The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What campus‐based students think about the quality and benefits of e‐learning
Abstract
There is a trend in Irish universities to utilise the benefits of the e‐learning as a mechanism to improve learning performance of campus‐based students. Whilst traditional methods, such as face‐to‐face lectures, tutorials, and mentoring, remain dominant in the educational sector, universities are investing heavily in learning technologies, to facilitate improvements with respect to the quality of learning. The technology to support reuse and sharing of educational resources, or learning objects, is becoming more stable, with interoperability standards maturing. However, debate has raged about what constitutes effective use of learning technology. This research expands upon a study carried out in 2003 examining students’ perceptions of e‐learning in a large undergraduate accounting class environment. As a result, improvements were made to the instructional design of the course, to enable students to engage interactively with content. The subsequent study, reported in this paper, adopted a broad range of techniques to understand students’ learning experience in depth. The findings of this research provide an insight into how these students really work and learn using technologies, if at all. It is hoped that our findings will improve the experience for both students and lecturers who engage in teaching and learning through this medium.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Social Life of Information
Seely, B., Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2000) · Work Study · doi:10.1108/ws.2000.07949dae.002 · Cited by 2,707
The social life of information
(2002) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/s0099-1333(02)00334-8 · Cited by 927
The Social Life of Information
Norcia, V. D. (2000) · Canadian Journal of Communication · doi:10.22230/cjc.2000v25n4a1183 · Cited by 743
Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education
Noble, D. F. (1998) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v3i1.569 · Cited by 579
Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education
Reindl, T. (2002) · College and university · Cited by 213
Rebele, J. E., Apostolou, B. A., Buckless, F. A., Hassell, J. M., Paquette, L. R., & Stout, D. E. (1998) · Journal of Accounting Education · doi:10.1016/s0748-5751(98)00010-4 · Cited by 143
Cited by
Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.005 · Cited by 731
Salloum, S. A., Qasim Mohammad Alhamad, A., Al-Emran, M., Abdel Monem, A., & Shaalan, K. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2939467 · Cited by 651
Copley, J. (2007) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703290701602805 · Cited by 472
Dennen, V. P., Aubteen Darabi, A., & Smith, L. J. (2007) · Distance Education · doi:10.1080/01587910701305319 · Cited by 380
Azeiteiro, U. M., Bacelar-Nicolau, P., Caetano, F. J. P., & Caeiro, S. (2015) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.056 · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Authors
- Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Campbell, M.
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-04-07
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 501-512
- ISSN
- 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8535
- OpenAlex
- W2109110013
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 49.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What campus‐based students think about the quality and benefits of e‐learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00482.x
- The paper
- Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus‐based students think about the quality and benefits of e‐learning. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00482.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.