View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Achieving Quality in e-Learning through Relational Coordination

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Achieving Quality in e-Learning through Relational Coordination
Language: English
Authors: Margalina, Vasilica Maria, De-Pablos-Heredero, Carmen, Montes-Botella, Jose Luis
Source: Studies in Higher Education. 2017 42(9):1655-1670.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2017
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Electronic Learning, Models, Teacher Attitudes, Student Attitudes, Positive Attitudes, Problem Solving, Online Courses, College Faculty, College Students, Academic Standards, Universities, Corporations, Educational Improvement, Educational Quality, Foreign Countries, Teacher Student Relationship, Questionnaires, Structural Equation Models, Least Squares Statistics, Correlation, Organizational Communication, Educational Administration, Statistical Analysis
Geographic Terms: Spain
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1113953
ISSN: 0307-5079
Abstract: In this research, the relational coordination model has been applied to prove learners' and instructors' high levels of satisfaction in e-learning. According to the model, organizations can obtain better results in terms of satisfaction by providing shared knowledge, shared goals and mutual respect mechanisms, supported by a frequent, timely and problem-solving communication. Online courses learners and instructors from Spanish universities and private companies have been surveyed on these particular issues. By using structural equation model analysis, it is shown that high standards in terms of relational coordination amongst learners and instructors explain higher degrees of satisfaction. This research contributes to the literature by validating from an empirical point of view the effects of the use of the relational coordination model in e-learning. The results should be considered by universities and private companies when they evaluate the results of their actual e-learning systems and search for the improvement of quality.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 71
Entry Date: 2017
Accession Number: EJ1147248
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFVqjW7kDJ5Uy1WDo4aXN9sAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGSmv_dnN1ytg4zc5AIBEICBm5jbCDsRs6YLBEQCRK-QZB2hgi4Kmh3kfVZT5aCfL_aC0SF3s6dQWEeQ6a-w5jzVxw9NDZFnHQlCnHt-xfTBbA28j5W02kPwU15ipyl5HTXnpGQI0zxjbL3k1RwxkC8d8scV3wVhnP6budaCqiT-39lUsratJTfCA62v2j_CBqGL9t_fUSupjTdSVCC9lCL3gB3s8yOlEpA0DxXs
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0123952859;she01sep.17;2019Mar19.12:46;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0123952859-1">Achieving quality in e-Learning through relational coordination. </title> <p>In this research, the relational coordination model has been applied to prove learners' and instructors' high levels of satisfaction in e-learning. According to the model, organizations can obtain better results in terms of satisfaction by providing shared knowledge, shared goals and mutual respect mechanisms, supported by a frequent, timely and problem-solving communication. Online courses learners and instructors from Spanish universities and private companies have been surveyed on these particular issues. By using structural equation model analysis, it is shown that high standards in terms of relational coordination amongst learners and instructors explain higher degrees of satisfaction. This research contributes to the literature by validating from an empirical point of view the effects of the use of the relational coordination model in e-learning. The results should be considered by universities and private companies when they evaluate the results of their actual e-learning systems and search for the improvement of quality.</p> <p>Keywords: coordination; e-learning; relational coordination; shared knowledge; shared goals; communication</p> <hd id="AN0123952859-2">1. Introduction</hd> <p>Globalization and worldwide Internet establishment have invaded almost all areas of our society (Stracke [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref1">58</reflink>]). With over three billion people using the Internet around the world (ITU [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>]) and almost all companies in OECD being connected to Internet (OECD [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref3">51</reflink>]), information and communication technologies (ICT) become part of the way people interact, work and trade. These two factors are radically changing the landscape of education (Stracke [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref4">58</reflink>]; European Commission [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref5">25</reflink>]). But the area where Internet, globalization and digital technologies have brought a more radical change is distance education and e-learning.</p> <p>Online and distance education is the fastest growing area of education in both developed and developing countries (Simpsons [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref6">56</reflink>]). The increasing use of ICT as a teaching and learning tool and the appearance of phenomena as massive open online courses (MOOCS) is pushing for globalization of educational markets (European Commission [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref7">25</reflink>]). More and more institutions have now a global reach, with students in many places of the world apart from their home countries and traditional importers of education, such as China, are now becoming exporters of education (Simpsons [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref8">56</reflink>]). The increase of international competition, together with the low employment rate amongst graduates and the mismatch of their skills according to labor market demands (European Commission [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref9">25</reflink>]) is putting pressure on institutions to increase performance and the quality of education.</p> <p>The enrollments in online education are continually growing. In 2012, the online enrollment rate in the United States was 6.1%, reaching the total of number of 7.1 million students taking at least one online course (Allen and Seaman [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>]). In Europe, the enrollments increased 15–20%, while the offer grew 40% in 2011 (StudyPortals [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref11">59</reflink>]). E-learning use in workplace training is also increasing for both large and small companies all over the world (Docebo [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref12">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally to all the challenges that educational institutions must face nowadays, e-learning must also cope with its image of offering lower levels of quality than conventional education and maintaining lower graduation rates too (Simpsons [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref13">56</reflink>]). As a consequence of this situation, institutions must develop mechanisms in order to achieve better results in terms of performance and quality.</p> <p>Learner's and instructor's satisfaction are considered to be key elements of quality in online education by the Sloan Consortium (Moore [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref14">49</reflink>]) together with learning effectiveness, access and cost efficiency, and institutional commitment. The main objective of this research is to prove that the utilization of coordination mechanisms can explain better results in terms of satisfaction for both learners and instructors. For the analysis, the relational coordination model proposed by Gittell ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref15">31</reflink>]) has been applied. In her theory, Gittell explains that the process of interaction between relational dimensions (shared knowledge, shared goals and mutual respect) and communication dimensions (frequent, timely and problem-solving communication), in contexts of high interdependence, uncertainty and time constraints, explain better results in terms of efficiency and satisfaction in organizations.</p> <hd id="AN0123952859-3">2. The importance of satisfaction for the quality of e-learning</hd> <p>Quality is an important competitiveness indicator for education and it is one of the main issues examined by modern scholars and practitioners from the international education market (Grifoll et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref16">34</reflink>]). E-learning quality has also been extensively discussed by European institutions (Dondi and Moretti [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref17">20</reflink>]; Stracke [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref18">58</reflink>]) and other international organizations (Moore [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref19">48</reflink>]; FLAG [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref20">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Learner satisfaction is increasingly seen as a prime determinant in e-learning programs in competitive markets (Lee [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref21">45</reflink>]). If e-learning institutions fail to meet the needs of their learners, they risk losing them for one of their competitors (Sallis [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref22">54</reflink>]). But, in order to achieve performance, e-learning institutions need to meet not only learner's satisfaction, but also instructor's satisfaction with his job. Thompson ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref23">63</reflink>]) and Bolliger and Wasilik ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref24">8</reflink>]) have shown that the success of e-learning programs is related to instructor's personal and professional satisfaction.</p> <p>E-learning quality is a complex concept, as its measures rely on tangible and intangible dimensions (Stracke [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref25">58</reflink>]). The quality of education is the result of the relationship between learning and the demands, goals, standards and requirements set by individuals, businesses and other types of institutions and agents (Grifoll et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]). And, e-learning programs make no exception, as they have to consider the perspective of stakeholders (Ehlers [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref27">24</reflink>]) if they want to achieve quality. Brunner ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref28">11</reflink>]), De-Pablos-Heredero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref29">18</reflink>]), and De-Pablos-Heredero, García-Martínez, and Perea Muñoz ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref30">15</reflink>]) found that the application of coordination mechanisms in the internal work processes at educational institutions can explain higher degrees of quality.</p> <hd id="AN0123952859-4">2.1. The importance of coordination for quality in e-learning</hd> <p>Coordination is the act of integrating the organizational work in conditions of task uncertainty and interdependence (Faraj and Xiao [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]). Coordination has been positively related in previous studies with organizational results (Argote [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref32">5</reflink>]), performance (Lawrence and Lorsch [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref33">44</reflink>]) and with the overcome of failures in organizations (Brandts and Cooper [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]). The importance of properly coordinated processes has also been positively related to quality in higher education (Van Vught and Westeheijden [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref35">66</reflink>]; Balderston [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref36">7</reflink>]; Cummings and Kiesler [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref37">13</reflink>]; Andras [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref38">3</reflink>]; Astin [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>The different tasks usually performed during an e-learning process, such as the creation and delivery of educational content, student support and assessment, are highly interdependent. Empirical studies (Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref40">64</reflink>]; Selim [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref41">55</reflink>]; Sun et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref42">60</reflink>]) have also found that lecturer's attitude is a critical factor for learner's satisfaction in e-learning contexts, as teaching and learning processes are interdependent. De-Pablos-Heredero, Perea and Garcia ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref43">17</reflink>]) found that educational organizations can achieve performance in contexts of task interdependence by using coordination mechanisms. Therefore, the objective of this study is to prove that the application of coordination mechanisms can explain better results in terms of satisfaction in e-learning.</p> <hd id="AN0123952859-5">2.2. The relational coordination model applied to e-learning contexts</hd> <p>Gittell ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref44">31</reflink>]) proposed a model of <emph>relational coordination</emph> that proved to be a power driver for quality and efficiency outcomes in different sectors, such as airlines and healthcare. Gittell ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref45">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref46">31</reflink>]) has applied it to different medical units inside hospitals and found that those units showing higher degrees in terms of relational coordination also show better results in different medical outputs. Later, De-Pablos-Heredero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref47">18</reflink>]), De-Pablos-Heredero, García-Martínez, and Perea Muñoz ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref48">15</reflink>]), De-Pablos-Heredero, Montes-Botella, and Soret-los-Santos ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref49">16</reflink>]) have proved that higher degrees of relational coordination at universities ensure greater degrees of satisfaction in lectures and students.</p> <p>Bond and Gittell ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref50">9</reflink>]) define the model as a mutually reinforcing process of interaction between communication and relationships carried out for the purpose of task integration. Relational coordination differs from the technical process of coordination, because it does not focus on the management of interdependencies between tasks, but on the management of interdependencies between the people who perform those tasks (Gittell [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>The relational coordination model is based on previous analysis of mutual adjustment (Thompson [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref52">62</reflink>]; Argote [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>]; Kogut and Zander [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref54">43</reflink>]), teamwork (Van de Ven, Delbecq, and Koenig [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref55">65</reflink>]) and the focus of coordination based on relationships (Weick [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref56">69</reflink>]; Faraj and Xiao [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref57">26</reflink>]; Heckscher et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref58">36</reflink>]) in corporate environments of task interdependence and uncertainty. Bond and Gittell ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref59">9</reflink>]) explain that relational coordination theory differs from other ones. While in other theories shared knowledge is important, the relational coordination model arguments that shared knowledge also needs a context of shared goals and mutual respect for an effective coordination.</p> <p>According to the model of relational coordination, coordination processes take place through a network of relationship and communication dimensions. The three relational dimensions, represented by shared knowledge, shared goals and mutual respect are supported by frequent, timely and problem-solving communication (Gittell, Edmonson, and Schein [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref60">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Frequent communication improves relationships by the closeness generated as a consequence of a repetitive interaction (Gittell [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref61">32</reflink>]). Song et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref62">57</reflink>]) have identified that learners are concerned about the delay of communication in online courses. And, delay communication can have a negative impact on e-learning results. Therefore, a fluent communication is important in the precise moment for organizational performance (Waller [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref63">68</reflink>]) in e-learning contexts too. Problem solving communication leads to the optimization of processes with highly interdependent tasks (Gittell, Edmonson, and Schein [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref64">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>But the ability of coordinating work also depends on the quality of relationships, based on shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect. Shared goals play a critical role in the coordination of highly interdependent tasks (Wageman [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref65">67</reflink>]). Through shared goals, the stakeholders can more easily come to compatible conclusions with different ways of thinking and acting, as new pieces of information are available (Gittell, Edmonson, and Schein [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref66">33</reflink>]). Dougherty ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref67">21</reflink>]) has shown that the differences in training, socialization and expertise create obstacles to effective communication and therefore can erode the effective coordination of work. This can also be met in e-learning, as learners and instructors usually have different knowledge backgrounds. Through shared knowledge a dynamic, in which everyone knows about the consequences of changes in each task and role, is developed. Mutual respect generates an effective coordination, because participants in a work process value the contribution of others and consider the impact of their actions in others (Gittell [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref68">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Together, these relational and communication dynamics provide the basis to coordinate collective action in order to achieve outcomes of value in organizations (Gittell, Edmonson, and Schein [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref69">33</reflink>]), where high levels of tasks interdependence, uncertainty, time restrictions and tacit knowledge exist (De-Pablos-Heredero et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref70">18</reflink>]). In e-learning these circumstances appear:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Task interdependence:</emph> the final result in e-learning, the knowledge acquired by the learner, depends on the tasks performed by both instructors and learners. For example, the instructor must use the right educational resources and present the content in a way that it is easy for the learner to understand and acquire the knowledge. But, the result of the learning process also depends on the learner's efforts to understand the content, his interaction with the instructor and other participants in the process.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Uncertainty:</emph> teaching and learning processes in e-learning present certain degree of uncertainty. For example, the lack of information about learner's digital literacy and the quality of his Internet connection creates uncertainty for the instructor and the institution regarding the resources they can use in teaching and administrative processes. Certain degrees of uncertainty are also produced by the lack of non-verbal communication (Willis and Dickinson [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref71">70</reflink>]). Learner's need to wait for instructor response and feed-back (Song et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref72">56</reflink>]) leads to uncertainty regarding their learning tasks.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Time restrictions:</emph> an online course usually takes place in a pre-established period of time, which leads to time restriction in the performance of tasks for all the participants in the process (Song et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref73">56</reflink>]). The time factor has been addressed in several research studies, as Gros et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref74">35</reflink>]) have shown in their literature review about this issue.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Tacit knowledge:</emph> in teaching and learning processes, instructors and learners always maintain certain degree of tacit knowledge that is difficult to make explicit.</item> </ulist> <p>These circumstances, together with the results of studies that have shown the importance of the quality of communication (Arbaugh [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref75">4</reflink>]; Song et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref76">57</reflink>]; Lee [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref77">45</reflink>]), the knowledge sharing (Liaw, Huang, and Chen [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref78">46</reflink>]) and social respect (Sung and Mayer [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref79">61</reflink>]) for e-learning success, make us think that the application of the relational coordination model can explain best results. In this study the relational coordination model has been applied to evaluate learner's satisfaction with online courses and instructor's satisfaction with his job. Analysing learner and instructor satisfaction have been considered as they are recognized to be pillars of quality in online education together with learning effectiveness, access, cost effectiveness and institutional commitment (Moore [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref80">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0123952859-6">3. Research methodology and hypotheses</hd> <p>To determine the influence of relational coordination on learners' and instructors' final satisfaction, an empirical analysis over two representative samples of learners and instructors who participate in online courses in Spanish universities and companies has been performed.</p> <p>For the empirical study the structural equation model (SEM) analysis, structural equations containing latent variables and errors of measurement have been applied. The two samples have been analyzed separately. The models are similar, as in both models it has been considered that satisfaction is achieved through high-quality relationships (SR), supported by the three relational dimensions, shared goals (SG), shared knowledge (SK) and mutual respect (MR), and the three communication dimensions, frequent (FC), timely (TC) and problem-solving (PS) communication, and an online platform of quality (SP). The only difference is that the final variable measured is different. In the case of learners, the final result measured is their satisfaction with the online course, while in the case of instructors their satisfaction with their teaching work in online courses is measured.</p> <p>As it has been previously mentioned, we support that the application of relational coordination mechanisms in learning and teaching processes in e-learning contexts produces benefits. With the main objectives to evaluate the impact of relational coordination on learners' and instructor' final satisfaction, we propose the following hypotheses (Figure 1):</p> <p> <emph>Hypothesis1</emph> (<emph>H1):</emph> Frequent (FC), timely (TC) and problem-solving (PS) communication will positively influence shared knowledge (SK), shared goals (SG) and mutual respect (MR).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. The proposed model and hypotheses.</p> <p>The adjustment between communication and relational dimensions is considered to be the basis of the relational coordination model (Bond and Gittell [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref81">9</reflink>]). Sung and Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref82">61</reflink>]) have identified timely communication as an indicator of social respect in e-learning. Frequent communication is considered to be a source for the improvement of relationships (Gittell [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref83">32</reflink>]). Therefore, the main objective of this hypothesis is to test if the relationships between the three dimensions of communication (FC, TC and PS) have a positive impact on the three relational dimensions (SK, SG and MR). As the efficiency of communication in e-learning depends on its frequency and timeliness (Thompson [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref84">63</reflink>]), the relationships between FC and TC and TC-PS have also been tested.</p> <p> <emph>Hyphothesis2</emph> (<emph>H2</emph>): Problem-solving communication (PS) increases learners' and instructors' satisfaction with the work (SR) of others profiles involved in the e-learning process.</p> <p>Problem-solving communication plays a critical role on the optimization of a work process, as the communication between the persons will be oriented to solve the problems that appear during the process, rather than on blaming when the things go wrong (Deming [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref85">14</reflink>]; Gittell, Edmonson, and Schein [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref86">33</reflink>]; De-Pablos-Heredero, Perea and Garcia [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref87">17</reflink>]). For this reason, it has been tested if this communication dimension has an impact on the quality of relationships between the participants in the e-learning process.</p> <p> <emph>Hyphothesis3</emph> (<emph>H3</emph>): Relationships based on shared knowledge (SK), shared goals (SG) and mutual respect increase learners' and instructors' satisfaction with the work (SR) of the other profiles involved in the e-learning process.</p> <p>Relationships based on shared knowledge, shared goals and mutual respect enable the interaction of participants in a work process to achieve a better coordination of their tasks (Gittell [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref88">30</reflink>]). Through shared goals stakeholders can come to more compatible conclusions. Therefore, shared goals play a key role in e-learning, as its quality depends on the requirements set by different stakeholders (Ehlers [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref89">24</reflink>]). Shared knowledge is also important for the coordination of tasks in e-learning, as the final aim of an e-learning process is that learners acquire certain knowledge. Effective coordination of highly interdependent work also depends on the respect for the competences of others (Gittell [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref90">32</reflink>]). Therefore, it has been tested if these three relational dimensions increase learners' and instructors' satisfaction with the work of other participants in the e-learning process. For this hypothesis, if mutual respect (MR) has a positive relationship with shared goals (SG) and shared knowledge (SK), and if shared goals increases shared knowledge have also been tested.</p> <p> <emph>Hypothesis4</emph> (<emph>H4</emph>): High-quality relationships (SR) have a positive impact on learners' and instructors' satisfaction with the online platform (SP).</p> <p>The most used online platforms for e-learning are the so-called learning management systems (LMS). An LMS is a software application running on a server connected to a computer network and its purpose is to facilitate access to learning materials and communication between the participants in the learning process (Coll and Monereo [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref91">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several researchers in the field (Kirwood and Price [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref92">42</reflink>]; Johnson, Hornik, and Salas [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref93">40</reflink>]; Zhan and Mei [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref94">71</reflink>]) affirm that the quality of educational processes in e-Learning does not depend so much on the technology, but on the quality of the learner–instructor interaction. Hence, in this hypothesis we test if high-quality relationships (SR) have a positive impact on learners' and instructors' satisfaction with the LMS.</p> <p> <emph>Hypothesis5</emph> (<emph>H5</emph>): Learners' and instructors' satisfaction with the online platform (SP) increase their final satisfaction (FS).</p> <p>As, the quality of technology used in the e-learning process is considered to be important (Piccolli, Ahmad, and Ives [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref95">52</reflink>]; Liaw, Huang, and Chen [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref96">46</reflink>]; Islam [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref97">38</reflink>]) for learners' and instructors' satisfaction, its impact on learners' and instructors' final satisfaction has been tested.</p> <p>H6: High-quality relationships (SR) increase learners' and instructors' final satisfaction (FS) in e-learning.</p> <p>Learner and instructor satisfaction are considered to be two basic pillars of quality in online education (Moore [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref98">49</reflink>]). Satisfaction ratings by learners are also a common measure of quality in e-learning (Anderson [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref99">2</reflink>]). Gittell ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref100">31</reflink>]) describes that relational coordination can be a source of satisfaction for the people involved in a work process, as it makes easier for them to access the resources needed to accomplish the work. Relational coordination increases also job satisfaction by increasing employees' ability to accomplish their job (Gittell, Edmonson, and Schein [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref101">33</reflink>]). In this hypothesis, the relationship between the quality of relationships (SR), measured by the communication and relational dimensions of the relational coordination model in the previous hypotheses, and final learner and instructor satisfaction in e-learning has been tested.</p> <hd id="AN0123952859-7">3.1. Methodology used in the empirical study</hd> <p>In this research, characteristics of organizational behavior have been considered. As structured data bases have not been found, the chosen methodology to collect information was the questionnaire. Two questionnaires adapted from Gittell ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref102">32</reflink>]) and De-Pablos-Heredero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref103">18</reflink>]), De-Pablos-Heredero, García-Martínez, and Perea Muñoz ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref104">15</reflink>]) to the e-learning environment have been used.</p> <p>The questionnaires have been sent to two universities, one public and the other one private, and to five e-learning companies from Spain. These organizations have been chosen because they are representative for the Spanish e-learning market. Learners and instructors were asked to complete an online questionnaire using Google Docs. The total number of learners and instructors who received the questionnaires is unknown, as they were sent not only directly to the respondents but, also to managers of organizations who send them to their colleagues and learners. One hundred and thirty-four answers from learners have been received, from which 63% were university learners and 37% were doing the course with an e-learning private company. In the case of instructors, 38 answers have been collected, 76% of them were teaching at universities and 24% at e-learning private companies. Learners' sample has an error of ±8% (<emph>P</emph> = Q = 0.5) and a 95.5% (2 sigma) level of trust. In the case of instructors, sample's error is ±15.82% (<emph>P</emph> = Q = 0.5) and the level of trust is 95.5% (2 sigma).</p> <p>The questions regarding relational coordination were measured following Gittell's guidelines (Gittell [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref105">32</reflink>]), using a five-point, equally spaced, Likert scale (Likert [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref106">47</reflink>]). The answers' choices ranged from 'never = 1' to 'constantly = 5'. Whereas the questions regarding satisfaction were measured using a four-point Likert scale, from 'very dissatisfied = 1' to 'very satisfied = 4'. In the questionnaire, questions regarding the following variables are included:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> _I_General information_i__B_:</bold> sex, age, country, previous experience with e-learning.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>The course characteristics:</emph> duration of course, type of institution and method of course (synchronous, asynchronous and mixed).</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Technology:</emph> the online platform used in the learning process.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Communication dimensions:</emph> the frequency of communication with each profile involved in the process, the real need that different profiles have to offer information at certain time and the frequency of the communication for the solving of problems.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Shared knowledge</emph>: the need that different profiles involved in the learning process have to share information and knowledge.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Sharing of goals:</emph> the perception that learners and instructors have about sharing goals with the different profiles they are interacting with.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Mutual respect:</emph> the perception that learners and instructors have about how others respect their work.</item> </ulist> <p>The profiles included in the questionnaires, besides the learner and the instructor, are the <emph>administration staff</emph> and <emph>technical support staff</emph>. These profiles are the most frequently met at e-learning institutions and companies.</p> <hd id="AN0123952859-8">4. Results</hd> <p>For this research, the model has been evaluated and the hypotheses have been tested by using SEM. The model was estimated applying the partial least square (PLS) procedure using the Smart PLS 2.0 M3 Software (Ringle, Wende, and Will [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref107">53</reflink>]). Model parameters estimation has made bootstrapping to minimize their standard errors (Efron and Gong [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref108">22</reflink>]; Efron and Tibshirani [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref109">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>The model has been estimated by using PLS because the phenomenon is relatively new and its modeling is at a developing stage. Also, minimal recommendations exist concerning the sample size. The PLS algorithm converges in most of the cases achieving high statistic power even with reduced samples and it is robust against missing data (Joreskög and Wold [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref110">41</reflink>]; Henseler, Ringle, and Sinkovics [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref111">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Discriminant validity was evaluated according to the Fornell and Larcker criterion (Fornell and Larcker [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref112">28</reflink>]). Correlations between latent variables should be lower than the square root of the corresponding AVE. As it can be observed in the main diagonal of Tables 1 and 2, where they have been inserted, this is the case for all variables.</p> <p>Table 1. Latent variable correlations students.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>FC</td><td>MR</td><td>FS</td><td>PS</td><td>SG</td><td>SK</td><td>SP</td><td>SR</td><td>TC</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>FC</td><td><bold>0.76</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>MR</td><td>0.50</td><td><bold>0.77</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>FS</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.39</td><td><bold>0.84</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>PS</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.28</td><td><bold>0.71</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>SG</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.63</td><td><bold>0.84</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>SK</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.72</td><td><bold>0.79</bold></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>SP</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.77</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.45</td><td><bold>0.79</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>SR</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.42</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.48</td><td><bold>0.84</bold></td><td /></tr><tr><td>TC</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.26</td><td><bold>0.77</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: The bold values are the square root of the corresponding AVE.</p> <p>Table 2. Latent variable correlations teachers.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>FC</td><td>MR</td><td>PS</td><td>SG</td><td>SK</td><td>SP</td><td>SR</td><td>TC</td><td>FS</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>FC</td><td><bold>0.78</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>MR</td><td>0.58</td><td><bold>0.88</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>PS</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.29</td><td char="."><bold>0.68</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>SG</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.58</td><td char=".">0.35</td><td><bold>0.79</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>SK</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.71</td><td char=".">0.17</td><td>0.60</td><td><bold>0.89</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>SP</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.37</td><td char=".">−0.14</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.44</td><td><bold>0.88</bold></td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>SR</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.57</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.42</td><td><bold>0.80</bold></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>TC</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.33</td><td char=".">0.63</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.28</td><td><bold>0.75</bold></td><td /></tr><tr><td>FS</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.25</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.09</td><td><bold>1.00</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note: The bold values are the square root of the corresponding AVE.</p> <p>Internal consistency was measured by Cronbach's alpha and by composite reliability (Table 3). Cronbach's alphas are above 0.5, the value indicated by Nunnally and Bernstein ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref113">50</reflink>]) is acceptable for the internal reliability, with the exception of frequent (FC) and problem-solving (PS) communication in the case of instructors (FC = 0.35 and PS = 0.39). Composite reliability takes the recommended value of 0.7 for all variables in both cases for learners and instructors. All the AVE values exceed the threshold recommended by Fornell and Larcker ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref114">28</reflink>]) in the case of learners. For instructors, AVE values also reach the recommended 0.5, with the exception of problem-solving communication (PS), which takes a value of 0.47. Table 3 shows all the values taken by all the variables in the analysis made for learners (L) and instructors (I).</p> <p>Table 3. Quality criteria overview.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>AVE</td><td>Composite reliability</td><td><italic>R<sup>2</sup></italic></td><td>Cronbach's Alpha</td><td>Communality</td><td>Redundancy</td></tr><tr><td>S</td><td>T</td><td>S</td><td>T</td><td>S</td><td>T</td><td>S</td><td>T</td><td>S</td><td>T</td><td>S</td><td>T</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>FC</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.70</td><td /><td /><td>0.63</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.61</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>TC</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.29</td></tr><tr><td>PS</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td>SK</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.62</td><td>0,80</td><td>0,23</td><td>0,37</td></tr><tr><td>SG</td><td>0,71</td><td>0,62</td><td>0,83</td><td>0,83</td><td>0,50</td><td>0,34</td><td>0,60</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>MR</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.91</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.25</td></tr><tr><td>SP</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.91</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><td>SR</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>FS</td><td>0.71</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.94</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.92</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.71</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.01</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Statistical significance was sized up by means of 500 resampling bootstrap to minimize the estimator of standard errors (Efron and Gong [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref115">22</reflink>]; Efron and Tibshirani [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref116">23</reflink>]). The significance of the path coefficients was determined with the help of the pseudo <emph>t</emph>-statistics from the bootstrapping procedure. In Table 4 the results of the bootstrapping for the two samples of learners (L) and instructor (I) are presented.</p> <p>Table 4. Total effects (mean, STDEV, T-values).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Original sample (O)</td><td>Sample mean (M)</td><td>Standard deviation (STDEV)</td><td>Standard error (STERR)</td><td><italic>T</italic> Statistics (|O/STERR|)</td></tr><tr><td>S</td><td>T</td><td>S</td><td>T</td><td>S</td><td>T</td><td>S</td><td>T</td><td>S</td><td>T</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Hypothesis 1</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>FC → SG</td><td>0.56</td><td char=".">0.34</td><td>0.56</td><td char=".">0.34</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.11</td><td>8.10</td><td>3.12</td></tr><tr><td>FC → MR</td><td>0.44</td><td char=".">0.58</td><td>0.45</td><td char=".">0.58</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.11</td><td>6.47</td><td>5.37</td></tr><tr><td>TC → SK</td><td>0.38</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td>0.39</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.14</td><td>5.66</td><td>0.48</td></tr><tr><td>PS → SK</td><td>0.23</td><td char=".">−0.21</td><td>0.23</td><td char=".">−0.21</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.17</td><td>4.21</td><td>1.26</td></tr><tr><td>PS → MR</td><td>0.43</td><td /><td>0.43</td><td /><td>0.08</td><td /><td>0.08</td><td /><td>5.34</td><td /></tr><tr><td>FC → TC</td><td>0.62</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td>0.62</td><td char=".">0.73</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.08</td><td>10.58</td><td>9.09</td></tr><tr><td>TC → PS</td><td>0.61</td><td char=".">0.63</td><td>0.61</td><td char=".">0.65</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.10</td><td>9.35</td><td>6.56</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Hypothesis 2</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>PS → SR</td><td>0.57</td><td>−0.07</td><td>0.57</td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.07</td><td>9.40</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Hypothesis 3</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>MR → SR</td><td>0.45</td><td char=".">0.57</td><td>0.45</td><td char=".">0.57</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.10</td><td>7.27</td><td>5.48</td></tr><tr><td>SG → SK</td><td>0.43</td><td char=".">0.29</td><td>0.43</td><td char=".">0.29</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.14</td><td>5.78</td><td>2.08</td></tr><tr><td>MR → SG</td><td>0.47</td><td char=".">0.58</td><td>0.46</td><td char=".">0.57</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.15</td><td>5.72</td><td>3.97</td></tr><tr><td>MR → SK</td><td>0.54</td><td char=".">0.70</td><td>0.54</td><td char=".">0.70</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.10</td><td>7.83</td><td>6.89</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Hypothesis 4</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>SR → SP</td><td>0.51</td><td char=".">0.42</td><td>0.53</td><td char=".">0.44</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.15</td><td>8.37</td><td>2.81</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Hypothesis 5</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>SP → FS</td><td>0.41</td><td char=".">0.007</td><td>0.41</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.25</td><td>5.78</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Hypothesis 6</italic></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>SR → FS</td><td>0.76</td><td char=".">0.26</td><td>0.77</td><td char=".">0.26</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.15</td><td>20.34</td><td>1.70</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The hypothesized relationships, in the case of learners, are statistically significant with a <emph>p</emph> value < .05. All <emph>t</emph>-values are over the 1.96 limit value (5% confidence interval). Therefore, the six proposed hypothesis are validated.</p> <p>The results of instructors' sample showed some differences to those of learners. From hypothesis 1, the relationships between frequent communication (FC) and shared goals (SG), FC and mutual respect (MR), FC and timely communication (TC), TC and problem-solving communication (PS) are statistically significant (<emph>p</emph> < .05). But, it is not demonstrated that TC increases shared knowledge (SK) (<emph>p</emph> = .63). And PS does not have a statistical significant effect on SK (<emph>p</emph> = .21). As a conclusion, hypothesis 1 is partially validated in the case of instructors. The analysis of hypothesis 1 for both samples, learners and instructors, confirms that relationships' dimensions are reinforced by communication dimensions (Bond and Gittell [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref117">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Hypothesis 2 could not be validated (<emph>p</emph> = .40). In the case of this sample, it seems that problem-solving communication does not increase instructor's satisfaction with the work of others. That does not mean that the work of others is not important in e-learning for instructors, but the knowledge they have to share with other profile is different from the one shared in the case of learners. This is an aspect that we will have to investigate further.</p> <p>All the tested relationships in hypothesis 3 are validated for both samples, with <emph>p</emph> values < .05. Therefore, the results of the analysis of this hypothesis prove that the quality of work relationships at e-learning institutions can be achieved through mechanisms of shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect (Wageman [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref118">67</reflink>]; Gittell, Edmonson, and Schein [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref119">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>There was no relationship found between the perceived quality of technology (SP) and final instructor's satisfaction with his job (hypothesis 5: <emph>p</emph> = .97), but the quality of relationships (SR) increases instructor's satisfaction with the online platform (hypothesis 4: <emph>p</emph> = .00).</p> <p>Hypothesis 6 shows a <emph>p</emph> value of.09, therefore this hypothesis is not validated. Hence, the results of hypothesis 6 prove that relational coordination has an impact on final satisfaction with e-learning only in the case of learners. But, this is an aspect that we must further investigate with bigger sample sizes in the case of instructors.</p> <hd id="AN0123952859-9">Conclusions</hd> <p>The increase of international competition in e-learning market, an image of lower quality and lower graduation rates compared with conventional education (Simpsons [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref120">56</reflink>]) put pressure on institutions to increase the quality of their supply and performance. E-learning is also characterized by task interdependence, uncertainty, time constraints and tacit knowledge. In order to face all the challenges, e-learning institutions must develop mechanisms to reach better results in terms of quality and performance. In addition to other factors, quality in e-learning institutions is met if learner's and instructor's satisfaction (Sloan Consortium [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref121">49</reflink>]) are taken into consideration.</p> <p>In this research, the relational coordination model has been applied to prove high levels of satisfaction amongst learners and instructors in e-learning contexts. The study contributes to the evaluation of coordination mechanisms in e-learning.</p> <p>There are few studies that analyze the organizational impact of the use of the relational coordination model in educational processes, especially in e-learning. This study contributes to the literature by putting in relation and validating from an empirical point of view the effects of the relational coordination in the case of e-learning.</p> <p>The main conclusions of this research from the hypotheses validated so far are the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Communication dimensions of the relational coordination model have an impact on the relational dimensions. But the impact in the case of learners is different from the one of instructors and this must be taken into consideration (H1).</item> <p></p> <item> A problem-solving communication increases the quality of relationships in the case of learners (H2).</item> <p></p> <item> Mutual respect has a positive effect on the quality of relationships for both learners and instructors. (H3).</item> <p></p> <item> Satisfactory relationships increase learners' and instructors' satisfaction with the LMS used in the learning process (H4).</item> <p></p> <item> A high level of satisfaction with the LMS increases final learner satisfaction with the online course (H5).</item> <p></p> <item> High-quality relationships have a positive impact on learners' final satisfaction with online courses (H6).</item> </ulist> <p>In this research it is proved that the use of the relational coordination model can help public and private institutions to improve learners' final satisfaction with e-learning, learners' and instructors' satisfaction with the LMS and the quality of relationships amongst their employees. Therefore, the improvement of quality in e-learning must also be oriented to the establishment of coordination amongst interdependently tasks, the coordination of different agents, making them sharing ideas, knowledge, objectives and to maintain relationships based on mutual respect.</p> <p>When developing relational coordination mechanisms, educational institutions must consider e-learning as a process that connects all the participants. Educational institutions have to identify and map the e-learning processes that are taking place and clarify the roles of the participants. It is also important to create a space of psychological safety, as learners and instructors need it for finding the best way of communicating and relating. Relational coordination must also be measured and assessed in order to find variations and areas of improvement.</p> <p>Although the results of this research are important for the improvement of the e-learning education quality, the study presents some limitations. Samples of learners from both higher education institutions and e-learning private companies have been analyzed as we consider that in both cases work processes are characterized by task interdependence, uncertainty, time restrictions and tacit knowledge. But, in further researches samples of learners and instructors from each type of institutions should be analyzed separately and compared to identify potential differences. The internal organization of institutions can affect the relationships between the profiles that are working in each of them and their relationship with learners. And, they can also affect the nature of communication. Secondly, the study should be extended to higher samples of learners and instructors to see if other factors have an impact on relational coordination too, such as the personal and geographical context. The study should be also extended to other profiles involved in the e-learning process, to other quality measures and to a larger geographic area.</p> <hd id="AN0123952859-10">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0123952859-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref10" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, I. E., and J. Seaman. 2014. "Grade Change. Tracking Online Education in the United States." Babson Sourvey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref99" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, T. 2008. The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Edmonton: AU Press, Athabasca University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref38" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Andras, P. 2011. "Research: Metrics, Quality, and Management Implications." Research Evaluation 20 (2): 90–106. doi: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876265</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref75" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arbaugh, J. B. 2002. "Managing the on-Line Classroom: A Study of Technological and Behavioural Characteristics of web-Based MBA Courses." Journal of High Technology Management Research 12: 202–23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref32" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Argote, L. 1982. "Input Uncertainty and Organizational Coordination in Hospital Emergency Units." Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 420–34. doi: 10.2307/2392320</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref39" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Astin, A. W. 2012. Assessment for Excellence. The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment on Evaluation in Higher Education. New York: Maxwell McMillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref36" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Balderston, F. E. 1995. Managing Today's University: Strategies for Viability, Change, and Excellence. New York: Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref24" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bolliger, D. U., and O. Wasilik. 2009. "Factors Influencing Faculty Satisfaction with Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education." Distance Education 30 (1): 103–116. doi: 10.1080/01587910902845949</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref50" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bond, B. J., and J. H. Gittell. 2010. "Cross-agency Coordination of Offender Reentry. Testing Collaboration Outcomes." Journal of Criminal Justice 38: 118–29. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brandts, J., and D. J. Cooper. 2006. "A Change Would Do You Good ... An Experimental Study on How to Overcome Coordination Failure in Organizations." American Economic Review 96 (3): 669–93. doi: 10.1257/aer.96.3.669</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brunner, J. J. 2011. "University Governance: Typology, Dynamics and Trends." Revista de Educación 355: 137–59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coll, C., and C. Monereo. 2008. Psicología de la educación virtual. Aprender y enseñar con las Tecnologías de la Información yComunicación. Madrid: Ediciones Morata S.L.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummings, J. N., and S. Kiesler. 2007. "Coordination Costs and Project Outcomes in Multi-University Collaborations." Research Policy 36 (10): 1620–34. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deming, W. E. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De-Pablos-Heredero, C., A. García-Martínez, and J. M. Perea Muñoz. 2013. "The Importance of Coordination of Quality at Universities: An Intercontinental Comparison in Science Faculties." Paper presented at Latin Ibero-Americanconference on management of technology 2013, ALTEC 2013, Porto, October.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De-Pablos-Heredero, C., J. L. Montes-Botella, and I. Soret-los-Santos. 2013. "La importancia de una coordinación efectiva en la eficiencia del Sistema de Educación Superior." Comunicación presentada en Asociación Científica.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De-Pablos-Heredero, C., Perea, and A. Garcia. 2012. "The Impact of Coordination in Final Results at Universities; a Transnational Comparison." Paper presented at ICERI 2012. 5th international conference of Education, research and innovation, Madrid.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De-Pablos-Heredero, C., L. Ramos-Gómez, J. Perea-Muñoz, E. Angón-Sánchez-de-Pedro, and A. García-Martínez. 2013. "How Stents Value a Coordination of Quality." Paper Presented at ICERI 2013. 6th international conference of education, research and innovation, Sevilla, November.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Docebo. 2014. "E-learning Market Trends & Forecast 2014–2016 Report." https://<ulink href="http://www.docebo.com/landing/contactform/elearning-market-trends-and-forecast-2014-2016-docebo-report.pdf">www.docebo.com/landing/contactform/elearning-market-trends-and-forecast-2014-2016-docebo-report.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dondi, C., and M. Moretti. eds. 2007. Elearning Quality in European Universities: Different Approaches for Different Purposes. UNIQUE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dougherty, D. 1992. "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovations in Large Firms." Organization Science 3 (2): 179–202. doi: 10.1287/orsc.3.2.179</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Efron, B., and G. Gong. 1983. "A Leisurely Look at the Bootstrap, the Jackknife and Cross-Validation." The American Statistician 37 (1): 36–48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Efron, B., and R. J. Tibshirani. 1993. An Introduction to Bootstrap. New York: Addison Wesley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehlers, U. 2012. "Quality for eLearning on the Global Cooperation Agenda." European Foundation for Quality in e-Learning. <ulink href="http://cdn.efquel.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/GP1.pdf">http://cdn.efquel.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/GP1.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> European Commission. 2014. "Education and Training Monitor 2014." <ulink href="http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/publications/monitor14%5fen.pdf">http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/publications/monitor14%5fen.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faraj, S., and Y. Xiao. 2006. "Coordination in Fast-Response Organizations." Management Science 52 (8): 1155–69. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0526</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> FLAG. 2012. "E-learning Quality Model". Flexible Learning Advisory Group, <ulink href="http://www.flag.natese.gov.au/quality%5fmodel">http://www.flag.natese.gov.au/quality%5fmodel</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error." Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50. doi: 10.2307/3151312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gittell, J. H. 2002a. "Relationships Between Service Providers and Their Impact on Customers." Journal of Service Research 4 (4): 299–311. doi: 10.1177/1094670502004004007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gittell, J. H. 2002b. "Coordinating Mechanisms in Care Provider Groups: Relational Coordination as a Mediator and Input Uncertainty as A Moderator of Performance Effects." Management Science 48 (11): 1408–26. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.48.11.1408.268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gittell, J. H. 2009. High Performance Healthcare: Using the Power of Relationships to Achieve Quality, Efficiency and Resilience. New York: McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gittell, J. H. 2011. Relational Coordination: Guidelines for Theory, Measurement and Analysis. <ulink href="http://rcrc.brandeis.edu/downloads/Relational%5fCoordination%5fGuidelines%5f8-25-11.pdf">http://rcrc.brandeis.edu/downloads/Relational%5fCoordination%5fGuidelines%5f8-25-11.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gittell, J. H., A. Edmonson, and E. Schein. 2011. Learning to Coordinate: A Relational Model of Organizational Change. San Antonio, TX: Academy of Management.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grifoll, J., E. Huertas, A. Prades, S. Rodríguez, Y. Rubin, F. Mulder, and E. Ossianilsson. 2010. "Quality Assurance of E-Learning." Workshop Report 14, ENQUA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gros, B., Barberà, E., and P. Kirshner. 2010. "Time Factor in e-learning: Impact Literature Review." eLC Research Paper Series, O, 16–31. Barcelona: eLearn Center UOC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heckscher, C., S. A. Rubinstein, L. Flynn, N. Erhardt, and M. Boniface. 2009. "Collaboration and the Quality of Health Care Delivery." Working Paper.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henseler, J., C. M. Ringle, and R. R. Sinkovics. 2009. "The use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing." Advances in International Marketing 20: 277–320.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Islam, A. K. M. N. 2013. "Investigating e-learning System Usage Outcomes in the University Context." Computers & Education 69: 387–99. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.037</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Telecommunication Union (ITU). 2014. ITU releases 2014 ICT figures. Mobile-broadband penetration approaching 32 per cent. Three billion internet users by the end of this year. <ulink href="http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press%5freleases/2014/23.aspx#.VMgwOmiG8rU">http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press%5freleases/2014/23.aspx#.VMgwOmiG8rU</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, R. D., S. Hornik, and E. Salas. 2008. "An Empirical Examination of Factors Contributing to the Creation of Successful e-learning Environments." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 66: 356–69. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.11.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jöreskog, K. G., and H. Wold. 1982. The ML and PLS technique for modelling with latent variables: Historical and comparative aspects. in Systems Under Indirect Observation, Part I, edited by, K. G. Jöreskog, and H. Wold, 1263–1270. North-Holland, Amsterdam.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirwood, A., and L. Price. 2006. "Adaptation for a Changing Environment: Developing the Learning and Teaching with Information and Telecommunication Technologies." International Review in Open and Distance Learning 7 (2): 1–14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kogut, B., and U. Zander. 1996. "What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity and Learning." Organization Science 7 (5): 502–18. doi: 10.1287/orsc.7.5.502</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawrence, R., and P. Lorsch. 1967. Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston: Harvard Business School.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J. W. 2010. "Online Support Service Quality, Online Learning Acceptance, and Student Satisfaction." Internet and Higher Education 13: 227–83. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.08.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liaw, S-S., H-M. Huang, and G-D. Chen. 2007. "Surveying Instructor and Learner Attitudes Towards e-learning." Computers & Education 49: 1066–80. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Likert, R. 1974. "A method of constructing an attitude scale." In Scalling: A Sourcebook for Behavioral Scientists, edited by G. M. Maranell, 233–43. Chicago: Aldine.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, J. C. 2003. "Elements of Quality: Synthesis of the August 2002 Seminar." Needham, MA: Sloan-C.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, J. C. 2005. "The Sloan Consortium Quality Framework and The Five Pillars." Needham, MA: Sloan-C.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunnally, J. C., and I. H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, ÓReilly.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. 2012. Connected minds: technology and today's learners. Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing <ulink href="http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/connected-minds%5f9789264111011-en">http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/connected-minds%5f9789264111011-en</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piccolli, G., R. Ahmad, and B. Ives. 2001. "Web-based Virtual Learning Environments: A Research Framework and Assessment of Effectiveness in Basic IT Skill Training." MIS Quarterly 25 (4): 401–26. doi: 10.2307/3250989</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ringle, C. M., S. Wende, and A. Will. 2005. Smart PLS 2.0 M3. University of Hamburg. <ulink href="http://www.smartpls.de">www.smartpls.de</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sallis, E. 2002. Total Quality Management in Education. London: Kogan Page And US: Stylus.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Selim, H. M. 2007. "Critical Success Factors for e-learning Acceptance: Confirmatory Factor Model." Computers & Education 49: 396–413. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpsons, O. 2012. Supporting Students in Online, Open and Distance Learning. New York: Routhledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Song, L., E. S. Singleton, J. R. Hill, and M. H. Koh. 2004. "Improving Online Learning: Student Perceptions of Useful and Challenging Characteristics." Internet and Higher Education 7: 59–70. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stracke, C. M. 2013. "Open Learning: The Concept for Modernizing School Education and Lifelong Learning Innovations and Quality." Paper read at European and international conference LINQ, Rome, Italy, May.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> StudyPortals. 2012. Europe catching up on online education. Press release retrieved online on May 10, 2014. <ulink href="http://www.studyportals.eu/blog/articles/468/europe-catching-up-on-online-education.html">http://www.studyportals.eu/blog/articles/468/europe-catching-up-on-online-education.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, P., R. J. Tsay, G. Finger, 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: 1183–202. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sung, E., and R. R. Mayer. 2012. "Five Facets of Social Presence in Online Distance Education." Computers in Human Behavior 28: 1738–47. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York : McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson, M. 2003. "Faculty Satisfaction Pillar Summary." pp. 28–30. from Moore J. C. (2003) Elements of Quality: Synthesis of the August 2002 Seminar. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse. 1999. "Relations Between Teachers' Aproaches to Teaching and Students' Aproaches to Learning." Higher Education 37 (1): 57–70. doi: 10.1023/A:1003548313194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van de Ven, A. H., A. L. Delbecq, and R. Koenig. 1976. "Determinants of Coordination Modes Within Organizations." American Social Review 41 (2): 322–38. doi: 10.2307/2094477</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Vught, F. A., and D. F. Westeheijden. 1994. "Towards A General Model of Quality Assessment in Higher Education." Higher Education 28 (3): 355–71. doi: 10.1007/BF01383722</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wageman, R. 1995. "Interdependence and Group Effectiveness." Administrative Science Quarterly 40: 145–80. doi: 10.2307/2393703</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waller, M. J. 1999. "The Timing of Adaptive Group Effectiveness." Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (2): 127–37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weick, K. E. 1993. "The Collapse of Sense-Making in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster." Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 628–52. doi: 10.2307/2393339</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willis, B., and J. Dickinson. 1997. "Distance Education and the World Wide Web" (pp. 81–84)" from B. Khan (Ed): Web-Based Instruction. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhan, Z., and H. Mei. 2013. "Academic Self-Concept and Social Presence in Face-to-Face and Online Learning: Perceptions and Effects on Students' Learning Achievement and Satisfaction Across Environments." Computers & Education 69: 131–38. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.002</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Vasilica Maria Margalina; Carmen De-Pablos-Heredero and Jose Luis Montes-Botella</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref113"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1147248
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Achieving Quality in e-Learning through Relational Coordination
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Margalina%2C+Vasilica+Maria%22">Margalina, Vasilica Maria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22De-Pablos-Heredero%2C+Carmen%22">De-Pablos-Heredero, Carmen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Montes-Botella%2C+Jose+Luis%22">Montes-Botella, Jose Luis</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Studies in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2017 42(9):1655-1670.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Electronic+Learning%22">Electronic Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Attitudes%22">Positive Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Courses%22">Online Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Standards%22">Academic Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Corporations%22">Corporations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Improvement%22">Educational Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Quality%22">Educational Quality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Structural+Equation+Models%22">Structural Equation Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Least+Squares+Statistics%22">Least Squares Statistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Communication%22">Organizational Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Administration%22">Educational Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1113953
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0307-5079
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this research, the relational coordination model has been applied to prove learners' and instructors' high levels of satisfaction in e-learning. According to the model, organizations can obtain better results in terms of satisfaction by providing shared knowledge, shared goals and mutual respect mechanisms, supported by a frequent, timely and problem-solving communication. Online courses learners and instructors from Spanish universities and private companies have been surveyed on these particular issues. By using structural equation model analysis, it is shown that high standards in terms of relational coordination amongst learners and instructors explain higher degrees of satisfaction. This research contributes to the literature by validating from an empirical point of view the effects of the use of the relational coordination model in e-learning. The results should be considered by universities and private companies when they evaluate the results of their actual e-learning systems and search for the improvement of quality.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 71
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1147248
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1147248
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1113953
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 1655
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Electronic Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Solving
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Corporations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Quality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Structural Equation Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Least Squares Statistics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Achieving Quality in e-Learning through Relational Coordination
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Margalina, Vasilica Maria
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: De-Pablos-Heredero, Carmen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Montes-Botella, Jose Luis
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0307-5079
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 42
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Studies in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1