key and fundamental characteristics of such resources from a user's perspective (Karolčík et al, 2017). In our research, we argue that 'quality' means the level of perceived intention use of LMS throughout the analysis of e-learning resources (content reliability, responsiveness and knowledge contribution) using the ServQual Model adapted (Ameen et al, 2019;Parasuraman et al, 1988).…”

“…Recent studies showed that technological factors such as perceived usefulness, ease of use, and social norms impact students' platform usage intent (Granić & Marangunić, 2019;Khechine et al, 2020;Scherer & Teo, 2019). Some studies explore the quality of materials and e-learning resources using methodological guidelines as an important factor for explaining LMS adoption from students' perspective (Karolčík et al, 2017;Naveh et al, 2010;Uppal et al, 2018).…”

“…Some studies use the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model for measuring students' intention of LMS use and adoption (Granić & Marangunić, 2019;Khechine et al, 2020;Nistor et al, 2014). Other studies on quality confirm that the availability of content and resources is the key and fundamental characteristics of satisfaction and retention from e-learning users' perspective (Chua & Lam, 2007;Karolčík et al, 2017;Uppal et al, 2018). This study expanded the UTAUT model with dimensions of technology acceptance and adoption including adapted dimensions (ServQual) of quality (Parasuraman et al, 1988;Uppal et al, 2018) understanding how students perceive quality and technology and how it influences their intentions of LMS use.…”

“…Our academic contribution explores this intersection, suggesting a new analytical and complementary dialogue between the theories of technology acceptance and use intention (Ajzen, 1991;Almaiah et al, 2019;Davis, 1989;Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977;Granić & Marangunić, 2019;Khechine et al, 2020;Moore & Benbasat, 1991;Unal & Uzun, 2020;Venkatesh et al, 2003Venkatesh et al, , 2012Venkatesh et al, , 2016 and of quality perception (Alsabawy et al, 2016;Ameen et al, 2019;Brady & Cronin Jr., 2001;Cronin Jr. & Taylor, 1992;Jiang et al, 2012;Karolčík et al, 2017;Loiacono et al, 2002;Parasuraman et al, 1988;Randheer, 2015;Uppal et al, 2018) for technological acceptance evaluation of projects developed in e-learning. It will also deal with theoretical concepts related to diffusion (Rogers, 1983), and to the acceptance of technological innovations in services (Brown et al, 2015;Davis, 1989;Davis et al, 1989;Venkatesh et al, 2003Venkatesh et al, , 2012, promoting the advancement of academic discussions.…”

“…It also contemplates a new construct related to the evaluation of the quality of a new project, representing a technological innovation. Some research highlights the importance of understanding technological acceptance in the areas of education (Attuquayefio & Addo, 2014;Brown et al, 2015;Karolčík et al, 2017;Uppal et al, 2018).…”