Distance Education

ISSN: 0158-7919 (Print) 1475-0198 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20

Predicting student satisfaction and perceived

learning within online learning environments

Emtinan Alqurashi

To cite this article: Emtinan Alqurashi (2019) Predicting student satisfaction and perceived
learning within online learning environments, Distance Education, 40:1, 133-148, DOI:
10.1080/01587919.2018.1553562

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553562

Published online: 03 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1948

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdie20
DISTANCE EDUCATION
2019, VOL. 40, NO. 1, 133–148
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553562

ARTICLE

Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within

online learning environments
Emtinan Alqurashi
Center for the Advancement of Teaching, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Student satisfaction is used as one of the key elements to evaluate Received 19 June 2018
online courses, while perceived learning is considered as an indi- Accepted 6 November 2018
cator of learning. This study aimed to explore how online learning KEYWORDS
self-efficacy (OLSE), learner–content interaction (LCI), learner– Self-efficacy; interaction;
instructor interaction (LII), and learner–learner interaction (LLI) student satisfaction;
can predict student satisfaction and perceived learning. A total perceived learning; online
of 167 students participated in this study. Regression results learning
revealed that the overall model with all four predictor variables
(OLSE, LCI, LII, and LLI) was significantly predictive of satisfaction
and perceived learning. The study found that LCI was the stron-
gest and most significant predictor of student satisfaction, while
OLSE was the strongest and most significant predictor of per-
ceived learning. However, LLI was not predictive of student satis-
faction and perceived learning. This study suggests that instructors
employ strategies that enhance students’ OLSE, LCI, and LII.
Research is needed to understand how LLI fosters student learning
and satisfaction.

Introduction
Higher education institutions offer many opportunities to take online courses and
complete degree programmes online. This is to meet the continuous increase in online
learning enrollments. As the number of enrollments in online courses in higher educa-
tion increases (Allen & Seaman, 2017), so does the need for research to identify factors
that play an important role in student satisfaction and learning.
Student satisfaction reflects how learners view their learning experience. It is con-
sidered as one of the five elements along with learning effectiveness, faculty satisfaction,
scale, and access for the evaluation of the quality of online learning identified by the
Online Learning Consortium (Moore, 2005). These elements can be applied as
a framework to evaluate and develop online programmes and courses in different
educational institutions. The importance of student satisfaction with online learning is
well documented in research and found to be highly related to students’ dropout rates,
determination, motivation and commitment to complete a degree online, and success
rates (Ali & Ahmad, 2011; DeBourgh, 1999; Yukselturk & Yildirim, 2008).

CONTACT Emtinan Alqurashi emtinan.alqurashi@gmail.com Center for the Advancement of Teaching, Temple
University, Suite 112, The Tech Center, 1101 W. Montgomery Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA
© 2018 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.
134 E. ALQURASHI

Similarly, perceived learning has been considered as an indicator of learning, and it is

one of the core elements for course evaluation (Wright, Sunal, & Wilson, 2006). It is
defined as someone’s judgement that their knowledge and understanding are con-
structed (Rovai, 2002). It is the learner’s opinions and views about the learning that
have occurred. Alavi, Marakas, and Youngjin (2002, p. 406) define perceived learning as
“changes in the learner’s perceptions of skill and knowledge levels before and after the
learning experience.” It is important for instructors to evaluate how students perceive
their learning to improve the quality of online courses in terms of aspects such as course
design, delivery, and evaluation, and ultimately to enhance students’ learning experi-
ence. Students who believe that they have learned course materials extremely well are
more likely to be active participants in online classes (Fredericksen, Pickett, Shea, Pelz, &
Swan, 2000). Perceived learning is also highly predictive of students’ grades (Rockinson-
Szapkiw, Wendt, Whighting, & Nisbet, 2016). Understanding what affects perceived
learning helps instructors to improve the quality of online courses in terms of such
elements as course design, delivery, and evaluation, in order to ultimately enhance the
student learning experience (Alavi et al., 2002).
For those potential benefits, student satisfaction as well as perceived learning in
online learning should be studied and investigated in order to increase recruitment and
retention and provide an enhanced well-designed learning experience for prospective
online students. Evaluating student satisfaction and perceived learning enables educa-
tional institutions to detect areas for development and improvement of online learning
(Kuo, Walker, Schroder, & Belland, 2014). This study explored factors that can predict and
relate to student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environ-
ments in higher education: online learning self-efficacy, learner–content interaction,
learner–instructor interaction, and learner–learner interaction.

Literature review
Self-efficacy is a key component in student learning and satisfaction. It is defined as “the
level of confidence that someone has to perform a particular task, activity, action or
challenge” (Alqurashi, 2016, p. 45). If students believe that they cannot achieve results,
they will not make any effort to take the necessary steps to achieve. However, students
with high self-efficacy don’t regard difficult tasks as obstacles to avoid, but rather as
a challenge for developing their skills; this could enhance learning and performance and
lead to higher satisfaction with the achieved results.
Prior studies on self-efficacy within online learning environments in the context of
higher education have mostly focused on the technological aspect of self-efficacy, such
as Internet self-efficacy, learning management system self-efficacy, computer self-
efficacy, and web use self-efficacy (Jan, 2015; Kuo et al., 2014; Martin & Tutty, 2008;
Martin, Tutty, & Su, 2010; Simmering, Posey, & Piccoli, 2009).
Kuo et al. (2014) found that Internet self-efficacy does not relate to or predict student
satisfaction. Additionally, Tang and Tseng (2013) found that Internet self-efficacy pre-
dicted students’ performance in a search test (i.e., the ability to search for information
using the technology) but not on a written test (i.e., the learning outcome). Martin and
Tutty (2008) and Martin et al. (2010) found that learning management system self-
efficacy does not have an impact on course performance. Also, self-efficacy to handle
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 135

tools in a learning management system does not predict student satisfaction (Shen, Cho,
Tsai, & Marra, 2013). When assessing the relationship between perceived self-efficacy
and perceived satisfaction with e-learning systems, Liaw (2008) found that perceived
self-efficacy does not predict perceived satisfaction.
Computer self-efficacy and its relationship to student satisfaction were investigated
by many studies. For example, Wu, Tennyson, and Hsia (2010) examined student
satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment and found that computer self-
efficacy does not significantly affect student satisfaction. A recent study by Jan (2015)
found no positive or significant relationship between computer self-efficacy and student
satisfaction. Similar results by Simmering et al. (2009) found that computer self-efficacy
has no relationship with students’ learning motivation. However, Lim’s (2001) study
results showed that computer self-efficacy was a significant predictor of student satis-
faction. This also supports Womble’s (2007) results that computer self-efficacy has
a significant positive relationship with student satisfaction.
However, there are other studies that focused on self-efficacy for learning rather than
for technology. For example, a study by Gunawardena, Linder-VanBerschot, LaPointe, and
Rao (2010) conducted in a corporate adult training setting found that online self-efficacy
was the strongest predictor of student satisfaction. Similarly, Shen et al. (2013) investi-
gated the relationship between online learning self-efficacy and student satisfaction; they
found that self-efficacy to complete an online course as well as self-efficacy to interact
with instructors in an online course were the strongest predictors. Self-efficacy for learning
was also investigated by Artino (2007a), who found a positive and significant relationship
between self-efficacy for learning and student satisfaction in a self-paced online course.
Older studies seemed to find a significant relationship between technology self-
efficacy, in contrast with more recent studies. This shows that students’ self-efficacy for
technology has changed over the years (see also a literature review by Alqurashi, 2016).
College students are becoming more confident in performing web-based activities, and as
a result self-efficacy for using technology is becoming less predictive of student learning
experiences. Although technology skills are needed for learning in an online environment,
it is important to keep in mind the rapid growth of technology, and its users—students
nowadays have more exposure and access to more advanced technology compared to
students in the past decade. They also differ in terms of comfort and confidence level in
their capabilities and fluency with technology (Alqurashi, 2016). With the evolution of
technology, it seems that students are now more willing to use and interact with
technology to communicate with other people. This should be taken into consideration
when researching self-efficacy within online learning. In other words, the focus of research
should be shifted from self-efficacy to use technology to students’ confidence in their
ability to perform, learn, engage with, and complete an online course successfully.
Another critical element in online learning is interaction. Interaction refers to the
interaction a learner has with course content, class instructor, and their peers. Learner–
content interaction (LCI) is the interaction that occurs between student and the subject
matter, and it is a highly individualized process facilitated by the instructor. Learner–
instructor interaction (LII) is a two-way communication between learners and the
instructor of the course. Learner-learner interaction (LLI) is a two-way communication
between or among learners for the purpose of exchanging information or ideas related
to course content. This can occur with or without instructor supervision (Moore, 1989).
136 E. ALQURASHI

A number of researchers have emphasized the importance of interaction (Abrami,

Bernard, Bures, Borokhovski, & Tamim, 2011; Chen & Chen, 2007; Cho & Kim, 2013; Kuo,
Walker, Belland, & Schroder, 2013; Kuo et al., 2014). This is mainly because of the essential
role interaction plays in online formal education, and also because interaction was mostly
absent during the early stages of distance education (Abrami et al., 2011). A meta-analysis
by Bernard et al. (2009) reviewed 74 studies on distance education and found that the three
types of interaction (LLI, LII, and LCI) are positively related to achievement outcomes.
However, it is important to note that effective interaction occurs only if learning and
instruction are designed and implemented well. It is about quality interaction, not quantity.
Some types of interaction have been identified as important elements in student
satisfaction. For example, Kuo et al. (2013) and Kuo et al. (2014) examined some predictors
that could affect student satisfaction in online learning environments. They found that LCI
was the strongest predictor of student satisfaction and had a high, positive, and significant
relationship with it, followed by LII. However, LLI failed to predict student satisfaction. Gray
and DiLoreto (2016) found similar results—a weak relationship between LLI and student
satisfaction. A type of learner–instructor interaction—learner–instructor dialog—was
explored by Burgess (2006), who found a significant relationship between student satisfac-
tion and instructor-student dialog. However, Moore (2014) investigated interaction and its
relationship to student satisfaction along with other variables. The results from the study
showed that LLI and self-discipline were the strongest predictors of student satisfaction and
success in online courses. The role that online interaction plays on adult learners’ satisfaction
and learning was investigated by Chen and Chen (2007). They found a positive, significant
relationship between interaction and satisfaction, and that access and motivation predicted
student satisfaction, while information sharing and development predicted learning.
Interaction and its relationship to perceived learning has been investigated in a number
of studies. For example, Fredericksen et al. (2000) surveyed the SUNY Learning Network
participants in an asynchronous online course; they received 1406 responses (a 42%
response rate). Findings of their study showed that LII was the most significant predictor
of perceived learning in online courses. LLI was also found to be a significant predictor of
student perceived learning in online courses. In the same year, Jiang and Ting (2000) found
that LII was the most important predictor of student perceived learning. Fredericksen et al.
(2000) found that students with high perceived learning (i.e., those who believed they
learned the course materials extremely well) in online courses were more active participants
than face-to-face ones. They also found that students who were enrolled because of the
convenience and flexibility of the online course had higher perceived learning than students
who were enrolled in the online course because it was not offered in face-to-face mode.
Another study, by Sebastianelli, Swift, and Tamimi (2015), examined variables related to
course content and interaction that can affect perceived learning, satisfaction, and course
quality. They found that only course content was a significant predictor of perceived
learning. To our knowledge, no research has been conducted to understand the relationship
that self-efficacy has with perceived learning.

The purpose of this study

There is limited research on the direct effects that self-efficacy and interaction have on
both student satisfaction and their perceived learning within the context of online
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 137

environments in higher education. The majority of research on self-efficacy has focused

on technology; however, there is a need to understand the effect of the non-
technological aspect of self-efficacy (i.e., OLSE). In addition, it is still unclear from
research if interaction would result in learning course materials well and satisfaction
with course experience. No research was found to use OLSE, LCI, and LLI in multiple
predictive models to examine whether they predict satisfaction and learning.
In order to fill this gap in the research, this study investigated the role of OLSE, LCI, LII,
and LLI in online learning environments to predict both student satisfaction and
perceived learning. Results from this study could support instructors in higher education
and instructional designers/technologists to improve planning, designing, developing,
and delivering quality online education in order to improve students’ learning as well as
their satisfaction. Therefore, this study examined the following research questions:

(1) To what extent do the three predictors of interaction (LCI, LII, and LLI) predict
student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments?
(2) To what extent does the predictor variable OLSE explain student satisfaction and
perceived learning within an online learning environment above and beyond what is
already explained by the other predictor variables of interaction (LCI, LII, and LLI)?
(3) To what extent do all four predictors together (online learning self-efficacy, LCI,
LII, and LLI) predict student satisfaction and perceived learning within an online
learning environment; and among these predictors, which one is the strongest
and the most significant predictor?
(4) How much unique variance does each significant predictor explain in student
satisfaction and perceived learning?

Methodology
A variety of survey instruments were utilized to collect information about students’
perception of their OLSE, and their interaction with the course content (LCI), course
instructor (LII), and other learners (LLI), in order to understand if they significantly predict
student satisfaction and perceived learning.
A total of 167 graduate and undergraduate students completed a survey. The
participants were taking at least one fully online course from a private mid-sized non-
profit university in Western Pennsylvania. Blackboard, a learning management system,
was utilized for all their online courses, along with GoToTraining, a web conferencing
system used for synchronous classes (i.e., classes that meet in real time).
The statistical software G*Power 3.1.9.2 was utilized to compute the statistical
achieved power for a given sample size of 167, a p value of .05, and a medium effect
size of .15 for a linear multiple regression test. The post hoc analysis showed that it
achieved a statistical power of .987 for a test utilizing four predictor variables.
There were six scales used in the survey: (1) OLSE, (2) LCI, (3) LII, (4) LLI, (5) student
satisfaction, and (6) perceived learning. Table 1 shows the six scales and the survey
items.
138 E. ALQURASHI

Table 1. Survey items.

Items on survey
Predictors
OLSE (Shen et al., 2013) ● Complete an online course with a good grade.
● Understand complex concepts.
● Willing to face challenges.
● Successfully complete all of the required online activities.
● Keep up with course schedule.
● Create a plan to complete the given assignments.
● Willingly adapt my learning styles to meet course expectations.
● Evaluate assignments according to the criteria provided by the instructor.
LCI (Kuo et al., 2014) ● Online course materials helped me to understand better the class content.
● Online course materials stimulated my interest for this course.
● Online course materials helped relate my personal experience to new concepts or
new knowledge.
● It was easy for me to access the online course materials.
LII (Kuo et al., 2014) ● I had numerous interactions with the instructor during the class.
● I asked the instructor my questions through different electronic means, such as email,
discussion board, instant messaging tools, etc.
● The instructor regularly posted some questions for students to discuss on the
discussion board.
● The instructor replied my questions in a timely fashion.
● I replied to messages from the instructor.
● I received enough feedback from my instructor when I needed it.
LLI (Kuo et al., 2014) ● Overall, I had numerous interactions related to the course content with fellow
students.
● I got lots of feedback from my classmates.
● I communicated with my classmates about the course content through different
electronic means, such as email, discussion boards, instant messaging tools, etc.
● I answered questions of my classmates through different electronic means, such as
email, discussion board, instant messaging tools, etc.
● I shared my thoughts or ideas about the lectures and its application with other
students during this class.
● I comment on other students’ thoughts and ideas.
● Group activities during class gave me chances to interact with my classmates.
● Class projects led to interactions with my classmates.
Outcomes
Student satisfaction ● Overall, I was satisfied with my online learning experience.
● This online course met my needs as a learner.
Perceived learning ● In your estimation, how well did you learn the material presented in this course?
(Artino, 2007b)

The self-efficacy to complete an online course scale asks students how confident
they are that they could do certain tasks in an online course. Students rate their level
of confidence on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 1 indicates cannot do at all, 3
indicates moderately confident can do, and 5 indicates highly confident can do. High
rating scores indicate high self-efficacy and low rating scores indicate low self-efficacy.
Additionally, the three interaction scales ask students to mark the most appropriate
number on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 1 indicates strongly disagree and 5
indicates strongly agree.
The student satisfaction scale includes two items to assess student satisfaction with
their online course. The survey asks students to mark the most appropriate number on
a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 1 indicates completely disagree and 5 indicates com-
pletely agree. Additionally, the perceived learning scale asks students to mark the most
appropriate number on a 5-point scale next to each statement, where 1 indicates not
well at all and 5 indicates extremely well.
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 139

Results
The first portion of the survey was designed to collect demographic characteristics of
the respondents and their experience with online learning. Only students who were
taking a fully online course were asked to participate.
There were more female (71.3%) than male (28.7%) respondents. Most of the respondents
were single (74.9%). Most respondents were either 18–23 years old (56.3%) or 24–29 (16.8%)
years old. Only 6.0% were between 30 and 35, 6.6% were between 36 and 41, 3.6% were
between 42 and 47, 8.4% were between 48 and 53, and 2.4% were above the age of 54. Of the
167 respondents, 46.7% were working towards their bachelor’s degree, 34.1% were working
towards their master’s degree, and 19.2% were working towards their doctoral degree.
Of the students, 28.7% were from the School of Business, 21.0% were from the School
of Liberal Arts, 16.8% were from the School of Nursing, 14.4% were from the School of
Education, 10.8% were from the School of Health Sciences, 4.2% were from the School of
Natural and Environmental Sciences, and only 3.0% were from the School of Music.
The majority of students had either no previous online courses (34.1%) or had taken
between 1 and 5 online courses (37.1%). Only 14.4% reported having taken between 6
and 10 online courses, 6.0% reported having taken between 11 and 15 online courses,
and 8.4% reported having taken more than 15 online courses previously.
Table 2 shows the mean scores of each scale, standard deviations, number of items in
each scale and their ranges, and Cronbach’s coefficient alphas. The highest mean score
of the four independent variables was OLSE (M = 4.49, SD = .51), followed by LCI
(M = 3.99, SD = .83), and LII (M = 3.98, SD = .79). LLI had the lowest mean score
(M = 3.05, SD = 1.28) of all independent variables. For the dependent variables, the
mean score for perceived learning was 4.09 (SD = .84), and the mean score for student
satisfaction was 4.05 (SD = 1.07). The Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for all subscales were
all larger than 0.7; this indicates good reliability.
No outliers were detected using DFBeta values and Cook’s distance, and therefore, no
cases were excluded from the analysis. To test for multicollinearity, correlations among
the four predictors with each outcome variable were analyzed and found to be in range.
Before running regression analyses, the assumptions of multiple regressions must be
met; this includes normality, linearity, independence of residuals, and homoscedasticity.
With no violation detected, it was appropriate to run the analyses.

Research question 1
Standard multiple regression was conducted to determine whether the three indepen-
dent variables (LCI, LII, and LLI) predict student satisfaction. Initial regression results

Table 2. Mean, standard deviation, and reliability information for each scale.
Scales Items Range Midpoint M SD α
OLSE 8 1–5 3 4.4970 .51190 .880
LCI 4 1–5 3 3.9985 .83029 .838
LII 6 1–5 3 3.9890 .79134 .788
LLI 8 1–5 3 3.0554 1.28678 .954
Student satisfaction 2 1–5 3 4.0539 1.07270 .940
Perceived learning 1 1–5 3 4.0958 .84478 -
140 E. ALQURASHI

indicate that the overall model with the three independent variables of interaction (LCI,
LII, and LLI) significantly predict student satisfaction, R2 = .601, R2adj = .593, F(3,
163) = 81.777, p < .00. This model accounts for 60.1% of the variance in student
satisfaction. After reviewing the beta weights, it was determined that only LCI and LII
significantly contributed (p < .001) to this model. LLI was not a significant predictor
(p > .05) in the model, as shown in Table 3. Another standard multiple regression was
conducted to determine whether the three independent variables (LCI, LII, and LLI)
predict perceived learning.
With perceived learning as a dependent variable, regression results indicate that the
overall model with the three independent variables of interaction (LCI, LII, and LLI)
significantly predicts perceived learning, R2 = .400, R2adj = .389, F(3, 163) = 36.268,
p < .001. This model accounts for 40% of the variance in perceived learning. After
reviewing the beta weights, it was determined that only LCI and LII significantly
contributed (p < .001) to this model. LLI was not a significant predictor (p > .05) in the
model, as shown in Table 4.
When removing LLI from the model, the results showed that the F value increased,
the error was reduced, and the model accounts for 60.1% of the variance in student
satisfaction and for 40% of the variance in perceived learning. This means that LLI has no
effect on the model at all, and instead the model is slightly stronger without it.

Research question 2
Sequential multiple regression was conducted to determine whether OLSE predicts student
satisfaction beyond what was explained by the other three predictors (LCI, LII, and LLI).
With student satisfaction as a dependent variable, sequential regression results
indicate that model 2 with the addition of OLSE to the original model of three inde-
pendent variables (LCI, LII, and LLI) was significant, R2 = .636, R2adj = .627, R2change = .035,

Table 3. Coefficientsa estimates of the model with three predictors and student satisfaction as an
outcome variable.
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model B Std error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) −.435 .303 −1.435 .153
LCI .796 .077 .616 10.299 .000
LII .333 .088 .246 3.808 .000
LLI −.007 .048 −.009 −.152 .880
Note. a = dependent variable: satisfaction

Table 4. Coefficientsa estimates of the model with three predictors and perceived learning as an
outcome variable.
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model B Std error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.137 .293 3.884 .000
LCI .459 .075 .451 6.157 .000
LII .310 .085 .291 3.671 .000
LLI −.037 .047 −.057 −.802 .424
a
Note. = dependent variable: learning
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 141

Fchange (1, 162) = 15.544, p < .001. This model significantly predicts student satisfaction F
(4, 162) = 70.691, p < .001, and it accounts for 63.6% of the variance in student
satisfaction; this is 3.5% higher than the original model (which accounts for 60.1%).
After reviewing the beta weights, it was determined that only three variables (LCI, LII
and OLSE) significantly contributed (p < .001) to this model, where OLSE contributed
uniquely by 3.5%. It was found that the LLI was not a significant predictor (p > .05) in the
model, as shown in Table 5. Table 5 also shows the correlation between the indepen-
dent variables and student’s satisfaction. The highest correlation was found to be
between LCI and student satisfaction (r = 748), the second highest correlation was
OLSE (r = 589) followed by LII (r = 581). A low positive correlation was found (r = 343)
between LLI and student satisfaction.
Another sequential multiple regression was conducted to determine whether OLSE
predicts perceived learning beyond what was explained by the other three predictors (LCI,
LII, and LLI). With perceived learning as a dependent variable, sequential regression results
indicate that model 2 with the addition of OLSE to the original model of three indepen-
dent variables (LCI, LII, and LLI) was significant, R2 = .465, R2adj = .452, R2change = .065,
Fchange (1, 162) = 19.550, p < .001. This model significantly predicts perceived learning, F(4,
162) = 35.184, p < .001, and it accounts for 46.5% of the variance in perceived learning; this
is 6.5% higher than the original model (which accounts for 40%). After reviewing the beta
weights, it was determined that only three variables (LCI, LII, and OLSE) significantly
contributed (p < .01) to this model, where OLSE contributed uniquely by 6.5%. It was
found that LLI is not a significant predictor (p > .05) in the model, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6 also shows the correlation between the independent variables and perceived
learning. The highest correlation found was between LCI and perceived learning (r = 591),
the second highest correlation was OLSE (r = 554), followed by LII (r = 511). A low positive
correlation was found (r = 257) between LLI and perceived learning.

Research question 3
Standard multiple regression was conducted to determine whether all four independent
variables predict student satisfaction. Regression results indicate that the overall model
with the four independent variables (OLSE, LCI, LII, and LLI) significantly predicts student
satisfaction, R2 = .636, R2adj = .627, F(4, 162) = 70.691, p < .001. This model accounts for
63.6% of the variance in student satisfaction. After reviewing the beta weights, it was
determined that only three variables (LCI, LII, and OLSE) significantly contributed

Table 5. Coefficientsa estimates of the sequential regression model with student satisfaction as an
outcome variable.
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients Correlations
Model B Std error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part
2 (Constant) −1.893 .470 −4.025 .000
LCI .627 .085 .485 7.340 .000 .748 .500 .348
LII .322 .084 .237 3.831 .000 .581 .288 .182
LLI −.001 .046 −.002 −.032 .975 .343 −.002 −.001
OLSE .480 .122 .229 3.943 .000 .589 .296 .187
a
Note. = dependent variable: satisfaction
142 E. ALQURASHI

Table 6. Coefficientsa estimates of the sequential regression model with perceived learning as an
outcome variable.
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients Correlations
Model B Std error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part
2 (Constant) −.424 .449 −.945 .346
LCI .279 .082 .274 3.418 .001 .591 .259 .196
LII .298 .080 .279 3.714 .000 .511 .280 .213
LLI −.031 .044 −.047 −.704 .482 .257 −.055 −.040
OLSE .514 .116 .312 4.422 .000 .554 .328 .254
a
Note. = dependent variable: learning

(p < .001) to this model. Among those significant predictors, LCI was the strongest and
most significant (t = 7.340, p < .001), as shown in Table 7.
Another standard multiple regression was conducted to determine whether all four
independent variables (LCI, LII, LLI, and self-efficacy) predict perceived learning.
With perceived learning as a dependent variable, regression results indicate that the
overall model with four independent variables (LCI, LII, LLI, and OLSE) significantly
predicts perceived learning, R2 = .465, R2adj = .452, F(4, 162) = 35.184, p < .001. This
model accounts for 46.5% of the variance in perceived learning. After reviewing the beta
weights, it was determined that only three variables (LCI, LII, and OLSE) significantly
contributed (p < .01) to this model. Among those significant predictors, OLSE was the
strongest and most significant (t = 4.422, p < .001), as shown in Table 8.
When removing LLI from the model, results show that the F value increased, the error
was reduced, and the model accounts for 63.6% of the variance in student satisfaction
and for 46.3% of the variance in perceived learning. This means that LLI had almost no
to little effect on the model.

Research question 4
In order to get the unique variance that each significant predictor explains, the squared
value of part correlations must be calculated. As shown in Table 9, part correlation value
of LCI was found to be 0.348, it results to 0.12 when squaring it. This means it explains
12% unique variance in student satisfaction. Part correlation value of LII was found to be
0.182; it results to 0.033 when squaring it. This means that it explains 3.3% unique
variance in student satisfaction. Part correlation value of OLSE was found to be 0.187; it
results to 0.035 when squaring it. This means that it explains 3.5% unique variance in
student satisfaction.

Table 7. Coefficientsa estimates of the model with four predictors and student satisfaction as an
outcome variable.
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients Correlations
Model B Std error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part
1 (Constant) −1.893 .470 −4.025 .000
LCI .627 .085 .485 7.340 .000 .748 .500 .348
LII .322 .084 .237 3.831 .000 .581 .288 .182
LLI −.001 .046 −.002 −.032 .975 .343 −.002 −.001
OLSE .480 .122 .229 3.943 .000 .589 .296 .187
a
Note. = dependent variable: satisfaction.
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 143

Table 8. Coefficientsa estimates of the model with four predictors and perceived learning as an
outcome variable.
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients Correlations
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part
1 (Constant) −.424 .449 −.945 .346
LCI .279 .082 .274 3.418 .001 .591 .259 .196
LII .298 .080 .279 3.714 .000 .511 .280 .213
LLI −.031 .044 −.047 −.704 .482 .257 −.055 −.040
OLSE .514 .116 .312 4.422 .000 .554 .328 .254
a
Note. = dependent variable: learning

Table 9. Coefficientsa with satisfaction as an outcome variable.

Correlations
Model Zero-order Partial Part
1 (Constant)
LCI .748 .500 .348 **
LII .581 .288 .182 **
OLSE .589 .296 .187 **
Notes. a = dependent variable: satisfaction; ** p < .01, * p < .05

Table 10 shows that part correlation value of LCI was found to be 0.196, it results to
0.038 when squaring it. This means that it explains 3.8% unique variance in perceived
learning. Part correlation value of LII was found to be .213; it results to 0.045 when
squaring it. This means that it explains 4.5% unique variance in perceived learning. Part
correlation value of OLSE was found to be 0.254; it results to 0.065 when squaring it. This
means that it explains 6.5% unique variance in student satisfaction.
A standard regression was utilized to get the part correlations values for the pre-
dictors in order to determine the unique variance the significant predictors explain in
student satisfaction and perceived learning. Results indicate that LCI explains 12%
unique variance in student satisfaction, which is the highest of all significant predictors.
This means that the more instructors increase LCI, the more likely it is that students
experience satisfied learning. Self-efficacy, the second highest predictor in student
satisfaction, explains 3.5% unique variance. LII is the third highest significant predictor;
it explains 3.3% unique variance in student satisfaction. The focus on OLSE and LII is also
important to having satisfied students; however, these are not as high predictors as LCI.
However, results indicate that OLSE explains 6.5% unique variance in perceived
learning, which makes it the highest of all significant predictors. This means that the
higher students’ self-efficacy is, the more likely they are to have high perceived learning.

Table 10. Coefficientsa with perceived learning as an outcome

variable.
Correlations
Model Zero-order Partial Part
1 (Constant)
LCI .591 .259 .196 *
LII .511 .280 .213 **
OLSE .554 .328 .254 **
Notes. a = dependent variable: learning; ** p < .001, * p < .005
144 E. ALQURASHI

LII, the second highest predictor in perceived learning, explains 4.5% unique variance.
LCI is the third highest significant predictor; it explains 3.8% unique variance in per-
ceived learning. Learners’ interaction with course instructors and their interaction with
content are also important in order to achieve high perceived leaning.

Discussion and conclusion

This study attempted to understand the relationship between four independent vari-
ables (OLSE, LCI, LII, and LLI interaction) and student satisfaction and perceived learning
in online learning environments. The results of this study showed that online learning
self-efficacy, learner–content interaction, and learner–instructor interaction are critical
factors in student satisfaction and perceived learning.
Prior research explored self-efficacy for different types of technology (Jan, 2015; Kuo
et al., 2014; Martin & Tutty, 2008; Martin et al., 2010; Simmering et al., 2009) and found
no significant results. However, the findings of this study emphasize the importance of
self-efficacy for learning online. Results are consistent with studies by Gunawardena
et al. (2010), Artino (2007b), and Shen et al. (2013), who found self-efficacy for learning
impacts on and is related to student satisfaction. This study adds that online learning
self-efficacy is the strongest predictor and the most significant contributor to perceived
learning in online settings. Future research should conduct further investigations in
a similar context (i.e., fully online environments) to see if results are alike, or in
a different context (e.g., hybrid) to compare results.
Results of self-efficacy suggest that it is more likely to have high student satisfaction
and perceived learning rates if students come to an online course with high confidence
in their capabilities of getting a good grade, dealing with difficult topics, facing chal-
lenges, completing online activities, managing course schedule, planning and evaluating
assignments based on rubrics, and meeting course expectations. Self-efficacy can be
improved in many ways. The most influential way to create a strong sense of self-efficacy
is performance accomplishment, which is based on learners’ prior successful experi-
ences. Another way of influencing self-efficacy is by vicarious experience, where stu-
dents do not depend on their own successful experiences; rather, they observe others
doing similar activities successfully. This can be done by providing samples of other
former students’ work that was performed successfully. Providing timely, authentic and
constructive feedback with encouragement can also lead to higher self-efficacy
(Margolis & McCabe, 2006).
The findings of this study support prior research on the importance of interac-
tion (Abrami et al., 2011; Cho & Kim, 2013; Kuo et al., 2013, 2014), but emphasize
the importance of learner–content interaction as well as learner–instructor interac-
tion. This study argues that learner–learner interaction was not a significant pre-
dictor, not because students were not engaging in enough interaction, but because
it did not benefit students. The quality of interaction that students have with each
other could have a better impact on their learning and satisfaction. This includes
receiving feedback from other students, answering student questions, communica-
tion with other students, sharing and commenting on thoughts and ideas, group
activities, class projects, and interaction related to the course content with other
students.
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 145

Learner-content interaction was found to be the most critical predictor of student

satisfaction, as well as a significant predictor of perceived learning. Similar results by Kuo
et al. (2014) found that learner–content interaction had a relatively high positive and
significant relationship with student satisfaction. Kuo et al. (2014) explored interaction
along with Internet self-efficacy as a predictive model. However, the results of the
current study had a highly predictive model because it focused on self-efficacy for
learning rather than for technology.
In addition, two studies—Fredericksen et al. (2000) and Jiang and Ting (2000)—found
that learner–instructor interaction is the most significant predictor of perceived learning
in an online course. This study found that the addition of online learning self-efficacy to
the three types of interaction resulted in a stronger model of prediction for both student
satisfaction and perceived learning. In the context of fully online learning environments,
the absence of face-to-face communication and interaction, facial expression and body
language are only some of the limitations. Online learners usually spend a lot of time
trying to process information, digest content, and learn from a computer screen. This
process of self-thinking and learning from content can make their interaction with
content critical to their learning and satisfaction.
This study suggests that it is more likely to have high student satisfaction rates if
students find that online course materials helped them to understand the class content,
stimulated their interest for the course, helped relate their personal experience to new
knowledge, and were easy to find and access. In an online learning environment,
compared to a traditional learning environment, instructors can provide a variety of
instructional materials through technology for students to interact with content; this
includes reading interactive texts, watching videos, interacting with computer-based
multimedia, using study guides, and completing assignments and projects assigned by
the course instructor (Nandi, Hamilton, & Harland, 2015).
It is also more likely to have high student satisfaction and perceived learning rates if
students have high quality and quantity interactions with their instructor (the second
highest predictor in perceived learning). This includes asking and answering questions,
receiving feedback, and participating in online discussions. In online learning environ-
ments, the instructor’s response and feedback are essential due to the lack of face-to-
face communication. Sometimes, students may not get back to work unless they receive
feedback from their instructor, because the feedback tells them that they are moving in
the right direction. Thus, the role of the instructor is to provide support, guidance and
assistance to each student according to their needs, provide summative and formative
assessments, ensure students are making progress, motivate them, and help them
practice what they learned (Moore, 1989).
Hence, instructors may want to emphasize online learning self-efficacy, learner-
content interaction, and learner-instructor interaction when teaching an online course
to ensure student satisfaction and perceived learning. Self-efficacy had the highest
impact on perceived learning while learner-content interaction had the highest impact
on student satisfaction. If those were carefully designed and implemented in fully online
courses, the benefits of satisfaction and learning can be achieved. Further research could
investigate ways to improve the quality of learner-learner interaction and design activ-
ities that students can benefit from. The goal here is not to eliminate learner-learner
interaction but to find ways to improve its outcomes.
146 E. ALQURASHI

Limitations and future research

Although this study attempted to understand how self-efficacy and online interaction relate
and predict student satisfaction and perceived learning in online learning environments, there
are some limitations that should be noted. One limitation is that students were asked to self-
report their perception of self-efficacy and interaction, as well as their level of satisfaction and
perceived learning. Other means of assessment such as interviews or observations can be
utilized for future research. The results of this study show that self-efficacy, LCI, and LII
significantly predict and explain student satisfaction and perceived learning. Future research
could assess final grades, for example, to look at the relationship from a different angle.
This research focused on fully online courses; hence, the results here may be applic-
able only to fully online learning environments. Students in other learning settings, such
as hybrid or blended courses, may have different interactions with their instructors,
classmates, and course content. Future research could undertake a comparison between
fully online, hybrid, and blended courses to see if results differ.
In future research, student demographic variables should be considered when comparing
results. These include gender, age, previous online learning experience, traditional versus non-
traditional learners, course delivery, nature of interactions, and online learning preferences.
Other forms of interaction such as learner’s autonomy, course design, flexibility, and synchro-
nous vs. asynchronous format of learning should also be considered. The impact of online
learning support, number of students enrolled in an online course, instructors’ knowledge and
training in teaching online should also be taken into consideration in future investigations.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Emtinan Alqurashi earned her doctorate degree in instructional technology and leadership from
Duquesne University and currently works at Temple University’s Center for the Advancement of
Teaching. Her research interests include online learning, instructors’ knowledge and skills in
integrating technology, and the integration of technology to improve teaching and learning.

ORCID
Emtinan Alqurashi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4738-4331

References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in
distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal
of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2–3), 82–103. doi:10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x
Alavi, M., Marakas, G. M., & Youngjin, Y. (2002). A comparative study of distributed learning
environments on learning outcomes. Information Systems Research, 13, 404–415. doi:10.1287/
isre.13.4.404.72
 DISTANCE EDUCATION 147

Ali, A., & Ahmad, I. (2011). Key factors for determining students’ satisfaction in distance learning
courses: A study of Allama Iqbal Open University. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2,
118–134. Retrieved from http://www.cedtech.net
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017.
Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/digtiallearningcompassenroll
ment2017.pdf
Alqurashi, E. (2016). Self-efficacy in online learning environments: A literature review.
Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 9(1), 45–52. doi:10.19030/cier.v9i1.9549
Artino, A. R. (2007a). Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instructional quality: Predicting
satisfaction with online training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 260–270.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00258.x
Artino, A. R. (2007b). Online military training: Using a social cognitive view of motivation and self-
regulation to understand students’ satisfaction, perceived learning, and choice. Quarterly Review
of Distance Education, 8(3), 191–202. Retrieved from https://www.infoagepub.com/quarterly-
review-of-distance-education.html
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., & Surkes, M. A. (2009). A
meta-analysis of three interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational
Research, 79, 1243–1289. doi:10.3102/0034654309333844
Burgess, J. V. (2006). Transactional distance theory and student satisfaction with web-based distance
learning courses (Doctoral dissertation). University of West Florida Pensacola, FL. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.537.1244&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Chen, Y.-J., & Chen, P.-C. (2007). Effects of online interaction on adult students’ satisfaction and learning.
The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 3, 78–89. doi:10.1080/14703290252934603
Cho, M.-H., & Kim, B. J. (2013). Students’ self-regulation for interaction with others in online
learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 69–75. doi:10.1016/j.
iheduc.2012.11.001
DeBourgh, G. A. (1999). Technology is the tool, teaching is the task: Student satisfaction in distance
learning. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED432226)
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, 4(2), 7–41. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.
org/read/journal-issues/
Gray, J. A., & DiLoreto, M. (2016). The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and
perceived learning in online learning environments. International Journal of Educational
Leadership Preparation, 11(1), 98–119. Retrieved from https://www.icpel.org/ijelp.html
Gunawardena, C. N., Linder-VanBerschot, J. A., LaPointe, D. K., & Rao, L. (2010). Predictors of learner
satisfaction and transfer of learning in a corporate online education programme. American
Journal of Distance Education, 24(4), 207–226. doi:10.1080/08923647.2010.522919
Jan, S. K. (2015). The relationships between academic self-efficacy, computer self-efficacy, prior
experience, and satisfaction with online learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(1),
30–40. doi:10.1080/08923647.2015.994366
Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (2000). A study of factors influencing students’ perceived learning in a web-
based course environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6, 317–338.
Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/j/IJET/
Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student
satisfaction in online education programmes. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 14(1), 16–39. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338
Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, internet self-efficacy,
and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The
Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
Liaw, -S.-S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effec-
tiveness of e-learning: A case study of the blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2),
864–873. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.005
148 E. ALQURASHI

Lim, C. K. (2001). Computer self-efficacy, academic self-concept, and other predictors of satisfaction
and future participation of adult distance learners. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2),
41–51. doi:10.1080/08923640109527083
Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2006). Improving self-efficacy and motivation: What to do, what to
say. Intervention In School & Clinic, 41(4), 218–227. doi:10.1177/10534512060410040401
Martin, F., & Tutty, J. I. (2008, March). Learning management system self-efficacy of online and
hybrid learners: Using LMSES scale. Paper presented at the University of North Carolina Teaching
and Learning with Technology Conference, Raleigh, NC. Retrieved from http://docplayer.net/
18394721-Learning-management-system-self-efficacy-of-online-and-hybrid-learners-using-
lmses-scale.html
Martin, F., Tutty, J. I., & Su, Y. (2010). Influence of learning management systems selfefficacy on
e-learning performance. Journal on School Educational Technology, 5(3), 26–35. doi:10.26634/
jsch.5.3.1086
Moore, J. (2014). Effects of online interaction and instructor presence on students’ satisfaction and
success with online undergraduate public relations courses. Journalism & Mass Communication
Educator, 69(3), 271–288. doi:10.1177/1077695814536398
Moore, J. C. (2005). The Sloan consortium quality framework and the five pillars. Newburyport, MA:
The Sloan Consortium.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3
(2), 1–7. doi:10.1080/08923648909526659
Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2015). What factors impact student – Content interaction
in fully online courses. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 7,
28–35. doi:10.5815/ijmecs.2015.07.04
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Wendt, J., Whighting, M., & Nisbet, D. (2016). The predictive relationship
among the community of inquiry framework, perceived learning and online, and graduate
students’ course grades in online synchronous and asynchronous courses. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3). doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2203
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asyn-
chronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 319–332. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516
(02)00130-6
Sebastianelli, R., Swift, C., & Tamimi, N. (2015). Factors affecting perceived learning, satisfaction,
and quality in the online MBA: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Education
for Business, 90(6), 296–305. doi:10.1080/08832323.2015.1038979
Shen, D., Cho, M.-H., Tsai, C.-L., & Marra, R. (2013). Unpacking online learning experiences: Online
learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 10–17.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.04.001
Simmering, M. J., Posey, C., & Piccoli, G. (2009). Computer self-efficacy and motivation to learn in a
self-directed online course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(1), 99–121.
Tang, Y., & Tseng, H. W. (2013). Distance learners’ self-efficacy and information literacy skills. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(6), 517–521. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2013.08.008
Womble, J. C. (2007). E-learning: The relationship among learner satisfaction, self-efficacy, and
usefulness (Doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego, CA. Retrieved
from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/119496/
Wright, V. H., Sunal, C. S., & Wilson, E. K. (2006). Research on enhancing the interactivity of online
learning. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Wu, J.-H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T.-L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended
e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155–164. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2009.12.012
Yukselturk, E., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Investigation of interaction, online support, course structure
and flexibility as the contributing factors to students’ satisfaction in an online certificate
programme. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 51–65. Retrieved from https://
www.j-ets.net