skip to main content
research-article

Investigating Essential Factors on Students' Perceived Accomplishment and Enjoyment and Intention to Learn in Web Development

Published:04 March 2015Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Web development is an important component in the curriculum of computer science and information systems areas. However, it is generally considered difficult to learn among students. In this study, we examined factors that could influence students' perceptions of accomplishment and enjoyment and their intention to learn in the web development course. Specifically, we investigated both student-related and instructor-related factors. A research model was developed. To empirically test the model and the hypotheses, the survey method was used and the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique was adopted for data analysis. Overall, the results indicated that both student-related factors (perceived web development efficacy and motivation) and instructor-related factors (instructor characteristics and teaching method) could significantly influence students' perceptions toward accomplishment and enjoyment and their intention to learn web development. We also summarized comments collected from students to gain a deeper understanding of their ideas toward learning web development techniques. We believe the research results can help provide better knowledge and insights to educators on teaching web development.

References

  1. H. M. S. Ahmed. 2010. Hybrid E-Learning acceptance model: Learner perceptions. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 8, 313--346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. A. Y. Akbulut and C. A. Looney. 2007. Inspiring students to pursue computing degrees. Communications of the ACM 50, 67--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. J. Asarta and J. R. Schmidt. 2013. Access patterns of online materials in a blended course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 11, 107--123.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. N. Au, E. Ngai, and T. Cheng. 2008. Extending the understanding of end user information systems satisfaction formation: An equitable needs fulfillment model approach. MIS Quarterly 32, 43--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. G. Braught, T. Wahls, and L. M. Eby. 2011. The case for pair programming in the computer science classroom. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 11, Article 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. W. W. Chin. 1998. Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly 22, 7--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. J. Cold. 2013. Partially flipped: Experiences using POGIL. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGITE Conference on Information Technology Education (ACM SIGITE'13). ACM, 133--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Y. Dang, Y. Zhang, P. J.-H. Hu, S. A. Brown, and H. Chen. 2011. Knowledge mapping for rapidly evolving domains: A design science approach. Decision Support Systems 50, 415--427. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. F. D. Davis. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 319--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35, 982--1003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. A. Durndell and Z. Haag. 2002. Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computers in Human Behavior 18, 521--535.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. H. J. C. Ellis. 2007. An assessment of a self-directed learning approach in a graduate web application design and development course. IEEE Transactions on Education 50, 55--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Firth and J. Wagner. 2007. Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. Modern Language Journal 91, 800--819.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. D. Gefen, D. W. Straub, and M.-C. Boudreau. 2000. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the AIS 4, 1--77.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. F. Hair, R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. B. Hassan. 2003. The influence of specific computer experiences on computer self-efficacy beliefs. Computers and Human Behavior 19, 443--450.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. H. V. D. Heijden. 2004. User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly 28, 695--704. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. V. Isomöttönen and V. Tirronen. 2013. Teaching programming by emphasizing self-direction: How did students react to the active role required of them? ACM Transactions on Computing Education 13, Article 6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. K. Janz, K. Graetz, and C. Kjorlien. 2012. Building collaborative technology learning environments. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference (ACM SIGUCCS'12). ACM, Memphis, Tennessee, USA, 121--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K. M. Y. Law, V. C. S. Lee, and Y. T. Yu. 2010. Learning motivation in e-learning facilitated computer programming courses. Computers & Education 55, 218--228. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. G. Lee and W. Xia. 2010. Toward agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly 34, 87--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. S.-S. Liaw, H.-M. Huang, and G.-D. Chen. 2007. Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Computers & Education 49, 1066--1080. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J. Moons and C. D. Backer. 2013. The design and pilot evaluation of an interactive learning environment for introductory programming influenced by cognitive load theory and constructivism. Computers & Education 60, 368--384. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. L. Nemanich. 2009. Enhancing knowledge transfer in classroom versus online settings: The interplay among instructor, student, content, and context. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 7, 123--148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. U. Nikula, O. Gotel, and J. Kasurinen. 2011. A motivation guided holistic rehabilitation of the first programming course. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 11, 24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. J. C. Nunnally. 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. S. Ozkan and R. Koseler. 2009. Multi-dimensional students' evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education 53, 1285--1296. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. A. Padilla-Meléndez, A. R. D. Aguila-Obra, and A. Garrido-Moreno. 2013. Perceived playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Computers & Education 63, 306--317. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. F. Paraskeva, H. Bouta, and A. Papagianni. 2008. Individual characteristics and computer self-efficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology in educational practice. Computers & Education 50, 1084--1091. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. D. P. Pursell. 2009. Enhancing interdisciplinary, mathematics, and physical science in an undergraduate life science program through physical chemistry. CBE-Life Sciences Education 8, 15--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. C. M. Ringle, S. Wende, and A. H. H. W. S. D. Will. 2005. SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) beta. Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.de.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. J. C. Roca, C.-M. Chiu, and F. J. Martinez. 2006. Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 64, 683--696. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. M. B. Rosson, J. M. Carroll, and H. Sinha. 2011. Orientation of undergraduates toward careers in the computer and information sciences: Gender, self-efficacy and social support. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 11, Article 14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. H. M. Selim. 2007. Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education 49, 396--413. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. K. Sridharan. 2004. A course on web languages and web-based applications. IEEE Transactions on Education 47, 254--260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. D. S. Staples, I. Wong, and P. B. Seddon. 2002. Having expectations of information systems benefits that match received benefits: does it really matter? Information & Management 40, 115--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. P.-C. Sun, R. J. Tsai, G. Finger, Y.-Y. Chen, and D. Yeh. 2008. What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education 50, 1183--1202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. J. B. Thatcher and P. L. Perrewé. 2002. An empirical examination of individual traits as antecedents to computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. MIS Quarterly 26, 381--396. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. V. Venkatesh and H. Bala. 2008. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences 39, 273--315.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis. 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46, 186--204. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Towards a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27, 425--478. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Investigating Essential Factors on Students' Perceived Accomplishment and Enjoyment and Intention to Learn in Web Development

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
        ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 15, Issue 1
        Special Issue on Web Development
        March 2015
        65 pages
        EISSN:1946-6226
        DOI:10.1145/2742853
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2015 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 4 March 2015
        • Revised: 1 November 2014
        • Accepted: 1 November 2014
        • Received: 1 September 2013
        Published in toce Volume 15, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader