Identified challenges from selected research papers
Category | Authors of research papers | Type of challenge | Description |
---|---|---|---|
College students | (2020) | Institutional preparedness | Delay in the start of the online teaching; unsatisfactory setup of online teaching |
Inequality of resources among students | An inadequate learning approach that posed challenges in online class registration procedures, tiny performance appraisal systems, one-way instructor support and e-learning content costs | ||
(2020) | Inexperienced in online learning | Less than half of the total students had experienced distance/online learning in the past prior to its implementation the school | |
(2020) | Prompt implementation of remote online classes | Use of the same curricula as of F2F teaching during the prompt implementation of remote online classes in the universities | |
(2021) | Changed scenarios and concerned about the uncertainty | Changed delivery and uncertainty of education, technological challenges of online courses | |
(2021) | Lack of technological and financial support | Lack of necessary technological and financial support for developing nations such as Bangladesh | |
Rapid shift and inexperienced students and faculty | Designing online instruction was considered a time-taking procedure; only millennial students were found comfortable; older faculties faced many challenges in designing instructions and in the assessment process; rapid shift posed challenges for the administrative staff, academics and students alike and a fear of the unknown future premonitions | ||
(2021) | Lack of resources | Internet connectivity issues during the online lectures; limited time, lack of concentration, issues of audibility in online sessions, etc. | |
Lack of resources | Majority of students could not afford to buy all the necessary digital tools | ||
(2021) | Lack of resources/economic support | Lack of familiarity with digital gadgets, type/quality of Internet connection, socioeconomic status resulted as the major predictors of stress, besides gender and educational level | |
(2021) | Forced implementation with lack of proper resources | Pandemic forced implementation of distance/remote e-learning, rapid change in the system and environment, lack of technical support (digital gadgets and Internet), sudden shift to online learning, lack of knowledge of the effectiveness of online learning, sudden change in curriculum | |
Rapid shift | Emergency preparedness made online learning not conveniently acceptable | ||
School students | (2021) | Lack of sufficient infrastructure and skills | Lack of sufficient digital infrastructure and digital skillset for both students and teachers |
(2021) | Lack of preparedness | Not well established online and distance teaching with a lack of facilities and Internet access, probing troubles to manage the educational needs while performing the daily routines which made impractical to attend online classes regularly | |
(2021) | Sudden switch to the new form of learning with no sophisticated preparation | Implemented as a universal control measure although quality and intensity variations among different provinces, and between rural and urban areas; students were found uncomfortable considering online education as a new form of learning | |
Lack of sufficient resources | Many families had limited access to the technology required for online learning despite the government's promises for laptops etc. | ||
Teachers | Change in working practices | Abrupt change to practice remote teaching within only two days’ short notice | |
(2021) | lack of sufficient technological skills | Lack of face-to-face interaction with students, with some sort of lack of sufficient technological skills, getting doubtful of knowing how and what to do during/regarding online teaching with respect to students’ assessment, to follow-up and interact with students | |
(2020) | Lack of effective tools for instruction, assessment, etc | Low-quality Internet, lack of digital skills, reduced interaction, ineffective communication with large groups, violation of privacy, unfair behaviours in online assessment, lack of effective tools for instruction and assessment | |
Lack of resources and unpreparedness | Adapting the abrupt implementation of online education with limited resources and without preparation |
Identified psychological impacts from selected research papers
Category | Authors of research papers | Type of psychological impact | Description |
---|---|---|---|
College students | (2020) | Depressive symptoms, feeling of intimidation, low confidence | Closure of institutions and delayed online teaching raised depressive symptoms, sadness, boredom, nervousness, stress, feeling of intimidation and low confidence among medical and dental students |
Psychological distress- anxiety and stress | Students showed a higher level of anxiety due to e-learning crack-up; lack of interpersonal communication increased anxiety; fear of academic loss; psychological distress had a positive association with the perception of e-learning crack-up | ||
(2020) | Anxiety; depression | Younger aged and females had higher anxiety or depression | |
(2020) | Major stressors | Anxiety due to financial constraints; prompt implementation of remote online learning and assessments added tremendous stress and anxiety, the uncertainty of academic performance and future career prospects; feeling of burden and complicated emotions due to lockdown and isolation created frustration, anger, resentment and anxiety | |
(2021) | Depressive symptoms | Increased stress levels and anxiety and depressive symptoms among students, due to changed delivery; concerns about uncertainty; technological challenges of online courses, increased screen time, social distancing, isolation, decreased income | |
(2021) | Change in routine | Lack of regular and routine activities psychologically affected the students, and academics induced a higher rate of anxiety and stress | |
Concern for the education | More than three-fourth of the students showed concern about the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on their education | ||
(2021) | Depressive symptoms | Headache, depression, anxiety and loneliness were significant | |
Psychosomatic disorders | Lack of concentration, distractions, disturbed sleeping habits, tiredness, exhausting lethargy, laziness boredom nervousness, tension, confusion, frustration | ||
(2021) | Psychological distress | More than half of the university students were not satisfied with online classes, which was due to the challenges they faced. The majority of students were reported to have severe to mild psychological distress. Moreover, there was found a negative correlation between psychological distress and satisfaction from online classes | |
(2021) | Psychological Distress | Concerns about the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their future career formation, relationship with teachers due to sudden shift to online education, change in curriculum, decreased clinical exposure and lack of technical support | |
Rapid shift and lack of resources | Feeling anxiety and negative feelings towards online learning; anxiety towards sudden shifting to completely online learning off campus; more time consuming, slow retention in learning and lack of resources and space made it more stressful | ||
School students | (2021) | Lack of satisfaction and motivation | Time spent by the students did not comply with the guidelines by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), limited class interaction and inefficient time table affected the students’ satisfaction and motivation |
(2021) | predictors of depression and anxiety | Difficulties in online education were one of the significant predictors of depression and anxiety; despite teachers’ best efforts, students still experienced increased levels of distress due to uncertainties | |
(2021) | Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression | Students being confined at home with a worry of infection, economic losses to families and education. Also, students were found to have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) along with depression symptoms | |
Teachers | Negative emotions | Initial reactions involved negative emotions and an overwhelming experience of uncertainty; teachers felt distressed for being unable to answer pupils’ questions; faced hard times rethinking their approach to engaging the students; felt isolated and complained about an imbalance between work and home; concerns for vulnerable pupils generated anxiety and sadness in teachers; disrupted social relationships; dismayed about their professional identity in online interactions | |
(2021) | Lack of satisfaction | The most relevant risk factors related to online teaching satisfaction were found as stress, depression and low mood; areas of dissatisfaction such as lack of direct interaction, assessment criteria, impact on mood and distress | |
(2020) | Distress due to lack of motivation | Anxiety about the quality of the Internet and low motivation for distance/online education had suffered from moderate to severe distress | |
Concerns/worry about distance learning, with stress and a feeling of fear and depression and a desire to return to the previous methods of work |
Empirical evaluation of psychological impacts in the selected studies
Category | Authors of research papers | Empirical evaluation instrument used | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
College students | (2020) | Rating scale; multivariate regression analysis | 59.9% of participants wanted a delay in exit exams due to intimidation. 17.7% were sad, 22.6% were bored and 20.3% were nervous. 10.4% were annoyed. 63.4% felt isolated, 32.9% had a lack of enjoyment, 41.5% had trouble sleeping, and 26.2% had hopelessness about the future |
Kessler’s Psychological Distress Scale to evaluate stress symptoms | A large proportion of variance is accounted for mental stress, that is, 43% for fear of loss of the academic year and 99% for psychological distress | ||
(2020) | Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ4) for Anxiety and Depression | Approx. 25% had an anxiety score ≥3; around 35% had a depression score ≥3, and 6.7% found a severe anxiety score in the PHQ4 | |
(2020) | Zung’s Self-Rating Anxiety Scale | 20.4%, 6.6% and 2.8% of the students experienced minimal to moderate, marked to severe and most extreme anxiety levels, respectively | |
(2021) | Factor analysis | Profile analysis of sample students showed that 45%, 40% and 14% had high, moderate and low (respectively) levels of psychological impacts 21.5% of students felt unmotivated, unproductive, problems with concentration and procrastination; 17.4% felt anxious; 14.6% felt stressful and overwhelmed; 13.3% felt lonely; only 1% felt flexible/adjustable to new situations; 21.1% felt social distancing; 15.7% felt change in education and 12.9% felt less outings as a major cause of their change behaviours/psychological impacts | |
(2021) | Zung’s Self-Rating Anxiety Scale | 85.86% of students reported more than usual anxiety due to uncertainty about the continuation of their studies, and 65.61% reported their anxiety regarding internship and career-related issues | |
GAD-7 (General Anxiety Disorder) assessment tool | A high proportion of the students reported that their studying patterns (73.3%), as well as their well-being (58.7%), were affected by the shift to remote teaching | ||
(2021) | Mann–Whitney test | On comparison of females and males, females experienced a severe level of headache ( = 0.713); however, males experienced more strain on eyes ( = 0.405), body posture ( = 0.198), depression ( = 0.286), loneliness ( = 0.194) and anxiety ( = 0.679) | |
Likert scale | Lack of concentration, distractions in e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (36% and 26.3%); excessive use of digital devices for e-learning affected their sleeping habits (53.7% and 27%) and caused students’ isolation (46.8% and 28.4%); tiring and exhausting (70.2% and 21.4%) and induced lethargy and laziness (60.9% and 24.6%); boredom, nervousness and tension (54.7% and 33.9%); volume of assignments via e-learning led to confusion, frustration and poor performance (55.5% and 27.9%); online quizzes and exams from home-made the university students uncomfortable and nervous (41.35% and 24%) | ||
(2021) | The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) (2003) and student satisfaction scale | 29% of students were the victim of moderate psychological distress, and 17.6% were facing mild psychological distress. About 70% of students were reported to have severe (41.5%) to mild (29%) psychological distress. Also, there was found a negative correlation between psychological distress and satisfaction from online classes | |
(2021) | Regression analyses | (15.9%) had PHQ-9 scores of 10 or more, and 34 (7.2%) had GAD-7 scores of 10 or more. College students having concerns about the shift towards online education were found significantly depressed | |
Likert scale | 75.6% of students expressed anxiety towards the sudden transition to strictly online/distance learning and moving off campus | ||
School students | (2021) | A survey questionnaire constituted of MCQs and Likert scale to study assessment of online learning and health of students in educational institutions | 51.4% reported not utilising their time during the lockdown. Sleeping habits, daily fitness routines and social interaction significantly affected their health |
(2021) | Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9; Generalised Anxiety Dis Order (GAD) Questionnaire (Spitzer , 1999) | 72.4% represented mild to severe depression. 74.9% represented mild to severe anxiety, and 16.7% reported having severe anxiety. The multiple standardised regression analysis showed that experiencing difficulties was one of the significant predictors of anxiety and depression | |
(2021) | Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R) | 20.7 and 7.16% children experienced PSTD and depression symptoms, respectively | |
Teachers | (2021) | CES-D scale; BAI questionnaire | 26.1% were in the 22–60 range (moderate to severe depression). 8 males (21.1%) and 10 females (14.5%) are in the 16–25 range (moderate anxiety); and 2 males (5.3%) and 7 females (10.1%) have a score ≥26 (severe anxiety) |
(2020) | Kessler Distress Scale | Indicated that the younger the age, the more likely to possess more psychological distress | |
test | Woman teachers were observed prevailing in the two higher classes (54.5% over 30.1%) with respect to their depression. There was found a significant correlation between worrying over the implementation of distance learning. 8% of teachers exhibit severe depressive emotions |
Identified countries from the selected studies
Category | Studies | Country |
---|---|---|
College students | (2020) | Pakistan |
(2020) | Saudi Arabia | |
(2020) | Malaysia | |
(2021) | United States | |
(2021) | Bangladesh | |
Malta | ||
(2021) | India | |
Bangladesh | ||
Jordan | ||
(2021) | Pakistan | |
(2021) | Japan | |
United States | ||
School students | (2021) | India |
(2021) | Jordan | |
(2021) | China | |
Teachers | U.K. | |
(2021) | Italy | |
(2020) | Jordan | |
Greece |
Rapid implementation of online education amid COVID-19
Opportunities | |
Challenges | |
Psychological impacts |
Akour , A. , Al-Tammemi , A.B. , Barakat , M. , Kanj , R. , Fakhouri , H.N. , Malkawi , A. and Musleh , G. ( 2020 ), “ The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and emergency distance teaching on the psychological status of university teachers: a cross-sectional study in Jordan ”, The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene , Vol. 103 No. 6 , pp. 2391 - 2399 , doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.20-0877 .
AlAzzam , M. , Abuhammad , S. , Abdalrahim , A. and Hamdan-Mansour , A.M. ( 2021 ), “ Predictors of depression and anxiety among senior high school students during COVID-19 pandemic: the context of home quarantine and online education ”, The Journal of School Nursing , Vol. XX No. X , pp. 1 - 8 , doi: 10.1177/1059840520988548 .
Browning , M.H.E.M. , Larson , L.R. , Sharaievska , I. , Rigolon , A. , McAnirlin , O. , Mullenbach , L. , Cloutier , S. , Vu , T.M. , Thomsen , J. , Reigner , N. , Metcalf , E.C. , D’Antonio , A. , Helbich , M. , Bratman , G., N. and Alvarez , H.O. ( 2021 ), “ Psychological impacts from COVID-19 among university students: risk factors across seven States in the United States ”, PLoS One , Vol. 16 No. 1 , e0245327 , doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245327 .
Chaturvedi , K. , Vishwakarma , D.K. and Singh , N. ( 2021 ), “ Covid-19 and its Impact on Education, social life and mental health of students: a survey ”, Children and Youth Services Review , Vol. 121 , 105866 , doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105866 .
Cuschieri , S. and Agius , J.C. ( 2020 ), “ Spotlight on the shift to remote anatomical teaching during covid-19 pandemic: perspective and experiences from the university of Malta ”, Anatomical Sciences Education , Vol. 13 , pp. 671 - 679 .
Dhahri , A.A. , Arain , S.Y. , Memon , A.M. , Rao , A. , MEP collaborator group and Mian , M.A. ( 2020 ), “ The psychological impact of COVID-19 on medical education of final year students in Pakistan: a cross-sectional study ”, Annals of Medicine and Surgery , Vol. 60 , pp. 445 - 450 , doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.11.025 .
Haider , A.S. and Al-Salman , S. ( 2020 ), “ Dataset of Jordanian university students’ psychological health impacted by using E-learning tools during COVID-19 ”, Data in Brief , Elsevier , p. 32 , doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.106104 .
Hasan , N. and Bao , Y. ( 2020 ), “ Impact of ‘e-learning crack-up’ perception on psychological distress among college students during COVID-19 pandemic: a mediating role of ‘fear of academic year loss’ ”, Child and Youth Services Review , Vol. 118 , 105355 , doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105355 .
Hossain , S.F.A. , Nurunnabi , M. , Sundarasen , S. , Chinna , K. , Kamaludin , K. , Baloch , G.M. , Khoshaim , H.B. and Sukayt , A. ( 2021 ), “ Socio-psychological impact on Bangladeshi students during COVID-19 ”, Journal of Public Health Research , Vol. 9 No. 1 , p. 1911 , doi: 10.4081/jphr.2020.1911 .
Huang , A.H. ( 1997 ), “ Challenges and opportunities of online education ”, Journal of Educational Technology Systems , Vol. 25 No. 3 , pp. 229 - 247 , doi: 10.2190/DE8W-DA78-FH16-5K89 .
Jindal , A. and Chahal , B.P.S. ( 2018 ), “ Challenges and opportunities for online education in India ”, Pramana Research Journal , Vol. 8 No. 4 , pp. 99 - 105 , available at: https://www.pramanaresearch.org/gallery/prj_c_ap_12.pdf ( accessed 25 July 2022 ).
Khawar , M.B. , Abbasi , M.H. , Hussain , S. , Riaz , M. , Rafiq , M. , Mehmood , R. , Sheikh , N. , Amaan , H.N. , Fatima , S. , Jabeen , F. , Ahmad , Z. and Farooq , A. ( 2021 ), “ Psychological impacts of COVID-19 and satisfaction from online classes: disturbances in daily routine and prevalence of depression, stress, and anxiety among students of Pakistan ”, Heliyon , Vol. 7 , e07030 , doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07030 .
Kim , L.E. and Asbury , K. ( 2020 ), “ Like a rug had been pulled from under you: the impact of COVID-19 on teachers in England during the first six weeks of the UK lockdown ”, British Journal of Educational Psychology , Vol. 90 , pp. 1062 - 1083 , doi: 10.1111/bjep.12381 .
König , J. , Jäger-Biela , D. and Glutsch , N. ( 2020 ), “ Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany ”, European Journal of Teacher Education , Vol. 43 No. 4 , pp. 608 - 622 , doi: 10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650 .
Livingstone , S. and Bober , M. ( 2004 ), “ Taking up online opportunities? Children’s uses of the internet for education, communication and participation ”, E-learning and Digital Media , Vol. 1 No. 3 , pp. 395 - 419 , doi: 10.2304/elea.2004.1.3.5 .
Ma , Z. , Idris , S. , Zhang , Y. , Zewen , L. , Wali , A. , Ji , Y. , Pan , Q. and Baloch , Z. ( 2021 ), “ The impact of COVID-19 pandemic outbreak on education and mental health of Chinese children aged 7-15 years: an online survey ”, BMC Pediatrics , Vol. 21 No. 95 , doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-02550-1 .
Mäkelä , T. , Mehtälä , S. , Clements , K. and Seppä , J. ( 2020 ), “ Schools went online over one weekend – opportunities and challenges for online education related to the COVID-19 crisis ”, Proceedings of EdMedia + Innovate Learning , Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) , The Netherlands , pp. 77 - 85 , available at: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/217288/ ( accessed 25 July 2022 ).
Milrad , M. , Wong , L.-H. , Sharples , M. , Hwang , G.-J. , Looi , C.-K. and Ogata , H. ( 2013 ), “ Seamless learning: an international perspective on next generation technology enhanced learning ”, in Berge , Z.L. and Muilenburg , L.Y. (Eds), Handbook of Mobile Learning , Routledge , New York , pp. 95 - 108 .
National Education Policy ( 2020 ), Ministry of Human Resource & Development , Government of India , available at: https://www.mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf ( accessed 6 August 2020 ).
Nishimura , Y. , Ochi , K. , Tokumasu , K. , Obika , M. , Hagiya , H. , Kataoka , H. and Otsuka , F. ( 2021 ), “ Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological distress of medical students in Japan: cross-sectional survey study ”, Journal of Medical Internet Research , Vol. 23 No. 2 , e25232 , doi: 10.2196/25232 , PMID: 33556033; PMCID: PMC7894621 .
Owston , R. ( 2018 ), “ Empowering learners through blended learning ”, International Journal on E-Learning , Vol. 17 No. 1 , pp. 65 - 83 , Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), available at: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/177966/ ( accessed 27 July 2022 ).
Page , M.J. , McKenzie , J.E. , Bossuyt , P.M. , Boutron , I. , Hoffmann , T.C. and Mulrow , C.D. ( 2021 ), “ The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews ”, BMJ , Vol. 372 No. 71 , doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 .
Qanash , S. , Al-Husayni , F. , Alemam , S. , Alqublan , L. , Alwafi , E. , Mufti , H.N. , Qanash , H. , Shabrawishi , M. and Ghabashi , A. ( 2020 ), “ Psychological effects on health science students after implementation of COVID-19 quarantine and distance learning in Saudi Arabia ”, Cureus , Vol. 12 No. 11 , e11767 , doi: 10.7759/cureus.11767 .
Rakes , G.C. and Dunn , K.E. ( 2010 ), “ The impact of online graduate students’ motivation and self-regulation on academic procrastination ”, Journal of Interactive Online Learning , Vol. 9 No. 1 , pp. 78 - 93 .
Sevillano-García , M. and Vázquez-Cano , E. ( 2015 ), “ The impact of digital mobile devices in higher education ”, Journal of Educational Technology and Society , Vol. 18 No. 1 , pp. 106 - 118 .
Shrivastava , K.J. , Nahar , R. , Parlani , S. and Murthy , V.J. ( 2021 ), “ A cross-sectional virtual survey to evaluate the outcome of online dental education system among undergraduate dental students across India amid COVID-19 pandemic ”, European Journal of Dental Education , Vol. 26 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 8 , doi: 10.1111/eje.12679 .
Stachteas , P. and Stachteas , C. ( 2020 ), “ The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on secondary school teachers ”, Psychiatriki , Vol. 31 No. 4 , pp. 293 - 301 .
Sundarasen , S. , Chinna , K. , Kamaludin , K. , Nurunnabi , M. , Baloch , G.M. , Khoshaim , H.B. , Hossain , S.F.A. and Sukayt , A. ( 2020 ), “ Psychological impact of COVID-19 and lockdown among university students in Malaysia: implications and policy recommendations ”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , Vol. 17 No. 17 , p. 6206 , doi: 10.3390/ijerph17176206 .
Truzoli , R. , Pirola , V. and Conte , S. ( 2021 ), “ The impact of risk and protective factors on online teaching experience in high school Italian teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic ”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , Vol. 37 No. 2 , doi: 10.1111/jcal.12533 .
Unger , S. and Meiran , W.R. ( 2020 ), “ Student attitudes towards online education during the COVID-19 viral outbreak of 2020: distance learning in a time of social distance ”, International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES) , Vol. 4 No. 4 , pp. 256 - 266 .
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, UNESCO ( 2020 ), “ COVID-19 impact on education ”, available at: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse ( accessed 06 June 2021 ).
University Grant Commission ( 2022 ), “ Equivalence of degree obtained through ODL and online mode with degree obtained through conventional mode ”, available at: https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/8526483_ODL-Online-degree-through-conventional-mode.pdf ( accessed 18 September 2022 ).
Wycoff , T. ( 2018 ), “ Social-emotional support: the real urgency of blended learning ”, available at: https://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/03/social-emotional-support-the-real-urgency-of-blended-learning/ ( accessed 6 June 2021 ).
Yarımkaya , E. and Esentürk , O.K. ( 2020 ), “ Promoting physical activity for children with autism spectrum disorders during Coronavirus outbreak: benefits, strategies, and examples ”, International Journal of Developmental Disabilities , Vol. 0 No. 0 , pp. 1 - 6 , doi: 10.1080/20473869.2020.1756115 .
Related articles, all feedback is valuable.
Please share your general feedback
Contact Customer Support
631k Accesses
251 Citations
25 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
The aim of the study is to identify the factors affecting students’ satisfaction and performance regarding online classes during the pandemic period of COVID–19 and to establish the relationship between these variables. The study is quantitative in nature, and the data were collected from 544 respondents through online survey who were studying the business management (B.B.A or M.B.A) or hotel management courses in Indian universities. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the proposed hypotheses. The results show that four independent factors used in the study viz. quality of instructor, course design, prompt feedback, and expectation of students positively impact students’ satisfaction and further student’s satisfaction positively impact students’ performance. For educational management, these four factors are essential to have a high level of satisfaction and performance for online courses. This study is being conducted during the epidemic period of COVID- 19 to check the effect of online teaching on students’ performance.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Coronavirus is a group of viruses that is the main root of diseases like cough, cold, sneezing, fever, and some respiratory symptoms (WHO, 2019 ). Coronavirus is a contagious disease, which is spreading very fast amongst the human beings. COVID-19 is a new sprain which was originated in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Coronavirus circulates in animals, but some of these viruses can transmit between animals and humans (Perlman & Mclntosh, 2020 ). As of March 282,020, according to the MoHFW, a total of 909 confirmed COVID-19 cases (862 Indians and 47 foreign nationals) had been reported in India (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020 ). Officially, no vaccine or medicine is evaluated to cure the spread of COVID-19 (Yu et al., 2020 ). The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the education system leads to schools and colleges’ widespread closures worldwide. On March 24, India declared a country-wide lockdown of schools and colleges (NDTV, 2020 ) for preventing the transmission of the coronavirus amongst the students (Bayham & Fenichel, 2020 ). School closures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have shed light on several issues affecting access to education. COVID-19 is soaring due to which the huge number of children, adults, and youths cannot attend schools and colleges (UNESCO, 2020 ). Lah and Botelho ( 2012 ) contended that the effect of school closing on students’ performance is hazy.
Similarly, school closing may also affect students because of disruption of teacher and students’ networks, leading to poor performance. Bridge ( 2020 ) reported that schools and colleges are moving towards educational technologies for student learning to avoid a strain during the pandemic season. Hence, the present study’s objective is to develop and test a conceptual model of student’s satisfaction pertaining to online teaching during COVID-19, where both students and teachers have no other option than to use the online platform uninterrupted learning and teaching.
UNESCO recommends distance learning programs and open educational applications during school closure caused by COVID-19 so that schools and teachers use to teach their pupils and bound the interruption of education. Therefore, many institutes go for the online classes (Shehzadi et al., 2020 ).
As a versatile platform for learning and teaching processes, the E-learning framework has been increasingly used (Salloum & Shaalan, 2018 ). E-learning is defined as a new paradigm of online learning based on information technology (Moore et al., 2011 ). In contrast to traditional learning academics, educators, and other practitioners are eager to know how e-learning can produce better outcomes and academic achievements. Only by analyzing student satisfaction and their performance can the answer be sought.
Many comparative studies have been carried out to prove the point to explore whether face-to-face or traditional teaching methods are more productive or whether online or hybrid learning is better (Lockman & Schirmer, 2020 ; Pei & Wu, 2019 ; González-Gómez et al., 2016 ; González-Gómez et al., 2016 ). Results of the studies show that the students perform much better in online learning than in traditional learning. Henriksen et al. ( 2020 ) highlighted the problems faced by educators while shifting from offline to online mode of teaching. In the past, several research studies had been carried out on online learning to explore student satisfaction, acceptance of e-learning, distance learning success factors, and learning efficiency (Sher, 2009 ; Lee, 2014 ; Yen et al., 2018 ). However, scant amount of literature is available on the factors that affect the students’ satisfaction and performance in online classes during the pandemic of Covid-19 (Rajabalee & Santally, 2020 ). In the present study, the authors proposed that course design, quality of the instructor, prompt feedback, and students’ expectations are the four prominent determinants of learning outcome and satisfaction of the students during online classes (Lee, 2014 ).
The Course Design refers to curriculum knowledge, program organization, instructional goals, and course structure (Wright, 2003 ). If well planned, course design increasing the satisfaction of pupils with the system (Almaiah & Alyoussef, 2019 ). Mtebe and Raisamo ( 2014 ) proposed that effective course design will help in improving the performance through learners knowledge and skills (Khan & Yildiz, 2020 ; Mohammed et al., 2020 ). However, if the course is not designed effectively then it might lead to low usage of e-learning platforms by the teachers and students (Almaiah & Almulhem, 2018 ). On the other hand, if the course is designed effectively then it will lead to higher acceptance of e-learning system by the students and their performance also increases (Mtebe & Raisamo, 2014 ). Hence, to prepare these courses for online learning, many instructors who are teaching blended courses for the first time are likely to require a complete overhaul of their courses (Bersin, 2004 ; Ho et al., 2006 ).
The second-factor, Instructor Quality, plays an essential role in affecting the students’ satisfaction in online classes. Instructor quality refers to a professional who understands the students’ educational needs, has unique teaching skills, and understands how to meet the students’ learning needs (Luekens et al., 2004 ). Marsh ( 1987 ) developed five instruments for measuring the instructor’s quality, in which the main method was Students’ Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ), which delineated the instructor’s quality. SEEQ is considered one of the methods most commonly used and embraced unanimously (Grammatikopoulos et al., 2014 ). SEEQ was a very useful method of feedback by students to measure the instructor’s quality (Marsh, 1987 ).
The third factor that improves the student’s satisfaction level is prompt feedback (Kinicki et al., 2004 ). Feedback is defined as information given by lecturers and tutors about the performance of students. Within this context, feedback is a “consequence of performance” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007 , p. 81). In education, “prompt feedback can be described as knowing what you know and what you do not related to learning” (Simsek et al., 2017 , p.334). Christensen ( 2014 ) studied linking feedback to performance and introduced the positivity ratio concept, which is a mechanism that plays an important role in finding out the performance through feedback. It has been found that prompt feedback helps in developing a strong linkage between faculty and students which ultimately leads to better learning outcomes (Simsek et al., 2017 ; Chang, 2011 ).
The fourth factor is students’ expectation . Appleton-Knapp and Krentler ( 2006 ) measured the impact of student’s expectations on their performance. They pin pointed that the student expectation is important. When the expectations of the students are achieved then it lead to the higher satisfaction level of the student (Bates & Kaye, 2014 ). These findings were backed by previous research model “Student Satisfaction Index Model” (Zhang et al., 2008 ). However, when the expectations are students is not fulfilled then it might lead to lower leaning and satisfaction with the course. Student satisfaction is defined as students’ ability to compare the desired benefit with the observed effect of a particular product or service (Budur et al., 2019 ). Students’ whose grade expectation is high will show high satisfaction instead of those facing lower grade expectations.
The scrutiny of the literature show that although different researchers have examined the factors affecting student satisfaction but none of the study has examined the effect of course design, quality of the instructor, prompt feedback, and students’ expectations on students’ satisfaction with online classes during the pandemic period of Covid-19. Therefore, this study tries to explore the factors that affect students’ satisfaction and performance regarding online classes during the pandemic period of COVID–19. As the pandemic compelled educational institutions to move online with which they were not acquainted, including teachers and learners. The students were not mentally prepared for such a shift. Therefore, this research will be examined to understand what factors affect students and how students perceived these changes which are reflected through their satisfaction level.
This paper is structured as follows: The second section provides a description of theoretical framework and the linkage among different research variables and accordingly different research hypotheses were framed. The third section deals with the research methodology of the paper as per APA guideline. The outcomes and corresponding results of the empirical analysis are then discussed. Lastly, the paper concludes with a discussion and proposes implications for future studies.
Achievement goal theory (AGT) is commonly used to understand the student’s performance, and it is proposed by four scholars Carole Ames, Carol Dweck, Martin Maehr, and John Nicholls in the late 1970s (Elliot, 2005 ). Elliott & Dweck ( 1988 , p11) define that “an achievement goal involves a program of cognitive processes that have cognitive, affective and behavioral consequence”. This theory suggests that students’ motivation and achievement-related behaviors can be easily understood by the purpose and the reasons they adopted while they are engaged in the learning activities (Dweck & Leggett, 1988 ; Ames, 1992 ; Urdan, 1997 ). Some of the studies believe that there are four approaches to achieve a goal, i.e., mastery-approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach, and performance-avoidance (Pintrich, 1999 ; Elliot & McGregor, 2001 ; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2011 , Hansen & Ringdal, 2018 ; Mouratidis et al., 2018 ). The environment also affects the performance of students (Ames & Archer, 1988 ). Traditionally, classroom teaching is an effective method to achieve the goal (Ames & Archer, 1988 ; Ames, 1992 ; Clayton et al., 2010 ) however in the modern era, the internet-based teaching is also one of the effective tools to deliver lectures, and web-based applications are becoming modern classrooms (Azlan et al., 2020 ). Hence, following section discuss about the relationship between different independent variables and dependent variables (Fig. 1 ).
Proposed Model
3.1 quality of the instructor and satisfaction of the students.
Quality of instructor with high fanaticism on student’s learning has a positive impact on their satisfaction. Quality of instructor is one of the most critical measures for student satisfaction, leading to the education process’s outcome (Munteanu et al., 2010 ; Arambewela & Hall, 2009 ; Ramsden, 1991 ). Suppose the teacher delivers the course effectively and influence the students to do better in their studies. In that case, this process leads to student satisfaction and enhances the learning process (Ladyshewsky, 2013 ). Furthermore, understanding the need of learner by the instructor also ensures student satisfaction (Kauffman, 2015 ). Hence the hypothesis that the quality of instructor significantly affects the satisfaction of the students was included in this study.
H1: The quality of the instructor positively affects the satisfaction of the students.
The course’s technological design is highly persuading the students’ learning and satisfaction through their course expectations (Liaw, 2008 ; Lin et al., 2008 ). Active course design indicates the students’ effective outcomes compared to the traditional design (Black & Kassaye, 2014 ). Learning style is essential for effective course design (Wooldridge, 1995 ). While creating an online course design, it is essential to keep in mind that we generate an experience for students with different learning styles. Similarly, (Jenkins, 2015 ) highlighted that the course design attributes could be developed and employed to enhance student success. Hence the hypothesis that the course design significantly affects students’ satisfaction was included in this study.
H2: Course design positively affects the satisfaction of students.
The emphasis in this study is to understand the influence of prompt feedback on satisfaction. Feedback gives the information about the students’ effective performance (Chang, 2011 ; Grebennikov & Shah, 2013 ; Simsek et al., 2017 ). Prompt feedback enhances student learning experience (Brownlee et al., 2009 ) and boosts satisfaction (O'donovan, 2017 ). Prompt feedback is the self-evaluation tool for the students (Rogers, 1992 ) by which they can improve their performance. Eraut ( 2006 ) highlighted the impact of feedback on future practice and student learning development. Good feedback practice is beneficial for student learning and teachers to improve students’ learning experience (Yorke, 2003 ). Hence the hypothesis that prompt feedback significantly affects satisfaction was included in this study.
H3: Prompt feedback of the students positively affects the satisfaction.
Expectation is a crucial factor that directly influences the satisfaction of the student. Expectation Disconfirmation Theory (EDT) (Oliver, 1980 ) was utilized to determine the level of satisfaction based on their expectations (Schwarz & Zhu, 2015 ). Student’s expectation is the best way to improve their satisfaction (Brown et al., 2014 ). It is possible to recognize student expectations to progress satisfaction level (ICSB, 2015 ). Finally, the positive approach used in many online learning classes has been shown to place a high expectation on learners (Gold, 2011 ) and has led to successful outcomes. Hence the hypothesis that expectations of the student significantly affect the satisfaction was included in this study.
H4: Expectations of the students positively affects the satisfaction.
Zeithaml ( 1988 ) describes that satisfaction is the outcome result of the performance of any educational institute. According to Kotler and Clarke ( 1986 ), satisfaction is the desired outcome of any aim that amuses any individual’s admiration. Quality interactions between instructor and students lead to student satisfaction (Malik et al., 2010 ; Martínez-Argüelles et al., 2016 ). Teaching quality and course material enhances the student satisfaction by successful outcomes (Sanderson, 1995 ). Satisfaction relates to the student performance in terms of motivation, learning, assurance, and retention (Biner et al., 1996 ). Mensink and King ( 2020 ) described that performance is the conclusion of student-teacher efforts, and it shows the interest of students in the studies. The critical element in education is students’ academic performance (Rono, 2013 ). Therefore, it is considered as center pole, and the entire education system rotates around the student’s performance. Narad and Abdullah ( 2016 ) concluded that the students’ academic performance determines academic institutions’ success and failure.
Singh et al. ( 2016 ) asserted that the student academic performance directly influences the country’s socio-economic development. Farooq et al. ( 2011 ) highlights the students’ academic performance is the primary concern of all faculties. Additionally, the main foundation of knowledge gaining and improvement of skills is student’s academic performance. According to Narad and Abdullah ( 2016 ), regular evaluation or examinations is essential over a specific period of time in assessing students’ academic performance for better outcomes. Hence the hypothesis that satisfaction significantly affects the performance of the students was included in this study.
H5: Students’ satisfaction positively affects the performance of the students.
Sibanda et al. ( 2015 ) applied the goal theory to examine the factors persuading students’ academic performance that enlightens students’ significance connected to their satisfaction and academic achievement. According to this theory, students perform well if they know about factors that impact on their performance. Regarding the above variables, institutional factors that influence student satisfaction through performance include course design and quality of the instructor (DeBourgh, 2003 ; Lado et al., 2003 ), prompt feedback, and expectation (Fredericksen et al., 2000 ). Hence the hypothesis that quality of the instructor, course design, prompts feedback, and student expectations significantly affect the students’ performance through satisfaction was included in this study.
H6: Quality of the instructor, course design, prompt feedback, and student’ expectations affect the students’ performance through satisfaction.
H6a: Students’ satisfaction mediates the relationship between quality of the instructor and student’s performance.
H6b: Students’ satisfaction mediates the relationship between course design and student’s performance.
H6c: Students’ satisfaction mediates the relationship between prompt feedback and student’s performance.
H6d: Students’ satisfaction mediates the relationship between student’ expectations and student’s performance.
In this cross-sectional study, the data were collected from 544 respondents who were studying the management (B.B.A or M.B.A) and hotel management courses. The purposive sampling technique was used to collect the data. Descriptive statistics shows that 48.35% of the respondents were either MBA or BBA and rests of the respondents were hotel management students. The percentages of male students were (71%) and female students were (29%). The percentage of male students is almost double in comparison to females. The ages of the students varied from 18 to 35. The dominant group was those aged from 18 to 22, and which was the under graduation student group and their ratio was (94%), and another set of students were from the post-graduation course, which was (6%) only.
The research instrument consists of two sections. The first section is related to demographical variables such as discipline, gender, age group, and education level (under-graduate or post-graduate). The second section measures the six factors viz. instructor’s quality, course design, prompt feedback, student expectations, satisfaction, and performance. These attributes were taken from previous studies (Yin & Wang, 2015 ; Bangert, 2004 ; Chickering & Gamson, 1987 ; Wilson et al., 1997 ). The “instructor quality” was measured through the scale developed by Bangert ( 2004 ). The scale consists of seven items. The “course design” and “prompt feedback” items were adapted from the research work of Bangert ( 2004 ). The “course design” scale consists of six items. The “prompt feedback” scale consists of five items. The “students’ expectation” scale consists of five items. Four items were adapted from Bangert, 2004 and one item was taken from Wilson et al. ( 1997 ). Students’ satisfaction was measure with six items taken from Bangert ( 2004 ); Wilson et al. ( 1997 ); Yin and Wang ( 2015 ). The “students’ performance” was measured through the scale developed by Wilson et al. ( 1997 ). The scale consists of six items. These variables were accessed on a five-point likert scale, ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree). Only the students from India have taken part in the survey. A total of thirty-four questions were asked in the study to check the effect of the first four variables on students’ satisfaction and performance. For full details of the questionnaire, kindly refer Appendix Tables 6 .
The study used a descriptive research design. The factors “instructor quality, course design, prompt feedback and students’ expectation” were independent variables. The students’ satisfaction was mediator and students’ performance was the dependent variable in the current study.
In this cross-sectional research the respondents were selected through judgment sampling. They were informed about the objective of the study and information gathering process. They were assured about the confidentiality of the data and no incentive was given to then for participating in this study. The information utilizes for this study was gathered through an online survey. The questionnaire was built through Google forms, and then it was circulated through the mails. Students’ were also asked to write the name of their college, and fifteen colleges across India have taken part to fill the data. The data were collected in the pandemic period of COVID-19 during the total lockdown in India. This was the best time to collect the data related to the current research topic because all the colleges across India were involved in online classes. Therefore, students have enough time to understand the instrument and respondent to the questionnaire in an effective manner. A total of 615 questionnaires were circulated, out of which the students returned 574. Thirty responses were not included due to the unengaged responses. Finally, 544 questionnaires were utilized in the present investigation. Male and female students both have taken part to fill the survey, different age groups, and various courses, i.e., under graduation and post-graduation students of management and hotel management students were the part of the sample.
To analyze the data, SPSS and AMOS software were used. First, to extract the distinct factors, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed using VARIMAX rotation on a sample of 544. Results of the exploratory analysis rendered six distinct factors. Factor one was named as the quality of instructor, and some of the items were “The instructor communicated effectively”, “The instructor was enthusiastic about online teaching” and “The instructor was concerned about student learning” etc. Factor two was labeled as course design, and the items were “The course was well organized”, “The course was designed to allow assignments to be completed across different learning environments.” and “The instructor facilitated the course effectively” etc. Factor three was labeled as prompt feedback of students, and some of the items were “The instructor responded promptly to my questions about the use of Webinar”, “The instructor responded promptly to my questions about general course requirements” etc. The fourth factor was Student’s Expectations, and the items were “The instructor provided models that clearly communicated expectations for weekly group assignments”, “The instructor used good examples to explain statistical concepts” etc. The fifth factor was students’ satisfaction, and the items were “The online classes were valuable”, “Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of this course” etc. The sixth factor was performance of the student, and the items were “The online classes has sharpened my analytic skills”, “Online classes really tries to get the best out of all its students” etc. These six factors explained 67.784% of the total variance. To validate the factors extracted through EFA, the researcher performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) through AMOS. Finally, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesized relationships.
The results of Table 1 summarize the findings of EFA and CFA. Results of the table showed that EFA renders six distinct factors, and CFA validated these factors. Table 2 shows that the proposed measurement model achieved good convergent validity (Aggarwal et al., 2018a , b ). Results of the confirmatory factor analysis showed that the values of standardized factor loadings were statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Further, the results of the measurement model also showed acceptable model fit indices such that CMIN = 710.709; df = 480; CMIN/df = 1.481 p < .000; Incremental Fit Index (IFI) = 0.979; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.976; Goodness of Fit index (GFI) = 0.928; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.916; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.978; Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) = 0.042; Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.030 is satisfactory.
The Average Variance Explained (AVE) according to the acceptable index should be higher than the value of squared correlations between the latent variables and all other variables. The discriminant validity is confirmed (Table 2 ) as the value of AVE’s square root is greater than the inter-construct correlations coefficient (Hair et al., 2006 ). Additionally, the discriminant validity existed when there was a low correlation between each variable measurement indicator with all other variables except with the one with which it must be theoretically associated (Aggarwal et al., 2018a , b ; Aggarwal et al., 2020 ). The results of Table 2 show that the measurement model achieved good discriminate validity.
To test the proposed hypothesis, the researcher used the structural equation modeling technique. This is a multivariate statistical analysis technique, and it includes the amalgamation of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis. It is used to analyze the structural relationship between measured variables and latent constructs.
Table 3 represents the structural model’s model fitness indices where all variables put together when CMIN/DF is 2.479, and all the model fit values are within the particular range. That means the model has attained a good model fit. Furthermore, other fit indices as GFI = .982 and AGFI = 0.956 be all so supportive (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996 ; Marsh & Grayson, 1995 ; Kline, 2005 ).
Hence, the model fitted the data successfully. All co-variances among the variables and regression weights were statistically significant ( p < 0.001).
Table 4 represents the relationship between exogenous, mediator and endogenous variables viz—quality of instructor, prompt feedback, course design, students’ expectation, students’ satisfaction and students’ performance. The first four factors have a positive relationship with satisfaction, which further leads to students’ performance positively. Results show that the instructor’s quality has a positive relationship with the satisfaction of students for online classes (SE = 0.706, t-value = 24.196; p < 0.05). Hence, H1 was supported. The second factor is course design, which has a positive relationship with students’ satisfaction of students (SE = 0.064, t-value = 2.395; p < 0.05). Hence, H2 was supported. The third factor is Prompt feedback, and results show that feedback has a positive relationship with the satisfaction of the students (SE = 0.067, t-value = 2.520; p < 0.05). Hence, H3 was supported. The fourth factor is students’ expectations. The results show a positive relationship between students’ expectation and students’ satisfaction with online classes (SE = 0.149, t-value = 5.127; p < 0.05). Hence, H4 was supported. The results of SEM show that out of quality of instructor, prompt feedback, course design, and students’ expectation, the most influencing factor that affect the students’ satisfaction was instructor’s quality (SE = 0.706) followed by students’ expectation (SE =5.127), prompt feedback (SE = 2.520). The factor that least affects the students’ satisfaction was course design (2.395). The results of Table 4 finally depicts that students’ satisfaction has positive effect on students’ performance ((SE = 0.186, t-value = 2.800; p < 0.05). Hence H5 was supported.
Table 5 shows that students’ satisfaction partially mediates the positive relationship between the instructor’s quality and student performance. Hence, H6(a) was supported. Further, the mediation analysis results showed that satisfaction again partially mediates the positive relationship between course design and student’s performance. Hence, H6(b) was supported However, the mediation analysis results showed that satisfaction fully mediates the positive relationship between prompt feedback and student performance. Hence, H6(c) was supported. Finally, the results of the Table 5 showed that satisfaction partially mediates the positive relationship between expectations of the students and student’s performance. Hence, H6(d) was supported.
In the present study, the authors evaluated the different factors directly linked with students’ satisfaction and performance with online classes during Covid-19. Due to the pandemic situation globally, all the colleges and universities were shifted to online mode by their respective governments. No one has the information that how long this pandemic will remain, and hence the teaching method was shifted to online mode. Even though some of the educators were not tech-savvy, they updated themselves to battle the unexpected circumstance (Pillai et al., 2021 ). The present study results will help the educators increase the student’s satisfaction and performance in online classes. The current research assists educators in understanding the different factors that are required for online teaching.
Comparing the current research with past studies, the past studies have examined the factors affecting the student’s satisfaction in the conventional schooling framework. However, the present study was conducted during India’s lockdown period to identify the prominent factors that derive the student’s satisfaction with online classes. The study also explored the direct linkage between student’s satisfaction and their performance. The present study’s findings indicated that instructor’s quality is the most prominent factor that affects the student’s satisfaction during online classes. This means that the instructor needs to be very efficient during the lectures. He needs to understand students’ psychology to deliver the course content prominently. If the teacher can deliver the course content properly, it affects the student’s satisfaction and performance. The teachers’ perspective is critical because their enthusiasm leads to a better online learning process quality.
The present study highlighted that the second most prominent factor affecting students’ satisfaction during online classes is the student’s expectations. Students might have some expectations during the classes. If the instructor understands that expectation and customizes his/her course design following the student’s expectations, then it is expected that the students will perform better in the examinations. The third factor that affects the student’s satisfaction is feedback. After delivering the course, appropriate feedback should be taken by the instructors to plan future courses. It also helps to make the future strategies (Tawafak et al., 2019 ). There must be a proper feedback system for improvement because feedback is the course content’s real image. The last factor that affects the student’s satisfaction is design. The course content needs to be designed in an effective manner so that students should easily understand it. If the instructor plans the course, so the students understand the content without any problems it effectively leads to satisfaction, and the student can perform better in the exams. In some situations, the course content is difficult to deliver in online teaching like the practical part i.e. recipes of dishes or practical demonstration in the lab. In such a situation, the instructor needs to be more creative in designing and delivering the course content so that it positively impacts the students’ overall satisfaction with online classes.
Overall, the students agreed that online teaching was valuable for them even though the online mode of classes was the first experience during the pandemic period of Covid-19 (Agarwal & Kaushik, 2020 ; Rajabalee & Santally, 2020 ). Some of the previous studies suggest that the technology-supported courses have a positive relationship with students’ performance (Cho & Schelzer, 2000 ; Harasim, 2000 ; Sigala, 2002 ). On the other hand, the demographic characteristic also plays a vital role in understanding the online course performance. According to APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs ( 1997 ), the learner-centered principles suggest that students must be willing to invest the time required to complete individual course assignments. Online instructors must be enthusiastic about developing genuine instructional resources that actively connect learners and encourage them toward proficient performances. For better performance in studies, both teachers and students have equal responsibility. When the learner faces any problem to understand the concepts, he needs to make inquiries for the instructor’s solutions (Bangert, 2004 ). Thus, we can conclude that “instructor quality, student’s expectation, prompt feedback, and effective course design” significantly impact students’ online learning process.
The results of this study have numerous significant practical implications for educators, students and researchers. It also contributes to the literature by demonstrating that multiple factors are responsible for student satisfaction and performance in the context of online classes during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was different from the previous studies (Baber, 2020 ; Ikhsan et al., 2019 ; Eom & Ashill, 2016 ). None of the studies had examined the effect of students’ satisfaction on their perceived academic performance. The previous empirical findings have highlighted the importance of examining the factors affecting student satisfaction (Maqableh & Jaradat, 2021 ; Yunusa & Umar, 2021 ). Still, none of the studies has examined the effect of course design, quality of instructor, prompt feedback, and students’ expectations on students’ satisfaction all together with online classes during the pandemic period. The present study tries to fill this research gap.
The first essential contribution of this study was the instructor’s facilitating role, and the competence he/she possesses affects the level of satisfaction of the students (Gray & DiLoreto, 2016 ). There was an extra obligation for instructors who taught online courses during the pandemic. They would have to adapt to a changing climate, polish their technical skills throughout the process, and foster new students’ technical knowledge in this environment. The present study’s findings indicate that instructor quality is a significant determinant of student satisfaction during online classes amid a pandemic. In higher education, the teacher’s standard referred to the instructor’s specific individual characteristics before entering the class (Darling-Hammond, 2010 ). These attributes include factors such as instructor content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, inclination, and experience. More significantly, at that level, the amount of understanding could be given by those who have a significant amount of technical expertise in the areas they are teaching (Martin, 2021 ). Secondly, the present study results contribute to the profession of education by illustrating a realistic approach that can be used to recognize students’ expectations in their class effectively. The primary expectation of most students before joining a university is employment. Instructors have agreed that they should do more to fulfill students’ employment expectations (Gorgodze et al., 2020 ). The instructor can then use that to balance expectations to improve student satisfaction. Study results can be used to continually improve and build courses, as well as to make policy decisions to improve education programs. Thirdly, from result outcomes, online course design and instructors will delve deeper into how to structure online courses more efficiently, including design features that minimize adversely and maximize optimistic emotion, contributing to greater student satisfaction (Martin et al., 2018 ). The findings suggest that the course design has a substantial positive influence on the online class’s student performance. The findings indicate that the course design of online classes need to provide essential details like course content, educational goals, course structure, and course output in a consistent manner so that students would find the e-learning system beneficial for them; this situation will enable students to use the system and that leads to student performance (Almaiah & Alyoussef, 2019 ). Lastly, the results indicate that instructors respond to questions promptly and provide timely feedback on assignments to facilitate techniques that help students in online courses improve instructor participation, instructor interaction, understanding, and participation (Martin et al., 2018 ). Feedback can be beneficial for students to focus on the performance that enhances their learning.
Authors and affiliations.
Chitkara College of Hospitality Management, Chitkara University, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
Ram Gopal & Varsha Singh
Chitkara Business School, Chitkara University, Chandigarh, Punjab, India
Arun Aggarwal
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Arun Aggarwal .
Ethics approval.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Reprints and permissions
Gopal, R., Singh, V. & Aggarwal, A. Impact of online classes on the satisfaction and performance of students during the pandemic period of COVID 19. Educ Inf Technol 26 , 6923–6947 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10523-1
Download citation
Received : 07 December 2020
Accepted : 22 March 2021
Published : 21 April 2021
Issue Date : November 2021
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10523-1
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Advertisement
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Associated data.
Systematic reviews were conducted in the nineties and early 2000's on online learning research. However, there is no review examining the broader aspect of research themes in online learning in the last decade. This systematic review addresses this gap by examining 619 research articles on online learning published in twelve journals in the last decade. These studies were examined for publication trends and patterns, research themes, research methods, and research settings and compared with the research themes from the previous decades. While there has been a slight decrease in the number of studies on online learning in 2015 and 2016, it has then continued to increase in 2017 and 2018. The majority of the studies were quantitative in nature and were examined in higher education. Online learning research was categorized into twelve themes and a framework across learner, course and instructor, and organizational levels was developed. Online learner characteristics and online engagement were examined in a high number of studies and were consistent with three of the prior systematic reviews. However, there is still a need for more research on organization level topics such as leadership, policy, and management and access, culture, equity, inclusion, and ethics and also on online instructor characteristics.
Online learning has been on the increase in the last two decades. In the United States, though higher education enrollment has declined, online learning enrollment in public institutions has continued to increase ( Allen & Seaman, 2017 ), and so has the research on online learning. There have been review studies conducted on specific areas on online learning such as innovations in online learning strategies ( Davis et al., 2018 ), empirical MOOC literature ( Liyanagunawardena et al., 2013 ; Veletsianos & Shepherdson, 2016 ; Zhu et al., 2018 ), quality in online education ( Esfijani, 2018 ), accessibility in online higher education ( Lee, 2017 ), synchronous online learning ( Martin et al., 2017 ), K-12 preparation for online teaching ( Moore-Adams et al., 2016 ), polychronicity in online learning ( Capdeferro et al., 2014 ), meaningful learning research in elearning and online learning environments ( Tsai, Shen, & Chiang, 2013 ), problem-based learning in elearning and online learning environments ( Tsai & Chiang, 2013 ), asynchronous online discussions ( Thomas, 2013 ), self-regulated learning in online learning environments ( Tsai, Shen, & Fan, 2013 ), game-based learning in online learning environments ( Tsai & Fan, 2013 ), and online course dropout ( Lee & Choi, 2011 ). While there have been review studies conducted on specific online learning topics, very few studies have been conducted on the broader aspect of online learning examining research themes.
Distance education has evolved from offline to online settings with the access to internet and COVID-19 has made online learning the common delivery method across the world. Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) reviewed research late 1990's to early 2000's, Berge and Mrozowski (2001) reviewed research 1990 to 1999, and Zawacki-Richter et al. (2009) reviewed research in 2000–2008 on distance education and online learning. Table 1 shows the research themes from previous systematic reviews on online learning research. There are some themes that re-occur in the various reviews, and there are also new themes that emerge. Though there have been reviews conducted in the nineties and early 2000's, there is no review examining the broader aspect of research themes in online learning in the last decade. Hence, the need for this systematic review which informs the research themes in online learning from 2009 to 2018. In the following sections, we review these systematic review studies in detail.
Comparison of online learning research themes from previous studies.
1990–1999 ( ) | 1993–2004 ( ) | 2000–2008 (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2009) | |
---|---|---|---|
Most Number of Studies | |||
Lowest Number of Studies |
Berge and Mrozowski (2001) reviewed 890 research articles and dissertation abstracts on distance education from 1990 to 1999. The four distance education journals chosen by the authors to represent distance education included, American Journal of Distance Education, Distance Education, Open Learning, and the Journal of Distance Education. This review overlapped in the dates of the Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) study. Berge and Mrozowski (2001) categorized the articles according to Sherry's (1996) ten themes of research issues in distance education: redefining roles of instructor and students, technologies used, issues of design, strategies to stimulate learning, learner characteristics and support, issues related to operating and policies and administration, access and equity, and costs and benefits.
In the Berge and Mrozowski (2001) study, more than 100 studies focused on each of the three themes: (1) design issues, (2) learner characteristics, and (3) strategies to increase interactivity and active learning. By design issues, the authors focused on instructional systems design and focused on topics such as content requirement, technical constraints, interactivity, and feedback. The next theme, strategies to increase interactivity and active learning, were closely related to design issues and focused on students’ modes of learning. Learner characteristics focused on accommodating various learning styles through customized instructional theory. Less than 50 studies focused on the three least examined themes: (1) cost-benefit tradeoffs, (2) equity and accessibility, and (3) learner support. Cost-benefit trade-offs focused on the implementation costs of distance education based on school characteristics. Equity and accessibility focused on the equity of access to distance education systems. Learner support included topics such as teacher to teacher support as well as teacher to student support.
Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) reviewed research on online instruction from 1993 to 2004. They reviewed 76 articles focused on online learning by searching five databases, ERIC, PsycINFO, ContentFirst, Education Abstracts, and WilsonSelect. Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) categorized research into four themes, (1) course environment, (2) learners' outcomes, (3) learners’ characteristics, and (4) institutional and administrative factors. The first theme that the authors describe as course environment ( n = 41, 53.9%) is an overarching theme that includes classroom culture, structural assistance, success factors, online interaction, and evaluation.
Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) for their second theme found that studies focused on questions involving the process of teaching and learning and methods to explore cognitive and affective learner outcomes ( n = 29, 38.2%). The authors stated that they found the research designs flawed and lacked rigor. However, the literature comparing traditional and online classrooms found both delivery systems to be adequate. Another research theme focused on learners’ characteristics ( n = 12, 15.8%) and the synergy of learners, design of the online course, and system of delivery. Research findings revealed that online learners were mainly non-traditional, Caucasian, had different learning styles, and were highly motivated to learn. The final theme that they reported was institutional and administrative factors (n = 13, 17.1%) on online learning. Their findings revealed that there was a lack of scholarly research in this area and most institutions did not have formal policies in place for course development as well as faculty and student support in training and evaluation. Their research confirmed that when universities offered online courses, it improved student enrollment numbers.
Zawacki-Richter et al. (2009) reviewed 695 articles on distance education from 2000 to 2008 using the Delphi method for consensus in identifying areas and classified the literature from five prominent journals. The five journals selected due to their wide scope in research in distance education included Open Learning, Distance Education, American Journal of Distance Education, the Journal of Distance Education, and the International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. The reviewers examined the main focus of research and identified gaps in distance education research in this review.
Zawacki-Richter et al. (2009) classified the studies into macro, meso and micro levels focusing on 15 areas of research. The five areas of the macro-level addressed: (1) access, equity and ethics to deliver distance education for developing nations and the role of various technologies to narrow the digital divide, (2) teaching and learning drivers, markets, and professional development in the global context, (3) distance delivery systems and institutional partnerships and programs and impact of hybrid modes of delivery, (4) theoretical frameworks and models for instruction, knowledge building, and learner interactions in distance education practice, and (5) the types of preferred research methodologies. The meso-level focused on seven areas that involve: (1) management and organization for sustaining distance education programs, (2) examining financial aspects of developing and implementing online programs, (3) the challenges and benefits of new technologies for teaching and learning, (4) incentives to innovate, (5) professional development and support for faculty, (6) learner support services, and (7) issues involving quality standards and the impact on student enrollment and retention. The micro-level focused on three areas: (1) instructional design and pedagogical approaches, (2) culturally appropriate materials, interaction, communication, and collaboration among a community of learners, and (3) focus on characteristics of adult learners, socio-economic backgrounds, learning preferences, and dispositions.
The top three research themes in this review by Zawacki-Richter et al. (2009) were interaction and communities of learning ( n = 122, 17.6%), instructional design ( n = 121, 17.4%) and learner characteristics ( n = 113, 16.3%). The lowest number of studies (less than 3%) were found in studies examining the following research themes, management and organization ( n = 18), research methods in DE and knowledge transfer ( n = 13), globalization of education and cross-cultural aspects ( n = 13), innovation and change ( n = 13), and costs and benefits ( n = 12).
These three systematic reviews provide a broad understanding of distance education and online learning research themes from 1990 to 2008. However, there is an increase in the number of research studies on online learning in this decade and there is a need to identify recent research themes examined. Based on the previous systematic reviews ( Berge & Mrozowski, 2001 ; Hung, 2012 ; Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006 ; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2009 ), online learning research in this study is grouped into twelve different research themes which include Learner characteristics, Instructor characteristics, Course or program design and development, Course Facilitation, Engagement, Course Assessment, Course Technologies, Access, Culture, Equity, Inclusion, and Ethics, Leadership, Policy and Management, Instructor and Learner Support, and Learner Outcomes. Table 2 below describes each of the research themes and using these themes, a framework is derived in Fig. 1 .
Research themes in online learning.
Research Theme | Description | |
---|---|---|
1 | Learner Characteristics | Focuses on understanding the learner characteristics and how online learning can be designed and delivered to meet their needs. Online learner characteristics can be broadly categorized into demographic characteristics, academic characteristics, cognitive characteristics, affective, self-regulation, and motivational characteristics. |
2 | Learner Outcomes | Learner outcomes are statements that specify what the learner will achieve at the end of the course or program. Examining learner outcomes such as success, retention, and dropouts are critical in online courses. |
3 | Engagement | Engaging the learner in the online course is vitally important as they are separated from the instructor and peers in the online setting. Engagement is examined through the lens of interaction, participation, community, collaboration, communication, involvement and presence. |
4 | Course or Program Design and Development | Course design and development is critical in online learning as it engages and assists the students in achieving the learner outcomes. Several models and processes are used to develop the online course, employing different design elements to meet student needs. |
5 | Course Facilitation | The delivery or facilitation of the course is as important as course design. Facilitation strategies used in delivery of the course such as in communication and modeling practices are examined in course facilitation. |
6 | Course Assessment | Course Assessments are adapted and delivered in an online setting. Formative assessments, peer assessments, differentiated assessments, learner choice in assessments, feedback system, online proctoring, plagiarism in online learning, and alternate assessments such as eportfolios are examined. |
7 | Evaluation and Quality Assurance | Evaluation is making a judgment either on the process, the product or a program either during or at the end. There is a need for research on evaluation and quality in the online courses. This has been examined through course evaluations, surveys, analytics, social networks, and pedagogical assessments. Quality assessment rubrics such as Quality Matters have also been researched. |
8 | Course Technologies | A number of online course technologies such as learning management systems, online textbooks, online audio and video tools, collaborative tools, social networks to build online community have been the focus of research. |
9 | Instructor Characteristics | With the increase in online courses, there has also been an increase in the number of instructors teaching online courses. Instructor characteristics can be examined through their experience, satisfaction, and roles in online teaching. |
10 | Institutional Support | The support for online learning is examined both as learner support and instructor support. Online students need support to be successful online learners and this could include social, academic, and cognitive forms of support. Online instructors need support in terms of pedagogy and technology to be successful online instructors. |
11 | Access, Culture, Equity, Inclusion, and Ethics | Cross-cultural online learning is gaining importance along with access in global settings. In addition, providing inclusive opportunities for all learners and in ethical ways is being examined. |
12 | Leadership, Policy and Management | Leadership support is essential for success of online learning. Leaders perspectives, challenges and strategies used are examined. Policies and governance related research are also being studied. |
Online learning research themes framework.
The collection of research themes is presented as a framework in Fig. 1 . The themes are organized by domain or level to underscore the nested relationship that exists. As evidenced by the assortment of themes, research can focus on any domain of delivery or associated context. The “Learner” domain captures characteristics and outcomes related to learners and their interaction within the courses. The “Course and Instructor” domain captures elements about the broader design of the course and facilitation by the instructor, and the “Organizational” domain acknowledges the contextual influences on the course. It is important to note as well that due to the nesting, research themes can cross domains. For example, the broader cultural context may be studied as it pertains to course design and development, and institutional support can include both learner support and instructor support. Likewise, engagement research can involve instructors as well as learners.
In this introduction section, we have reviewed three systematic reviews on online learning research ( Berge & Mrozowski, 2001 ; Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006 ; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2009 ). Based on these reviews and other research, we have derived twelve themes to develop an online learning research framework which is nested in three levels: learner, course and instructor, and organization.
In two out of the three previous reviews, design, learner characteristics and interaction were examined in the highest number of studies. On the other hand, cost-benefit tradeoffs, equity and accessibility, institutional and administrative factors, and globalization and cross-cultural aspects were examined in the least number of studies. One explanation for this may be that it is a function of nesting, noting that studies falling in the Organizational and Course levels may encompass several courses or many more participants within courses. However, while some research themes re-occur, there are also variations in some themes across time, suggesting the importance of research themes rise and fall over time. Thus, a critical examination of the trends in themes is helpful for understanding where research is needed most. Also, since there is no recent study examining online learning research themes in the last decade, this study strives to address that gap by focusing on recent research themes found in the literature, and also reviewing research methods and settings. Notably, one goal is to also compare findings from this decade to the previous review studies. Overall, the purpose of this study is to examine publication trends in online learning research taking place during the last ten years and compare it with the previous themes identified in other review studies. Due to the continued growth of online learning research into new contexts and among new researchers, we also examine the research methods and settings found in the studies of this review.
The following research questions are addressed in this study.
This five-step systematic review process described in the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 4.0 ( 2017 ) was used in this systematic review: (a) developing the review protocol, (b) identifying relevant literature, (c) screening studies, (d) reviewing articles, and (e) reporting findings.
The Education Research Complete database was searched using the keywords below for published articles between the years 2009 and 2018 using both the Title and Keyword function for the following search terms.
“online learning" OR "online teaching" OR "online program" OR "online course" OR “online education”
The initial search of online learning research among journals in the database resulted in more than 3000 possible articles. Therefore, we limited our search to select journals that focus on publishing peer-reviewed online learning and educational research. Our aim was to capture the journals that published the most articles in online learning. However, we also wanted to incorporate the concept of rigor, so we used expert perception to identify 12 peer-reviewed journals that publish high-quality online learning research. Dissertations and conference proceedings were excluded. To be included in this systematic review, each study had to meet the screening criteria as described in Table 3 . A research study was excluded if it did not meet all of the criteria to be included.
Inclusion/Exclusion criteria.
Criteria | Inclusion | Exclusion |
---|---|---|
Focus of the article | Online learning | Articles that did not focus on online learning |
Journals Published | Twelve identified journals | Journals outside of the 12 journals |
Publication date | 2009 to 2018 | Prior to 2009 and after 2018 |
Publication type | Scholarly articles of original research from peer reviewed journals | Book chapters, technical reports, dissertations, or proceedings |
Research Method and Results | There was an identifiable method and results section describing how the study was conducted and included the findings. Quantitative and qualitative methods were included. | Reviews of other articles, opinion, or discussion papers that do not include a discussion of the procedures of the study or analysis of data such as product reviews or conceptual articles. |
Language | Journal article was written in English | Other languages were not included |
Fig. 2 shows the process flow involved in the selection of articles. The search in the database Education Research Complete yielded an initial sample of 3332 articles. Targeting the 12 journals removed 2579 articles. After reviewing the abstracts, we removed 134 articles based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The final sample, consisting of 619 articles, was entered into the computer software MAXQDA ( VERBI Software, 2019 ) for coding.
Flowchart of online learning research selection.
A review protocol was designed as a codebook in MAXQDA ( VERBI Software, 2019 ) by the three researchers. The codebook was developed based on findings from the previous review studies and from the initial screening of the articles in this review. The codebook included 12 research themes listed earlier in Table 2 (Learner characteristics, Instructor characteristics, Course or program design and development, Course Facilitation, Engagement, Course Assessment, Course Technologies, Access, Culture, Equity, Inclusion, and Ethics, Leadership, Policy and Management, Instructor and Learner Support, and Learner Outcomes), four research settings (higher education, continuing education, K-12, corporate/military), and three research designs (quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods). Fig. 3 below is a screenshot of MAXQDA used for the coding process.
Codebook from MAXQDA.
Research articles were coded by two researchers in MAXQDA. Two researchers independently coded 10% of the articles and then discussed and updated the coding framework. The second author who was a doctoral student coded the remaining studies. The researchers met bi-weekly to address coding questions that emerged. After the first phase of coding, we found that more than 100 studies fell into each of the categories of Learner Characteristics or Engagement, so we decided to pursue a second phase of coding and reexamine the two themes. Learner Characteristics were classified into the subthemes of Academic, Affective, Motivational, Self-regulation, Cognitive, and Demographic Characteristics. Engagement was classified into the subthemes of Collaborating, Communication, Community, Involvement, Interaction, Participation, and Presence.
Frequency tables were generated for each of the variables so that outliers could be examined and narrative data could be collapsed into categories. Once cleaned and collapsed into a reasonable number of categories, descriptive statistics were used to describe each of the coded elements. We first present the frequencies of publications related to online learning in the 12 journals. The total number of articles for each journal (collectively, the population) was hand-counted from journal websites, excluding editorials and book reviews. The publication trend of online learning research was also depicted from 2009 to 2018. Then, the descriptive information of the 12 themes, including the subthemes of Learner Characteristics and Engagement were provided. Finally, research themes by research settings and methodology were elaborated.
Publication patterns of the 619 articles reviewed from the 12 journals are presented in Table 4 . International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning had the highest number of publications in this review. Overall, about 8% of the articles appearing in these twelve journals consisted of online learning publications; however, several journals had concentrations of online learning articles totaling more than 20%.
Empirical online learning research articles by journal, 2009–2018.
Journal Name | Frequency of Empirical Online Learning Research | Percent of Sample | Percent of Journal's Total Articles |
---|---|---|---|
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning | 152 | 24.40 | 22.55 |
Internet & Higher Education | 84 | 13.48 | 26.58 |
Computers & Education | 75 | 12.04 | 18.84 |
Online Learning | 72 | 11.56 | 3.25 |
Distance Education | 64 | 10.27 | 25.10 |
Journal of Online Learning & Teaching | 39 | 6.26 | 11.71 |
Journal of Educational Technology & Society | 36 | 5.78 | 3.63 |
Quarterly Review of Distance Education | 24 | 3.85 | 4.71 |
American Journal of Distance Education | 21 | 3.37 | 9.17 |
British Journal of Educational Technology | 19 | 3.05 | 1.93 |
Educational Technology Research & Development | 19 | 3.05 | 10.80 |
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology | 14 | 2.25 | 2.31 |
Total | 619 | 100.0 | 8.06 |
Note . Journal's Total Article count excludes reviews and editorials.
The publication trend of online learning research is depicted in Fig. 4 . When disaggregated by year, the total frequency of publications shows an increasing trend. Online learning articles increased throughout the decade and hit a relative maximum in 2014. The greatest number of online learning articles ( n = 86) occurred most recently, in 2018.
Online learning publication trends by year.
The publications were categorized into the twelve research themes identified in Fig. 1 . The frequency counts and percentages of the research themes are provided in Table 5 below. A majority of the research is categorized into the Learner domain. The fewest number of articles appears in the Organization domain.
Research themes in the online learning publications from 2009 to 2018.
Research Themes | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Engagement | 179 | 28.92 |
Learner Characteristics | 134 | 21.65 |
Learner Outcome | 32 | 5.17 |
Evaluation and Quality Assurance | 38 | 6.14 |
Course Technologies | 35 | 5.65 |
Course Facilitation | 34 | 5.49 |
Course Assessment | 30 | 4.85 |
Course Design and Development | 27 | 4.36 |
Instructor Characteristics | 21 | 3.39 |
Institutional Support | 33 | 5.33 |
Access, Culture, Equity, Inclusion, and Ethics | 29 | 4.68 |
Leadership, Policy, and Management | 27 | 4.36 |
The specific themes of Engagement ( n = 179, 28.92%) and Learner Characteristics ( n = 134, 21.65%) were most often examined in publications. These two themes were further coded to identify sub-themes, which are described in the next two sections. Publications focusing on Instructor Characteristics ( n = 21, 3.39%) were least common in the dataset.
The largest number of studies was on engagement in online learning, which in the online learning literature is referred to and examined through different terms. Hence, we explore this category in more detail. In this review, we categorized the articles into seven different sub-themes as examined through different lenses including presence, interaction, community, participation, collaboration, involvement, and communication. We use the term “involvement” as one of the terms since researchers sometimes broadly used the term engagement to describe their work without further description. Table 6 below provides the description, frequency, and percentages of the various studies related to engagement.
Research sub-themes on engagement.
Description | Frequency | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
Presence | Learning experience through social, cognitive, and teaching presence. | 50 | 8.08 |
Interaction | Process of interacting with peers, instructor, or content that results in learners understanding or behavior | 43 | 6.95 |
Community | Sense of belonging within a group | 25 | 4.04 |
Participation | Process of being actively involved | 21 | 3.39 |
Collaboration | Working with someone to create something | 17 | 2.75 |
Involvement | Involvement in learning. This includes articles that focused broadly on engagement of learners. | 14 | 2.26 |
Communication | Process of exchanging information with the intent to share information | 9 | 1.45 |
In the sections below, we provide several examples of the different engagement sub-themes that were studied within the larger engagement theme.
Presence. This sub-theme was the most researched in engagement. With the development of the community of inquiry framework most of the studies in this subtheme examined social presence ( Akcaoglu & Lee, 2016 ; Phirangee & Malec, 2017 ; Wei et al., 2012 ), teaching presence ( Orcutt & Dringus, 2017 ; Preisman, 2014 ; Wisneski et al., 2015 ) and cognitive presence ( Archibald, 2010 ; Olesova et al., 2016 ).
Interaction . This was the second most studied theme under engagement. Researchers examined increasing interpersonal interactions ( Cung et al., 2018 ), learner-learner interactions ( Phirangee, 2016 ; Shackelford & Maxwell, 2012 ; Tawfik et al., 2018 ), peer-peer interaction ( Comer et al., 2014 ), learner-instructor interaction ( Kuo et al., 2014 ), learner-content interaction ( Zimmerman, 2012 ), interaction through peer mentoring ( Ruane & Koku, 2014 ), interaction and community building ( Thormann & Fidalgo, 2014 ), and interaction in discussions ( Ruane & Lee, 2016 ; Tibi, 2018 ).
Community. Researchers examined building community in online courses ( Berry, 2017 ), supporting a sense of community ( Jiang, 2017 ), building an online learning community of practice ( Cho, 2016 ), building an academic community ( Glazer & Wanstreet, 2011 ; Nye, 2015 ; Overbaugh & Nickel, 2011 ), and examining connectedness and rapport in an online community ( Bolliger & Inan, 2012 ; Murphy & Rodríguez-Manzanares, 2012 ; Slagter van Tryon & Bishop, 2012 ).
Participation. Researchers examined engagement through participation in a number of studies. Some of the topics include, participation patterns in online discussion ( Marbouti & Wise, 2016 ; Wise et al., 2012 ), participation in MOOCs ( Ahn et al., 2013 ; Saadatmand & Kumpulainen, 2014 ), features that influence students’ online participation ( Rye & Støkken, 2012 ) and active participation.
Collaboration. Researchers examined engagement through collaborative learning. Specific studies focused on cross-cultural collaboration ( Kumi-Yeboah, 2018 ; Yang et al., 2014 ), how virtual teams collaborate ( Verstegen et al., 2018 ), types of collaboration teams ( Wicks et al., 2015 ), tools for collaboration ( Boling et al., 2014 ), and support for collaboration ( Kopp et al., 2012 ).
Involvement. Researchers examined engaging learners through involvement in various learning activities ( Cundell & Sheepy, 2018 ), student engagement through various measures ( Dixson, 2015 ), how instructors included engagement to involve students in learning ( O'Shea et al., 2015 ), different strategies to engage the learner ( Amador & Mederer, 2013 ), and designed emotionally engaging online environments ( Koseoglu & Doering, 2011 ).
Communication. Researchers examined communication in online learning in studies using social network analysis ( Ergün & Usluel, 2016 ), using informal communication tools such as Facebook for class discussion ( Kent, 2013 ), and using various modes of communication ( Cunningham et al., 2010 ; Rowe, 2016 ). Studies have also focused on both asynchronous and synchronous aspects of communication ( Swaggerty & Broemmel, 2017 ; Yamagata-Lynch, 2014 ).
The second largest theme was learner characteristics. In this review, we explore this further to identify several aspects of learner characteristics. In this review, we categorized the learner characteristics into self-regulation characteristics, motivational characteristics, academic characteristics, affective characteristics, cognitive characteristics, and demographic characteristics. Table 7 provides the number of studies and percentages examining the various learner characteristics.
Research sub-themes on learner characteristics.
Learner Characteristics | Description | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Self-regulation Characteristics | Involves controlling learner's behavior, emotions, and thoughts to achieve specific learning and performance goals | 54 | 8.72 |
Motivational Characteristics | Learners goal-directed activity instigated and sustained such as beliefs, and behavioral change | 23 | 3.72 |
Academic Characteristics | Education characteristics such as educational type and educational level | 19 | 3.07 |
Affective Characteristics | Learner characteristics that describe learners' feelings or emotions such as satisfaction | 17 | 2.75 |
Cognitive Characteristics | Learner characteristics related to cognitive elements such as attention, memory, and intellect (e.g., learning strategies, learning skills, etc.) | 14 | 2.26 |
Demographic Characteristics | Learner characteristics that relate to information as age, gender, language, social economic status, and cultural background. | 7 | 1.13 |
Online learning has elements that are different from the traditional face-to-face classroom and so the characteristics of the online learners are also different. Yukselturk and Top (2013) categorized online learner profile into ten aspects: gender, age, work status, self-efficacy, online readiness, self-regulation, participation in discussion list, participation in chat sessions, satisfaction, and achievement. Their categorization shows that there are differences in online learner characteristics in these aspects when compared to learners in other settings. Some of the other aspects such as participation and achievement as discussed by Yukselturk and Top (2013) are discussed in different research themes in this study. The sections below provide examples of the learner characteristics sub-themes that were studied.
Self-regulation. Several researchers have examined self-regulation in online learning. They found that successful online learners are academically motivated ( Artino & Stephens, 2009 ), have academic self-efficacy ( Cho & Shen, 2013 ), have grit and intention to succeed ( Wang & Baker, 2018 ), have time management and elaboration strategies ( Broadbent, 2017 ), set goals and revisit course content ( Kizilcec et al., 2017 ), and persist ( Glazer & Murphy, 2015 ). Researchers found a positive relationship between learner's self-regulation and interaction ( Delen et al., 2014 ) and self-regulation and communication and collaboration ( Barnard et al., 2009 ).
Motivation. Researchers focused on motivation of online learners including different motivation levels of online learners ( Li & Tsai, 2017 ), what motivated online learners ( Chaiprasurt & Esichaikul, 2013 ), differences in motivation of online learners ( Hartnett et al., 2011 ), and motivation when compared to face to face learners ( Paechter & Maier, 2010 ). Harnett et al. (2011) found that online learner motivation was complex, multifaceted, and sensitive to situational conditions.
Academic. Several researchers have focused on academic aspects for online learner characteristics. Readiness for online learning has been examined as an academic factor by several researchers ( Buzdar et al., 2016 ; Dray et al., 2011 ; Wladis & Samuels, 2016 ; Yu, 2018 ) specifically focusing on creating and validating measures to examine online learner readiness including examining students emotional intelligence as a measure of student readiness for online learning. Researchers have also examined other academic factors such as academic standing ( Bradford & Wyatt, 2010 ), course level factors ( Wladis et al., 2014 ) and academic skills in online courses ( Shea & Bidjerano, 2014 ).
Affective. Anderson and Bourke (2013) describe affective characteristics through which learners express feelings or emotions. Several research studies focused on the affective characteristics of online learners. Learner satisfaction for online learning has been examined by several researchers ( Cole et al., 2014 ; Dziuban et al., 2015 ; Kuo et al., 2013 ; Lee, 2014a ) along with examining student emotions towards online assessment ( Kim et al., 2014 ).
Cognitive. Researchers have also examined cognitive aspects of learner characteristics including meta-cognitive skills, cognitive variables, higher-order thinking, cognitive density, and critical thinking ( Chen & Wu, 2012 ; Lee, 2014b ). Lee (2014b) examined the relationship between cognitive presence density and higher-order thinking skills. Chen and Wu (2012) examined the relationship between cognitive and motivational variables in an online system for secondary physical education.
Demographic. Researchers have examined various demographic factors in online learning. Several researchers have examined gender differences in online learning ( Bayeck et al., 2018 ; Lowes et al., 2016 ; Yukselturk & Bulut, 2009 ), ethnicity, age ( Ke & Kwak, 2013 ), and minority status ( Yeboah & Smith, 2016 ) of online learners.
While engagement and learner characteristics were studied the most, other themes were less often studied in the literature and are presented here, according to size, with general descriptions of the types of research examined for each.
Evaluation and Quality Assurance. There were 38 studies (6.14%) published in the theme of evaluation and quality assurance. Some of the studies in this theme focused on course quality standards, using quality matters to evaluate quality, using the CIPP model for evaluation, online learning system evaluation, and course and program evaluations.
Course Technologies. There were 35 studies (5.65%) published in the course technologies theme. Some of the studies examined specific technologies such as Edmodo, YouTube, Web 2.0 tools, wikis, Twitter, WebCT, Screencasts, and Web conferencing systems in the online learning context.
Course Facilitation. There were 34 studies (5.49%) published in the course facilitation theme. Some of the studies in this theme examined facilitation strategies and methods, experiences of online facilitators, and online teaching methods.
Institutional Support. There were 33 studies (5.33%) published in the institutional support theme which included support for both the instructor and learner. Some of the studies on instructor support focused on training new online instructors, mentoring programs for faculty, professional development resources for faculty, online adjunct faculty training, and institutional support for online instructors. Studies on learner support focused on learning resources for online students, cognitive and social support for online learners, and help systems for online learner support.
Learner Outcome. There were 32 studies (5.17%) published in the learner outcome theme. Some of the studies that were examined in this theme focused on online learner enrollment, completion, learner dropout, retention, and learner success.
Course Assessment. There were 30 studies (4.85%) published in the course assessment theme. Some of the studies in the course assessment theme examined online exams, peer assessment and peer feedback, proctoring in online exams, and alternative assessments such as eportfolio.
Access, Culture, Equity, Inclusion, and Ethics. There were 29 studies (4.68%) published in the access, culture, equity, inclusion, and ethics theme. Some of the studies in this theme examined online learning across cultures, multi-cultural effectiveness, multi-access, and cultural diversity in online learning.
Leadership, Policy, and Management. There were 27 studies (4.36%) published in the leadership, policy, and management theme. Some of the studies on leadership, policy, and management focused on online learning leaders, stakeholders, strategies for online learning leadership, resource requirements, university policies for online course policies, governance, course ownership, and faculty incentives for online teaching.
Course Design and Development. There were 27 studies (4.36%) published in the course design and development theme. Some of the studies examined in this theme focused on design elements, design issues, design process, design competencies, design considerations, and instructional design in online courses.
Instructor Characteristics. There were 21 studies (3.39%) published in the instructor characteristics theme. Some of the studies in this theme were on motivation and experiences of online instructors, ability to perform online teaching duties, roles of online instructors, and adjunct versus full-time online instructors.
The research methods used in the studies were classified into quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods ( Harwell, 2012 , pp. 147–163). The research setting was categorized into higher education, continuing education, K-12, and corporate/military. As shown in Table A in the appendix, the vast majority of the publications used higher education as the research setting ( n = 509, 67.6%). Table B in the appendix shows that approximately half of the studies adopted the quantitative method ( n = 324, 43.03%), followed by the qualitative method ( n = 200, 26.56%). Mixed methods account for the smallest portion ( n = 95, 12.62%).
Table A shows that the patterns of the four research settings were approximately consistent across the 12 themes except for the theme of Leaner Outcome and Institutional Support. Continuing education had a higher relative frequency in Learner Outcome (0.28) and K-12 had a higher relative frequency in Institutional Support (0.33) compared to the frequencies they had in the total themes (0.09 and 0.08 respectively). Table B in the appendix shows that the distribution of the three methods were not consistent across the 12 themes. While quantitative studies and qualitative studies were roughly evenly distributed in Engagement, they had a large discrepancy in Learner Characteristics. There were 100 quantitative studies; however, only 18 qualitative studies published in the theme of Learner Characteristics.
In summary, around 8% of the articles published in the 12 journals focus on online learning. Online learning publications showed a tendency of increase on the whole in the past decade, albeit fluctuated, with the greatest number occurring in 2018. Among the 12 research themes related to online learning, the themes of Engagement and Learner Characteristics were studied the most and the theme of Instructor Characteristics was studied the least. Most studies were conducted in the higher education setting and approximately half of the studies used the quantitative method. Looking at the 12 themes by setting and method, we found that the patterns of the themes by setting or by method were not consistent across the 12 themes.
The quality of our findings was ensured by scientific and thorough searches and coding consistency. The selection of the 12 journals provides evidence of the representativeness and quality of primary studies. In the coding process, any difficulties and questions were resolved by consultations with the research team at bi-weekly meetings, which ensures the intra-rater and interrater reliability of coding. All these approaches guarantee the transparency and replicability of the process and the quality of our results.
This review enabled us to identify the online learning research themes examined from 2009 to 2018. In the section below, we review the most studied research themes, engagement and learner characteristics along with implications, limitations, and directions for future research.
Three out of the four systematic reviews informing the design of the present study found that online learner characteristics and online engagement were examined in a high number of studies. In this review, about half of the studies reviewed (50.57%) focused on online learner characteristics or online engagement. This shows the continued importance of these two themes. In the Tallent-Runnels et al.’s (2006) study, the learner characteristics theme was identified as least studied for which they state that researchers are beginning to investigate learner characteristics in the early days of online learning.
One of the differences found in this review is that course design and development was examined in the least number of studies in this review compared to two prior systematic reviews ( Berge & Mrozowski, 2001 ; Zawacki-Richter et al., 2009 ). Zawacki-Richter et al. did not use a keyword search but reviewed all the articles in five different distance education journals. Berge and Mrozowski (2001) included a research theme called design issues to include all aspects of instructional systems design in distance education journals. In our study, in addition to course design and development, we also had focused themes on learner outcomes, course facilitation, course assessment and course evaluation. These are all instructional design focused topics and since we had multiple themes focusing on instructional design topics, the course design and development category might have resulted in fewer studies. There is still a need for more studies to focus on online course design and development.
Three out of the four systematic reviews discussed in the opening of this study found management and organization factors to be least studied. In this review, Leadership, Policy, and Management was studied among 4.36% of the studies and Access, Culture, Equity, Inclusion, and Ethics was studied among 4.68% of the studies in the organizational level. The theme on Equity and accessibility was also found to be the least studied theme in the Berge and Mrozowski (2001) study. In addition, instructor characteristics was the least examined research theme among the twelve themes studied in this review. Only 3.39% of the studies were on instructor characteristics. While there were some studies examining instructor motivation and experiences, instructor ability to teach online, online instructor roles, and adjunct versus full-time online instructors, there is still a need to examine topics focused on instructors and online teaching. This theme was not included in the prior reviews as the focus was more on the learner and the course but not on the instructor. While it is helpful to see research evolving on instructor focused topics, there is still a need for more research on the online instructor.
The research themes from this review were compared with research themes from previous systematic reviews, which targeted prior decades. Table 8 shows the comparison.
Comparison of most and least studied online learning research themes from current to previous reviews.
Level | 1990–1999 ( ) | 1993–2004 ( ) | 2000–2008 ( ) | 2009–2018 (Current Study) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Learner Characteristics | L | X | X | X | |
Engagement and Interaction | L | X | X | X | |
Design Issues/Instructional Design | C | X | X | ||
Course Environment Learner Outcomes | C L | X X | |||
Learner Support | L | X | |||
Equity and Accessibility | O | X | X | ||
Institutional& Administrative Factors | O | X | X | ||
Management and Organization | O | X | X | ||
Cost-Benefit | O | X |
L = Learner, C=Course O=Organization.
In this review there is a greater concentration of studies focused on Learner domain topics, and reduced attention to broader more encompassing research themes that fall into the Course and Organization domains. There is a need for organizational level topics such as Access, Culture, Equity, Inclusion and Ethics, and Leadership, Policy and Management to be researched on within the context of online learning. Examination of access, culture, equity, inclusion and ethics is very important to support diverse online learners, particularly with the rapid expansion of online learning across all educational levels. This was also least studied based on Berge and Mrozowski (2001) systematic review.
The topics on leadership, policy and management were least studied both in this review and also in the Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) and Zawacki-Richter et al. (2009) study. Tallent-Runnels categorized institutional and administrative aspects into institutional policies, institutional support, and enrollment effects. While we included support as a separate category, in this study leadership, policy and management were combined. There is still a need for research on leadership of those who manage online learning, policies for online education, and managing online programs. In the Zawacki-Richter et al. (2009) study, only a few studies examined management and organization focused topics. They also found management and organization to be strongly correlated with costs and benefits. In our study, costs and benefits were collectively included as an aspect of management and organization and not as a theme by itself. These studies will provide research-based evidence for online education administrators.
As with any systematic review, there are limitations to the scope of the review. The search is limited to twelve journals in the field that typically include research on online learning. These manuscripts were identified by searching the Education Research Complete database which focuses on education students, professionals, and policymakers. Other discipline-specific journals as well as dissertations and proceedings were not included due to the volume of articles. Also, the search was performed using five search terms “online learning" OR "online teaching" OR "online program" OR "online course" OR “online education” in title and keyword. If authors did not include these terms, their respective work may have been excluded from this review even if it focused on online learning. While these terms are commonly used in North America, it may not be commonly used in other parts of the world. Additional studies may exist outside this scope.
The search strategy also affected how we presented results and introduced limitations regarding generalization. We identified that only 8% of the articles published in these journals were related to online learning; however, given the use of search terms to identify articles within select journals it was not feasible to identify the total number of research-based articles in the population. Furthermore, our review focused on the topics and general methods of research and did not systematically consider the quality of the published research. Lastly, some journals may have preferences for publishing studies on a particular topic or that use a particular method (e.g., quantitative methods), which introduces possible selection and publication biases which may skew the interpretation of results due to over/under representation. Future studies are recommended to include more journals to minimize the selection bias and obtain a more representative sample.
Certain limitations can be attributed to the coding process. Overall, the coding process for this review worked well for most articles, as each tended to have an individual or dominant focus as described in the abstracts, though several did mention other categories which likely were simultaneously considered to a lesser degree. However, in some cases, a dominant theme was not as apparent and an effort to create mutually exclusive groups for clearer interpretation the coders were occasionally forced to choose between two categories. To facilitate this coding, the full-texts were used to identify a study focus through a consensus seeking discussion among all authors. Likewise, some studies focused on topics that we have associated with a particular domain, but the design of the study may have promoted an aggregated examination or integrated factors from multiple domains (e.g., engagement). Due to our reliance on author descriptions, the impact of construct validity is likely a concern that requires additional exploration. Our final grouping of codes may not have aligned with the original author's description in the abstract. Additionally, coding of broader constructs which disproportionately occur in the Learner domain, such as learner outcomes, learner characteristics, and engagement, likely introduced bias towards these codes when considering studies that involved multiple domains. Additional refinement to explore the intersection of domains within studies is needed.
One of the strengths of this review is the research categories we have identified. We hope these categories will support future researchers and identify areas and levels of need for future research. Overall, there is some agreement on research themes on online learning research among previous reviews and this one, at the same time there are some contradicting findings. We hope the most-researched themes and least-researched themes provide authors a direction on the importance of research and areas of need to focus on.
The leading themes found in this review is online engagement research. However, presentation of this research was inconsistent, and often lacked specificity. This is not unique to online environments, but the nuances of defining engagement in an online environment are unique and therefore need further investigation and clarification. This review points to seven distinct classifications of online engagement. Further research on engagement should indicate which type of engagement is sought. This level of specificity is necessary to establish instruments for measuring engagement and ultimately testing frameworks for classifying engagement and promoting it in online environments. Also, it might be of importance to examine the relationship between these seven sub-themes of engagement.
Additionally, this review highlights growing attention to learner characteristics, which constitutes a shift in focus away from instructional characteristics and course design. Although this is consistent with the focus on engagement, the role of the instructor, and course design with respect to these outcomes remains important. Results of the learner characteristics and engagement research paired with course design will have important ramifications for the use of teaching and learning professionals who support instruction. Additionally, the review also points to a concentration of research in the area of higher education. With an immediate and growing emphasis on online learning in K-12 and corporate settings, there is a critical need for further investigation in these settings.
Lastly, because the present review did not focus on the overall effect of interventions, opportunities exist for dedicated meta-analyses. Particular attention to research on engagement and learner characteristics as well as how these vary by study design and outcomes would be logical additions to the research literature.
This systematic review builds upon three previous reviews which tackled the topic of online learning between 1990 and 2010 by extending the timeframe to consider the most recent set of published research. Covering the most recent decade, our review of 619 articles from 12 leading online learning journal points to a more concentrated focus on the learner domain including engagement and learner characteristics, with more limited attention to topics pertaining to the classroom or organizational level. The review highlights an opportunity for the field to clarify terminology concerning online learning research, particularly in the areas of learner outcomes where there is a tendency to classify research more generally (e.g., engagement). Using this sample of published literature, we provide a possible taxonomy for categorizing this research using subcategories. The field could benefit from a broader conversation about how these categories can shape a comprehensive framework for online learning research. Such efforts will enable the field to effectively prioritize research aims over time and synthesize effects.
Florence Martin: Conceptualization; Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing Preparation, Supervision, Project administration. Ting Sun: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Carl Westine: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervision
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
1 Includes articles that are cited in this manuscript and also included in the systematic review. The entire list of 619 articles used in the systematic review can be obtained by emailing the authors.*
Appendix B Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104009 .
Research Themes by the Settings in the Online Learning Publications
Research Theme | Higher Ed ( = 506) | Continuing Education ( = 58) | K-12 ( = 53) | Corporate/Military ( = 3) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Engagement | 153 | 15 | 12 | 0 |
Presence | 46 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
Interaction | 35 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
Community | 19 | 2 | 4 | 0 |
Participation | 16 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
Collaboration | 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Involvement | 13 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Communication | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Learner Characteristics | 106 | 18 | 9 | 1 |
Self-regulation Characteristics | 43 | 9 | 2 | 0 |
Motivation Characteristics | 18 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
Academic Characteristics | 17 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Affective Characteristics | 12 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
Cognitive Characteristics | 11 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Demographic Characteristics | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Evaluation and Quality Assurance | 33 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
Course Technologies | 33 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Course Facilitation | 30 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
Institutional Support | 24 | 0 | 8 | 1 |
Learner Outcome | 24 | 7 | 1 | 0 |
Course Assessment | 23 | 2 | 5 | 0 |
Access, Culture, Equity, Inclusion and Ethics | 26 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Leadership, Policy and Management | 17 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
Course Design and Development | 21 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
Instructor Characteristics | 16 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
Research Themes by the Methodology in the Online Learning Publications
Research Theme | Mixed Method ( = 95) | Quantitative ( = 324) | Qualitative ( = 200) |
---|---|---|---|
Engagement | 32 | 78 | 69 |
Presence | 11 | 25 | 14 |
Interaction | 9 | 20 | 14 |
Community | 2 | 9 | 14 |
Participation | 6 | 8 | 7 |
Collaboration | 2 | 5 | 10 |
Involvement | 2 | 6 | 6 |
Communication | 0 | 5 | 4 |
Learner Characteristics | 16 | 100 | 18 |
Self-regulation Characteristics | 5 | 43 | 6 |
Motivation Characteristics | 4 | 15 | 4 |
Academic Characteristics | 1 | 15 | 3 |
Affective Characteristics | 2 | 12 | 3 |
Cognitive Characteristics | 4 | 8 | 2 |
Demographic Characteristics | 1 | 6 | 0 |
Evaluation and Quality Assurance | 5 | 22 | 11 |
Course Technologies | 4 | 20 | 11 |
Course Facilitation | 7 | 14 | 13 |
Institutional Support | 12 | 9 | 12 |
Learner Outcome | 3 | 23 | 6 |
Course Assessment | 5 | 20 | 5 |
Access, Culture, Equity, Inclusion & Ethics | 3 | 13 | 13 |
Leadership, Policy and Management | 5 | 9 | 13 |
Course Design and Development | 2 | 8 | 17 |
Instructor Characteristics | 1 | 8 | 12 |
The following are the Supplementary data to this article:
New citation alert added.
This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:
You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.
To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.
Please log in to your account
Bibliometrics & citations, index terms.
Social and professional topics
Professional topics
Computing education
Adult education
Examining students' intention to continue using blogs for learning.
This study is designed to investigate factors influencing undergraduate students' continuance intention to use blogs for learning in a management information systems course. Constructs from three theoretical frameworks, i.e., social-cognitive theory, ...
Research on information systems has identified a variety of factors across a range of adoption models that determine their acceptance. In this research, the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), which integrates determinants ...
The purpose of this paper was to examine the factors influencing adoption of Japanese language learning process based on Japanese dubbing in university students. According to the process of Japanese dubbing, this paper extended activity playfulness to ...
Published in.
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Permissions, check for updates, author tags.
Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.
Login options.
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
View options.
View or Download as a PDF file.
View online with eReader .
View this article in HTML Format.
Copying failed.
Affiliations, export citations.
We are preparing your search results for download ...
We will inform you here when the file is ready.
Your file of search results citations is now ready.
Your search export query has expired. Please try again.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The purpose of this study is to determine the effect size of online education on academic achievement. Before determining the effect sizes in the study, the probability of publication bias of this meta-analysis study was analyzed by using the funnel plot, Orwin's Safe N Analysis, Duval and Tweedie's Trip and Fill Analysis, and Egger's Regression Test.
Online Education a nd Its Effective Practice: A Research Re view. Anna Sun and Xiufang Chen. Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA. [email protected] [email protected]. Abstrac t. Using a qualitative ...
Online teaching is defined as education that occurs over the Internet (Sadiku et al., 2018) or as a form of distance education in which learning and teaching activities are carried out partially ...
Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) reviewed research late 1990's to early 2000's, Berge and Mrozowski (2001) reviewed research 1990 to 1999, and Zawacki-Richter et al. (2009) reviewed research in 2000-2008 on distance education and online learning. Table 1 shows the research themes from previous systematic reviews on online learning research.
Metrics. The coronavirus pandemic has forced students and educators across all levels of education to rapidly adapt to online learning. The impact of this — and the developments required to make ...
This study aims at determining the effect size of online education, which has been highly used since the beginning of the pandemic, on students' academic achievement in different courses by using a meta-analysis method. Meta-analysis is a synthesis method that enables gathering of several study results accurately and efficiently, and getting ...
This paper analyzes the difficulties faced by the students and teachers in online teaching learning process during the COVID-19 pandemic. Online learning is an alternative platform that replaced ...
This systematic analysis examines effectiveness research on online and blended learning from schools, particularly relevant during the Covid-19 pandemic, and also educational games, computer-supported cooperative learning (CSCL) and computer-assisted instruction (CAI), largely used in schools but with potential for outside school.
Online teaching-learning methods have been followed by world-class universities for more than a decade to cater to the needs of students who stay far away from universities/colleges. But during the COVID-19 pandemic period, online teaching-learning helped almost all universities, colleges, and affiliated students. An attempt is made to find the effectiveness of online teaching-learning ...
Abstract. The outbreak of COVID-19 generated an unprecedented global push towards remote online language teaching and learning. In most contexts, language teachers and learners underwent a rapid switch to online instruction with limited resources and preparation. Their experiences demonstrate resilience, perseverance, and creativity under ...
Based on the findings, the authors ar-gued that effective online instruction is dependent upon 1) well-designed course content, motivat-ed interaction between the instructor and learners, well-prepared and fully-supported instructors; 2) creation of a sense of online learning community; and 3) rapid advancement of technology.
Many conferences and journals have had themes and special issues focusing on online education. Research related to online business education was first initiated in 1990s by Information Systems (IS) researchers like Alavi and Leidner ... The paper emphasizes the need for openness to new modes of education like online learning in its various modes.
Yi Yang Linda F. Cornelius Mississippi State University. Abstract. How to ensure the quality of online learning in institutions of higher education has been a growing concern during the past several years. While several studies have focused on the perceptions of faculty and administrators, there has been a paucity of research conducted on ...
Abstract. The COVID-19 pandemic led to an expansion and increase in the demand for online teaching and learning across the globe. Online teaching and learning is attracting a large number of students for enhanced learning experiences. However, there are many challenges and hindrances that pose a problem in the smooth learning.
In this paper, we report on international research about higher education faculty's elicited dispositions and needs while they engaged with online teaching (OT), as these shape aspects of teacher competencies for integrating technology. This study aims to identify factors that shaped faculty competencies as pandemic restrictions forced ...
Nashville, TN 3720 3 USA. t [email protected]. Abstract. The physical "brick and mortar" classroom is starting to lose its monopoly as the place of. learning. The Internet has made ...
So, this paper aims to conduct a systematic review of the research papers focussing on opportunities, challenges and psychological impacts raised due to the sudden shift to online education among students and teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic.,To conduct this systematic review, 19 articles published between July 2020 and May 2021 were ...
Teaching presence. Teaching presence refers to the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes in order to realize meaningful learning outcomes (Anderson et al., Citation 2001).There is growing evidence that teaching presence positively correlates with students' online learning experiences (e.g. Caskurlu et al., Citation 2021; Martin et al., Citation 2022).
Rapid developments in technology have made distance education easy (McBrien et al., 2009).). "Most of the terms (online learning, open learning, web-based learning, computer-mediated learning, blended learning, m-learning, for ex.) have in common the ability to use a computer connected to a network, that offers the possibility to learn from anywhere, anytime, in any rhythm, with any means ...
1.1. Related literature. Online learning is a form of distance education which mainly involves internet‐based education where courses are offered synchronously (i.e. live sessions online) and/or asynchronously (i.e. students access course materials online in their own time, which is associated with the more traditional distance education).
This paper provides a review of the literature on online teaching and learning practices in teacher education. In total, 134 empirical studies were analysed. Online teaching and learning practices related to social, cognitive and teaching presence were identified. ... Portugal. Her research interests include teacher professionalism and identity ...
The primary objective of this research was to divulge how the Advanced Level teachers are preparing for the teaching-learning process in online classrooms. Three research questions were adapted to ...
Saudi universities have relied heavily on Blackboard to deliver online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic (Al-Nofaie, 2020; Hassan et al., 2021), and "Blackboard Learn" topped Twitter in Saudi Arabia at the beginning of the digital shift (Bhaumik et al., 2020). The Zoom platform was also made freely accessible in online teaching settings.
The aim of the study is to identify the factors affecting students' satisfaction and performance regarding online classes during the pandemic period of COVID-19 and to establish the relationship between these variables. The study is quantitative in nature, and the data were collected from 544 respondents through online survey who were studying the business management (B.B.A or M.B.A) or ...
Tallent-Runnels et al. (2006) reviewed research late 1990's to early 2000's, Berge and Mrozowski (2001) reviewed research 1990 to 1999, and Zawacki-Richter et al. (2009) reviewed research in 2000-2008 on distance education and online learning. Table 1 shows the research themes from previous systematic reviews on online learning research.
The implication of this research for the implementation of online learning for RPL students is the importance of considering perceived ease of use in carrying out lectures with RPL students. The situation faced by RPL students with a busy agenda gives them limitations in carrying out the teaching and learning process like students in general.
The purpose of this study was to investigate online social comparison and impostor phenomenon (IP) in undergraduate music education students. In Phase 1, participants provided demographic information and completed measures of online social comparison, Facebook use, and the Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale (CIPS).