Evaluation of the Student's Role in a Virtual Education Program on the E-ducative Platform
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56368/Entrelineas425Keywords:
virtual education, student evaluation, E-ducativa platform, KPI, information systems auditAbstract
With the aim of evaluating the role and experience of students as participants in a virtual education program implemented on the E-ducativa platform and identifying strengths and opportunities for improvement from their perspective, a mixed-methods, descriptive, and cross-sectional study was conducted. A validated ad hoc questionnaire was administered to a sample of 94 university students in the field of computer science. The data were analyzed by grouping them into four dimensions, from which nine KPIs were derived to technically evaluate the data. The results showed high initial acceptance with a Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT) of 70% and a positive estimated Net Promoter Score (NPS) (+50). The promotion of autonomy was identified as the main strength (Index of 65%), while the dimension with the greatest opportunity for improvement was the fostering of collaboration (Index of 52%), showing a significant pedagogical difference (DEP of ~13 pp). In terms of access, although the perception was positive (IPA of 63.9%), a Critical Neutrality Rate of 23.4% indicates the need for a WCAG compliance audit. It is concluded that the E-ducativa platform is perceived as usable, useful, and satisfactory, providing a foundation for its virtual adoption. However, it requires interventions to improve collaboration and digital inclusion, making student evaluation a key input for continuous improvement.
Downloads
References
Ato, M., López-García, J. J., & Benavente, A. (2013). A Classification System for Research Designs in Psychology. Annals of Psychology, 29(3), 1038–1059. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
Biasutti, M. (2011). The student experience of a collaborative e-learning university module. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1865-1875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.006
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International journal of educational technology in higher education, 17(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8
De Leo, M. R. (2021). Nuevas metáforas para nuevos desafíos: fundamentos y oportunidades de la implementación de la plataforma e-ducativa en la enseñanza y aprendizaje en la formación técnica superior presencial. (Trabajo final integrador). Universidad Nacional de Quilmes, Bernal, Argentina. https://ridaa.unq.edu.ar/bitstream/handle/20.500.11807/2729/TFI_2020_deleo_028.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y#page=20.36
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529770278.n19?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26utm_medium%3Darticle
Educativa.com. (2024). Manual de Usuario. Plataforma e-ducativa. Versión 7.01.00. https://manuales.educativa.com/7.01.00/open/aula/front/es/pdf/manual_aula_front_es.pdf
Feng, S., Gibson, D., & Gasevic, D. (2025). Analyzing Students' Emerging Roles Based on Quantity and Heterogeneity of Individual Contributions in Small Group Online Collaborative Learning Using Bipartite Network Analysis. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.19112
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2018). Reliability analysis. In IBM SPSS statistics 25 step by step (249-260). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351033909
Ginting, D., Sabudu, D., Barella, Y., Madkur, A., Woods, R., & Sari, M. K. (2024). Student-centered learning in the digital age: In-class adaptive instruction and best practices. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 13(3), 2006-2019. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i3.27497
López-Sánchez, J. A., Patiño-Vanegas, J. C., Valencia-Arias, A., & Rojas Coronel, A. M. (2024). Model of adoption of virtual tools by university students in the context of an emerging economy. In Frontiers in Education 9, 1167294. Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1167294
McKerlich, R., Riis, M., Anderson, T., & Eastman, B. (2011). Student perceptions of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence in a virtual world. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 324-336. https://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/handle/2149/3519/mckerlich_0911.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Muniandy, B., Ong, M. Y., Phua, K. K., & Ong, S. L. (2011). User acceptance of a key performance indicators monitoring system (kpi-ms) in higher education: An application of the technology acceptance model. In 2nd international conference on education and management technology, Shanghai, China. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2011.V1.30
Novoa, C. A. (2017). Investigación cuantitativa. Fundación Universitaria del Área Andina. https://digitk.areandina.edu.co/server/api/core/bitstreams/30b26254-a8d2-4cd6-b44f-e107d90d3e6f/content
Roque-Hernández, R. V., López-Mendoza, A., & Salazar-Hernandez, R. (2024). Perceived instructor presence, interactive tools, student engagement, and satisfaction in hybrid education post-COVID-19 lockdown in Mexico. Heliyon, 10(6), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27342
Sentí, V. E., Rodríguez, J. P. F., Baquerizo, R. M. P., Santos, C. E. O., & Mendoza, M. L. (2015). La educación virtual. Diseño de cursos virtuales”. Samborondón: Universidad Ecotec formación para el buen vivir. https://ecotec.edu.ec/content/uploads/investigacion/libros/la-educacion-virtual-diseno-de-cursos-virtuales.pdf
Tareke, T. G., Oo, T. Z., & Jozsa, K. (2025). Bridging theoretical gaps to improve students’ academic success in higher education in the digital era: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 9, 100510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2025.100510
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. International journal of educational management, 14(5), 216-223. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540010344731
W3C. (2018). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 is now a W3C Recommendation. https://www.w3.org/news/2018/web-content-accessibility-guidelines-wcag-2-1-is-now-a-w3c-recommendation/#:~:text=The%20Accessibility%20Guidelines%20Working%20Group,Please%20see%20our%20Press%20Release.
W3C. (2025). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. W3C Recommendation. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#:~:text=WCAG%202%20Layers%20of%20Guidance,-The%20individuals%20and&text=Principles%20%2D%20At%20the%20top%20are,the%20Four%20Principles%20of%20Accessibility.
Yu, Z. (2022). Sustaining Student Roles, Digital Literacy, Learning Achievements, and Motivation in Online Learning Environments during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 14(8), 4388. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084388
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes .
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
