___

• Aikem, M., Vanjani, M., Ray, B. and Martin, J. (2003). College Students Internet Use.
• Campus-Wide Information Systems, 20 (5), 182-185. Carswell, A. D., and Venkatesh, V. (2002). Learner outcomes in an asynchronous distance education environment. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 56, 475–
• Chiu, C. M.,and Wang, E. T. G. (2008). Understanding Web-based learning continuance intention: The role of subjective task values. Information & Management, 45, 194-201.
• Clark, J. (2002). A product review of WebCT. Internet and Higher Education 5, 79-82.
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319-340.
• Fletcher, K. M. (2005). Self-efficacy as an evaluation measure for programs in support of online learning literacies for undergraduates. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 307-322.
• Gegez, A. E. (2005). Pazarlama Arastirmalari. Istanbul: Beta.
• Hightower, B. Rawl, C. and Schutt, M. (2008). Collaborations for delivering the library to students through WebCT. Reference Services Review, 35 (4), 541-551.
• Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The implication of electronic computers to factor analysis.
• Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20: 141-151. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrics, 39, 31-36.
• Kim, S. S., Lee, C. K., and Klenosky, D. B. (2003). The influence push and pull factors at
• Korean national parks. Tourism Management, 24, 169-180. Kraemer, E.W. (2003). Developing the Online Learning Environment: The Pros and Cons of Using WebCT for Library Instruction. Information Technology and Libraries, 22 (2), 92.
• Lee, J. and MacMillan, D. (2004). Evolving instruction in biology: using the web to improve in-class instruction. Reference Services Review, 32 (4), 374-382.
• Lu, J., Yu, C. S., and Liu, C. (2003). Learning style, learning patterns, and learning performance in a WebCT-based MIS. Information & Management, 40(6), 497-507.
• Morss, D.A. (1999). A study of student perspectives on Web-based learning: WebCT in the classroom. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 9 (5), 408.
• Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., and Chan, Y.H.C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48, 250-267.
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hall.
• Romanova, K. and Nevgi, A. (2006). Learning outcomes in medical informatics:
• Comparison of a WebCT course with ordinary web site learning material. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75, 156-162. Tao, Y. H. (2008). Typology of college student perception on institutional e-learning issues – An extension study of a teacher‘s typology in Taiwan. Computers & Education, , 1495-1508.
• Wernet, S. P., Olliges, R. H., and Delicath, T. A. (2000). Postcourse evaluation of WebCT
• (Web course tools) classes by social work students. Research on Social Work Practice, 10 (4), 487-504. Willett, H. G. (2002). Not one or the other but both: hybrid course delivery using WebCT.
• The Electronic Library, 20 (5), 413-419. Withnam, S. A., Krockover, G. H., Ridgway, K. D., and Zinsmeister, W. J. (2002). Lessons online. Journal of College Science Teaching, 32 (4), 264-269.
• Woo, Y. and Reeves, T.C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 15-25.
• Zhang, J. J., Pennington, G.L., Connaughton, D.P., Braunstein, J. R., Ellis, M. H., Lam, E. T. C., and Williamson, D. (2003). Understanding women‘s professional football game spectators: sociodemographics, game consumption, and entertainment options. Sport
• Marketing Quarterly, 12 (4), 228-243.