INVESTIGATING STUDENT SATISFACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING: THE ROLE OF STUDENT INTERACTION AND ENGAGEMENT IN DISTANCE LEARNING UNIVERSITY

Year 2020, Volume: 21 Issue: Special Issue-IODL, 88 - 96, 17.07.2020

Moh. Muzammıl Adrian Sutawıjaya Meirani Harsası

https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.770928

Cited By: 42

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze student satisfaction and engagement effect in online learning which are
influenced by student interaction. We use the concept of interaction which is divided into three types of
interactions, namely student interactions with other students, student interactions with tutors/teachers, and
student interactions with content. We conducted this research in an open and distance learning university
in Indonesia. To answer the research goals, we applied a quantitative research approach utilizing structural
equation modelling to verify our proposed hypotheses. To gain the data, we exploit an online survey
through a questionnaire and the data were being collected randomly. The population of this study was all
students in Faculty of Economics who registered in online learning at the first semester of 2018 that reach
as many as 124,041 students. We attached the questionnaires in all online classes and 4,305 of them were
completed and could be used for statistical analysis. We proposed four hypotheses and based on the result
of structural modelling, we verified that all the hypotheses were supported. The statistical analysis has found
that interaction among students, interaction between students and teacher, and interaction between students
and content have positive impact on student engagement. The results also showed that student engagement
has positive impact on student satisfaction. We discuss the practical implication and suggestion for future
research in the results and discussion section.

Keywords

Interaction, online learning, student engagement, student satisfaction

References

• Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 129– 144). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
• Banna, J., Lin, M-F. G., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction matters: Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 249–261.
• Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
• Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernandez-Ortega, B., & Sese, F.J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102-110.
• Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.
• Eom, S. (2009). Effects of interaction on students’ perceived learning satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Global Management Studies, 1(2), 60-74.
• Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1-4.
• Gray, J. A., & DiLoreto, M. (2016). The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning environments. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11(1), 98-119.
• Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
• Herbert, M. (2006). Staying the Course: A Study in Online Student Satisfaction and Retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(4), 300-317.
• 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.
• Kuo, Y., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 16-39.
• Lear, J. L., Ansorge, C., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Interactivity/community process model for the online education environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 71–77.
• Mandernach, B. J. (2005). A faculty evaluation model for online instructors: Mentoring and evaluation in the online classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(3), 1–10.
• Martin, F. & Bolliger, D.U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205- 222.
• Peltier, J.W., Drago, W., & Schibrowsky, J.A. (2003). Virtual communities and the assessment of online marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 25 (3), 260-276.
• Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methids for Business. A Skill-Building Approach. 6th edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• Sembiring, M.G. (2017). Exploratory study of academic excellence associated with persistence in ODL setting. Asian Association of Open University Journal, 12(2), 125-136.
• Universitas Terbuka. (2014). Strategic and Operational Planning of Universitas Terbuka 2014-2021. Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka
• Verneil, M., & Berge, Z. (2000). Going online: Guidelines for faculty in higher education. Educational Technology Review, 6(3), 13–18.
• Wang, Y., Baker, R. (2015). Content or platform: why do students complete MOOCs?. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 17–30.