Key Factors for Determining Student Satisfaction in Distance Learning Courses: A Study of Allama Iqbal Open University

Year 2011, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 118 - 134, 01.06.2011

Afzaal Ali Israr Ahmad

Abstract

Most of the people in Pakistan perceive distance learning as of poor quality. Therefore, the researchers conducted this study to find out whether it's only people’s perception or is there anything in reality, concerning the poor performance of the distance learning students compared to traditional students. Consistent with this rationale, the main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between student satisfaction and the following variables of the distance learning environment: Instructors' performance, course evaluation, and student-instructor interaction. The sample consisted of 245 students of Allama Iqbal Open University of Pakistan. Keeping in view the nature of relationships among the variables, correlation matrix and regression analysis in addition to frequency analysis were used to analyze the findings. The results showed that just like in traditional education, in distance learning at AIOU, enough interaction takes place between students and instructors; courses are up to date and well-designed; instructors are devoted, motivated, and equipped with the required competencies. Moreover, the faculty at AIOU is delivering distance courses that meet students' needs with regard to student-instructor interaction, instructor performance, and course evaluation.

Keywords

Distance learning, Student satisfaction, Instructor performance, Student-instructor interaction, Course evaluation

References

• Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83-97.
• Anderson, T. D. & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Transactional issues in distance education: The impact of design in audio teleconferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9, 27–45.
• Arbaugh, J.B. (2000a). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with Internet- based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24, 32-54.
• Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Banerjee, M. & Brinckerhoff, L. C. (2002). Assessing student performance in distance education courses: Implications for testing accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27(3), 25-35.
• Bartley, S. J. & Golek, J. H. (2004). Evaluating the cost effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 167-175.
• Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 26–34.
• Belanger, F. & Jordan, D. H. (2000). Evaluation and implementation of distance learning: Technologies, tools and techniques. Hershey, PA: Idea.
• Collis, B. (1995). Anticipating the impact of multimedia in education: Lessons from the literature. Computers in Adult Education and Training, 2(2), 136-49.
• Conrad, D. (2006). E-learning and social change: An apparent contradiction. In M. Beaudoin (Ed.), Perspectives on higher education in the digital age (pp.21-33). New York: Nova.
• DeBourgh, G. A. (1999). Technology is the tool, teaching is the task: Student satisfaction in distance learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp.131-137).
• Du, J., Havard, B., & Li, H. (2005). Dynamic online discussion: Task-oriented interaction for deep learning. Educational Media International, 42(3), 207-218.
• Durling, D., Cross, N., & Johnson, J. (1996, June). CAI with style. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Design Conference-Computer-aided Design Education. University of Bristol, England.
• Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2000). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses: principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2), 7–41.
• Fresen, J. (2007). A taxonomy of factors to promote quality web-supported learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 351-362.
• Ho, C., Leong, P., & Saromines-Ganne, B. (2002). An empirical investigation of student satisfaction with Web-based courses. In M. Driscoll & T. Reeves (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1792-1795).
• Hong, K.S., Lai, K.W., & Holton, D. (2003). Students' satisfaction and perceived learning with a Web based course. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 6(1), 116-124.
• Inman, E. , Kerwin, M., & Mayes, L. (1999). Instructor and student attitudes toward distance learning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 23(6), 581-591.
• Irani, T. (1998). Communication potential, information richness and attitude: A study of computer mediated communication in the ALN classroom. ALN Magazine, 2 (1) [Online].
• Jensen, R. E. (1993). The technology of the future is already here. Academe, 79, 8–13.
• Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29-49.
• Jones, A. J. (2003, January). ICT and Future Teachers: Are we preparing for e-Learning? Paper presented at the IFIP Working Groups 3.1 and 3.3 Conference: ICT and the Teacher of the Future. Melbourne, Australia. [Journal of Distance Education, 4, 21–29].
• Kershaw, A. (1996). People, planning, and process: The acceptance of technological innovation in post-secondary organizations. Educational Technology, 36, 44-48.
• King, K. P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative learning opportunities. Computers & Education, 39, 283-297.
• Lam, P., Cheng, K. F., & McNaught, C. (2005). Asynchronous online discussion: Empirical evidence on quantity and quality. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education.
• Lao, T. & Gonzales, C. (2005). Understanding online learning through a qualitative description of professors’ and students' experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 133, 459–474.
• Levin, J. A., Kim, H. & Riel, M. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message networks. In L. Harasim (Ed.), On-line education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp.16- 38). New York: Praeger.
• Levy, Y. (2003). A study of learners perceived value and satisfaction for implied effectiveness of online learning systems. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(03), 1014A.
• Louden, W. (2000). Standards for standards: the development of Australian professional standards for teaching. Australian Journal of Education, 44(2), 118-34.
• Michailidou, A. & Economides, A. (2003). E-learn: Towards a collaborative educational virtual environment. Journal of Information Technology Education, 2, 131-152.
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction, The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
• Moore, M. G. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. Hohn, & D. Keegan (Ed.), Distance education: New perspectives (pp. 12-24). London: Routledge.
• Morgan, B. (2000). Is distance learning worth it? Helping to determine the cost of online courses. ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED446611).
• Northrup, P. (2001). A framework for designing interactivity into Web-based Instruction. Educational Technology, 41(2), 31-39.
• Northrup, P. T. (2002). Online learners' preferences for interaction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 32, 219–226.
• Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.
• Poon, W.C., Low, L.T., & Yong, G. F. (2004). A study of Web-based learning (WBL) environment in Malaysia. The International Journal of Educational Management, 18(6), 374-385.
• Roffe, I. (2002). E-learning: Engagement, enhancement and execution. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(1), 40-50.
• Romiszowski, A. (2004). How’s the e-learning baby? Factors leading to success or failure of an educational technology innovation. Educational Technology, 44(1), 5–27.
• Sahin, I. (2007). Predicting student satisfaction in distance education and learning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 1302–6488.
• Sargeant, J., Curran, V., Allen, M., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Ho, K. (2006). Facilitating interpersonal interaction and learning online: Linking theory and practice. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26, 128-136.
• Selim, H. M. (2005). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers and Education. Retrieved 9 February 2007, from http://mail.phy.bg.ac.yu/ ~marijam/ milos/science7.pdf.
• Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A follow-up investigation of teaching presence in the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(2), 61–80.
• Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-316.
• Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz,W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 234, 359–383.
• Tallent-Runnels, T., Lan, M. K., Fryer, W. Y., Thomas, J. A., Cooper, T. S. & Wang, K., (2005). The relationship between problems with technology and graduate students’ evaluations of online teaching. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 167–174.
• Volery, T. & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. The International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), 216-223.
• Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77–90.
• Waits, T. & Lewis, L. (2004). Distance education at degree granting postsecondary institutions: 2000-2001. Retrieved 19 November 2004 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/ vol_5/5_3/4_4.asp.
• Walker, K. B. & Hackman, M. Z. (1991). Information transfer and nonverbal immediacy as primary predictors of learning and satisfaction in the televised course. ERIC Document Reproduction Service (ED: 344266).
• Wang, Y. S. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information and Management, 41(1), 75-86.
• Wilson, T. & Whitelock, D. (1998). Monitoring the on-line behavior of distance learning students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 91–99.
• Yang, Y. & Cornelius, L. F. (2004). Students' perceptions towards the quality of online education: A qualitative approach. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 27, 861– 877.
• Young, A. & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students' perspective. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 107–115.
• Zeng, W. Y. & Perris, K. (2004). Researching the efficacy of online learning: A collaborative effort amongst scholars in Asian open universities. Open Learning, 193, 247–264.
• Correspondence: Afzaal Ali; Assistant Director; International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan.