The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Determinants of Students’ Perceived Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction in University Online Education: An Update*
Abstract
A stream of research over the past decade that identifies predictors of e‐learning success suggests that there are several critical success factors (CSFs) that must be managed effectively to fully realize promise for e‐learning. Grounded in constructivist learning theories, this study advances previous work on CSFs in university online education. Structural equation modeling is applied to examine the determinants of students’ satisfaction and their perceived learning outcomes in the context of university online courses. The independent variables of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic), student self‐regulation, dialogue (instructor‐student, and student‐student), instructor, and course design are examined as potential determinants of online learning outcomes. A total of 372 responses from students who have completed at least one online course at a university in the Midwestern United States were used to examine the structural model. Findings indicate that instructor‐student dialogue, student‐student dialogue, instructor, and course design significantly affect students’ satisfaction and learning outcomes. However, both extrinsic student motivation and student self‐regulation have no significant relationship with user satisfaction and learning outcomes. Finally, intrinsic student motivation affects learning outcomes but not user satisfaction. The findings suggest that course design, instructor, and dialogue are the strongest predictors of user satisfaction and learning outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666
Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry
Flavell, J. H. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906 · Cited by 11,282
Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 · Cited by 8,332
Modern Methods for Business Research
(1998) · doi:10.4324/9781410604385 · Cited by 6,534
A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329 · Cited by 3,807
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.3102/0002831207312909 · Cited by 3,735
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0026838 · Cited by 3,646
Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Mslq)
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024 · Cited by 3,646
The Predictive Sample Reuse Method with Applications
Geisser, S. (1975) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1975.10479865 · Cited by 2,748
Cited by
Baber, H. (2020) · Journal of Education and e-Learning Research · doi:10.20448/journal.509.2020.73.285.292 · Cited by 716
Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study
Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016 · Cited by 720
Gopal, R., Singh, V., & Aggarwal, A. (2021) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10523-1 · Cited by 618
Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., López Sánchez, J. Á., & Godoy-Caballero, A. L. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103608 · Cited by 312
Landrum, B. (2020) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v24i3.2066 · Cited by 168
Metadata
- Authors
- Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N.
- Venue
- Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-04
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 185-215
- ISSN
- 1540-4595 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-4609
- OpenAlex
- W2327510090
- Cited by
- 388
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 89.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Determinants of Students’ Perceived Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction in University Online Education: An Update*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/dsji.12097
- The paper
- Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The Determinants of Students’ Perceived Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction in University Online Education: An Update*. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12097
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.