Effect of Demographic Factors on Knowledge Creation Processes In Learning Management System

Among Postgraduate Students

Mazida Ahmad1, Juliana Aida Abu Bakar2, Noor Izzah Yahya3, Norhana Yusof4, Abdul Nasir Zulkifli5 School of Computing, College of Arts and Sciences, Universti Utara Malaysia

Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia { mazida1, liana2, izzah3, ynorhana4, nasirzul5}@uum.edu.my

Abstract—Analyzing data from top Japanese industries, Nonaka and Takeuchi concluded that knowledge creation involves the processes of interaction and transaction of tacit and explicit knowledge between experts and novices that employ the processes of Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization (SECI). The SECI model is appealing but has not been shown to be applicable to the field of education. Thus, this study investigated whether the SECI model could explain the knowledge creation processes in education for demographic factors in online Learning Management System (LMS) supported postgraduate courses. The sample comprised 160 postgraduate students enrolled in LMS-supported courses in higher learning institution. Data was analyzed using statistical analysis such as independence samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). It was found that the Socialization process has significant difference in the scores for all the demographic factors. These findings suggest that for Socialization process, careful review of LMS-supported teaching method among the postgraduate students should be undertaken to harness the knowledge creation processes from lecturers as experts to students as novices.

Keywords-component; knowledge creation; Learning Management System (LMS); demographic factors

I. INTRODUCTION Higher learning institution is a center for knowledge

creation [1], which means the center for new knowledge creation by the experts through research as well as new practices among novices through teaching and learning process. Unlike the industry that comprises highly qualified personnel and strong hierarchical structures headed by experts, the processes of knowledge creation in education are claimed to be adversely influenced by large gaps of knowledge and abilities between the lecturers (the experts) and the students (the novices) and also by the instructional methods and resources employed. New knowledge creation involves experiments and testing by the expert in developing various theories and models in understanding nature’s processes and socials, whereas new knowledge understanding and application anticipate expert creation process among novices or students under the supervision of lecturers or researchers whom is the expert in their field by utilizing accumulated knowledge and expertise. The experts possess the expertise in two aspect, tacit

knowledge and explicit knowledge. Knowledge understanding process or expert building is meant to transfer developed knowledge in an expert to the novices and involve interaction processes and transaction on tacit and explicit knowledge iteratively or continuously until new knowledge is formed inside the soul of the student. With technology enable, the interaction and transaction processes is now intended into online methods through Learning Management System (LMS) such as Moodle, WebCT and Blackboard.

II. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN EDUCATION In education, knowledge is divided into two, tacit and

explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge relates to ideas, perceptions and experiences of lecturers while explicit knowledge is easily handled through computers, communicating via the Internet and stored in the database [2]. [3] defined tacit knowledge in academic as interpersonal management, individual management and tasks management. [4] further developed [3] by supporting the existence of tacit knowledge in academic field which has been classified into three, namely cognitive, that consist of self and organizational management, technical, consisting from individual task to institutional tasks, and social, covering from interactional to social interaction. [5] defined tacit knowledge as the ability to judge and make decision. [6] stated that one of the sources for tacit knowledge is experience and thinking. According to [7], tacit knowledge is divided into two, daily stored knowledge in organizational level like information regarding teaching and learning process managed by the lecturer and knowledge created by students directly and indirectly obtained from knowledge at organizational level through teaching by the lecturer and conclusion from the learning process. A dynamic knowledge is an exchangeable basic knowledge towards a higher level produced from a complete cycle of knowledge creation [8].

A number of researches discussed the framework of knowledge creation process in higher learning institutions. [9] suggested a Knowledge Management (KM) framework for collaborative environment in higher learning institution. The framework consists of five components, functionality, system

2011 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS2011), September 25 - 28, 2011, Langkawi, Malaysia

978-1-61284-931-7/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 47

architecture, psychology, cultural aspects, management strategies and evaluation or audit system. The study stresses on knowledge sharing in entire organization including students, lecturer, managements and the whole community. [10] suggested knowledge management framework and delivery cycle within faculty members. This model introduced three approach levels covering research engine, production engine and learning engine that develop as the most important factor in knowledge creation and delivery process. [1] introduced a model for knowledge development that consists of six knowledge management activities known as capture, keep, share, learn, exploit and explore using three main factors, technology, humans and policy. [11] developed a conceptual model for knowledge creation that stresses on the importance of information system and other related factors in knowledge creation process. The model and framework work towards elements needed for knowledge creation in higher learning institution but do not stress towards end product obtained from the process. Knowledge creation in higher learning institution covers tacit and explicit knowledge obtained through teaching and learning process among students and lecturers through out the process of knowledge creation [6,7,5].

Knowledge creation model involves the processes of

interaction and transaction of tacit and explicit knowledge between experts and novices that employ the processes of SECI [12] as depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. SECI Model (Adapted from [12])

Socialization is the process of transferring the tacit

knowledge in one person to tacit knowledge in another person through direct interactions and experience shared between them through face-to-face or online discussion. Externalization is the process of making tacit knowledge explicit through articulating one’s tacit knowledge into ideas, metaphors and analogies that can be shared between individuals within a group. Combination is the process of gathering the explicit knowledge from several sources namely documents, emails and databases to become systematic and structured knowledge. Internalization is the process of grasping and retaining the learned explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge by an individual. Through internalization,

experiences gained are actualized as concepts, methods and processes performed during experiments, problem based learning and simulation. Thus, the SECI model should be possible to be implemented in Learning Management System as an online learning environment.

III. CASE STUDY Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) implemented an Open

Source Learning Management System (LMS) based on Moodle in 2009. Moodle is a popular teaching tool with a broad spectrum of features that is widely used by many universities [1,2]. The LMS in UUM is named as LearningZone and it is under the supervision of the University Teaching and Learning Centre (UTLC) and Computer Centre of UUM. LearningZone acts as an additional strategy of knowledge creation between lecturers and students. LearningZone offers online learning facilities over the network.

The lecturers create a portfolio for every course and the

portfolio contains teaching materials and external resources or references. Students can access the materials anywhere and at anytime and can continuously evaluate their understanding by taking part in online assessments provided by the lecturers [3]. A forum for online discussion between the lecturer and the students is also available. The LearningZone is being widely used by two academic colleges in UUM; College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) and College of Business (COB). Based on our observation, LearningZone allows for activities which include Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization to be conducted iteratively throughout the course.

A. Socialization Socialization is the process of converting tacit knowledge

to tacit knowledge through shared experience in daily social interaction [6].

LearningZone can help construct maps of tacit knowledge

between lecturers and students. It provides online interaction between the lecturers and students through two methods; email and online forum. Students can have one-to-one interaction with their lecturers through email[11]. Besides that through online forum, it enables one-to-many interaction. Lecturers can create new forum for specific topic that can be joined by any students in the same group. By using this feature, students can exchange ideas or give comments between lecturers and colleagues [10]. The online forum also supports online group collaboration that can be harnessed by student to complete the assignment given by their lecturer [11]. They also can asked their lecturers to provide online comments without having to meet personally with their lecturers.

B. Externalization The externalization process is a process of transfering tacit

knowledge to explicit knowledge [7].

2011 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS2011), September 25 - 28, 2011, Langkawi, Malaysia

48

LearningZone is a convenient tool in supporting external knowledge sharing. Lecturers can share any information that exists outside the system by sharing the external link for additional references. Online forum in LearningZone has characteristics similar to the real class discussion [14]. This makes the students feel the social presence of colleagues and lecturers while having discussion in informal and unstructured nature. This characteristic makes LearningZone very efficient to capture tacit knowledge and transform to explicit knowledge. The LearningZone offers ready-to-use system, so students and lecturers can use it anytime and anywhere. Students can access the materials easily and quickly [5]. Apart from that, LearningZone is a user friendly system which supports enjoyable learning process [15] and offers flexible environment for students. It is a communication medium which provides high value on media richness where student can actively participate in interaction and get immediate feedback from lecturers and other colleagues [16].

C. Combination The combination process happens when explicit

knowledge is collected from internal or external system [6]. This knowledge process combines different sources of explicit knowledge [8]. Various examples of sources include documents, teaching materials and external links.

The LearningZone offers various features in providing

convenient learning environment. It has intuitive interfaces and is easy to use. Lecturers can share their teaching materials in LearningZone and students can download it anytime and anywhere [13]. Any announcements from lecturers can be made and viewed in LearningZone. Thus, lecturers can always update their students with current infomation via online. LearningZone enables students to customize their learning in order to personalize their own environment [12]. They can change profile setting, bookmark sites or keep track of their performance.

D. Internalization This process involves the conversion of explicit knowledge

to tacit knowledge [9]. The tacit knowledge is applied in practical situation which then become the base for new routines [7]. In order to make it happen, knowledge has to be assimilated by students [9].

Outcome from activities in LearningZone can contribute to

knowledge sharing and reuse the knowledge by students [14]. This process will be implemented when students make reference to the external source on their own. Then, they will share the new knowledge with other colleagues through discussion to collect more information and get a better view on related topics. Then, students were able to conduct self-learning without the help from colleagues or lecturers in their own learning process [14]. Indirectly, this situation can enhance learning and thinking skill among students. Skill in decision making also will be improved when then can make their own decision without any influence from colleague’s opinion [4].

IV. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS The subjects for this study were 160 postgraduate students

from two colleges which are CAS and COB of UUM.

A set of questionnaires was developed by adapting from [28,29]. The factors investigated were the patterns of Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization of students in using the LMS following the processes proposed by [12]. Firstly, lecturers who were teaching postgraduate programs from the two colleges were asked for confirmation on the use of LearningZone via e-mail and telephone call. Then a list of sample consisting of postgraduate students where LearningZone was used by their lecturers in the teaching and learning processes. Then the questionnaires were sent to the lecturers concerned to be distributed among their students during their respective lecture.

The main aim of this research was to investigate the effects of demographic factors on the knowledge creation processes on teaching and learning environment between lecturers and postgraduate students. The aspects investigated are perceptions towards the LearningZone in terms of knowledge creation processes. The following research question provides the focus for investigation.

1. What are the effects of demographic factors on the knowledge creation processes?

V. RESULT AND DISCUSSSION

A. Demographics Table 1 depicts the demographic background of

respondents. There were altogether 160 respondents participated in this study where male constitutes a larger number than female. The distribution of age among the respondents was more or less equal with groups ranging from 20 to 25 years of age until above 31 years old.

Students from CAS formed the majority of respondents

compared to students from COB. This indicates that the LearningZone was rigorously utilized by many postgraduate students from CAS compared to COB.

In order to determine whether students' demographics

might have affected the scores of KM process, independent samples t-tests or ANOVA were conducted. This is discussed in detail in the following sub-sections.

TABLE I. DEMOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND

Variables Frequency (Valid %)

Gendera Male Female

89 (58.2) 64 (41.8)

Agec 20-25 26-30 Above 31

55 (35.9) 53 (34.6) 43 (28.1)

2011 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS2011), September 25 - 28, 2011, Langkawi, Malaysia

49

Variables Frequency (Valid %)

Collegeb Arts and Sciences Business

115 (74.7) 39 (25.3)

Nationalitya Malaysian Non-Malaysian

62 (40.5) 91 (56.9)

a. Missing cases = 7; b. Missing cases = 6; c. Missing cases = 9.

B. The Effects of Demographics on the KM Process 1) Gender

Table II shows male has higher mean scores on the whole KM process. On individual process, male has higher mean scores for Socialization and Externalization. On the other hand, female has higher mean scores for Combination and Internalization. In order to determine whether significant differences exist between these means, independent samples t-test was conducted with equal variances assumed (p>0.05).

It was found that there is no significant difference in the scores for gender on the whole KM process, t(151)=0.831, p=0.407. The results suggest that gender has no effect on the whole KM process. Specifically, male and female have a comparable effect on the whole KM process.

However, there is a significant difference in the scores for gender on Socialization, t(151)=3.060, p=0.003. This result suggests that gender has an effect on Socialization. It is believed that male utilizes all means of communication in order to exchange knowledge using email, forum and discussion with colleagues rather than female. It is believed that female prefers to communicate face to face with lecturers in gaining knowledge. However this issue is open for further research. This finding is supported by [30] which found that male appreciates e-learning more and learn things from it since they are more interested in technology.

There is no significant difference in the scores for gender on Externalization, t(151)=0.914, p=0.362, as well as on Combination, t(151)=-.312, p=0.756, and Internalization, t(151)=.831, p=0.985. This suggests that gender has no effect on Externalization, Combination and Internalization. Male and female have a comparable effect on Externalization, Combination, and Internalization.

2) Age From Table II, it was found that age group above 41 has

higher mean scores on the whole KM process and on individual processes, Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization. In order to determine whether significant effect of age exists, ANOVA was conducted with equal variances assumed (p>0.05).

It was found that there is no significant difference in the scores for age on the whole KM process, F(2,148)=2.265, p=0.107. This suggests that there is no effect of age on the whole KM process.

However, there is a significant difference on mean scores among age groups in Socialization, F(2,148)=3.619, p=0.029, This result suggests that age group may affect the way they socialized. It is anticipated that more mature and experienced

students have other commitments such as their full-time jobs and hence they prefer using online communication instead of face to face interaction with the lecturer. There are no specific studies that can explain such speculation.

There is no significant difference on mean scores among age groups in Externalization, F(2,148)=2.783, p=0.70, on Combination, F(2, 148)=.940, p=0.393, and on Internalization, F(2, 148)=.989, p=.374.

3) College Table II shows that COB has higher mean scores on the

whole KM process as well as on individual processes of Externalization, Combination, and Internalization. On the other hand, CAS has higher score on Socialization. In order to determine whether significant differences exist between these means, independent samples t-test was conducted with equal variances assumed (p>0.05).

It was found that there is no significant difference in the scores for colleges on the whole KM process, t(152)=0.542, p=0.589. This suggests there is no effect of students’ nature of study on the whole KM process.

However, there is a significant difference in the scores for

colleges on Socialization, t(152)=2.744, p=0.007. This result suggests that colleges have an effect on Socialization. As CAS students come from various science and technology background, it is anticipated that they are more technology savvy compared to COB students. Thus, CAS students are prone to use online means of communication such as email and forum to exchange knowledge with their colleagues.

There is no significant difference in the scores for gender on Externalization, t(152)=-0.90, p=0.928, as well as on Combination, t(152)=-1.791, p=0.075, and Internalization, t(152)=-1.638, p=0.103. These suggest that college has no effect on Externalization, Combination and Internalization. COB and CAS students have a comparable effect on Externalization, Combination, and Internalization.

4) Nationality

From Table II, it was found that Malaysian has slightly higher mean scores on the whole KM process and on individual processes, Combination, and Internalization. On the other hand, non-Malaysian has higher scores on Socialization and Externalization. In order to determine whether significant differences exist between these means, independent samples t-test was conducted with equal variances assumed (p>0.05).

It was found that there is no significant difference in the scores for nationality on the whole KM process, t(151)=0.033, p=0.975. This suggests there is no effect of nationality on the whole KM process.

However, there is a significant difference in the scores for nationality on Socialization, t(151)=-2.761, p=0.006. This result suggests that nationality has an effect on Socialization. This perhaps is due to being in a foreign country, non-Malaysian has more exposure to online means of communication at least to keep in touch with their parents, relatives and friends back home.

2011 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS2011), September 25 - 28, 2011, Langkawi, Malaysia

50

There is no significant difference in the scores for nationality on Externalization, t(151)=-0.073, p=0.942, as well as on Combination, t(151)=1.146, p=0.254, and Internalization, t(151)=0.942, p=0.348. These suggest that nationality has no effect on Externalization, Combination and

Internalization. Specifically, Malaysian and non-Malaysian students have a comparable effect on Externalization, Combination, and Internalization.

TABLE II. DEMOGRAPHIC MEAN SCORES ON KM PROCESS AND THEIR CORRESPONDING STANDARD DEVIATIONS

Variables

N KM Process, Mean (SD)

Socialization, Mean (SD)

Externalization, Mean (SD)

Combination, Mean (SD)

Internalization, Mean (SD)

Gender Male Female

89 64

192.12 (38.11) 187.23 (32.55)

33.0449 (7.20) 29.6719 (6.00)

69.20 (13.17) 67.23 (13.08)

33.99(9.54) 34.47 (9.19

53.15 (14.10) 53.19(12.55 )

Age 20-25 26-30 Above 31

55 53 43

187.96 (41.81) 184.02 (32.02) 199.33 (32.25)

31.07 (7.67) 30.32 (6.21) 33.95 (6.50)

66.42 (15.64) 66.77 (11.06) 72.00 (11.07)

34.60 (10.75) 32.79 (8.62) 35.33 (8.65)

53.22 (14.67) 51.40 (13.73) 55.30 (11.64)

College Arts and Sciences Business

115 39

189.23 (33.30) 192.69 (37.62)

32.36 (6.10) 29.00 (7.90)

68.27 (11.66) 68.49 (16.37)

33.54 (9.24) 36.49 (7.70)

52.28 (13.10) 56.08 (10.55)

Nationality Malaysian Non-Malaysian

62 91

190.66 (31.17) 190.48 (36.00)

29.79 (6.63) 32.78 (6.54)

68.34 (11.59) 68.49 (13.83)

35.35 (9.05) 33.67 (8.85)

54.58 (11.53) 52.66 (12.94)

VI. CONCLUSION This paper has documented a study on the investigation

whether the SECI model could explain the knowledge creation processes in education for demographic factors in online LMS-supported postgraduate courses. Based on the findings, it was found that gender, age, colleges and nationality have no effect on the whole KM process. However, there is significant difference in the scores for gender, age, colleges and nationality on Socialization. The results suggest that gender, age, colleges and nationality have effect on Socialization. While for Externalization, Combination, and Internalization, there is no significant difference in mean scores for gender, age, colleges and nationality. These suggest that gender, age, colleges and nationality have no effect on Externalization, Combination and Internalization. Based on these findings, it is recommended that a careful review of LMS-supported teaching method among the postgraduate students should be made to harness the knowledge creation processes from lecturers as experts to students as novices.

This study also proves that the SECI model is able to

explain the knowledge creation processes in education for demographic factors in online LMS-supported postgraduate courses. The teaching method involved in this study is face to face meeting and LMS-supported among postgraduate students. The implementation on every demographic factors for knowledge creation process may differ for different teaching method and level of student. The comparison between the environments are open to future research. This paper concludes by suggesting that further research into this area be conducted to study on others factors that could enhance the knowledge creation processes in education through the utilization of online LMS-supported courses.

REFERENCES [1] F. Chen, and F. Burstein, “A dynamic model of knowledge management

for higher education development” ,Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training ITHET '06, pp.173-180 ,2006

[2] H.M. Huang, and S. S. Liaw, ”The framework of knowledge creation for online learning environments” , Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 30(1). Retrieved 25 Februari, 2007, from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/119/113, 2004.

[3] A. Somech, and R. Bogler, “Tacit knowledge in academia : Its effects on student learning and achievement” , The Journal of Psychology, 133(6), 605-615, 1999

[4] N. Leonard, and G. S. Insch, ”Tacit knowledge in academia: a proposed model and measurement scale”, The Journal of Psychology, 139(6), 495-512, 2005

[5] S. Guthrie. “The role of tacit knowledge in judgement and decision making” , Proceedings of the 1995 International Conference on Outdoor Recreation and Education, pp.105-115, 1995

[6] J. G. Gerard, “Measuring knowledge source tacitness and explicitness: A comparison of paired items”, Proceedings: 5th Annual Organizational Learning and Knowledge Conference, 2003.

[7] T. Gerholm, “On tacit knowledge in academia. European Journal of Education”, 25(3), 263-271, 1990

[8] M. E. Nissen, Harnessing knowledge dynamics. Hershey: IRM Press, 2006

[9] R. Abdullah, M. H. Selamat, S. Sahibudin, and R. A. Alias, “A framework for knowledge management system implementation in collaborative environment for higher learning institution” , Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, March, 2005. Retrieved Januari 5, 2008, from http://www.tlainc.com/articl83.htm, 2005

[10] G. Piccoli, R. Ahmad, and B. Ives, ”Knowledge management in academia: A proposed framework” , Information Technology and Management, 1, 229-245, 2000

[11] S. Hijazi, and L. Kelly, “Knowledge creation in higher education institutions: a conceptual model” , Proceedings of the 2003 ASCUE Conference, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, pp.78-91 158, 2003

[12] I. Nonaka, and H. Takeuchi, The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995

[13] R. Guido and K. Andreas, “Extending moodle to better support computing education” , In Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM

2011 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS2011), September 25 - 28, 2011, Langkawi, Malaysia

51

SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 146-150, 2009

[14] D. C. Francesco, D. Gabriella, and P. Laura, “Integrating multidimensional means in e-learning” , In Proceedings of the second ACM international workshop on Multimedia technologies for distance leaning (MTDL '10), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 31-36, 2010.

[15] N. Atsushi, H. Hiroaki, F. Masayuki, and S. Kiyoshi, “Development of an e-learning back-end system for code assessment in elementary programming practice” , In Proceedings of the 38th annual fall conference on SIGUCCS (SIGUCCS '10), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 181-186, 2010.

[16] H. Dubberly and S, Evenson, “Design as learning---or "knowledge creation"---the SECI model” interactions 18, 1 (January 2011), 75-79, 2011.

[17] A. I. Albarrak, H. A. Aboalsamh and M. Abouzahra, "Evaluating learning management systems for University medical education," Education and Management Technology (ICEMT), 2010 International Conference on , vol., no., pp.672-677, 2010.

[18] T. Georgi, T. Daniela, and Z. Ilka. “The "Jigsaw" collaborative method in e-learning environment Moodle” , In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies and Workshop for PhD Students in Computing (CompSysTech '09), Boris Rachev and Angel Smrikarov, Eds. ACM, New York, NY, 2009.

[19] I. Nonaka, and N. Konno, “The Concept of "Ba":Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation” , CaliforniaManagement Review, 40(3), 1-15, 1998.

[20] I. Messinis, D. Saltaouras, P. Pintelas, and T. A. Mikropoulos, "Investigation of the Relation Between Interaction and Sense of Presence in Educational Virtual Environments," e-Education, e-Business, e-Management, and e-Learning, 2010. IC4E '10. International Conference on , vol., no., pp.428-431, 2010.

[21] P.K. Jack. “Investigating Learning Syles in the Online Educational Environment”, Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGITE conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 127-134, 2007.

[22] V. Varadarajan, and A. Ganz, "T-Buddy: Teach Buddy, a socializing medium to enhance learning," Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009. FIE '09. 39th IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-6, 2009.

[23] B. Jaeger, "What educational activities fit virtual worlds: Towards a theoretical evaluation framework," Digital Ecosystems and Technologies, 2009. DEST '09. 3rd IEEE International Conference on , vol., no., pp.715-720, 2009.

[24] I. Nonaka, R. Toyama, and N. Konno, ”SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic KnowledgeCreation”, Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5-34, 2000.

[25] W. Su-Chen, "University Instructor Perceptions of the Benefits of Technology Use in E-learning" , Computer and Electrical Engineering, 2009. ICCEE '09. vol.1, no., pp.580-585, 2009.

[26] E. Haghshenas, A. Mazaheri, A. Gholipour, M. Tavakoli, N. Zandi, H. Narimani, F. Rahimi, and S. Nouri, "Introducing a new intelligent adaptive learning content generation method" , E-Learning and E-Teaching (ICELET), pp.65-71, 2010.

[27] Z. Marta, G. Diego, and A. Elena, “A decision support system to improve e-learning environments”, In Proceedings of the 2010 EDBT/ICDT Workshops (EDBT '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2010.

[28] V. Anantatmula, and S. Kanungo, “Establishing and structuring criteria for measuring knowledge management efforts” , Proceeding of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp.1-11, 2005.

[29] H. C. Chan, B. C. Y. Tan, and W. P. Tan, ”A case study of one-to-one video-conferencing education over the internet” In Pour, M. K. (Ed.), Web-based instructional learning, Hershey: IRM Press, pp. 275-299, 2002.

[30] Md. Aminul Islam, Noor Asliza Abdul Rahim, Tan Chee Liang, and Hasina Momtaz, “Effect of demographic factors on e-learning effectiveness in a higher learning institution in Malaysia” , International Education Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, pp.112-122, 2011.

2011 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS2011), September 25 - 28, 2011, Langkawi, Malaysia

52