NEW PATHWAYS IN E-LEARNING:

THE ROLE OF STUDENT PROACTIVITY AND

TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION

Jill Kickul
DePaul University
Department of Management
1 E. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
312.362.6786
Fax: 312.362.6973
jkickul@wppost.depaul.edu

Gerard Kickul
Director, Center for Instructional Delivery
University of St. Francis
500 Wilcox Street Joliet, IL 60435
815.740.5080
Fax: 815.740.4285
gkickul@stfrancis.edu


Paper submitted for review and consideration to the 45rd Annual Meeting of the
Midwest Academy of Management Conference (Management Education:
Teaching & Instruction).

1
 NEW PATHWAYS IN E-LEARNING:
THE ROLE OF STUDENT PROACTIVITY AND
TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION

ABSTRACT

Within the past few years, colleges and universities have introduced and
incorporated a number of e-learning technologies to increase flexibility in course
offerings and to enhance student-learning experiences. However, little systematic
research has been conducted to assess the value of e-learning tools to the
students. We propose and test an e-learning model that incorporates proactive
student characteristics, the utilization of e-learning tools and educational
outcomes within an Internet learning environment. While previous research
indicates that e-learning technology can support higher-order thinking by
engaging students in authentic, complex tasks, our e-learning model seeks to
understand the factors and processes essential to student education and
development (i.e., achieving the multiple learning goals of exploration,
communication, collaboration, and assessment). We incorporate and examine
factors, including student proactivity and the utilization of e-learning tools that
may influence a student’s ability to achieve his or her learning goals and
objectives. A total of 1043 students comprised of graduate and undergraduate
students participated in the study. All participants were enrolled in an e-
learning environment in which no face-to-face instruction occurred. Results
revealed that the interaction of student proactivity factored into the students’
utilization of e-learning tools and programs. The increased utilization of e-
learning tools subsequently influenced e-learning goal attainment and student
outcomes. This research is one of the first empirical studies of e-learning
innovations within a university setting and practical implications as well as
directions for future research are discussed.

1
 INTRODUCTION

As seen in the last few years, educators involved in the many forms of
distance education are exploring the potential of e-learning instruction as an
extension or even a replacement to their current educational delivery systems.
As many universities are discovering, e-learning classrooms are the new frontier.
And yes, the challenges of building and maintaining e-learning classrooms while
adjusting to the needs of diverse learners across space, time zones, languages,
and cultures seem insurmountable at times. This research study examines a new
model of e-learning that can be employed to assist and guide schools through the
development of quality e-learning classrooms.
Given the changing workplace environment and the requirement for
continual employee learning, many working adults are searching for universities
that offer their courses utilizing e-learning technology and programs (Blasera,
1998, Cooper, 1999). However, the rapid growth in e-learning is occurring
without research into the effective design of Internet-based courses. The authors
have designed their e-learning model as the initial research methodology into
determining the various factors that influence student outcomes and e-learning
goal attainment (see Figure 1). Our study examines the role that student
proactivity has on the utilization of e-learning tools and programs. These tools
and programs may impact a student’s ability to achieve his or her learning goals
and objectives. To test our proposed model, we gathered both institutional and
program assessment data over a two-year period.

Defining E-Learning: The Immediate Opportunities and Challenges

In a recent study by the International Data Corporation (IDC), the number

of college students enrolled in distance learning courses will triple by 2002
(reaching 2.2 million or 15 percent of all higher education students).
Additionally, according to IDC, the proportion of four-year colleges offering
some form of distance learning or e-learning program will rise from 62 percent to
84 percent.
The term e-learning involves using the Internet as a communications
medium where the instructor and students are separated by physical distance
(Cooper, 1999). E-learning expands the learning opportunities of students who
are time limited, live in remote communities, and/or have work or family
commitments or other barriers that prevent them from attending a traditional
classroom learning environment. Common e-learning tools include discussion
boards, email, chat rooms, video streaming, document transfer, and other
technologies to facilitate the educational process.
In order for students to take full advantage of many of the e-learning
innovations and technologies, several factors are essential in facilitating student

2

PROPOSED MODEL RELATIONSHIPS
Student Proactive
Characteristics
Communication with
Students
Teacher
Outside Experts
Performance feedback
FIGURE 1
Utilization of
E-learning Tools
E-learning
Outcomes
Email/Web Browsers
Discussion rooms
Creation of discussion drafts
Creation of assignment drafts Appropriate technology
Recommend to others
Transferable to work
3
 education and development. Our model investigates the role that student
proactivity (including active class participation, internal and external class
communications, and the degree of performance feedback) has on the utilization
of e-learning tools and programs (e.g., course management software programs).
All of these factors contribute to a student’s e-learning goal attainment and
outcomes (at both the personal and work level). The following is a discussion of
many of these areas highlighted in our model.

Student E-Learning Perspectives

E-learners, just like most adult learners, possess certain common proactive
characteristics, which tend to differ from traditional age college students (Neeley,
Niemi, & Ehrhard, 1998). The ability to set goals and then to prioritize the
various goals is one of the significant characteristics of adult learners. Adult
learners are more likely to organize diverse time demands generated by work
and family requirements. Given the various demands on an adult's time, there is
a greater tendency to take their education more seriously (Neeley et al., 1998).
Other common characteristics of adult learners is that they possess good time
management skills, adopt easily to new learning environments, and can work
with minimal outside feedback and reminders (Connick, 1999).
Another characteristic of an adult learner is that they are more
independent than the traditional learner. They possess the ability to work with
minimal direction and will rely heavily on their past experiences when
confronted with new learning situations (Connick, 1999). Adult learners find it
easier to relate and transform theory into practical applications outside of the
classroom (Neeley et al., 1998). Furthermore, adult learners prefer to and
appreciate experiential learning situations (Neeley et al., 1998). Ultimately, adult
learners will tend to relate to new situations within the framework of their past
experiences.
Employing these adult student-learning perspectives as a foundation, this
research study incorporated various student proactivity characteristics into the
online survey. For courses that did not require the use of electronic
communication, students were asked to indicate how likely they are to be an
active participant in discussions about course material. Given the fact that adult
learners incorporate their work within their learning framework, the
questionnaire also examined their willingness to communicate with content
experts outside of school as well as with student peers.

The Relationship Between the Utilization of E-Learning Tools and Programs

and Student Education and Development
The goal of implementing an e-learning program is to assist and facilitate
the educational development of the student. Use of current e-learning tools and
programs by the instructor and students must be effectively integrated within
the course. Although the integration of technology into the classroom has been

4
a slow process, the development of new Course Management Software (CMS)
programs have begun to change the instructional methodology in higher
education. CMS are Internet based programs that reduce or eliminate traditional
classroom time. Using CMS, learning can occur at anytime during the day and
from anywhere in the world. These new software packages bring about a major
pedagogical shift from the traditional instructor-centered lecture class to a
student-centered on-line course environment. CMS programs can expand the
classroom learning atmosphere from the traditional three one-hour meetings per
week into an anytime, anywhere-educational environment. The flexibility of
CMS programs allows universities to use them as supplemental educational tools
to the regular classroom or to modify how students are taught. The increased
use of technology begins to change the traditional classroom structure as
students start learning entirely on-line and never physically step into the
traditional classroom (refer to Table 1 for further definition and description of
the benefits of using CMS).

In addition to the basic CMS program components of electronic bulletin

boards and chat rooms, the study examined the student utilization of these other
computer-based tools including the use of email and web browsers.
Applicational use of CMS tools were also examined in the questionnaire as
students were asked to indicate their use of the software in completing
assignments and in posting discussion responses within the classroom bulletin
board.
The use of CMS technology and innovations in learning methodologies
can assist many students to achieve and attain multiple course learning goals and
objectives. From the students’ perspectives, here are just a few of the comments
that have been gathered in an e-learning program (Jeris, LaRocco, & Kickul,
2000).
The quality of contact with students in the 'cyber-classroom' is far superior to the
standard classroom. Each student has the opportunity to correspond when he or
she is ready; this creates an open, non-restrictive atmosphere.

The contact in the on-line course room is more productive and thought provoking.
One has the time to contemplate answers, which opens up further discussion.
Everyone is truly given the opportunity to answer. There are no constraints on
time as would be in a classroom setting. The atmosphere is one of mutual respect.

The comments are usually quite well thought out and in themselves, stimulate
additional discussion. It's interesting to hear comments from other regions of the
country and how they compare to the comments I might have. The classes lend
themselves very well to diversity, which is an asset in itself.

5

BENEFITS OF COURSE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE (CMS) TECHNOLOGY
CMS Component
Course Content Area
Discussion Rooms
(electronic bulletin boards)
Chatrooms
Assignment Drop Box and
Examinations
Online Grade book
Progress feedback
TABLE 1
Benefit
• Just-In-Time availability of
course material
• Central material depository
• Student access to material
• Asynchronous
communication
o peer to peer
o student to teacher
• Increases course discussion
• Student participation
• Synchronous communication
• Students hand in their
assignment electronically
• Flexibility
• Students are able to see their
grades whenever they desire
• Feedback
• Students can track where they
have been
• Track work completed
E-learning Utilization
• Students use web browser to
access material.
• Office productivity software
• Student use web browser
• Word processor usage
• Feedback on discussions
• Email
• Student use web browsers
• ICQ
• Use of Office productivity
software
• Student use web browser
• File Transfer Programs
• Student use web browser
• Improved feedback on
student progress
• Student use web browser
• Improved feedback on
student progress
Example
• Digital Lecture
• PowerPoint lecture material
• Multimedia material
o Video clips
o Web sites
• Chapter relation discussions
• Ask the experts
Outside experts answer
student questions
• Group-related functions
• Instructor Office hours
• Virtual Student Union
• Group collaboration
• Assignments, papers emailed
directly back to students with
ideas and comments
6
 METHOD

Participants

The 1043 participants of this study were undergraduate and graduate

students enrolled in an on-line program at a private Midwestern University.
Data was gathered from Spring of 2000 through August 2001. Of the 1043
participants, 26% were graduate students, 70% were undergraduate students and
4% did not indicate their major. The graduate students were enrolled in a
Masters of Business Administration or a Masters of Science in Health Service
Administration degree program. Of the undergraduate students, 85% were
enrolled in a Health Art degree completion program, 7% were Nursing students,
and 8% were business students.

Questionnaire and Measures

The instrument used in this study was based on the evaluation questions
from the Flashlight Program (assessment of the effectiveness of the University’s
On-line Program). The final version of the questionnaire was converted into a
web-based form for use by the students from their home computer. During the
last three weeks of a course, students completed the assessment questionnaire.
Although web-based surveying may require sophisticated programming
expertise (over the traditional mail format which are paper and pencil based), the
software used to develop the questionnaire can be programmed automatically to
collect summaries of the data that can be readily tabulated and analyzed.
Researchers who have compared on-line and traditional mail respondents have
concluded that there are no significant responses biases between these two
methods on demographic and/or attitudinal or behavioral data (refer to
Bachmann, Elfrink, & Vazzana, 1996; Mehta & Sivadas, 1995; Tse, 1998).
In terms of our measures, we examined multiple factors associated with
our e-learning model including student proactivity (i.e., a student’s willingness to
participate and communicate with the instructor, other students, and content
experts outside the university), Utilization of e-learning tools and programs (i.e., a
student’s use of course management tools including interacting with other
people using real time electronic communication and crafting or revising a
discussion response before producing and posting the final response and student
e-learning outcomes (i.e., assessment of various student educational goals and
objectives). All items that comprise these measures can be found in Table 2.

7
 TABLE 2
RESULTS OF CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (MEASUREMENT MODEL)
Student Utilization of Student E-
Items Proactivity E-Learning Learning
Tools and Outcomes
Programs

Lambdas

Be an active participant in discussion about the course material 1.00

Communicate with content experts outside your college or university 0.77
Receive comments from the instructor on assignments quickly 1.11
Communicate with fellow students regarding course subject matter 1.09
Ability to check on how well you are performing in the class 1.06
Interacting with other people using real time electronic communication like a chat session 1.00
Reviewing additional reading and/or conducting additional research related to this course 0.80
Revising one or more drafts of an assignments before producing the final product 0.86
Crafting or revising a discussion response before producing and posting the final response 0.80
The technology used in this course was appropriate for performing the required tasks 1.00
I would recommend that others take a course that is delivered via this on-line course technology 1.26
I learned as much with this delivery system as in a traditional classroom 1.38
My computer skills have increased as the result of this on-line course 0.86
I would take another on-line course offered by this university 0.85
My experience from this course can be directly transferred to my work 0.91
χ2 (87) = 470.59; Goodness Of Fit Index (GFI) = .94; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .91; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .90

8
Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using the two-step approach for measurement
analysis and structural equation modeling, as recommended by Anderson and
Gerbing (1988). Their approach separates the analysis of a measurement model
representing the relationships between the individual indicators and latent
variables from the analysis of the structural paths between the latent concepts.
In order to determine the structural relationships proposed in our model,
a series of models were evaluated by comparing the change in chi-square
associated with the restriction of certain paths to zero (Bentler & Bonett, 1980).
Figure 2 shows the first model (Model A) which contains paths from student
proactivity to utilization of e-learning tools and programs and from utilization of
e-learning tools and programs to student e-learning outcomes. From this
saturated model, three nested models were evaluated: Model B, which restricted
the path from student proactivity to utilization of e-learning tools and programs;
Model C, which restricted the path from utilization of e-learning tools and
programs to student e-learning outcomes; and finally, Model D, which restricted
the path from student proactivity to student e-learning outcomes. Significant
changes in the chi-square of these models from Model A indicate support for the
reinstatement of the restricted path.
After completing these model analyses, the significance of the individual
paths in the best-fitting model was assessed to demonstrate which structural
paths showed which specific paths accounted for the significant change in chi-
square and to determine if the change was positive or negative. Lisrel VIII
(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) was utilized to compare the fit of all nested models to
determine if the association between student proactivity and student e-learning
outcomes is mediated by utilization of e-learning tools and programs.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations, zero-order correlations, and reliabilities
for our constructs are reported in Table 3. The reliabilities of the measures used
were over the .70 minimum established by Nunnally (1978).
Test of the E-Learning Model
Before analyzing the e-learning model and the individual relationships, an
analysis of the measurement model (an overall confirmatory factor analyses of
the study’s constructs) was conducted, as recommended by Anderson and
Gerbing (1988). Although the chi-square score for this model was significant, (χ
2
(87), N = 1043) = 470.59, p<.001), two incremental fit indexes, the comparative

9
 FIGURE 2
PROPOSED MODEL RELATIONSHIPS AND ANALYSES (MODEL A)

Utilization of
Student Proactive E-learning Tools
Characteristics
B C E-learning
Communication with Email/Web Browsers Outcomes
Students Discussion rooms
Teacher Creation of discussion drafts
Outside Experts Creation of assignment drafts Appropriate technology
Performance feedback Recommend to others
Transferable to work

Note: Theoretical relationships between student proactivity, utilization of e-learning tools, and e-learning outcomes and the nested
models utilized to assess the significance of those relationships. The path labeled B represents the paths restricted to zero in Model
B; the path labeled C represents the path restricted to zero in Model C; and the path labeled D represents the paths restricted to zero
in model D. For each of the nested models, if restriction of the paths to zero causes a significant difference in chi-square, then
support is shown for reinstating those path(s) in the full model.

10
 TABLE 3
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS, CORRELATIONS, AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITIES

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3

1. Student Proactivity 3.95 0.86 (.84)

2. Utilization of e-learning tools and programs 2.89 0.56 .41** (.83)
3. Student e-learning outcomes 3.98 0.85 .17** .40** (.85)

N = 1043; Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s Alpha) are provided along the diagonal, in parentheses.

**p<.001

11
 fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) were .91 and .90, respectively.
The CFI index is independent of the size of the sample and degrees of freedom
(Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). Bentler and Bonett (1980) recommended that
a value of .90 or higher on the CFI and TLI indicates an adequate fit of model to
data.
Nested model comparisons were then conducted to determine if the
relationship between student proactivity and student e-learning outcomes is
mediated by utilization of e-learning tools and programs. The results of the
nested models analysis are reported in Table 4. Model A in Table 4 is the model
in Figure 2 (includes all of the mediating and direct effects). As shown in the
first row of Table 4, this saturated model had a χ2 of 470.59, with 87 degrees of
freedom (GFI=.94; CFI=.91; TLI=.90). Model B is almost identical to Model A,
except that the effect of student proactivity to utilization of e-learning tools and
programs was omitted. As shown in Table 4, the chi-square difference between
these models was 79.07, which was significant (p<.001) at 1 degree of freedom,
indicating that the effect of student proactivity on utilization of e-learning tools
and programs made an important contribution to the overall fit of the model and
should not be omitted.
Model C is almost identical to Model A except the effect of utilization of e-
learning tools and programs to student e-learning outcomes was omitted. The
chi-square difference between Model C and Model A was 31.92, which was
significant (p<.001) at 1 degree of freedom, indicating that the effect of utilization
of e-learning tools and programs to student e-learning outcomes should not be
deleted from the model. Finally, Model D is the same as Model A, except that
the effect of student proactivity to student e-learning outcomes was omitted.
This model was used to determine whether the relationship between student
proactivity and student e-learning outcomes were fully or partially mediated by
utilization of e-learning tools and programs. The chi-square difference between
Model D and Model A was 2.30, and is not significant at 1 degree of freedom.
Therefore, student proactivity is fully mediated by utilization of e-learning tools
and programs in determining student e-learning outcomes.

Significance of Individual Paths

The model comparisons discussed above were conducted to test the
aggregate, not the individual relationships. Figure 3 displays the standardized
LISREL estimates for the relationships in the final model examined in Table 4
(Model D). Student proactivity had a significant impact on utilization of e-
learning tools and programs (β =.29; p<.001). Additionally, the relationship
between utilization of e-learning tools and programs and e-learning outcomes
was also significant (β =.23; p<.001).

12
 TABLE 4
MODEL ANALYSIS AND COMPARISONS

Goodness of Fit Chi-Square Differencea

Model Interpretation χ2 df GFI CFI TLI χ2 df ∆GFI ∆CFI ∆TLI

A Full Model (i.e., 470.59** 87 .94 .91 .90 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
mediating and direct
effects)
B Full Model without 549.66** 88 .92 .89 .87 79.07** 1 .02 .02 .03
Student Proactivity→
utilization of e-learning
tools and programs
C Full Model without 502.51** 88 .93 .90 .89 31.92** 1 .01 .01 .01
utilization of e-learning
tools and programs →
student e-learning
outcomes
D Full Model without 472.89** 88 .94 .91 .90 2.30 1 .00 .00 .00
Student Proactivity →
student e-learning
outcomes
Measurement Model 470.59** 87 .94 .91 .90 ___ ___ ___ ___

a
Difference scores were calculated from a chi-square of 470.59 with 87 df.
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI); Comparative Fit Index (CFI); Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI); **p<.001

13
 FIGURE 3
FINAL MODEL RELATIONSHIPS AND ANALYSES (MODEL D)

Utilization of
Student Proactive E-learning Tools
Characteristics
.29** .23** E-learning
Communication with Email/Web Browsers Outcomes
Students Discussion rooms
Teacher Creation of discussion drafts
Outside Experts Creation of assignment drafts Appropriate technology
Performance feedback Recommend to others
Transferable to work

N=1043. Standardized Lisrel Estimates. **p<.001

14
 DISCUSSION
The results uncovered in this research represent one of the first empirical
investigations into factors and characteristics that influence e-learning outcomes.
As a first and foundational step to increasing our understanding of e-learning
programs, this study examined students’ proactive characteristics and their
influence on learning goals and objectives as mediated by the use of electronic
learning tools and programs. The results of our study yield information that
may be useful in guiding future research as they address key factors essential to
the adoption and effective integration of e-learning strategies, initiatives, and
programs for universities.
As seen in our results, the utilization of e-learning tools and technologies
had a significant impact on learning goals and objectives. In addition to
statistical data, the importance and value of using e-learning tools was also
reflected in the open-ended questions on the assessment survey. One major issue
mentioned by the students about e-learning was the time convenience of the
courses. Students have the ability to schedule class time according to their
schedule, even if they have to travel for extended periods of time for work-
related assignments. Second, the degree of interaction and communication
between classmates and others was unexpected, with many students
commenting on the depth of the on-line discussions and debates that occurred
throughout the course period. Finally, the students appreciated the customer
support they received not only from a technical aspect but also from the
university as a whole.
Moreover, the students’ comments included more specific and interesting
thoughts that are related to e-learning tool utilization, the quality of online
learning they received, and the learning outcomes of their online classes. From
the students’ perspectives, here are just a few of the comments that were
gathered in the on-line program.
I feel like I can express myself more on the Internet than in a regular classroom.
Maybe talking in front of everyone is more intimidating than talking of the
Internet. You can get a lot of good feedback from your fellow students as well as
your instructor. All of the information is very educational and helps you to
expand your knowledge on the subject.

I particularly like the discussion portion of the classroom or on-line setting, as it

is a very meaningful part of how I learn. The on-line forum actually has allowed
me to participate in discussions all week versus one night a week.

Although I initially felt self conscious about posting my discussion, I had time to
think about it ahead of time and could take my time in writing my response.

15
 The rapid feedback from professor and the interaction with peers’ homework
assignment sparked class discussion.

I like the interaction with students all over the country. The diversity of student
backgrounds made for a more interesting learning environment.

The online class allowed me to take as much time as I want to read and think
about subject material including classmate discussion remarks. Being able to e-
mail my professor or anyone in my class any time I like was a great advantage.

I wish people would stop trying to compare this forum of learning with that of an
onsite classroom. I have by far had more interaction and more discussion online
than I ever had in a conventional classroom.

Also included in the assessment questionnaire were two questions asking

the students to identify barriers to their learning. The most common complaint
was the slow or narrow bandwidth available to the students in their homes.
Secondly, the students felt a social disconnection from their classmates and
instructors. The need for face-to-face communication was desired but most were
willing to forgo the social interaction in order to accomplish their learning goals.
The final major barrier was service outages at various times, including being
disconnected from their Internet Service Provider (ISP) and when the
university’s servers were off-line.
Further work should seek to understand the needs and preferences of
graduate and undergraduate management students with respect of e-learning
technologies and other course attributes (beyond student proactivity). Although
outside the scope and purpose of our study, it is our hope that future research
examines effective and alternative approaches for delivering flexible format
business courses with “right” mix of online technologies. One econometric
procedure, known as discrete choice analysis (DCA), may be used to model
students’ course selection process with varying levels of e-learning technologies.

Conclusion
By incorporating e-learning innovations and technologies, students have
other learning avenues and alternatives that can assist them in meeting the
changing demands of the marketplace where complex problems and uncertainty
are ever present. Just as organizations must find creative ways to sustain their
competitive edge through the introduction of new technologies and services,
universities and educators should take proactive steps toward meeting the needs
of their students. Introducing e-learning tools and resources may be one way
that educators can assist students in achieving the multiple learning goals of
exploration, communication, and collaboration beyond the framework and
boundaries of the traditional classroom.

16
 REFERENCES

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, B. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411-
423.

Bachmann, D., Elfrink, J., & Vazzana, G. (1996). Tracking the progress of e-mail vs.
snail-mail. Marketing Research, 8: 30-36.

Bentler, P M., & Bonnett D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the
analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 588-606.

Blasera, A. (1998). Web-based educational environments. University of South Florida

[on-line]. Retrieved June 29, 1999. Available: www.isis.acomp.usf.edu/Web-
Based/comparison.html

Connick, G. P. (1999). The distance learner guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall

Cooper, L. (1999). Anatomy of an on-line course. T.H.E. Journal, 26, 49. Retrieved
May 25, 1999 from INFOTRAC SearchBank (Article # A53929573).

Jeris, L., LaRocco, M., & Kickul, G. (2000, March): Online MBA: A Case Study Issues,
Challenges, Successes, and Lessons Learned. Paper presented at the Midwest
Academy of Management, Chicago IL

Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the
SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Kickul, G., & Snodgrass, M. (2000, October): Online Education: A Realistic Perspective
of Issues, Challenges and Successes. Paper presented at the Educause 2000,
Nashville TN.

Marsh, M.L., Balla, J.R., McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in

confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin,
103: 391-410.

Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in
mail versus electronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society,
37(4): 429-439.

17
Neeley, L., Niemi, J. A., & Ehrhard, B. J. (1998). Classes going the distance so people
don't have to: Instructional opportunities for adult learners. T.H.E. Journal,
26(4), 72-74.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tse, A.C.B. (1998). Comparing the response rate, response speed, and response quality
of two methods of sending questionnaires: e-mail vs. mail. Journal of the
Market Research Society, 40(4): 353-36

18
1