This paper utilizes two Internet technologies— traditional web-based “pull” technology and emerging “push” technology—to support learning beyond classroom environment through time and space. It describes a generic model that can be adapted to the specific requirements of different courses. We developed two systems based on the model for two courses. One hundred and forty students in six classes evaluated the systems. The evaluation suggests that the systems facilitated learning by providing critical course information in timely manner and in usable formats. The systems were user friendly and increased productivity and convenience of the students. Overall, the students found the systems useful and satisfactory

Parikh, Mihir

Verma, Sameer

English

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)AMCIS 1999 Proceedings Americas Conference on Information Systems(AMCIS)December 1999A Hybrid Push-Pull Model to Support Learning:An Empirical EvaluationMihir ParikhPolytechnic UniversitySameer VermaGeorgia State UniversityFollow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1999This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been acceptedfor inclusion in AMCIS 1999 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contactelibrary@aisnet.org.Recommended CitationParikh, Mihir and Verma, Sameer, "A Hybrid Push-Pull Model to Support Learning: An Empirical Evaluation" (1999). AMCIS 1999Proceedings. 325.http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1999/325930A Hybrid Push-Pull Model to Support Learning: An Empirical EvaluationMihir A. Parikh, Institute for Technology & Enterprise, Polytechnic University, mparikh@poly.eduSameer Verma, Decision Sciences Department, Georgia State University. sverma@gsu.eduAbstractThis paper utilizes two Internet technologies—traditional web-based “pull” technology and emerging“push” technology—to support learning beyondclassroom environment through time and space. Itdescribes a generic model that can be adapted to thespecific requirements of different courses. We developedtwo systems based on the model for two courses. Onehundred and forty students in six classes evaluated thesystems. The evaluation suggests that the systemsfacilitated learning by providing critical courseinformation in timely manner and in usable formats. Thesystems were user friendly and increased productivity andconvenience of the students. Overall, the students foundthe systems useful and satisfactory.Introduction and BackgroundMany instructors put course schedule, lecture notesand other teaching material on the web to supportclassroom-based learning. Recently, an argument is madethat the practice has not achieved expected objectives(Young, 1998; Noble, 1998). A close review suggests thatthere are multiple reasons for the sub-optimal results:• Most course web sites are passive. They lack theinteractivity which is crucial in some learningactivities such as group discussion, case studyanalysis, continuing unfinished class discussion,asking questions and immediately receiving answers,clarifying what will be studied in the next class andreceiving regular instructor feedback.• When new material is uploaded or old material isrevised, most students do not know about it unlessthey regularly check the course web site. Oftencritical, time-sensitive material is not reviewed byevery student. In addition, the instructor is never surewhether all students reviewed the material.• Not all material is available on the course web sitesbecause many instructors are reluctant to put theirintellectual work on the web due to security andpossible violation of their intellectual property rights.Or simply they do not have the skills and toolsrequired in HTML/web site design.These reasons are related to the inherent limitationsof the web. The web is based on unsecured, static, pulltechnology. Under the pull format, content is not availableto an intended recipient unless the recipient specificallyrequests it. For example, web browser does not get usnews unless we go to a news web site. However, a newInternet technology—push technology—has recentlyemerged to provide solutions for some limitations of pulltechnology. Push technology is "a client software that letsInternet users customize delivery of information directlyto their desktops from a variety of sources" (Levitt, 1997).It evolved as an alternative to the pull-based web fromPointCast, Inc.'s personalized broadcasting technology in1996. In the last three years, it has gone through the fulllength of the hype curve. By the third quarter of 1997, itrose to the peak of the hype curve with inflatedexpectations (GartnerGroup, 1997). However, soon afterit fell into the trough of disillusion due to its limitations.Recently, it has returned more mature with clearunderstanding and reasonable expectations.Despite its apparent failure, push technology hasseveral advantages over pull technology. Push technologyallows secure delivery of dynamic, multi-media content inreal time to a pre-defined, intended group of recipientseven without requiring them to open a web browser. Pushtechnology can be used to deliver time-sensitiveinformation such as news, current inventory level,changes in prices and new product offering moreefficiently and effectively. Push technology allowspersonalization of message or mass customization wherea large group of receivers can receive system generatedbut customized information. Push technology allowsdelivery of information only to the intended recipients.This increases security and reduces risk of exposingsensitive business information to others. Push technologyalso provides capabilities to ensure that the receiver hasreceived the information and at least viewed it. Pushtechnology can also be used to automatically distributenew applications and data files.However, push technology has some limitations suchas network clogging and information overload, whichhave led to its downfall and kept the technology frombeing a dominant force on the Internet (Hayes, 1997;Mosley-Matchett, 1997; Pflung, 1997). This paper takesan intermediate approach by utilizing a hybrid model tosupport learning. The model is derived from a frameworkproposed by Malhotra, Gosain and Lee (1997) forinformation delivery and acquisition systems design. Themodel identifies and integrates useful features of bothpush and pull technologies to support learning.Furthermore, the paper evaluates the effectiveness of twosystems developed based the model in supportinglearning.931The Hybrid ModelMany researchers suggest that best results can beachieved by blending Internet technologies in onesolution (Aragon, 1997; Hibbard, 1997; Malhotra, et al.,1997; Rivlin, 1997). We follow the lead and utilize ahybrid model for learning support as shown in Figure 1.The model is derived from a model proposed byMalhotra, Gosain and Lee (1997). It maps different typesof systems on three dimensions of the informationrecipient perspective: Perceived control, conformance toneeds and information processing requirements.Perceived control refers to the perception of theuser about who initiates and controls the informationdelivery process—the user himself or the system. It is animportant variable in system usage. It is high when theuser initiates the information delivery process and is lowwhen the system initiates the process. In a pure pullsystem, perceived control is high because the userinitiates the process by deciding when and from where toreceive the information. In a pure push system, perceivedcontrol is low as the system initiates the process byidentifying the change in the available information. In anideal system for general users perceived control should behigh (Malhotra, et al., 1997). While, in the case oflearning support, the instructor should controlled theprocess through the system instead of by the students(users) for two reasons. First, in a structured course, whatinformation the students should receive and when can bedetermined better by the instructor of the course. Second,when new information becomes available, it mustimmediately reach the students. However, taking thecontrol away from the students may lead to dissatisfactionand lower utilization of the system by the students. Toavoid this, the instructor should encourage and/or requirethe students to use the system. In addition, the systemmust add real value and increase overall effectiveness ofthe education process. The system should be designed insuch a way that, although the actual control is with theinstructor, the students may perceive that they are incontrol for which temporal transitivity can be used(Malhotra, et al., 1997).Conformance to needs refers to the extent towhich the delivered information matches the needs of theinformation recipient. In a pure pull system, theconformance to needs is high because the user determineswhat he or she wants by clicking on a specific hyperlink.In a pure push system, the conformance to needs is oftenlow because the system determines what the user shouldreceive. In an ideal learning support system, theconformance to needs should be high. The instructorshould determine the content in line with the objectives ofthe course and the students’ knowledge level. Effortsshould be made to increase conformance to needs byhaving the users determine their profiles which can beused by the system in deciding what content should besent to whom. In addition, artificial intelligencetechnologies can be used to filter out unnecessaryinformation.Information processing requirements refer to theamount of information the user needs to process to get theright information. The amount depends on the complexityand the equivocality of the information (Daft and Huber,1987). In a pure pull system, the processing requirementsare high because the user has to search through many websites to find the right information. In a pure push system,the processing requirements are low because the rightinformation is automatically delivered to the user by thesystem. In an ideal learning support system, theprocessing requirements should be low by automatingdelivery of all course information without student askingfor it.EvaluationTo evaluate the hybrid model, two fullyoperational systems, System A and System B, weredeveloped. The architecture and features of the systemsare described in detail in a paper presented at the 1998Americas Conference on Information Systems(http://www.isworld.org/ais.ac.98/proceedings/track30/verma.pdf). System A supports a simulation gaming coursethat requires heavy interactions including communicationand transfer of files between the course instructor,individual students and student teams, which are workingas competing firms in a simulated business environment.System B supports a structured business course (such asCIS, management science, and statistics) which requiresless interaction but requires the students to spendconsiderable time in pre-class and post-class activities.Thirty-seven undergraduate students in two classes usedSystem A. One hundred and three undergraduate studentsin four classes used System B. Demographics datasuggests that the samples are representatives of thepopulation of junior and senior undergraduate students aturban business schools in large cities.A questionnaire was used to measure overalllearning support. The support was measured on fourHHIdeal system forgeneral users(Malhotra, et. alproposed)Pure pull systemsPure pushsystemsIdeal system for learning supportHLLLPerceivedControlConformance to needsProcessingRequirementsFigure 1: The Hybrid Model932underlying dimensions related to content, technology,interface, and functionality aspects of the system (Figure2). Each dimension has two variables as shown in thefigure. The questionnaire was designed from acomprehensive review of previous studies related to theassessment of systems on different dimensions. (Aldagand Power, 1986; Doll and Torkzadeh, 1988; Kettingerand Lee, 1994; King and Premkumar, 1990; Mahmoodand Medewitz, 1985; Raymond, 1987; Subramanian,1994).  The questionnaire contained total twenty-fivequestions. Each question was a statement on which thestudents were asked to rate the system they used on aLikert-type scale of 7 points where 1 being stronglydisagree and 7 being strongly agree. The hypotheses arethat the systems provide above average support forlearning from the students’ perspectives. Above averagesupport is determined by a statistically significantdifference between the average score on each variable andvalue four, the average value on the scale.Results and DiscussionA correlation analysis and a factor analysis wereperformed to evaluate construct validity of thequestionnaire. The correction analysis showed all but one(p=.001) correlation are significant (p<.001). The factoranalysis showed a reasonable alignment of variablesalong the underlying dimensions. Reliability of thequestionnaire was evaluated by Cronbach Alpha(Cronbach, 1951). The alpha value of .7 or above ispreferred for a basic exploratory research (Nunnally,1978). The alpha value is above .7 on all variables exceptone for which it is close enough to not cause muchconcern (Table 1). Table 1 further shows the averagescores and the standard deviations of System A, System Band both combined (Overall) on the dimensions describedby the evaluation model. All average values are more thanthe average value of the scale (four). The table also showsthe result of the significant tests (t-values and p-values)conducted to confirm the hypotheses. Having calculated t-values above t-critical (1.65 at α=0.05) and p-valuesbelow .001, the tests indicate both systems providedabove average support on all dimensions. Thus, we canconclude that the systems supported learning.Table 1: The ResultsSystem A System B Overall SignificanceUnderlyingDimensionsVariable CronbachAlpha Avg.† Std. Avg.† Std. Avg.† Std. t p<Conformance .874 6.35 .863 5.64 .908 5.83 .947 22.9 .000ContentUsefulness .939 6.27 .863 5.41 1.32 5.64 1.27 15.2 .000Timeliness .732 6.39 .714 5.91 .775 6.04 .785 30.7 .000TechnologyAccuracy .694 6.45 .677 6.12 .813 6.21 .793 32.9 .000Ease of Use .804 6.42 .589 6.26 .612 6.30 .608 44.8 .000InterfaceFormat .740 6.48 .705 6.14 .681 6.23 .701 37.6 .000Convenience .766 6.38 .704 6.04 .670 6.13 .693 36.4 .000FunctionalitySatisfaction NA* 6.41 .798 6.10 .902 6.18 .884 29.2 .000* Only one question was asked that measured overall satisfaction with the system.† On the scales of 1 to 7 where 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being strongly agree.ConclusionThis research shows that a combination of pushand pull technologies supports learning. This was anexploratory study. Although the results indicate that thesystems supported learning, we cannot and do not claimthat the systems improved learning. For such aconclusion, there is a need to conduct a controlledexperiment with the control group using a pure pull (ageneric course web site) or push system and theexperimental group using a hybrid system. Theexperiment should measure the effects of the twotreatments on the variables related to improvement inlearning. In addition, other useful technologies andconcepts can be incorporated in this model to improvesupport for learning. An example is intelligent agenttechnology. Intelligent agents can adapt support to theknowledge level of the users by identifying workingpatterns and learning needs of the users.The references, the questionnaire and anexpanded version of this paper are available athttp://www.ite.poly.edu/people/mparikh/in “Research” link.Ease of UseAccuracyTimelinessConvenienceFormatUsefulnessSatisfactionContentConformanceTechnologyInterfaceFunctionalityOverallLearningSupportUnderlyingDimensionsMeasurementVariablesFigure 2: The Evaluation Model

A Hybrid Push-Pull Model to Support Learning: An Empirical Evaluation

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&amp;context=amcis1999

A Hybrid Push-Pull Model to Support Learning: An Empirical Evaluation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)