Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER
Analysis of Students’ Learning Satisfaction in a Social Community Supported Computer Principles and Practice Course
1
National Taitung University, Department of Information Science and Management Systems, Taitung, TAIWAN
2
National Taitung University, Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, Taitung, TAIWAN
3
National Central University, Taoyuan, TAIWAN
4
National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, TAIWAN
Online publication date: 2017-12-07
Publication date: 2017-12-07
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(3):849-858
KEYWORDS
learning satisfactionSmall Private Online Course (SPOC)fully onlinecourseMultiple Regression Analysis (MRA)
ABSTRACT
The study compares the learning satisfaction of two student groups, one takes the fully
online course–Introduction to Internet of Things, and the other takes the small private
online course (SPOC). In the research framework, learning satisfaction is the dependent
variable, and learning engagement, learning presence, video perception, platform
perception, and design perception are independent variables. This work adopts online
questionnaire survey to collect data from the two student groups. As to research
method, Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA) is utilized to test proposed research
framework. The results of MRA show that platform perception generates students’
learning satisfaction for SPOC, while video perception and design perception generate
students’ learning satisfaction for fully online course. This empirical study elucidates
the factors influence learner’s satisfaction and contributes to theory and practice in the
domains of online courses.
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fullt....
2.
Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2).
3.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Puro, P., & Mergendoller, J. R. (1992). Translating motivation into thoughtfulness. Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change, 207-239.
4.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in higher education, 47(1), 1-32.
5.
Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers & Education, 63, 160-175.
6.
Coetzee, D., Fox, A., Hearst, M. A., & Hartmann, B. (2014). Should your MOOC forum use a reputation system. In Proc. CSCW 2014 (pp. 1176–1187). New York: ACM Press.
7.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 23). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Corno, L., & Rohrkemper, M. (1985). The intrinsic motivation to learn in classrooms. Research on motivation in education, 2, 53-90.
10.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
11.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.
12.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105.
13.
Greckhamer, T., Misangyi, V. F., Elms, H., & Lacey, R. (2008). Using QCA in strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business unit effects. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 695-726.
14.
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014, March). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of mooc videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (pp. 41-50). ACM.
15.
Hu, S., Kuh, G. D., & Li, S. (2008). The effects of engagement in inquiry-oriented activities on student learning and personal development. Innovative Higher Education, 33(2), 71-81.
16.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systematic view of online learning (3rd Ed.). Belmont, VA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
18.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721-1731.
19.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
20.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effect of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.
21.
So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318-336.
22.
Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self‐efficacy and self‐regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191-204.
23.
Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & education, 50(4), 1183-1202.
24.
Wang, X. H., Wang, J. P., Wen, F. J., Wang, J., & Tao, J. Q. (2016). Exploration and Practice of Blended Teaching Model Based Flipped Classroom and SPOC in Higher University. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(10), 99-104.
25.
Woodside, A. G. (2014). Embrace • perform • model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2495-2503.
26.
Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., & Schroeder, U. (2014). Video-Based Learning: A Critical Analysis of The Research Published in 2003-2013 and Future Visions. eLmL 2014: The sixth international conference on mobile, hybrid, and on-line Learning.
27.
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & management, 43(1), 15-27.
28.
Zhao, C. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in higher education, 45(2), 115-138.
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
