Assessment of Power Station Training Through E-Learning Platforms: Basis for a Technology Management Framework
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65150/EP-gjetr/V2E9/2026-01Keywords:
Technology Management, E-Learning Platforms, Power Station Training, Training Effectiveness, Technology Management Framework, System Quality, Instructional Design, CTU-Main Campus, Cebu, PhilippinesAbstract
This study assessed the effectiveness of power station training through e-learning platforms as the basis for developing a technology management framework. The research utilized the Input–Process–Output (IPO) model and adopted a descriptive-correlational research design to determine the level of assessment of e-learning platforms and their relationship with training effectiveness. The respondents were composed of 100 personnel, including engineers and technicians, selected through purposive sampling. Data were gathered using a structured questionnaire and analysed using weighted mean, percentage, standard deviation, and Pearson correlation coefficient. Findings revealed that the e-learning platform was generally rated as highly effective in terms of system quality, information quality, service quality, accessibility, usability, and user satisfaction. Respondents also demonstrated high levels of training effectiveness in areas such as knowledge acquisition, skills development, employee engagement, learning flexibility, and training performance outcomes. However, challenges were identified in technological infrastructure, learner readiness, instructional design, management support, and system sustainability, which were all rated as highly affected factors. Correlation analysis showed a highly significant relationship between e-learning platform assessment and training effectiveness (r = 0.81, p < 0.05), indicating that improvements in e-learning system quality directly enhance training outcomes in power station operations. The study concludes that effective e-learning systems significantly contribute to improved workforce competence and operational efficiency. It is recommended that organisations strengthen their technological infrastructure, enhance instructional design, and provide continuous management support to sustain effective e-learning implementation. The proposed technology management framework may serve as a guide for optimising digital training systems in industrial environments.
References
1) Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
2) Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa’deh, R., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86.
3) Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. Babson Survey Research Group.
4) Ally, M. (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Athabasca University Press.
5) Bates, A. W. (2019). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Tony Bates Associates Ltd.
6) Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes,
7) M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education. Educational Research Review, 13, 1–16.
8) Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer.
9) Burgelman, R. A., Christensen, C. M., & Wheelwright, S. C. (2009). Strategic management of technology and innovation (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
10) Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.
11) Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
12) Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
13) Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
14) Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. HarperBusiness.
15) Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
16) Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.
17) Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). Pfeiffer.
18) Gronlund, N. E., & Linn, R. L. (1990). Measurement and evaluation in teaching (6th ed.). Macmillan.
19) Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Using blended learning: Evidence-based practices. Springer.
20) International Energy Agency. (2023). World energy outlook 2023. IEA.
21) Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22) Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
23) Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2022). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm (17th ed.). Pearson.
24) Moore, M. G., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135.
25) Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
26) Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Wiley.
27) Noe, R. A. (2017). Employee training and development (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
28) Noe, R. A. (2020). Employee training and development (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
29) Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.
30) Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31) Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
32) Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. McGraw-Hill.
33) Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson.
34) Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum.
35) Songkram, N. (2013). E-learning system in virtual learning environment to develop creative thinking for learners in higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences.
36) Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of human resource development (2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
37) Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
38) Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
39) World Economic Forum. (2023). The future of jobs report 2023. World Economic Forum.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Vabby C. Payod, Elisa P. Payod, Redjie D. Arcadio (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
