e-learning, student preferences, conjoint analysis, heterogeneity, segmentation


The aim of this paper was to determine students’ preferences towards e-learning environment in order to select and design its components that suit the needs of student’s best. The research was implemented using conjoint analysis. Three dimensions of interest were considered: e-learning technology, teaching method and knowledge assessment and the results show that knowledge assessment is the most important e-learning attribute for both traditional and online students. Adding into consideration the teaching method as well, further analysis showed that students can be profiled in two segments: oriented on results or process, which can be used at the beginning of studies to adjust e-learning environment. Research findings emphasized student preferences as essential for designing e-learning system, while student satisfaction turned out to be a key factor determining their persistence for studying in e-learning environment. Finally, recommendations for improvement of existing e-learning system were given.


Download data is not yet available.


Acharya, B., & Lee, J. (2018). Users’ perspective on the adoption of e-learning in developing countries: The case of Nepal with a conjointbased discrete choice approach. Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1733-1743.

Azarcon Jr, D. E., Gallardo, C. D., Anacin, C. G., & Velasco, E. (2014). Attrition and retention in higher education institution: A conjoint analysis of consumer behavior in higher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 1(5), 107-118. Retrieved from /uploads/2014/11/APJEAS-2014-1-091.pdf

Black, E. W., Ferdig, R. E., & DiPietro, M. (2008). An overview of evaluative instrumentation for virtual high schools. The Amer. Jrnl. of Distance Education, 22(1), 24-45.

Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance‐learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299-305.

Carey, J. M., Carman, K. R., Clayton, K. P., Horiuchi, Y., Htun, M., & Ortiz, B. (2018). Who wants to hire a more diverse faculty? A conjoint analysis of faculty and student preferences for gender and racial/ethnic diversity. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1-19.

Conrad, D. (2008). Situating Prior learning assessment and recognition (Plar) in an online learning environment. The theory and practice of online learning, 75. Retrieved from

Daghan, G., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2012). An examination through conjoint analysis of the preferences of students concerning online learning environments according to their learning styles. International Education Studies, 5(4), 122-138.

Damnjanovic, V., Jednak, S., & Mijatovic, I. (2015). Factors affecting the effectiveness and use of Moodle: students’ perception. Interactive learning environments, 23(4), 496-514.

Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarski, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 331-338.

Ferguson, J. M., & DeFelice, A. E. (2010). Length of online course and student satisfaction, perceived learning, and academic performance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(2), 73-84.

Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1971). Conjoint measurement-for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing research, 8(3), 355-363.

Horvat, A., Dobrota, M., Krsmanovic, M., & Cudanov, M. (2015). Student perception of Moodle learning management system: a satisfaction and significance analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(4), 515-527.

Hung, M. L., & Chou, C. (2015). Students’ perceptions of instructors’ roles in blended and online learning environments: A comparative study. Computers & Education, 81, 315-325.

Hur, J. S., & Pak, R. J. (2007). Conjoint analysis for the preferred subjects of elementary school computer education. Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society, 18(2), 357-364.

Jimoyiannis, A., Tsiotakis, P., Roussinos, D., & Siorenta, A. (2013). Preparing teachers to integrate Web 2.0 in school practice: Toward a framework for Pedagogy 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2). 248-267.

Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in education and teaching international, 39(2), 153-162.

Katz, Y. J. (2002). Attitudes affecting college students’ preferences for distance learning. Journal of computer assisted learning, 18(1), 2-9.

Kuzmanovic, M., Savic, G., Popovic, M., & Martic, M. (2013). A new approach to evaluation of university teaching considering heterogeneity of students’ preferences. Higher Education, 66(2), 153-171.

Li, K. M. (2015). Learning styles and perceptions of student teachers of computer-supported collaborative learning strategy using wikis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1).

Malarkodi, M., Indumathi, V. M., & Praveena, S. (2018). Preference Towards Online Mode of Distance Education Courses–conjoint Analysis. International Journal of Bioresource and Stress Management, 9(1), 178-182.

Malik, M. W. (2009, November). Student satisfaction towards e-learning: influential role of key factors. In Comsats international business research conference (CBRC), 2nd. Retrieved from

Matsatsinis, N. F., Grigoroudis, E., & Delias, P. (2003). User satisfaction and e-learning systems: Towards a multicriteria evaluation methodology. Operational Research, 3(3), 249-259.

Mijatovic, I., Cudanov, M., Jednak, S., & Kadijevich, D. M. (2013). How the usage of learning management systems influences student achievement. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(5), 506-517.

Nagel, L., Blignaut, A. S., & Cronjé, J. C. (2009). Read-only participants: A case for student communication in online classes. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 37-51.

Nummenmaa, M., & Nummenmaa, L. (2008). University students’ emotions, interest and activities in a web‐based learning environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 163-178.

Oncu, S., & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and methodologies. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1098-1108.

Pomales-Garcia, C., Liu, Y., & Lopez, Á. D. (2009, October). Student perceptions on the importance of distance learning module design dimensions. In 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1-5). IEEE.

Popović, M., Vagić, M., Kuzmanović, M., & Anđelković Labrović, J. (2016). Understanding heterogeneity of students’ preferences towards English medium instruction: A conjoint analysis approach. Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research, 26(1). 91-102.

Roberts, R. M. (2010). The digital generation and web 2.0: E-learning concern or media myth?. In Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in E-Learning: Issues and Trends (pp. 93-115). IGI Global.

Rosenberg, M. J., & Foshay, R. (2002). E‐learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. Performance Improvement, 41(5), 50-51.

Sohn, S. Y., & Ju, Y. H. (2010). Conjoint analysis for recruiting high quality students for college education. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(5), 3777-3783.

Soutar, G. N., & Turner, J. P. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: A conjoint analysis. International journal of educational management, 16(1), 40-45.

Stein, D. (2004). Student satisfaction depends on course structure. Online Classroom, 2(1), 5.

Sun, J., & Wang, Y. (2014). Tool choice for e-learning: Task-technology fit through media synchronicity. Information Systems Education Journal, 12(4), 17.

Tashchian, R. O., & Freiden, J. B. (1983). Student Preferences for Class Scheduling: A Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Marketing Education, 5(3), 42-48.

Taylor, S. A., Humphreys, M., Singley, R., & Hunter, G. L. (2004). Business student preferences: Exploring the relative importance of web management in course design. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(1), 42-49.

Van Der Rhee, B., Verma, R., Plaschka, G. R., & Kickul, J. R. (2007). Technology readiness, learning goals, and eLearning: Searching for synergy. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 127-149.

Vaughan, N., Nickle, T., Silovs, J., & Zimmer, J. (2011). Moving To Their Own Beat: Exploring How Students Use Web 2.0 Technologies To Support Group Work Outside Of Class Time. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10(3). Retrieved from

Walsh, S., & Cullinan, J. (2017). Factors Influencing Higher Education Institution Choice. In Economic Insights on Higher Education Policy in Ireland (pp. 81-108). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Won, D., & Bravo, G. A. (2009). Course design in sport management education: Addressing students’ perspectives through conjoint methodology. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education (Pre-2012), 8(2), 83-96. Retrieved from

Yu, C., Yu, W. C. W., & Lin, C. F. (2010). ComputerMediated Learning: What Have We Experienced and Where Do We Go Next?. In Handbook of research on practices and outcomes in e-learning: Issues and Trends (pp. 1-18). IGI Global.

Zwarts, T. M., Vanthournout, G., Gijbels, D., & Van den Bossche, P. (2015). Exploring conjoint analysis as a methodology to study implicit preferences within the context of educational and training sciences. Methodological challenges in research on student learning, 1, 77-91. Retrieved from




How to Cite

Kuzmanović, M. ., Andjelković Labrović, J. ., & Nikodijević, A. . (2019). DESIGNING E-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT BASED ON STUDENT PREFERENCES: CONJOINT ANALYSIS APPROACH. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 7(3), 37–47.