SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Contemporary Educational Technology / 2011 / Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2

Key Factors for Determining Student Satisfaction in Distance Learning Courses: A Study of Allama Iqbal Open University

Afzaal Ali
Israr Ahmad
Pages
118–134
Publication Date
2011-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that just like in traditional education, in distance learning at AIOU, enough interaction takes place between students and instructors; courses are up to date and well-designed; instructors are devoted, motivated, and equipped with the required competencies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Most of the people in Pakistan perceive distance learning as of poor quality.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Therefore, the researchers conducted this study to find out whether it's only people’s perception or is there anything in reality, concerning the poor performance of the distance learning students compared to traditional students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that just like in traditional education, in distance learning at AIOU, enough interaction takes place between students and instructors; courses are up to date and well-designed; instructors are devoted, motivated, and equipped with the required competencies.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Distance learning · Student satisfaction · Instructor performance

Abstract

Most of the people in Pakistan perceive distance learning as of poor quality. Therefore, the researchers conducted this study to find out whether it's only people’s perception or is there anything in reality, concerning the poor performance of the distance learning students compared to traditional students. Consistent with this rationale, the main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between student satisfaction and the following variables of the distance learning environment: Instructors' performance, course evaluation, and student-instructor interaction. The sample consisted of 245 students of Allama Iqbal Open University of Pakistan. Keeping in view the nature of relationships among the variables, correlation matrix and regression analysis in addition to frequency analysis were used to analyze the findings. The results showed that just like in traditional education, in distance learning at AIOU, enough interaction takes place between students and instructors; courses are up to date and well-designed; instructors are devoted, motivated, and equipped with the required competencies. Moreover, the faculty at AIOU is delivering distance courses that meet students' needs with regard to student-instructor interaction, instructor performance, and course evaluation.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ali, A., Ahmad, I. (2011). Key Factors for Determining Student Satisfaction in Distance Learning Courses: A Study of Allama Iqbal Open University. Contemporary Educational Technology, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2, 118–134. https://ajindex.com/articles/984569

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83-97.
  2. Anderson, T. D. & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Transactional issues in distance education: The impact of design in audio teleconferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9, 27–45.
  3. Arbaugh, J.B. (2000a). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with Internet- based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24, 32-54.
  4. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Banerjee, M. & Brinckerhoff, L. C. (2002). Assessing student performance in distance education courses: Implications for testing accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27(3), 25-35.
  5. Bartley, S. J. & Golek, J. H. (2004). Evaluating the cost effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 167-175.
  6. Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 26–34.
  7. Belanger, F. & Jordan, D. H. (2000). Evaluation and implementation of distance learning: Technologies, tools and techniques. Hershey, PA: Idea. Collis, B. (1995). Anticipating the impact of multimedia in education: Lessons from the literature. Computers in Adult Education and Training, 2(2), 136-49.
  8. Conrad, D. (2006). E-learning and social change: An apparent contradiction. In M. Beaudoin (Ed.), Perspectives on higher education in the digital age (pp.21-33). New York: Nova. DeBourgh, G. A. (1999). Technology is the tool, teaching is the task: Student satisfaction in distance learning. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (pp.131-137).
  9. Du, J., Havard, B., & Li, H. (2005). Dynamic online discussion: Task-oriented interaction for deep learning. Educational Media International, 42(3), 207-218.
  10. Durling, D., Cross, N., & Johnson, J. (1996, June). CAI with style. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Design Conference-Computer-aided Design Education. University of Bristol, England. Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2000). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses: principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,