Student Satisfaction with Online Learning: A Multigroup Analysis

Authors

  • Paulus Insap Santosa Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, (Scopus Author ID: 9636895500; h-index Scopus 12)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26594/register.v8i2.2804

Keywords:

Internet Quality, User Interface Quality, Delivery Quality, Perceived Experience, Voluntarily Participation

Abstract

The Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic “forced” students to attend online classes roughly from mid-March 2020. This situation, which caused universities, among other institutions, to deal with an overnight change in course delivery from traditional face-to-face to online mode, has resulted in many students facing difficulties. They must cope with the available infrastructure, unstable and limited Internet connection, course delivery, and their self-discipline. Male and female students may have different preferences regarding technology use. This study focused on student satisfaction with the above situation and determined whether a difference exists between male and female students using Technology Acceptance Model as the main theoretical background. Seven hypotheses were proposed and tested with the whole dataset and comparisons between the two groups. Due to the strict health protocol, an online survey was employed using Google Form to collect data. Respondents were 327 undergraduate students from one higher institution in Yogyakarta, comprising 140 male and 187 female students. The population consisted of undergraduate students who have been attending online classes since March 2022. A multigroup analysis was performed using SmartPLS 3.3.3. Results indicated no gender difference in all hypothesized relationships. The theoretical contribution can be seen from the use of Internet Quality, User Interface Quality, and Delivery Quality as the three exogenous variables of the proposed model. The practical contribution is that technology designers must pay attention to the different preferences of user groups.

Author Biography

Paulus Insap Santosa, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, (Scopus Author ID: 9636895500; h-index Scopus 12)

 

References

J. Y. Wu and T. Cheng, “Who is better adapted in learning online within the personal learning environment? Relating gender differences in cognitive attention networks to digital distraction,” Comput. Educ., vol. 128, pp. 312–329, January 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.016.

A. Alghamdi, A. C. Karpinski, A. Lepp, and J. Barkley, “Online and face-to-face classroom multitasking and academic performance: Moderated mediation with self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and gender,” Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 102, pp. 214–222, January 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.018.

S. S. Man, S. Alabdulkarim, A. H. S. Chan, and T. Zhang, “The acceptance of personal protective equipment among Hong Kong construction workers: An integration of technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior with risk perception and safety climate,” J. Safety Res., vol. 79, pp. 329–340, December 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2021.09.014.

R. Ibrahim, N. S. Leng, R. C. M. Yusoff, G. N. Samy, S. Masrom, and Z. I. Rizman, “E-learning acceptance based on technology acceptance model (TAM),” J. Fundam. Appl. Sci., vol. 9, no. 4S, p. 871, 2018, doi: 10.4314/jfas.v9i4S.50.

M. Rizun and A. Strzelecki, “Students’ acceptance of the covid-19 impact on shifting higher education to distance learning in Poland,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 17, no. 18, pp. 1–19, 2020, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186468.

N. M. Almusharraf and S. H. Khahro, “Students Satisfaction with Online Learning Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn., vol. 15, no. 21, pp. 246–267, 2020, doi: 10.3991/ijet.v15i21.15647.

S. Ghaderizefreh and M. L. Hoover, “Student satisfaction with online learning in a blended course,” Int. J. Digit. Soc., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1393–1398, 2018, doi: 10.20533/ijds.2040.2570.2018.0172.

M. Casile, J. G. Gerard, and M. Soto-Ferrari, “Gender differences in self-efficacy, acceptance, and satisfaction in business simulations,” Int. J. Manag. Educ., vol. 19, no. 2, p. 100473, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100473.

ISO, “ISO 9241-210: 2019, Ergonomic of human-system interaction - Part 210: Human-centered design for interactive systems”. 2019.

M. Maqableh and M. Alia, “Evaluation online learning of undergraduate students under lockdown amidst COVID-19 Pandemic: The online learning experience and students’ satisfaction,” Child. Youth Serv. Rev., vol. 128, p. 106160, September 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106160.

A. Bossman and S. K. Agyei, “Technology and instructor dimensions, e-learning satisfaction, and academic performance of distance students in Ghana,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 4, p. e09200, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09200.

D. L. Schacter, D. T. Gilbert, and D. M. Wagner, Psychology, 2nd ed. New York: Worth Publisher, 2011.

M. A. Ansari and P. Tamta, “A Study of University Student’s Perceptions towards e-Learning,” vol. 263145, no. 2001, pp. 1–12, 2017 [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320347145_A_Study_of_University_Student’s_Perceptions_towards_e-Learning.

M. V. Mahajan and R. Kalpana, “A study of students’ perception about e-learning,” Indian J. Clin. Anat. Physiol., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 501–507, 2020, doi: 10.18231/2394-2126.2018.0116.

D. Kozlova and M. Pikhart, “The use of ICT in higher education from the perspective of the university students,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 192, pp. 2309–2317, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.08.221.

L. Yekefallah, P. Namdar, R. Panahi, and L. Dehghankar, “Factors related to students’ satisfaction with holding e-learning during the Covid-19 pandemic based on the dimensions of e-learning,” Heliyon, vol. 7, no. 7, p. e07628, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07628.

P. I. Santosa, “Student engagement with online tutorial: A perspective on flow theory,” Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 60-67, 2016, doi: 10.3991/ijet.v10i1.4348.

C. M. Ringle, W. Sven, and J.-M. Becker, “SmartPLS 3,” Boenningstedt, 2015 [Online]. Available: http://www.smartpls.com.

J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed. California: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2017.

J. F. Hair Jr., L. M. Matthews, R. L. Matthews, and M. Sarstedt, “PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use,” Int. J. Multivariate Data Analysis., vol. 1, no. 2, p. 107, 2017, doi: 10.1504/IJMDA.2017.10008574.

D. Eshun Yawson and F. Amofa Yamoah, “Gender variability in e-learning utility essentials: Evidence from a multi-generational higher education cohort,” Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 114, p. 106558, January 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106558.

H. Kizgin, A. Jamal, Y. K. Dwivedi, and N. P. Rana, “The impact of online vs. offline acculturation on purchase intentions: A multigroup analysis of the role of education,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 130, pp. 724–735, June 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.011.

Downloads

Published

2022-12-28

How to Cite

[1]
P. I. Santosa, “Student Satisfaction with Online Learning: A Multigroup Analysis”, Register: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi Sistem Informasi, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 122–132, Dec. 2022.

Issue

Section

Article