A new paradigm in education is being ushered in by online learning. In the aftermath of the pandemic, online learning has become increasingly available in both academic and professional spheres. Despite difficulties, teachers strive to improve online learning effectiveness. Further emphasis is placed on learning characteristics, readiness, environment, design, and e-learning mode. Whether synchronous or asynchronous learning modes are used will determine the efficacy of the learner. In this study, researchers analyzed the influence of learning qualities on satisfaction and effectiveness, exploring the moderating function of learning mode with 545 online learners’ results. According to this study, the characteristics of online learning significantly impact effectiveness. It also supports the idea that the modality of learning plays a moderating effect in online education. These findings have important practical ramifications for structuring the learning environment and adjusting relevant factors to the satisfaction of students, increasing e-learning efficiency.
AgyeiwaahEBaidenFBGamorE, et al. (2022) Determining the attributes that influence students’ online learning satisfaction during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education30: 100364.
2.
AliFASQatawnehK (2013) Effects of synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) oral conversations on English language learners' discourse functions, Computers and Education, 62: 181–190, ISSN 0360-1315. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.013. https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0360131512002412
3.
ArbaughJB (2000) How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in Internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly63(4): 9–26. DOI: 10.1177/108056990006300402.
4.
BaoW (2020) COVID‐19 and online teaching in higher education: a case study of Peking University. Human behavior and emerging technologies2(2): 113–115.
5.
BatesEAKayeLK (2014) “I’d be expecting caviar in lectures”: the impact of the new fee regime on undergraduate students’ expectations of higher education. Higher Education67(5): 655–673.
6.
BattalioJ (2007) Interaction online: a reevaluation. Quarterly Review of Distance Education8(4): 339–352.
7.
BrownGT (2006) Conceptions of curriculum: a framework for understanding New Zealand’s curriculum framework and teachers’ opinions. Curriculum Matters2(164): 164–181.
8.
CereijoMVPYoungJWilhelmRW (2001) Factors facilitating learner participation in asynchronous Web-based courses. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education18(1): 32–39.
9.
ChangN (2011) Pre-service Teachers' views: how did E-feedback through assessment facilitate their learning?The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning11(2): 16–33.
10.
ChenTPengLYinX, et al. (2020) Analysis of user satisfaction with online education platforms in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare8(3): 200–226.
11.
ChizmarJFWalbertMS (1999) Web-based learning environments guided by principles of good teaching practice. The Journal of Economic Education30(3): 248–259.
12.
ChouCPBentlerPM (1995) Estimates and Tests in Structural Equation Modeling. Sage Publications, Inc.
13.
DariusPSHGundabattiniESolomonDG (2021) A survey on the effectiveness of online teaching–learning methods for university and college students. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series B102: 1325–1334. DOI: 10.1007/s40031-021-00581-x.
14.
DempseyJVEckRNV (2002) Instructional design on-line: evolving expectations. In: ReiserRADempseyJV (eds) Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 281–294.
15.
DhawanS (2020) Online learning: a Panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems49(1): 5–22. DOI: 10.1177/0047239520934018.
16.
DziubanCMoskalPBrophyJ, et al. (2007) Student satisfaction with asynchronous learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks11(1): 87–95.
17.
DziubanCMoskalPKramerL, et al. (2013) Student satisfaction with online learning in the presence of ambivalence: looking for the will-o’-the-wisp. Internet and Higher Education17: 1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.08.001.
18.
FrancescucciARohaniL (2018) Exclusively synchronous online (VIRI) learning: the impact on student performance and engagement outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education41(1): 60–69. DOI: 10.1177/02734753188188.
19.
GilbertB (2015) Online Learning Revealing the Benefits and Challenges. St. John Fisher University, New York: Fisher Digital Publications.
20.
GopalRSinghVAggarwalA (2021) Impact of online classes on the satisfaction and performance of students during the pandemic period of COVID 19. Education and Information Technologies26(6): 6923–6947.
21.
HairJFAndersonRETathamRL, et al. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
22.
HammondNMcKendreeJReaderW, et al. (1995) The PsyCLE project: educational multimedia for conceptual understanding. In: ACM Multimedia, San Fransisco, California, USA, Vol. 95, pp. 447–456. ACM.
23.
HayAHodgkinsonMPeltierJW, et al. (2004) Interaction and virtual learning. Strategic Change13(4): 193–204.
24.
HillJR (2002) Overcoming obstacles and creating connections: community building in web-based learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education14(1): 67–86.
25.
HoIMKCheongKYWeldonA (2021) Predicting student satisfaction of emergency remote learning in higher education during COVID-19 using machine learning techniques. PLoS One16(4): e0249423.
HrastinskiS (2008) Asynchronous and Synchronous E-Learning. Colorado: EDUCAUSE Review.
28.
HuangXHsiaoEL (2012) Synchronous and asynchronous communication in an online environment: faculty experiences and perceptions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education13(1): 15–30.
29.
KeFKwakD (2013) Constructs of student-centered online learning on learning satisfaction of a diverse online student body: a structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research48(1): 97–122.
30.
KlineRB (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Gilford press.
31.
KuoYCWalkerAEBellandBR, et al. (2013) A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning14(1): 16–39.
32.
LiAIslamAYMAGuX (2021) Factors engaging college students in online learning: an investigation of learning stickiness. Business Management14(12): 215824402110591. DOI: 10.1177/21582440211059181.
33.
LinHSHongZRLawrenzF (2012) Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education59(2): 378–384.
34.
LuekensMTLyterDMFoxEE (2004) Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results From the Teacher Follow-Up Survey, 2000–01 (NCES 2004–301). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004301
35.
Mc BrienJLChengRJonesP (2009) Virtual spaces: employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning10(3), Retrieved fromhttps://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/605/1358
36.
MejiaC (2020) Using VoiceThread as a discussion platform to enhance student engagement in a hospitality management online course. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education26: 100236.
37.
MurphyERodríguez-ManzanaresMABarbourM (2011) Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology42(4): 583–591.
38.
NEP (2020) National Education Policy. Ministry of Education, Government of India.
NorusisMJ (1990) Statistical Package for Social Sciences. Statistical Data Analysis.
41.
PerveenA (2016) Synchronous and asynchronous e-language learning: a case study of virtual university of Pakistan. Open Praxis8(1): 21–39.
42.
PiccianoAG (2002) Beyond student perceptions: issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks6(1): 21–40.
43.
RocaJCChiuC-MMartínezFJ (2006) Understanding e-learning continuance intention: an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies64(8): 683–696.
44.
RourkeJR (2001) Online learning: fad or fate?Principal Leadership1(9): 8–14.
45.
SalmonG (2013) The key to active online learning. Routledge2. DOI: 10.4324/9780203074640.
46.
SchrumLM (2000) Guarding the promise of online learning. The Education Digest66(4): 43–47.
47.
SimsekUTuranIandSimsekU (2017) Social studies teachers‟ and teacher candidates” perceptions on prompt feedback and communicate high expectations. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1),332, 345.
SomenarainLAkkarajuSGharbaranR (2010) Student perceptions and learning outcomes in asynchronous and synchronous online learning environments in a biology course. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching6(2): 353–356, Retrieved fromhttps://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/somenarain_0610.pdf
50.
SunAChenX (2016) Online education and its effective practice: a research review. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research15: 157–190.
51.
SwanK (2001) Virtual interaction: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education22(2): 306–331.
VoitovichI (2014) Criteria of effectiveness of electronic education and of quality of electronic educational programs in high schools. Almanac of TSPU (Tatarstan State Pedagogical University)4(145): 152–156.
54.
WagnerRSchrammR (2002) An evaluation of student satisfaction with distance learning courses. Annual conference on distance learning. University of Wisconsin, Whitewater, WI (August).
55.
WangTLinCLSuYS (2021) Continuance intention of university students and online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a modified expectation confirmation model perspective. Sustainability13(8): 4586.
56.
WarnerDChristieGChoyS (1998) Readiness of VET Clients for Flexible Delivery Including On-Line Learning. Brisbane: Australian National Training Authority.
Yamagata-LynchLCClickASmaldinoSE (2013) Activity systems as a framework for scaffolding participant reflections about distance education in an online instructional technology course. Reflective Practice14(4): 536–555. DOI: 10.1080/14623943.2013.809336.
59.
ZhangLHanZGaoQ (2008) Empirical study on the student satisfaction index in higher education. International Journal of Business and Management3(9): 46–51.
