Abstract

Presently online courses have been a big agenda in educational institutes apart from their academic hours and to engage students more in their studies apart from their involvement in academic hours. The purpose of this study is how the online program quality can be improved from both business point of view as well as for the understanding of student’s expectation from an online program irrespective of one’s interest. In this study, researchers tried to analyse the relationship among various factors involved leading to student satisfaction which become the source of successful online programs. This study applied SEM on smart PLS to analyse a survey of 100 respondents and found that Online program quality Perception is the multifaceted dimension, and it also involves quality instructors who also seen as a significant construct. Based on the literature review and discussions presented the theoretical framework for online learning program course quality was developed. Findings indicate that high student satisfaction is relatively associated with the user-friendly interface, which eases the students to further continue with the course. Along with these quality instructors also contribute much to student satisfaction. Content of course, although assumed to be essential along with the online discussion on forums it was found not significant, which is a surprise and unexpected finding. Based on calculations and modelling estimates, the model is in the best fit. The results show in the form of external loadings of every construct, which is given below explains the variance of respective latent constructs. It was also found that factors are contributing to perceived online programme effectiveness which are Course Content, Online Assignments, Interaction with Peers, Quality Instructors and User Interface respectively. 

Keywords: online program, student satisfaction, MOOCS, programme effectiveness, quality instructors, higher education.

JEL Classification: M31, I23, I21.

Cite as: Nazneen, A., Alsulimani, T., & Sharma, R. (2020). Marketing and management in higher education: the relationship between the quality of online programmes and student’s satisfaction. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2, 235-246. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2020.2-17

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Akter, S., D’Ambra, J. & Ray, P. (2011). Trustworthiness in mHealth information services: an assessment of a hierarchical model with mediating and moderating effects using partial least squares (PLS). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 100-116.[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950. [Google Scholar]
3. Al-Rahmi, W. M, Alias, N., Othman, M. S., Alzahrani, A. I., Alfarraj, O, Saged, A. A & Rahman, N. S. A. (2018). Use of e-learning by University students in Malaysian higher educational institutions: a case in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. IEEE Access ,6,14268-14276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411. [Google Scholar]
5. Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Beyth-Marom, R., Saporta, K., & Caspi, A. (2005). Synchronous vs. asynchronous tutorials: Factors affecting students’ preferences and choices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 245-262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Bhatti, N, Bouch, A., & Kuchinsky, A. (2000). Integrating user-perceived quality into web server design. Computer Networks 33, (1-6),1-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
9. Bouilheres, F., McDonald, S., Nkhoma, C., &Jandug- Montera, L. (2020). Defining student learning experience through blended learning. Education and Information Technologies, 1-21. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
10. Chao, I. T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 106-126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. CHEA. (2002). Accreditation and Assuring Quality in Distance Learning. CHEA Monograph Series 2002, Volume 1. Retrieved from https://www.chea.org/accreditation-and-assuring-quality-distance-learning
12. Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., Sun, S. Y., Lin, T. C., & Sun, P. C. (2005). Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions. Computers & Education, 45(4), 399-416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and higher education, 15(1), 3-8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The Delone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4), 9-30. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
15. Diamond, R. M. (2011). Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
16. Ensher, E. A., Heun, C., & Blanchard, A. (2003). Online mentoring and computer-mediated communication: New directions in research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 264-288. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
17. Farhan, W., Razmak, J., Demers, S., & Laflamme, S. (2019). E-learning systems versus instructional communication tools: Developing and testing a new e-learning user interface from the perspectives of teachers and students. Technology in Society, 59, 101192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Fein, A. D., & Logan, M. C. (2003). Preparing instructors for online instruction. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Fife, J. D. (1988). Cognitive process in critical thinking. ASHE-Higher Education Report 17(2), 25-49. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aehe.3640170207
20. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Greenagel, F. L. (2002). The illusion of e-learning: why we’re missing out on the promise of technology. On line learning, 4. [Google Scholar]
22. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-219). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall. [Google Scholar]
23. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M. & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2011). Higher-level knowledge construction in asynchronous online discussions: An analysis of group size, duration of online discussion, and student facilitation techniques. Instructional Science, 39, 303-319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].
26. Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52, 78–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef].
27. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Ives, B, Olson, M. H., & Baroudi, J. J. (1983). the measurement of user satisfaction. Communications of the ACM 26(10), 785-793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Kintu , M. J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 7.[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Kituyi, G., & Tusubira, I. (2013). A framework for the integration of e-learning in higher education institutions in developing countries. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 9(2).[Google Scholar]
31. Lee, J. W. (2010). Online support service quality, online learning acceptance, and student satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 277-283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Lee, M. Y., Knight, D., & Kim, Y. K. (2008). Brand analysis of a US global brand in comparison with domestic brands in Mexico, Korea, and Japan. Journal of product & brand management.[Google Scholar][CrossRef]
33. Li, C. S., & Irby, B. (2008). An Overview of online education: Attractiveness, benefits, challenges, concerns, and recommendations. College Student Journal, 42(2), 449–458. [Google Scholar]
34. Limani, Y., Hajrizi, E., Stapleton, L., & Retkoceri, M. (2019). Digital Transformation Readiness in Higher Education Institutions (HEI): The Case of Kosovo. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(25), 52-57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Lin, B., & Hsieh, C. T. (2001). Web-based teaching and learner control: A research review. Computers & Education, 37(3-4), 377-386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
36. Lucas Jr, H. C. (1978). Empirical model for a descriptive model of implementation. MIS Quarterly, 27-41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Luyt, I. (2013). Bridging spaces: Cross-cultural perspectives on promoting positive online learning experiences. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 42, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
38. Lyons, J. F. (2004). Teaching US history online: Problems and prospects. The History Teacher, 37, 447–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. Taylor and Francis group: New York. [CrossRef]
40. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28-43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. McLoughlin, C., Brady, J., Lee, M.J. & Russell, R. (2007). Peer-to-peer: An e-mentoring approach to facilitating reflection on professional experience for novice teachers. In Australian Association for Research in Education: AARE 2007. AARE. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/881624/Peer-to-peer_An_e-mentoring_approach_to_developing_community_mutual_engagement_and_professional_identity_for_pre-service_teachers
42. Moallem, M. (2003). An interactive online course: A collaborative design model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 85-103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Retrieved from http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1979/A1979HZ31300001.pdf
44. Puzziferro, M. & Shelton, K. (2014). A model for developing high quality online courses: Integrating a systems approach with learning theory. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12. [Google Scholar]
45. Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 53-65. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
46. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 M3 Beta. [Google Scholar]
47. Robey, D. (1979). User attitudes and management information system use. Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 527-538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. (2016). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. UK: John Wiley and Sons. [Google Scholar]
49. Shi, D. (2010). The Measurement of the CSI of e-learning courseware. In 2010 International Conference on E-Business and E-Government (pp. 5586-5589). IEEE. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Shu, H, & Gu, X. (2018). Determining the differences between Online and face to face student group interactions in a blended learning course. The Internet and Higher Education ,39 ,13-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Smaldino, S. E. & Yamagata-Lynch, L. (2015). The course-in-a-box: Design issues. TechTrends, 59(4), 71-78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Teo, T. (2010). A Path analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes to computer use: applying and extending the technology acceptance model in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65-79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Thorndike, R. M. (1995). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.) by Jum Nunnally and Ira Bernstein New York: McGraw-Hill. [CrossRef]
54. Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA Journal, 19(2), 5–9. [Google Scholar]
55. Voogt, J., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R. C., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43(2), 259-282. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
56. Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2008). Who is responsible for e-learning success in higher education? A stakeholders’ analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 26-36. [Google Scholar]
57. Xu, D., Huang, W. W., Wang, H., & Heales, J. (2014). Enhancing e-learning effectiveness using an intelligent agent-supported personalised virtual learning environment: An Empirical investigation. Information & Management, 51(4), 430440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Xu, H., & Morris, L. V. (2007). Collaborative course development for online courses. Innovation in Higher Education, 32, 35-47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59. Zhai, X., Gu, J., Liu, H., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2017). An experiential learning perspective on students’ satisfaction model in a flipped classroom context. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 198-210 [Google Scholar]
60. Zhang, D., Zhou, L., & Briggs, R. O. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & Management, 43, 15-27. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]