This article extends previous research into digital user behavior in learning contexts by examining Gen Z, regarding their digital engagement and managing knowledge transfer in virtual learning environments (VLE). The study adds to the literature on the challenges faced by learners in making use of VLE and the implications for managing innovation in the delivery of knowledge transfer. Data collection was undertaken using a mixed-method approach, combining both an online survey of 200 learners and interviews with 12 instructors and 22 learners about their experiences and perceptions of using VLE. The findings show inconsistencies in user experiences including evidence of disruptive behavior among learners and negative user perceptions, rather than perceiving VLE as an enhanced value proposition. Our insights extend the study of using VLE by furthering the understanding of factors that influence learners’ VLE engagement and course satisfaction from their experiences and perceptions of the VLE. Furthermore, we are developing a new model to demonstrate that VLE engagement requires a redesign of the business model for delivering knowledge transfer.
AgarwalU. (2019). Qualitative interviewing. In SubudhiR.MishraS. (Eds.), Methodological issues in management research: Advances, challenges, and the way ahead (pp. 79–91). Emerald Publishing Ltd.
2.
Al-RahmiW. M.YahayaN.AlamriM. M.AlyoussefI. Y.Al-RahmiA. M.KaminY. B. (2021). Integrating innovation diffusion theory with technology acceptance model: Supporting students’ attitude towards using a massive open online course (MOOCs) systems. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(8), 1380–1392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629599
3.
Al-Zou’biR.ShammaF. (2021). Assessing instructors’ usage of emojis in distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 16(1), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i1.5520
4.
AmoozegarA.AbdelmagidM.AnjumT. (2021). Course satisfaction and perceived learning among distance learners in Malaysian research universities: The impact of motivation, self-efficacy, self-regulated learning, and instructor immediacy behaviour. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 39, 387–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2022.2102417
5.
ArbaughJ. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in Internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 9–26.
6.
ArbaughJ. B. (2010). Sage, guide, both, or even more? An examination of instructor activity in online MBA courses. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1234–1244.
7.
BaberH. (2021). Modelling the acceptance of e-learning during the pandemic of COVID-19-A study of South Korea. The International Journal of Management Education, 19, Article 100503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100503
8.
BannaJ.LinM.-F. G.StewartM.FialkowskiM. K. (2015). Interaction matters: Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 249–261.
9.
BrownJ. D. (2000). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge University Press.
10.
BrymanA. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
11.
BygstadB.ØvrelidE.LudvigsenS.DæhlenM. (2022). From dual digitalization to digital learning space: Exploring the digital transformation of higher education. Computers and Education, 182, Article 104463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104463
12.
CardonP. W.MaH.FleischmannC. (2023). Recorded business meetings and AI algorithmic tools: Negotiating privacy concerns, psychological safety, and control. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(4), 1095–1122.
13.
CollinsH. J.GloverH.MyersF. (2022). Behind the digital curtain: A study of academic identities, liminalities and labour market adaptations for the “Uberisation” of HE. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1706163
14.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
15.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
16.
CroasmunJ. T.OstromL. (2011). Using Likert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal of Adult Education, 40(1), 19–22https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ961998
17.
d’ArmagnacS.GuetticheF.JanandA.KlarsfeldA.CloetH. (2020). French insights on defining and managing talents. European Management Review, 17(2), 449-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12371
18.
DavisF. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [Doctoral dissertation], Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
19.
DesanctisG.PooleM. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.2.121
20.
Do ValeG.Collin-LachaudI.LecocqX. (2021). Micro-level practices of bricolage during business model innovation process: The case of digital transformation towards omni-channel retailing. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 37(2), Article 101154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2021.101154
21.
DörnyeiZ. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
22.
DubeyP.PradhanR. L.SahuK. K. (2023). Underlying factors of student engagement in e-learning. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 16(1), 17–36.
23.
DubeyP.SahuK. K. (2021). Students’ perceived benefits, adoption intention and satisfaction to technology-enhanced learning: Examining the relationships. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 14(3), 310–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-01-2021-0008
24.
DubeyP.SahuK. K. (2022). Investigating various factors that affect students’ adoption intention to technology-enhanced learning. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 15(1), 110–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-07-2021-0049
25.
EngelR. J.SchuttR. K. (2005). The practice of research in social work. Sage Publications.
26.
EtikanI.MusaS. A.AlkassimR. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
29.
GarrisonD. R.VaughanN. D. (2011). Blended Learning in Higher Education (Framework, Priciples and Guidlines). Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences (Online), 2(3), 68–69.
30.
GohC. F.LeongC. M.KasminK.HiiP. K.TanO. K. (2017). Students’ Experiences, Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction in e-Learning. Je-LKS, 13(2), 117–128https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1298
31.
GuptaK. P. (2023). Exploring student engagement in virtual classrooms: A person-centred approach using cluster analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2022-0309
32.
HamadiM.El-DenJ. (2024). A conceptual research framework for sustainable digital learning in higher education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 19, 1. https://doi.org/10.58459/rptel.2024.19001
33.
HandC.KennedyA.FilikR.PitchfordM.RobusC. (2023). Emoji identification and emoji effects on sentence emotionality in ASD-diagnosed adults and neurotypical controls. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53(6), 2514–2528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05557-4.
34.
HawkinsC. (2024). Using young peoples’ lived experiences to explore definitional characteristics for cyberbullying. Pastoral Care in Education, 42(3), 249–68, https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2023.2254779
35.
HeilpornG.RaynaultA.FrenetteE. (2024). Student engagement in a higher education course: A multidimensional scale for different course modalities, Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, Article 100794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100794
36.
HellingsJ.HaelermansC. (2022). The effect of providing learning analytics on student behaviour and performance in programming: A randomised controlled experiment. Higher Education, 83, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00560-z
37.
HenrieC. R.HalversonL. R.GrahamC. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology mediated learning: A review. Computers and Education, 90, 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005
38.
HuangC.TuY.HeT.HanZ.WuX. (2024). Longitudinal exploration of online learning burnout: The role of social support and cognitive engagement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39(1), 361–388.
39.
HultschD. F.MacDonaldS. W.HunterM. A.MaitlandS. B.DixonR. A. (2002). Sampling and generalisability in developmental research: Comparison of random and convenience samples of older adults. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(4), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250143000247
KahuE. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773.
42.
KingN.HorrocksC.BrooksJ. (2018). Interviews in qualitative research. Sage.
43.
KnoxS. (2022). Fostering student engagement in virtual entrepreneurship education environments. International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), Article 100705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100705
44.
KoE.-J.KimA.-H.KimS.-S. (2021). Toward the understanding of the appropriation of ICT-based Smart-work and its impact on performance in organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 171, Article 120994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120994
45.
LanD. H.TungT. M.OanhV. T. K.CucT. T. K. (2024). Exploring gen Z’S consumption and perception of educational content on TikTok platform: A qualitative study in Vietnam context. Kurdish Studies, 12(1), 3243–3270. https://kurdishstudies.net/menu-script/index.php/KS/article/view/1614
46.
LaneS.HoangJ. G.LeightonJ. P.RissanenA. (2021). Engagement and satisfaction: Mixed-method analysis of blended learning in the sciences. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 21(1), 100–122.
47.
LeanE. R.EmeryB. G. (2021). Communicating an institutional mission in online courses: A mixed-method approach to improve student experience. Journal of Management Education, 45(4), 579–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920965632
48.
LichyJ. (2012). Towards an international culture: Gen Y students and SNS?Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412441289
ManningP.StokesP. J.VisserM.RowlandC.TarbaS.Y (2018). Dark open innovation in a criminal organizational context. Management Decision, 56(6), 1445–1462. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0535
51.
MartinF.WangC.SadafA. (2018). Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.003
52.
McCullaghP.NelderJ. A. (1989). Generalized linear models (2nd ed.), Chapman and Hall.
53.
McLuhanM. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man (intro. by LaphamL. H.). MIT Press.
54.
MeyerK. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE Higher Education Report, 40(6), 1–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20018.
55.
Naimi-AkbarI.WeurlanderM.BarmanL. (2023). Teaching-learning in virtual learning environments: A matter of forced compromises away from student-centredness?Teaching in Higher Education, 29, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2201674
56.
Navío-MarcoJ.Mendieta-AragónA.Fernández de Tejada MuñozV.Bautista-Cerro RuizM. J. (2024). Driving students’ engagement and satisfaction in blended and online learning universities: Use of learner-generated media in business management subjects. International Journal of Management Education, 22(2), Article 100963. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJME.2024.100963
57.
NazempourR.DarabiH. (2023). Personalized learning in virtual learning environments using students’ behavior analysis. Education Sciences, 13(5), 457. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050457
58.
OncuS.CakirH. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and methodologies. Computers and Education, 57(1), 1098–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.009
59.
OrlikowskiW. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.398
60.
PiccoliG.AhmadR.IvesB. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401–426.
61.
RacatM.LichyJ. (2022). Negative effects of distance learning accentuated by COVID-19 outbreak: A perspective of learners and teachers. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(6), 935–946. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2022.2075807
62.
RattenV.JonesP. (2021). Covid-19 and entrepreneurship education: Implications for advancing research and practice. International Journal of Management in Education, 19(1), Article 100432.
63.
RoyM. C.Cheikh-AmmarM.RoyM. J. (2024). Organizational enablers and outcomes of IT affordance actualisation: A socio-technical perspective on knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 22, 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2023.2193347
64.
SafdarS.RenM.ChudheryM. A. Z.HuoJ.RehmanH.-U.RafiqueR. (2022). Using cloud-based virtual learning environments to mitigate increasing disparity in urban-rural academic competence. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 176, Article 121468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121468
65.
SandarsJ.LangloisM. (2005). E-Learning and the educator in primary care: Responding to the challenge. Education for Primary Care, 16, 129–133.
66.
SavardI.BourdeauJ.PaquetteG. (2020). Considering cultural variables in the instructional design process: A knowledge-based advisor system. Computers & Education, 145, Article 103722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103722
67.
SjølieE.van PetegemP. (2024). Measuring the sociability of virtual learning environments for interdisciplinary student teams: A validation study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 68(3), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2148279
68.
SunP. C.TsaiR. J.FingerG.ChenY. Y.YehD. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2006.11.007
69.
TightM. (2020). Student retention and engagement in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(5), 689–704.
70.
VenkateshV.BrownS. A.BalaH. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.
Wolf-WendelL.WardK.KinzieJ. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407–428.
73.
YunusaA. A.UmarI. N. (2021). A scoping review of Critical Predictive Factors (CPFs) of satisfaction and perceived learning outcomes in E-learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 1223–1270.
74.
ZikmundW. G. (2003). Business research methods. Thomson/South-Western.
