CHAPTER # 4 ANALYSIS

Upon completion of the data collection, I embarked on the data analysis. To achieve the research
objectives, the data analysis was divided into two stages. In the first stage, I performed
preliminary data analysis with the help of SPSS. The findings generated at this stage of analysis
provided the general picture of the respondent’s demographic statistics and their response to the
survey instrument. In the second stage, I employed the evolution of the structured model using
the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique . At this stage, I examined interrelationships
between independent and dependent variables to test the proposed hypothetical framework.
Additionally, I used SEM to test the hypotheses. SEM is a powerful tool that offers precise
statistical measures to handle challenging models.

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES:

A total of 100 samples were required to achieve statistically significant results identified through
the sampling procedure previously discussed. I distributed 100 questionnaires to students in
different academic departments at the university and received 87 responses. The demographic
profile of 87 respondents including their frequency in satisfaction towards virtual learning:

FIGURE 4.1.1
AGE
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 16-20 29 33.3 33.3 33.3
21-25 52 59.8 59.8 93.1
26
and
6 6.9 6.9 100.0
greate
r
Total 87 100.0 100.0

Based on the data collected from the questionnaires, the percent age of students aged between
16-20 is 33.3% with the frequency of 29. For the students aged between 21-25, with the
percentage of 59.8% the frequency is 52. Which means greater than the age between 16- 20. And
finally age greater than 26 with the percentage of 6.9% is counted as lowest with the frequency
of 6.

FIGURE 4.1.2
DEGREE
 Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid bachelor 78 89.7 89.7 89.7

masters 7 8.0 8.0 97.7

Mphil / MS 2 2.3 2.3 100.0

Total 87 100.0 100.0

Students of bs have the frequency of 78, with the percentage of 89.7% where as both Masters
and Mphil students have same frequency of 7 and 2and percentage of 8% and 2.3%. Also, almost
half of the participants (89.7%) were studying for a bachelor.

FIGURE 4.1.3
gender

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid FEMALE 56 64.4 64.4 64.4

MALE 31 35.6 35.6 100.0

Total 87 100.0 100.0

By looking at the study from total 87 responses 56 are female percentage of 64.4% and 31 males
with the percentage of 35.6%.

4.2 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS:

Using the questionnaires of the pilot study, an analysis using the Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS), performed to test the reliability of the instrument. Research instrument
reliability is often estimated by Cronbach’s alpha formula. Cronbach’s alpha is a measure that
provides a reliability coefficient to indicate the internal consistency of the instrument. In this
method of analysis, if the overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of all the items of a construct is
greater than 0.7, the items are considered highly reliable. Also, if alpha is less than this value, it
indicates that the items are unlikely to reliably measure the same thing.

FIGURE 4.2.1
Case Processing Summary
 N %

Cases Valid 84 96.6

Excludeda 3 3.4

Total 87 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

FIGURE 4.2.2
Item Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

SS1 3.5800 .85928 50

SS2 3.3200 1.05830 50
SS3 3.3400 .84781 50
SS4 3.3000 1.09265 50
SS5 3.4000 1.01015 50
SS6 3.5600 .95105 50
SS7 3.5600 .99304 50

FIGURE 4.2.3
Item Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

VE1 3.1786 1.05466 84

VE2 3.4762 .79874 84
VE3 3.5714 .96049 84
VE4 3.3810 .87681 84
VE5 2.6190 .96823 84
VE6 3.5238 .76798 84
VE7 3.2500 .95533 84
VE8 3.6786 .94628 84
SS1 3.5833 .80971 84
SS2 3.6667 .92272 84
SS3 3.3690 .78816 84
SS4 3.2024 .84710 84
SS5 3.3452 .84303 84
SS6 3.5000 .89846 84
SS7 3.4286 .89558 84
FIGURE 4.2.4
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

VE1 VE2 VE3 VE4 VE5 VE6 VE7 VE8 SS1

VE1 1.000 .470 .493 .238 .551 .270 .386 .348

VE2 .470 1.000 .473 .306 .362 .276 .284 .109
VE3 .493 .473 1.000 .225 .353 .357 .249 .205
VE4 .238 .306 .225 1.000 .301 .380 .288 .396
VE5 .551 .362 .353 .301 1.000 .385 .586 .325
VE6 .270 .276 .357 .380 .385 1.000 .312 .185
VE7 .386 .284 .249 .288 .586 .312 1.000 .330
VE8 .348 .109 .205 .396 .325 .185 .330 1.000
SS1 .229 .087 .124 .311 .241 .200 .401 .389 1
SS2 .322 .169 .299 .412 .207 .215 .301 .428
SS3 .253 .215 .259 .404 .281 .354 .260 .452
SS4 .431 .301 .300 .138 .404 .168 .339 .488
SS5 .350 .236 .155 .358 .355 .220 .370 .382
SS6 .337 .218 .223 .214 .305 .175 .274 .376
SS7 .403 .149 .202 .403 .343 .283 .408 .449

FIGURE 4.2.5
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items

.881 .882 15

After calculation we can say the our item construct is reliable as it is greater than 0.7 which is
0.882.

4.3 CORRELATION:

FIGURE 4.3.1
Correlations

studentsatisfacti
on virtualeducation

studentsatisfaction Pearson Correlation 1 .649**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

 N 84 84
virtualeducation Pearson Correlation .649 **
1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 84 87

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

While looking at the table, the relation between the two variables is definitly positive as it is
between -1 and 1. Also it is positive coorelation.

4.4 REGGRESSION:

FIGURE 4.4.1
Variables Entered/Removeda

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method

1 virtualeducation b
. Enter

a. Dependent Variable: studentsatisfaction

b. All requested variables entered.

FIGURE 4.4.2
Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .649a .421 .414 .46576

a. Predictors: (Constant), virtualeducation

FIGURE 4.4.3
ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 12.931 1 12.931 59.609 .000b

Residual 17.788 82 .217

Total 30.719 83

a. Dependent Variable: studentsatisfaction

b. Predictors: (Constant), virtualeducation

FIGURE 4.4.4
 Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 1.238 .290 4.269 .000

virtualeducation .661 .086 .649 7.721 .000

a. Dependent Variable: studentsatisfaction

The results of t-value and standardized cofficients are shown respectively. (7.721 and 0.649)
and reveal little support for hypothesis H1, H2 and H3 that there is a slighty positive relationship
between the two variables.

CHAPTER#05 CONCLUSION:
5.1 DISSCUSSION:
The findings of this research reveal that the perceived usefulness of virtual education has a
significant effect on students’ satisfaction with this mode of teaching and learning. By the end of
the study, we had a total of 87 responses to the survey. In our discussion of the responses to
Likert scale questions, we group responses of 4 (Agree) and 5 (Strongly Agree) together
indicating agreement and responses of 1 (Strongly Disagree) and 2 (Disagree) indicating
disagreement. Our findings are in line with in that students were generally positive regarding
virtual educaion.
FIGURE 4.5.1
By looking at this diagram, we can slightly agree with H1, H2 AND H3. As most of the
responses lie in disagree, neutral and agree area. Concerning organizational factors, this
research supports that strong relationships among top management and technical support
correlate with students’ satisfaction with elearning. The satisfaction of virtual education
increases if students feel there is an adequate level of support from management.
Considering instructors’ factors, the findings reveal that instructors play an important role in
influencing students to accept or reject the elearning system. The quality of the course presented
and the instructor’s motivation, skills, attitude toward the system, and support mainly increase
students’ satisfaction with virtual education.

5.2 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

It is the era of digital technology, people prefer to use more digital technology instead of waiting
in classroom for teachers in a specific area. most of the time there is a situation where students
are busy and can't attend class physically, and solution for this problem is to using virtual classes
instead of physical.

Online learning is reasonable and important to everyone. most of the time student can't afford the
expenses of the university, school and college they prefer something reasonable for them so that
they can easily avail the opportunity of learning.

Most of the university reshape their education system towards Virtual education, it is more
affordable for organizations and students, all the expenses of light class room environment , and
resources are not useable when it will be online. so it is important to utilize the resources in some
other way that will helpful for others.

REFERENCES
Adam, N. L., Alzahri, F. B., Soh, S. C., Bakar, N. A., & Kamal, N. A. M. (2017).

Self-regulated learning and online learning: A systematic review. In Badioze Zaman H. et al.
(Eds.), Advances in visual informatics. IVIC 2017. Lecture notes in computer science, vol
10645 (pp. 143–154). Springer, Cham.

Basri, W. S., Alandejani, J. A., & Almadani, F. M. (2018).

ICT adoption impact on students’ academic performance:-Evidence from Saudi universities.

Education Research International, Article ID 1240197.

Caputi, V., & Garrido, A. (2015).

Student-oriented planning of e-learning contents for Moodle. Journal of Network and Computer
Applications, 53, 115–127.

Cho, V., Cheng, T. E., & Lai, W. J. (2009).

The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of selfpaced e-learning
tools. Computers & Education,

Jaber, O. A. (2016).

An examination of variables influencing the acceptance and usage of e-learning systems in

Jordanian higher education institutions (Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff Metropolitan University).