Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE April 2011 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 12 Number: 2 Article 8

KEY FACTORS FOR DETERMINING STUDENT SATISFACTION

IN DISTANCE LEARNING COURSES: A STUDY OF ALLAMA
IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY (AIOU) ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN
Afzaal ALI
Dr. Muhammad I. RAMAY
Mudasar SHAHZAD
International Islamic University,
Islamabad, PAKISTAN

ABSTRACT

In this paper, the primary objective of the research team was to find out 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. The purpose of this study was to address the most recent
problem of AIOU students relevant to their distance learning. The problem was that
most of the people in Pakistan perceived distance learning as poorer quality.
Therefore, the researchers conducted this study to find out whether it's only people
perception or there is any thing in reality about the poorer outcome of the distance
learning students as compare to traditional students. By using correlation, regression
and descriptive analysis, it was found that just like the traditional education, in
distance learning education at AIOU, enough interaction take place between students
and their instructors, courses are up to date and well designed, instructors are
devoted, motivated and equipped with the required skill and knowledge. Moreover,
the faculty at AIOU is delivering distance learning courses that meet the students'
needs in regard to students-instructor interaction, instructor performance and course
evaluation.

Keywords: Distance learning, Course evaluation, Instructor performance,

AIOU, Islamabad.

INTRODUCTION

The World Wide Web (WWW) has become a valuable educational means and offer
new educational experience for students which were not earlier possible. In recent
years the growth of online educational programs has been fueled by the advancement
of the internet and modern information technology that changed the face of
education (Sher, 2008). Due to advancement of the latest technology, online
education has emerged as an alternative or at least a considerable supplement to
traditional mode of teaching and learning (Waits & Lewis, 2004). Especially, in higher
education online education is increasingly becoming common and emerging as an
opportunity for delivering entire education online (Johnson, 2004). In academia
through online classes, universities now have the ability to provide distance learning
opportunities for students--- Full-time or part-time, traditional or non-traditional and
international, who perhaps have had limited access to advanced educational
opportunities (Bartley et al., 2004).

The rising demand and growing consumer experience with flexible education
programs to support career development and life long learning increase people
expectations for quality instructions, effective educational outcomes, and finally
satisfaction for learning (Debourgh, 1999).
114
Allen et al. (2002) and Wang (2003) argued that in any educational institution,
satisfaction of a student can be determine from his level of pleasure as well as the
effectiveness of the education that student experience. Since, students with higher
levels of satisfaction towards various aspects of e-learning courses are also reported
considerably higher levels of learning, than students with low level of satisfaction
(Fredericksen, 2000). In this regard, management specifically instructors of e-
learning courses can increase their students' satisfaction by considering the primary
factors of student satisfaction (Ho et al., 2002).

No doubt, modern information technology tools and methods create many

opportunities of communication and cooperation for students and instructors,
separated with each other due to time and space (Belanger & Jordan, 2000).
However, besides perception of the technological innovation, quality and timely
interaction between student and teacher, interaction among students, , flexibility of
online courses, technical support availability, and consistent course design across
courses are also important to assure the development of distance learning education
(Swan et al., 2000; Lao & Gonzales, 2005: Young & Norgard, 2006). Conrad (2006)
argued that distance learning occurs when students and instructor do not meet
personally in the same physical space. Similarly Roffe (2002) described that distance
learning refers to the way people communicate and learn by electronic means. He
further added that in the information society distance learning has come forward as a
main resource of competitive advantage.

The term distance learning also used interchangeably with terms e-learning, online
learning, online collaborative learning, virtual learning, web based learning and
technology-mediated learning. In the past, few relevant studies have been conducted
on the use of distance learning environment in Pakistan. Though, current research
paper deals with several factors as influencing students’ satisfaction with distance
learning in Pakistan. In this perspective, the primary objective of this research paper
was to find out the relationship between student satisfaction and the following
variables of the distance learning environment: instructors' performance, course
evaluation and student-instructor interaction.

This study was carried out by keeping in view the increasing demand of distance
education not only in Pakistan but all over the world. Right now there is only one
degree awarding universities in Pakistan which is providing distance education i.e.
Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU). In this paper we focused on AIOU. The Allama
Iqbal Open University was established in May, 1974 at Islamabad, Pakistan and was
the first Open University in Asia, and the biggest university in the country with course
enrolment of 1,806,214 by the year 2004-2005. The AIOU established over 1400
study centers, 9 regional campuses, 23 regional centers, 90 part-time regional
coordinating offices throughout Pakistan. Basically, AIOU is a distance education
institution that offers education of multi disciplinary from basic to doctoral level
programs. In AIOU more than 70 percent students are employed and the rural-urban
distribution of the students are 58% and 42% respectively. Moreover, female
enrolments are more than 50 percent. Internet, audio and video lectures, along with
correspondence of the instructors are used as a medium of instruction as well as a
source of information. In addition, these lectures are broadcasts on television and
radio, and also CDs of these lectures are available for the students.

BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

Actually this study was carried out to address the most recent problem of AIOU
students, relevant to their distance learning. The fact is that most of the people in
Pakistan perceived distance learning as poorer quality.

115
Entrepreneurs, private employers and many corporate companies' executives have
the same mentioned perception. Moreover, they are not ready to accept this
argument that distance learning students do just or even better than face to face
classroom students. Instead of the fact that AIOU degree is accepted and recognized
by the government, getting jobs, particularly good jobs are very difficult for these
students. Therefore, the researchers conducted this study to find out whether it's only
people perception or there is any thing in reality about the poorer outcome of the
distance learning students as compare to traditional students. That’s why we asked
different questions to AIOU students about their satisfaction regarding instructor
performance, student-instructor interaction and course evaluation.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Student Satisfaction
The dynamic expansion of online teaching and learning has been boosted significantly
by the rapid development of the internet and various web resources, having a
tremendous impact on the quality of teaching and learning (Kramer, 2000). Zaidel
(2007) added that due to use of information technology for education purpose,
innovative and advance ways of communication came in to being, which change the
preference of students from traditional learning to distance learning. Further more,
the availability of distance education, the course offerings, and the increasing number
of students enrolled, all speak to the importance of this method of instruction
(Zapalska & Brozik, 2006). Brownson and Harriman, (2000) argued that students in
distance learning do just or even better than face to face classroom students.
Besides, Johnson et al. (2000) made a comparative research study and did not found
any significant difference in the effectiveness of online learning versus face to face
course learning for students

Furthermore, distance education provides independent, student center and tutor

facilitated engagement that facilitate interactions with instructors and students
which may not always be possible within the traditional classroom setting
(Michailidou & Economides, 2003). Astin, (1993) defined student satisfaction in term
of student’s perception towards his/ her college/ university experience, and
perceived significance of the education that (s)he received from an institution. Levy
(2003) argued in his research study, conducted more than 200 students attending
distance learning courses to find out the relationship of students satisfaction with
distance learning effectiveness. He found that student’s satisfaction with distance
learning courses is a key aspect to measure the effectiveness of distance learning.

Instructor Performance and Student Satisfaction

In online learning environment, instructor again requiring new set of skills and
expertise for success since just like the students, latest technologies brings as much
change to instructors (Jones, 2003). Now, the roles of the instructors change from
being the main resource of students’ knowledge to being the organizer of the
knowledge resources for students (Romiszowski, 2004). Moreover, in an effective
online learning environment instructor plays a vital role, and it is not because of
technology but its practical accomplishment that determines the effects on learning
(Collis, 1995).

An instructor has a definite role to make online environment successful. For this
purpose, instructors must ensure required level of interactions and discussions with
their students (Hong et al., 2003). However, interaction is different in this
environment (Walker & Hackman, 1991) with more emphasis on the teacher’s role as
a mediator between the student and materials (Beaudoin, 1990) or between the
student and the technology (Hillman et al., 1994). Therefore, teachers must
understand the increased diversity of learners, and then accordingly determine test

116
formats, assessment practices, and assessment strategies (Banerjee & Brinckerhoff,
2002), which might persuade and motivate students to accept e-learning
environment (Selim, 2005).

In e-learning, there are some certain factors and conditions which are important for
the professional development of the instructors, and to enhance the teaching quality
of instructors, it is necessary for the instructors to consider these factors (Louden,
2000). Jensen (1993) conducted a research in which he collected data together from
students and instructors, and concluded that instructions in distance learning entail a
different set of skills, and involve different responsibilities.

Student-Instructor Interaction and Student Satisfaction

In distance education, interaction appears frequently as a defining characteristic of
quality learning experiences. Also in the education literature, researchers' belief in
the importance of students’ interactions with their instructors is so widespread that it
is considered to be an indispensable thing for learning to occur (Anderson & Garrison,
1995; Picciano, 2002). In addition, it is recognized as a driving force for persuading
student’s motivation and the achievement of learning outcomes (Du, Havard, & Li,
2005; Sargeant, Curran, Allen, Jarvis-Selinger, & Ho, 2006; Tu, 2005). Moore (1989)
reported three types of interactions: student-instructor; student-content; and student
– student. Young and Norgard (2006) also confirmed the importance of these three
types of interactions for student satisfaction with distance education; timely and
quality interaction among students and between student and their instructor, and
finally between students and their course content

According to many researchers, the overall effectiveness and success of online

education depend upon the interaction which is an essential element to student
learning (Fresen, 2007; Moore, 1993; Northrup, 2001). Therefore, Volery et al. (2000)
suggested that in order to boost student’s interactions, instructor may give a
participation mark. Furthermore, instructors should be able to understand the diverse
nature of the student; involved them in online discussions and encouraged student to
student interactions (Durling, Cross, & Johnson, 1996).

In an online course, the immediate accessibility of the information, assistance, and

feedback by the instructor determined the students’ satisfaction. Whenever, due to
technical problems this accessibility is interrupted or denied, students get frustrated
(Wilson & Whitelock, 1998). In fact, success in online learning environment depends
on the level of interaction between students and instructors that is required to
stimulate good results (Kershaw, 1996). Due to online learning environment the
instructor gets more time to directly interact and spend on each individual student.
As, mostly students follow a pre-defined and pre-developed e-learning course
(Morgan, 2000). Therefore, instructors should remain in contact with students
through email and online forum discussions (Poon et al., 2004)

Course Evaluation and Student Satisfaction

The development of an online environment allows students to participate in the
educational process and by playing and exploring with the course material
(Michailidou & Economides, 2003). Particularly those subjects are best suited to the
online format that involves discussion, brainstorming, and reflection (Wells, 1992).

As students interactions through course discussions appear to be one of the most

important features of distance courses (Swan, Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, Pelz. &
Maher, 2000). Along this, course design must have rich communication potential, as
the level of communication heavily impact upon students' learning, satisfaction, and
retention in online courses (Irani, 1998). Northrup (2002) defined interaction as
interaction with course content, discussion and group effort, interpersonal skills, and
need for support. Furthermore, Northrup added that students demonstrated a

117
preference for innovative course delivery such as collaboration through ongoing
interaction with peers and instructors, case studies, readings followed by discussions.

According to Inman et al. (1999), students expect three things from an instructor in
the distance learning environment, which are helpful materials for interacting with
the distance learning medium, some on-campus session and finally his availability at
the time when they needed.

Besides, Swan (2001) also reported three factors i.e. interaction with instructors and
active discussion among course participants and clarity of course design which
significantly influenced students' satisfaction and perceived learning. Similarly, Shea,
Pickett, and Pelz (2003) argued that following issues are highly correlated with
students satisfaction level in e-learning courses; instructional design and
organization of the e-learning courses, instructors direct interaction with students
and instructors discourse facilitation. According to Levin et al. (1990), students
perceive that discussions in distance learning are more equitable and democratic than
face-to-face classroom discussions. While Swan et al. (2000) argued that students
preferred consistent course structure so that navigation does not change from one
course to another. Yang and Cornelius (2004) found that students became frustrated
when their courses were poorly designed, and when instructors did not participate in
discussions or responded to questions within a very limited time (Zeng & Perris,
2004). There may be a possibility that this frustration may translate into a poor
learning outcome for students.

Therefore, in online learning environment, getting student feedback about their

needs and preferences is crucial for the successful design and implementation of this
environment (Sahin, 2007).

THEORETICAL FRAME WORK

Student’s
Satisfaction

Student- Course
Instructor Instructor Evaluation
Interaction Performance

S1 S2
S3 S4 I1 I2 I4I3 I6I5 I7 I8 I9 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1
S5

Research Hypothesis
The following hypotheses have been developed from the literature review:
H1: Instructor performance will be positively related to the student’s
satisfaction.
H2: Student-instructor interaction will be positively related to the student’s
satisfaction.
H3: Course evaluation will be positively related to the student’s satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY

Subject
In order to investigate the relationship between key factors for determining student
satisfaction in distance learning courses, a structured questionnaire was circulated

118
among students of AIOU in Pakistan, using convenience sampling method. As AIOU
was the only university which are providing distance learning education in Pakistan,
that’s why researcher chose it. The sample size comprised of two hundred and forty
five students of AIOU

Procedure
Research team made a visit of AIOU main campus in Islamabad and collected data
from the students. For this purpose, firstly researchers briefed them about the
purpose of this study and the variables along with their item, which were in the
questionnaires.

Measure/Instrument
To measure the student satisfaction, six items were adapted from the study of
Arbaugh (2000). These items focus on students’ satisfaction, their perceptions of its
quality and their intention of taking future courses via distance learning. To measure
the student-instructor interaction, five items were adopted from the study of
Johnson, Aragon, Shaik, and Palma-Rivas (2000). Likewise, a College of Education,
Texas Tech University teaching evaluation scale items of fall 2001 were used to
measure instructor performance and course evaluation (Tallent-Runnels at al., 2005).
The questionnaire has two parts and comprised of 26 items. . First section included
demographic information and the next section contained the variables items. The
demographic profile included four items:

 Gender,
 age,
 student type and
 educational level.

Each of the items was measured using five-point Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 as
strongly disagree to 5 as strongly agree. Table: 1 reveals the demographic profile of
the respondents.
Table: 1
Respondents’ Demographic Profile

Frequency %
Gender
Male 131 46.5
Female 114 53.5
Age
Between 20 to 25 77 68.6
Above 25 168 31.4
Student’s type
Part time 156 63.7
Full time 89 36.3
Academic program
Intermediate
Intermediate 18 7.3
Bachelors 48 19.6
Master 167 68.2
Others 12 4.9

119
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Reliability Analysis
Prior to further data collection, in the pilot study, research team used reliability
coefficient Cronbach’s alpha in order to measure the reliability of the constructs. The
sample for the pilot study comprised of twenty three respondents. Table: 2 show the
items and Cronbach’s alpha of each variable respectively, which are acceptable for
research.
Table: 2 Reliability Analysis

No. of Cronbach Alpha

Students satisfaction 6 0.680
Student-instructor 5 0.737
iInstructor
t ti performance 9 0.882
Course evaluation 6 0.680

Test of Hypothesis
Table: 3 Student Satisfaction

Student-instructor Pearson 0.413**

interaction Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 245
Instructor Pearson 0.616**
performance Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 245
Course evaluation Pearson 0.637**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 245
Note: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

To investigate the relationship between the dependent variable, student satisfaction,

and the following three predictor variables were tested: student-instructor
interaction, instructor performance and course evaluation. Correlation and regression
analysis was used. Table: 3 explain the results which clearly show the significant
positive relationship between the dependents and the independent variables.

Table: 4 Regression Analysis

Beta t-value Sig.

Constant 11.774 .000
Student-instructor interaction -.583 -6.590 .000
Instructor performance .721 7.660 .000
Course evaluation .510 7.068 .000

n=245 ; R Square=.528; Adjusted R Square=0.522;

F=89.897; Significance F=0.00;
Dependent variable=Student satisfaction

120
 Table: 5
Key Factors for Determining Student Satisfaction

Student-Instructor Interaction: SD% D% N% A% SA%

The instructors encouraged me to
become actively involved in the
courses discussions 17.6 11.4 2.4 37.6 31.0
The instructors provided me
feedback
on my work through comments 7.3 12.7 7.8 20.8 51.4
I was able to interact with the
instructors during the courses
discussions 5.3 9.8 9.8 33.5 41.6
The instructors treated me
individually 5.3 18.4 6.1 23.3 26.9
The instructors informed me about
my progress periodically 14.7 13.5 9.2 35.1 17.6
Instructor Performance: SD% D% N% A% SA%
Overall this instructors were
effective 2.4 12.7 2.7 33.5 38.8
The instructors were available for
consultation during office hours or by
appointment. 4.9 18.8 5.5 29.4 31.4
The instructors stimulated students
learning. 0 12.2 0.2 21.6 55.9
The instructors treated all students
fairly 9.0 15.1 1.6 22.4 31.8
The instructor treated all students with
respect 4.9 6.5 9.8 43.7 35.1
The instructor welcomed and
encouraged
questions and comments. 4.9 14.3 2.9 34.7 43.3
The instructor presented the
information clearly. 2.4 23.7 7.8 39.2 26.9
The instructor emphasized the
major points and concepts. 11.8 7.3 9.8 29.4 41.6
The instructor demonstrated
knowledge of the subject. 2.4 23.7 7.8 39.2 26.9
Course Evaluation: SD% D% N% A% SA%
Overall, I have valuable learning
experiences from my courses. 4.9 2.4 4.5 33.9 54.3
The assignments were relevant and
useful. 9.0 2.4 7.3 53.5 27.8
Courses materials were relevant and
useful 2.4 9.8 4.9 38.4 44.5
Expectations were clearly stated either
verbally or in the syllabus. 12.7 7.3 4.5 47.8 27.8
The testing and evaluation procedures
were fair. 16.7 9.8 4.9 51.0 17.6
The workload was appropriate
for the hours of credit. 7.8 14.7 8.4 44.5 14.7
Where SD means strongly disagree, D means disagree, N means neutral,
A means agree and SA means strongly agree

121
The correlation matrix (Table: 5) indicates that student-instructor interaction is
positively and significantly correlated with students satisfaction (0.413(**), p<0.05,
H1 supported). The results reveal that instructor performance positively and
significantly influence the students’ satisfaction (0.616(**), p<0.05, H2 supported).
Likewise, there is also a significant and positive relationship between the course
evaluation and students satisfaction (0.637(**), p<0.05, H3 supported).

Student-Instructor Interaction
Student-Instructor Interaction is the first strongest variable in predicting students’
satisfaction. Students were asked about their courses discussions, feedback and
interactions with instructors, instructor ability to treat them individually and lastly
informing about their progress periodically.

Approximately 68% of the students queried agreed that instructors encouraged them
to become actively involved in the courses discussions. The following student
comments support the need for instructor’s encouragement to actively involved
students in the courses discussions. These were substantiated by the findings of
Durling et al. (1996). Furthermore, the majority of the students, 71% and 75%
reported they liked discussion and feedback from their instructors. Although almost
51% of the respondents agreed that instructors treated them individually and also
informed about my progress periodically, on average 26% disagreed with these
statements.

As, distance education is a learner-centered instruction, this finding confirms that

instructor support, such as useful feedback, easy communication and timely help is
still an important factor for student satisfaction in distance learning. According to
Young and Norgard (2006), timely interaction with students regarding their
performance enhances their productivity in distance learning courses.

Furthermore, in terms of achieving overall student’s satisfaction, distance learning

instructors should be able to understand the diversity of the students and treat each
student accordingly (Banerjee & Brinckerhoff, 2002).

Instructor Performance
The second significant predictor of student satisfaction is instructor performance. In
this section students were asked, “Overall these instructors were effective”.
Approximately 72% of the students queried agreed that during their degree program,
overall the instructor were effective. The following student comments support the
need for experienced professional instructors for the student’s satisfaction (Hong et
al., 2003). Moreover, students were asked about teachers availability during office
hours, their motivation to learn, giving them respect, encouraging question and
comments, presenting the information clearly, highlighting the major points and
concepts, and demonstration of knowledge.

On average about 68% of the respondents were agreed about all these points and
considered these things important in order to enhance their satisfaction level with
distance learning courses. Therefore, instructors of distance education should be
available, provide prompt responses, and encourage their students through online
learning activities. These findings also suggest that interaction with the instructor in
distance learning environment affects student success and learning (Areti, 2006;
Chen & Guo, 2005).

Course Evaluation
Students were queried about their feelings regarding learning experiences,
assignments, and courses materials, achievement of courses targets, workload, and
evaluation criteria in their distance courses.

122
According to table V, majority of the students agreed that they learned a lot from
their courses, assignments and courses materials were relevant and useful, courses
targets was achieved during the semester, and that evaluation criteria and workloads
were satisfactory. This finding indicates that students are expected to be more
satisfied in distance learning environments if the course materials are relevant and
useful, and involves real life examples, facts, and cases (Northrup, 2002).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The results of this study indicated that majority of the students at this campus
showed high level of satisfaction regarding students-instructor interaction, instructor
performance and course evaluation. This reveals that just like the traditional
education, in distance learning education at AIOU, enough interaction take place
between students and their instructors, courses are up to date and well designed,
instructors are devoted, motivated and equipped with the required skill and
knowledge. Further more, the availability of distance education in pakistan,
increasing number of degree program offered and the increasing number of students
enrolled, all speak to the students satisfaction and the effectiveness of the distance
learning education. This implies that faculty at AIOU is delivering distance learning
courses that meet the students' needs in regard to students-instructor interaction,
instructor performance and course evaluation. After the findings of this research
study, it will not be logical to presume that distance learning students do not perform
well as compare to traditional students. Moreover, the research team hopes that
these findings may change the pessimistic perceptions of those people in Pakistan
who perceived distance learning as poorer quality.

Besides, the research team suggests that AIOU increase the number of its sub-
campuses to the distant districts of the country where literacy rate is still low.
Because people belongs to these remote areas also have the desire to get education
but due to financial, geographic and cultural reasons they cannot get it.
Consequently, AIOU may contribute its vital role to improve literacy rate in Pakistan.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION

This research study has few limitations. The selected sample size may not be
completely representative of the majority of students of distance learning at AIOU.
Additionally, the main campus of AIOU i.e. Islamabad was selected. Thus, there may
be a possibility that these results may not reflect the whole AIOU campuses. For
future point of view one can consider the students of other campuses and sub
campuses of AIOU, especially those established in small and undeveloped cities in
order to find out their satisfaction level towards distance learning. Secondly, to
explore the reasons why students select distance learning for higher education in
Pakistan is also an important point for future research viewpoint.

BIODATA and CONTACT ADDRESSES of AUTHORS

Afzaal ALI is doing PhD in marketing from International Islamic

University Islamabad, Pakistan. He also earned an MBA degree from
COMSATS institute of information technology Lahore, Pakistan. He is
currently a program coordinator of Mathematics Department at the
International Islamic university Islamabad, Pakistan. His current
research interests include Distance learning and its applications,
green marketing and factors which influence the adaptation of
green products, and consumers behaviors’. He has also presented
numerous papers at professional conferences worldwide.

123
Afzaal ALI (Contact Author)
International Islamic University,
Islamabad, PAKISTAN
Cell No: +92-344-5466204
E-mail: Afzaal_ciit@yahoo.com

Dr. Muhammad I. RAMAY has received his PhD degree from CASE
university which is affiliated with the University of Engineering and
Technology Taxila, Pakistan, and his MBA is in Marketing and
Management from the American International College, Springfield,
Massachusetts. USA. He also earned an M.Sc in Geography, from the
Punjab University, Lahore, Pakistan. Currently, he is a professor of
marketing and management at the International Islamic University
Islamabad, Pakistan, having previously been employed at American International
College Massachusetts, USA, Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Air University
Islamabad, COMSATS University and Hamdard University in Pakistan. He has been
published more than one hundred research papers and case studies conferences
worldwide

Dr. Muhammad I. RAMAY

International Islamic University, Islamabad, PAKISTAN
Cell No: +92-300-8565533

Mudasar SHAHZAD is doing PhD in finance from International Islamic University,

Islamabad, Pakistan. He earned an MBA from COMSAT institute of information
technology Lahore, Pakistan. His current research interests includes Distance learning
and Women entrepreneurship in Pakistan

Mudassar SHAHZAD
International Islamic University, Islamabad, PAKISTAN
Cell No: +92-301-5159695

REFERENCES

Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction
with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: a meta-
analysis. Am erican Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83-97

Anderson, T. D., & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Transactional issues in distance education:

The impact of design in audio teleconferencing. The Am erican Journal of Distance
Education , 9 , 27–45.

Andria Y., & Chari N. (2006). “Assessing the quality of online courses from the
students' perspective”. I nternet and Higher Education , 9, 107–115

Arbaugh, J. B. (2000a). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with

internet-based MBA courses. Journal of M anagem ent Education, 24, 32-54

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. Assessm ent for Effective I ntervention , 27(3), 25-35

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.

124
Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance education. The
Am erican Journal of Distance Education , 4(2), 26–34.

Belanger, F., & Jordan, D. H. (2000). Evaluation and im plem entation of distance
learning: Technologies, tools and techniques. Hershey, P A: I dea Publishing Group .

Collis, B. (1995), Anticipating the impact of multimedia in education: lessons from the
literature, Com puters in Adult Education and Training , 2(2), 136-49.

Conrad, D. (2006). E-Learning and Social Change: An Apparent Contradiction. InM.

Beaudoin (Ed.), Perspectives on higher education in the digital age, New York: Nova
Science Publishers. 21-33

DeBourgh, G. A. (1999). Technology is the tool, teaching is the task: Student

satisfaction in distance learning. P roceedings of Society for I nform ation Technology
and Teacher Education I nternational Conference , 131-137

Du, J., Havard, B., & Li, H. (2005). Dynamic online discussion: Task-oriented
interaction for deep learning. Educational M edia I nternational , 42(3), 207-218.

Durling, D., Cross, N., & Johnson, J. (1996). CAI with style. P aper presented at the
18th Annual Design Conference-Com puter-aided Design Education (University of
Bristol, England, June 26-27, 1997).

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 Netw ork s , 4(2),
7–41.

Fresen, J. (2007). A Taxonomy of factors to promote quality web-supported learning.

I nternational Journal on E-Learning , 6(3), 351-362.

Ho, C., Leong, P., & Saromines-Ganne, B. (2002). An empirical investigation of student
satisfaction with Web-based courses. In M. Driscoll & T. Reeves (Eds.), Proceedings of
World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher
Education, 1792-1795

Hong, K.S., Lai, K.W., & Holton, D. (2003). Students' satisfaction and perceived
learning with a Web based course. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 6(1).

Inman, E., Kerwin, M., & Mayes, L. (1999). Instructor and student attitudes toward
distance learning. Com m unity College Journal of Research and P ractice , 23(6), 581-
591

Irani, T. (1998). Communication potential, information richness and attitude: A study

of computer mediated communication in the ALN classroom. ALN M agazine , 2(1)

Jensen, R. E. (1993). The technology of the future is already here. Academ e , 79, 8–13.

Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative
analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face
learning environments. Journal of I nteractive Learning Research , 11(1), 29-49.

Jones, A.J. (2003). ICT and Future Teachers: Are we preparing for e-Learning? Paper
presented at the IFIP Working Groups 3.1 and 3.3 Conference: ICT and the Teacher of
the Future, January 27-31, 2003, Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Distance Education ,
4, 21–29.

125
Kershaw, A. (1996). People, planning, and process: The acceptance of technological
innovation in post-secondary organizations. Educational Technology , 44-48.

King, K. P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as

transformative learning opportunities. Com puters & Education , (39), 283-297.

Lao, T., & Gonzales, C. (2005). Understanding online learning through a qualitative
description of professors and students' experiences. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 133, 459–474.

Levin, J. A., Kim, H., & Riel, M. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional interactions on
electronic message networks', in On-line Education: Perspectives on a New
Environment, ed. L. Harasim , P raeger, New York , 16-38.

Levy, Y. (2003). A study of learners perceived value and satisfaction for implied
effectiveness of online learning systems. Dissertation Abstracts I nternational , 65(03),
1014A.

Louden, W. (2000). Standards for standards: the development of Australian

professional standards for teaching. Australian Journal of Education , 44(2), 118-34

Michailidou, A., & Economides, A. (2003). Elearn: Towards a collaborative educational

virtual environment. Journal of I nform ation Technology Education , 2, 131-152.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction, The Am erican Journal of

Distance Education , 3(2), 1-6.

Moore, M. G. (1993). Three types of interaction. In K. Harry, M. Hohn, & D. Keegan

(Ed.), Distance education: New perspectives , 12-24). London: Routledge.

Morgan Brian, (2000). Is distance learning worth it? Helping to determine the cost of
online courses.

Northrup, P. (2001). A framework for designing interactivity into Web-based

Instruction. Educational Technology , 41(2), 31-39.

Northrup, P. T. (2002). Online learners' preferences for interaction. Quarterly Review

of Distance Education , 32, 219–226.

Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence,

and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning N etw orks, 6 (1), 21-40

Poon, W. C., Low, L. T., & Yong, G. F. (2004). A study of Web-based learning (WBL)
environment in Malaysia. The I nternational Journal of Educational M anagem ent, 18(6), 374-
385

Roffe, I. (2002). E-learning: engagement, enhancement and execution. Quality

Assurance in Education, 10(1), 40-50

Romiszowski, A. (2004). How’s the E-learning Baby? Factors Leading to Success or

Failure of an Educational Technology Innovation. Educational Technology , 44 (1), 5–
27.

Sahin, I. (2007). Predicting student satisfaction in distance education and learning

environments. Turk ish Online Journal of Distance Education , 8(2), 1302–6488

126
Sargeant, J., Curran, V., Allen, M., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Ho, K. (2006). Facilitating
interpersonal interaction and learning online: Linking theory and practice. The
Journal of Continuing Education in the Health P rofessions, 26, 128-136.

Selim, H. M. (2005). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory

factor models. Computers and Education. Retrieved February 9, 2007, from
http://mail. phy.bg.ac.yu/~marijam/milos/science7.pdf

Shea, P. J., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A follow-up investigation of teaching
presence in the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Netw ork s ,
7(2), 61–80.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and
perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education , 22 (2), 306-
316

Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz,W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building
knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the
virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Com puting Research , 234, 359–383.

Tallent-RunnelsT, M. K., Lan, W. Y., Fryer, W., Thomas, J. A., Cooper, T. S. & Wang, K.,
(2005). The relationship between problems with technology and graduate students’
evaluations of online teaching. I nternet and Higher Education , 8, 167–174

Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. The
I nternational Journal of Educational M anagem ent , 14(5), 216-223

Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences

and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. The I nternet and
Higher Education , 6, 77–90.

Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2004). Distance education at degree granting postsecondary
institutions: 200-2001. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_5/5_3/4_4.asp
Retrieved November 19, 2010

Walker, K. B., & Hackman, M. Z. (1991). Information transfer and nonverbal

immediacy as primary predictors of learning and satisfaction in the televised course.
ERI C Docum ent Reproduction Service, ED 344 266.

Wang, Y. S. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic

learning systems. I nform ation and M anagem ent , 41(1), 75-86.

Wilson, T., & Whitelock, D. (1998). Monitoring the on-line behavior of distance
learning students. Journal of Com puter Assisted Learning , 14, 91–99.

Yang, Y., & Cornelius, L. F. (2004). Students' perceptions towards the quality of online
education: A qualitative approach. Association for Educational Com m unications and
Technology , 27, 861–877.

Zeng, W. Y., & Perris, K. (2004). Researching the efficacy of online learning: A
collaborative effort amongst scholars in Asian open universities. Open Learning, 193,
247–264.

127