Influence of Internet connection system towards Islamic Finance MOOCs on University Putra Malaysia student participation.

Literature Review Matrix Template

Author/ Theoretical/ Research Methodology Analysis & Conclusions Implications Implications

Date Conceptual Question(s)/ Results for For practice
Framework Hypotheses Future
research
(1) To investigate 1. Regression analysis Based on the Learner-instructor Future research The practical
Yu-Chun the degree to Are the three was performed to result, students interaction, learner- should assess implications of
Kuo, which types of determine the spending 11-15 content interaction, the design of this study are
Andrew E. interaction and interaction, contribution of hours online per and Internet self- online courses that both
Walker, other predictors Internet self- predictor variables to week were more efficacy were and use this as instructors and
Brian R. contribute to efficacy, and student satisfaction. self-regulated than significant a moderating course
Belland, & student self-regulated Descriptive analyses those who spent predictors of student factor in the designers
Kerstin E. satisfaction in learning were conducted to less than 5 hours. satisfaction in fully prediction of should pay
E. Schroder online learning correlated with present the student It seemed that 11- online learning student attention to
(2013), settings student basic information 15 hours were an settings, while satisfaction. content design
A Predictive satisfaction? and the average adequate amount learner-learner Such research and
Study of 2. score of predictor of time for interaction and self- could shed organization
Student Are the three variables and student students to regulated learning further light on given that
Satisfaction types of satisfaction. properly manage did not predict whether learner-content
in Online interaction, Correlation analysis their learning pace student satisfaction. learner-learner interaction
Education Internet self- was performed to to complete an Learner-content interaction is a substantially
Programs efficacy, and understand the online course, as interaction was the consistent contributes to
Kuo, Y., self-regulated relationship between opposed to those strongest predictor predictor of student
Walker, A., learning the three types of spending less than among those student satisfaction.
Belland, B., significant interactions and 5 hours. significant satisfaction. Instructors
& Schroder, predictors of student satisfaction. predictors of student should pay
K. (2013). A satisfaction? Multiple regression satisfaction. attention to
predictive 3. analyses were students and
study of What are the performed to provide
student effects of investigate whether feedback to
satisfaction student five predictor students in a
in online background variables timely fashion
education variables (age, significantly predict or encourage
programs. T gender, marital student satisfaction. students to ask
he status, class ANOVA was questions
Internationa level, and time performed to through
l Review Of spent online per investigate the effect different
Research In week) on the of student mechanisms.
Open And three types of background
Distributed interaction, variables on the five
Learning, Internet self- predictors.
14(1), 16- efficacy, and
39. self-regulated
doi:http://dx learning?
.doi.org/10.1
9173/irrodl.
v14i1.1338
(2) The study Is MOOC Correlational The study shows The continuance This indicates
Khambari, aimed to influence over Survey research that putraMOOC intention in using that when
Nida & explore the the students’ design was chosen is useful to the MOOC showed students
Mohd influence of perceived ease for the research. students whereby the existence of believe that
Ayub, students’ of use, Data was gathered they think that the significant learning
perceived ease using putraMOOC
Ahmad perceived using an online influence of through
of use, would have a
fauzi & perceived usefulness and questionnaire positive effect on perceived MOOCs will
Wan usefulness and time spent? which appears to their learning and usefulness and be useful and
Jaafar, time spent be the appropriate also useful for perceived ease of can improve
Wan towards way to collect data their online use on MOOC their
Marzuki. students’ for this study. learning. It also continuance knowledge,
(2018). continuance appears to be that intention. Hence, they will
Influence intention in the respondents for an increase in prefer to
of Students using MOOC. have the intention the continuance continue
Perceived to continue using use of MOOC at using MOOCs
Ease of putraMOOC as Public Universities
they strongly
Use, in Malaysia, the
recommend others
Perceived to use it. Besides, MOOC providers
Usefulness they intend to need to ensure the
and Time quality of the
Spent continue using courses and the
Towards putraMOOC MOOC platforms
Students rather than will be taken into
Continuanc discontinue its due consideration.
e Intention use.
Using
MOOC
Among
Public
University
Students.
doi:10.299
1/icems-
17.2018.50
.
(3) This study 1. Preliminary chi- Learner–learner Learner–content In future this study
Yu-Chun examines a To what extent square analyses were interaction did not interaction was research, a required online
Kuo, proposed does each performed to appear to have any found to be the most more diverse students to fill
Andrew E. regression predictor determine the effect on students' important predictor population in out the survey
Walker, model for variable representativeness of satisfaction, and of student terms of based on only
Kerstin E.E. student (learner– the sample. the effects of satisfaction in fully disciplines and one class they
Schroder, satisfaction in instructor Descriptive analyses learner–instructor online learning. This demographics selected.
Brian R. fully online interaction, and Correlation and interaction were result suggests that should be Students who
Belland, learning learner–learner HLM analyses. relatively weak instructors and studied. The took more than
Interaction, settings that interaction, when class-level instructional impact of one class
Internet self- involves learner–content predictors were designers should pay teaching during the
efficacy, interaction, interaction, included in the attention to content assistants semester might
and self- Internet self- Internet self- model. In this design and selection should be have arbitrarily
regulated efficacy, and efficacy, and regard, the results of appropriate considered as selected the
learning as self-regulation. self-regulated of this study differ delivery technology class-level course they
predictors of learning) from prior studies in fully online predictors in liked most or
student correlate with in which either settings. The online HLM analysis least, which
satisfaction student learner–learner content should be (a) since they may may have led to
in online satisfaction? interaction or presented in an play an bias.
education 2. learner–instructor organized way and important role Furthermore,
courses, To what extent interaction was (b) easily accessed in three types self-reports are
The Internet do interaction, found to be the by online learners. of interaction. used for the
and Higher Internet self- most important Potential class- measurement
Education, efficacy, and predictor in level predictors of three types
Volume 20, self-regulated distance learning should also be of interaction
2014, learning predict environments explored, such since self-
Pages 35- student as the use of reports are the
50, satisfaction and teaching most practical
ISSN 1096- which variables assistants, or method of
7516, are significant the collecting the
https://doi.or predictors of fundamental data.
g/10.1016/j.i student design of the
heduc.2013. satisfaction? courses
10.001. 3. themselves
(http://www. Of those (i.e., objectives,
sciencedirec variables that tasks, and
t.com/scienc combine for the assessment)
e/article/pii/ best prediction
S109675161 of student
3000456) satisfaction, how
much unique
variance in
student
satisfaction do
the significant
predictors
explain?
4.
Do course
category and
program affect
student
satisfaction and
moderate the
effects of three
types of the
 interaction, self-
regulated
learning, and
Internet self-
efficacy
variables on
student
satisfaction?

(4) Examines the How to best Utilizing online All respondents Overall, online Further Given the
Gilbert, potential support high surveying software unanimously learning research on a limited
Brittany, challenges school students called “Qualtrics,” answered that they environments allow larger scale, number of
"Online and enrolled in an an anonymous would take an for learning to occur involving respondents,
Learning drawbacks of online course. survey was sent to online course in in a setting that is more students, this research
Revealing the future, not restricted by
online the eight students and online is based on a
the Benefits regardless of the place or time.
and coursework. enrolled in the challenges that Online learning has courses is very small
Challenges" course. The they may have the ability to needed to population, all
(2015). Edu students were able experienced. Two disassemble barriers better of whom were
cation to submit their students expressed that have been evaluate the enrolled in the
Masters. Pa responses that the online constructed by benefits, same course,
per 303. electronically, via course was easier poverty, location, challenges, under the
https://fisher a smartphone, because they were disability, as well as and useful same
pub.sjfc.edu tablet, or a able to focus other factors. strategies of instructor.
/education_ computer at a time completely on the successful Analyzing
ETD_master that was work and not on students. It various
s/303 other factors such
convenient for could be that courses may
as social
them. The interaction with student offer a
accessibility of the peers and respondents to different
online survey physically this survey insight as to
provided for all attending class. had a the type of
eight recipients of The respondents uniquely content that is
the survey to overwhelming different more suitable
respond to the agreed that online experience for an online
questions courses are best than their learning
 provided. suited for high counterparts environment.
school students taking online
due to the amount courses
of responsibility elsewhere
that accompanies
the course work.
Some students
stated “stress” and
“not being mature
enough” as
reasons for
restricting students
below high school
from enrolling in
an online course.
(5) To evaluate (i) Can Mixed method was For students, ICT the study found Future MOOC is to
Habibah the students reflect used in this and critical that, (i) students research be a
Ab Jalil, effectiveness on what they research, which thinking skills evaluated the should significant
Alyani of deployment learned in involved were evaluated quality of analyse new
Ismail, for four pilot these courses? qualitative and as higher than infrastructure and MOOC’s mechanism of
Norasiken MOOCs (ii) Can they quantitative the other info structure development teaching and
Bakar & N. offered to the integrate the approaches. domains of skill. provided for in other learning in
A. Kasma Malaysian knowledge Quantitative data Meanwhile MOOC as countries as to this era
Azizan K. public they have were collected lecturer moderate, (ii) compare and especially for
A. Nasir. universities obtained in through different perspective lecturers evaluated contrast the higher
(2016). them with what sets of aspect of the quality of effective education
Evaluation they gained in questionnaires for knowledge infrastructure and strategies in institutions
of other courses? students and sharing in info structure MOOC’s whereby each
Malaysia (iii) Can they lecturers while MOOC was provided for management. institution
Pilot apply their new qualitative data evaluated as MOOC as high, caters to the
MOOC knowledge in were collected higher than the (iii) students have massive
(Final multiple through interviews other aspects of reached an number of
Report). settings? with the quality agreement on the instructors,
CADe admins/developers enhancement in suitability of courses and
UPM: of MOOC. teaching and curriculum used in most
Serdang. learning from MOOC delivery, importantly
http://ctl.ut lecturers’ (iv) lecturers have the students.
m.my/meipt perception. reached an
a/wp- agreement on the
content/uplo suitability of
ads/2016/07 curriculum used in
/final-
MOOC delivery,
report-
mooc- (v) students have
24.7.2016- reached an
1.pdf agreement on the
suitability of
learning design in
MOOC,
(6) to investigate What is the Convenience a) The findings Pay close attention The need to A learning
Fadzil, the readiness relationship sampling was used show that Self- to pedagogy to understand model based
Mansor & level of adult between: in this study. efficacy has a create a conducive the students’ open
learners significant
abdol latif, studying in
a) Social learning learning learning
Latifah & Competency relationship with environment when behaviours environment
Malaysian MOOCs
Kassim, Higher and MOOCs designing a and support proposed by
Readiness.
Zorah & T Education Readiness. b) The finding
MOOC. needed are Kop, Fournier
Subramani Institutions b) Technical crucial for and Mak
that the socio-
am, Competency communication successful (2011) might
Thirumeni. and MOOCs competency has learning serve as a
(2016). Readiness. a tendency to through suitable for
MOOCs c) influence online courses the MOOCs
Readiness Communicatio MOOCs or MOOCs environment.
among n Competency readiness. can be The design of
Malaysian and MOOCs c) Technical realised. courses is
Adult Readiness. competency is crucial in
Learners. d) Self- also not determining
https://ww efficacy and significant in learning
w.research MOOCs relation to the strategies as
gate.net/pu Readiness. level of MOOCs well as the
blication/3 e) Self- Readiness. learning
12043338_ directedness environment
MOOCs_R and MOOCs and at the
eadiness_a Readiness outset,
mong_Mal learning
aysian_Ad outcomes to
ult_Learner be achieved.
s
(7) The different a) different The survey Overall, there All learning For future A description
Joi L. expectations expectations included one open- seemed to be environments are studies, data of the
Moore, and and ended question and some agreement not alike, even should be instructional
Camille perceptions of perceptions of eight questions that there was a within a traditional collected characteristics
Dickson- learning learning each with a difference face-to-face which clearly is essential for
Deane, environment environment number of choices between each of setting; thus it is identifies illustrating the
Krista labels: labels: distance to select via the terms and not surprising to more important
Galyen, distance learning, e- checkboxes. The that this discover demographics components
e-Learning, learning, e- Learning, and survey began with difference was disagreement , such as the of the learning
online Learning, and online learning the open-ended somehow about the meaning nationality of environment,
learning, online question that asked attributed to the of distance the more so than
and learning respondents to characteristics of learning, respondent the term that
distance identify the each of the eLearning, and and whether is used.
learning differences environments. online learning. the
environme between distance There also respondent
nts: Are learning, e- seemed to be a worked in
they the Learning, and difference in academia or
same?, online learning. how each term in the
The was used from corporate
Internet continent to world. This
and Higher continent which may
Education, could also imply determine
Volume 14, that there was a how the terms
Issue 2, difference in are used and
2011, usage from if there are
Pages 129- country to differences
135, country. There between
ISSN were some industry usage
1096-7516, respondents from and academic
https://doi. the continent of usage which
org/10.101 Asia who may further
6/j.iheduc.2 grouped contribute to
010.10.001 “blended the disparities
. learning” and “e-
(http://ww learning” as the
w.sciencedi same. This
rect.com/sc created a
ience/articl situation
e/pii/S1096 whereby the
751610000 authors did not
886) think that
introducing the
term blended
learning would
have added to
the challenges in
finding clear
delineations for
each of the
terms; this
seemingly added
to the lack of
consistency
found in the use
of the terms
(8) The model To propose Researcher There is no This study There are Educational
Kauffman, integrates the model of an selected 55 articles single solution triggers research always institution
Heather (2 scope of value OLR that for reviews. fits for all directions that challenges for needs to
015) A
review of creation Big accommodate Researchers scenarios, online learning can the realisation develop
predictive Data in social employ meta- teaching and embed pervasive of value strategies that
factors of education, networks, synthesis to learning knowledge added from will allow
student Cloud Semantic Web, integrate, evaluate organization multiple sources pervasive them to
success in Computing Big Data and and interpret the should carefully like social knowledge in acquire multi
and
approach to Cloud findings of decide at which networks big data, online channels of
satisfaction
with online ensure Computing to multiple research direction that the and semantic web learning, knowledge
learning. R flexibility of facilitate studies from institution is through the further and OLR
esearch in implementatio pervasive phenomenological going to upgrade support of cloud research is known as
Learning n, Social knowledge and grounded for online computing is key important to pervasive
Technolog Networks and management. theory be learning system to competitive configure its knowledge.
y, 23. ISSN Web 2.0 as integrated and before advantage. The feasibilities. The model of
2156-7077 source of used. Those ideas understanding concept of pervasive
http://repos knowledge for were combined to the needs of pervasive knowledge
itory.alt.ac. users. The identify their users towards the knowledge opens a accommodate
uk/2415/1/ model is common core systems. new opportunity to s the features
1648-7585- expected to elements and maximize the of social
1-PB.pdf contribute in themes. Then, potential of networks, big
considering analyse and resources data, and
multi synthesize key knowledge into cloud
channels of elements into new online learning computing
sources of interpretations, system approach.
knowledge to conceptualizations, OLR through
achieve and modelling of pervasive
pervasive OLR with knowledge
knowledge. pervasive can extend
The study is knowledge. Then, advancing
to lay the chose only technology to
perspective English-language gain control
for OLR to articles published of their
support in peer-reviewed benefits.
pervasive journals. Then,
knowledge conduct interviews
 through cloud to the selected
computing, teachers at high
and Social schools level who
Network use OLR. The
interviews’
resulted were
coded and
analysed to refine
the proposed
model.
(9) To investigate Apart from Presenting a) The virtual It is our belief that Future Online
Carmel the role of community framework for communities discussions are a research collaboration
Kent, interactivity building and interactivity class showed major and growing should is an integral
Esther as a process socializing, can quantitative significantly less player in online transfer the part of
Laslo, of knowledge interactivity evaluation. Then correlations with learning. spotlight to learning is not
Sheizaf construction contribute to we will describe its assessments Generally, in a the entire enough, we
Rafaeli, within online the our collected tool That might world of community as also have to
Interactivit discussions, understanding datasets and the be due to the fact continuous a unit of realize how to
y in online and in of the field of learning outcomes that the online learning, achieved analysis, in consistently
discussions particular, its learning assessed in each discussion in this by an environment order to better measure and
and association assessment? one of them. In the class was the of constant understand assess it.
learning with learning Results section, the least moderated connectedness and which
outcomes, outcomes, as significant and most accessibility to community's
Computers measured by associations emergent. knowledge and co- characteristics
& formal between b) the depth of learners, assessing (for example,
Education, assessment interactivity drilling down a learning processes structuring,
Volume 97, tasks. measures and specific subject, and summative moderating
2016, various outcome and second, the outcomes mechanism,
Pages 116- measures (as tendency to separately, might assessment
128, described in this 'listen', that is e act as an obstacle tools and
ISSN section) will be read (or at least to holistic and more) might
0360-1315, presented. scan), before a authentic learning. result which
https://doi. learner decides learning
org/10.101 to 'speak out interactions.
6/j.comped
u.2016.03.
002.
(http://ww
w.sciencedi
rect.com/sc
ience/articl
e/pii/S0360
131516300
537)
(10) Online Is the online Methodology that The online This study the future the researcher
Ahmad learning is learning is is used based on learning more extended online studies need suggests item
Tajudin better learning effective or Input-Process- effective than learning by testing to raise the measure to
than does not efficiency. The
Baharin, have access to
efficient? Output (IPO) the effect of sample size assess the size
Habibah model paradigm. hypothesis is interactivity on that is not three main
all for learn. effectiveness
Lateh, Online The use of IPO student satisfaction only to more features
positively impact
Hurhudzaif learning may methodology has to satisfaction of with effectiveness general usability of
ah mohd surmount the been adopted to interactivity in and efficiency. confirmation online
Nawawi, travel and time explain the The researcher that the learning such
online learning. It
Shelena S. constraints. Computer also provide appliance as
Online means the
Nathan, learning
Mediated effectiveness of support to extend measurement effectiveness,
Evaluation provides a Communication interactivity can interactivity to but also to efficiency and
of potential for Interactivity give satisfaction online learning continue to satisfaction
Satisfaction new research Theory (CMCIT) to students who because of pre- ensure the that are
Using environmental that use of use online existing validity of the directly
Online to make it researcher for expectations of asset related to this
easier to enter
learning.
Learning featured in this student and the structure. field. This
into
with contracts with
study. CMCIT was desire to website Especially size of the
Interactivit other students developed based has no direct equation item will be
y, during the on the connection with modeling the able to help
Procedia - review process methodology IPO. their clear structure with teacher and
Social and is done. The researcher satisfaction a large sample student
According to
Behavioral Dr. Ruth uses quantitative website size will allow learning run
Sciences, Brown (2001), than qualitative. users to run usability
Volume there are three satisfaction evaluation
levels in
171, building
factor offers involving
2015, community in analysis in the samples in a
Pages 905- the online more critical great
911, courses or to ensure the community
ISSN online validity of the technology.
1877-0428, learning. First change.
https://doi. level is a
student gets
org/10.101 acquainted.
6/j.sbspro.2 Second, the
015.01.208 students
. began,
through
interaction, to
find similarities
or differences
between them
and began to
interact with
course
contents. At
the third level,
students also
began to
support each
other and take
their friendship
off the course.