CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 168Online and Blended LearningTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesEducation and Learning Interventions

Examining students' confidence to learn online, self-regulation skills and perceptions of satisfaction and usefulness of online classes

Open access
Landrum, Brittany·2020·Online Learning
DOI 10.24059/olj.v24i3.2066
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As online class offerings continue to proliferate and more students take at least one online class in college, more research is needed to explore factors that impact students’ perceptions of their online classes. Past research has found a positive relationship between students’ computer self-efficacy and their satisfaction with online learning, but little research has explored how learning management system and online learning self-efficacy relate to perceptions of satisfaction and perceived usefulness of online classes. In addition to confidence, students must also implement and apply their learning skills in an online environment; thus self-regulation and time management as well as past online learning experience are additional factors that have been shown to be related to satisfaction with and usefulness of online learning. This study explores how students’ confidence regarding their ability to use online learning platforms, utilize self-regulation strategies, and their confidence in their ability to learn in online classes predict both their satisfaction with and perceived usefulness of online classes. Multiple regression analyses revealed that students’ confidence to learn online was the strongest positive predictor of satisfaction and usefulness of online classes. The results indicate that exploring students’ purpose and reasons for taking online classes, beyond a students’ skill set and learning strategies, are fruitful directions to pursue when assessing evaluations of online classes.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.24059/olj.v24i3.2066

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Learners in online learning environments face more challenges in seeking help as instantly and effectively as they do in traditional face-to-face learning settings.

    “Learners engaged in online learning environments are faced with more challenges in seeking help as instantly and effectively as they do in traditional face-to-face learning settings (Landrum, 2020; Li et al., 2021).”

    From A Systematic Review of Studies Exploring Help-Seeking Strategies in Online Learning Environments (2023) · cites this paper as Landrum, 2020

    The introductory discussion reports that students in online classes have fewer opportunities to interact with professors and may lack feedback. That supports a general difficulty in obtaining help, but the paper does not establish that help is less immediate or effective than in face-to-face classes. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Al-Azawei, A., & Lundqvist, K. (2015). Learner differences in perceived satisfaction of an online learning: An extension to the technology acceptance model in an Arabic sample. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13(5), 408-426.
  2. Alqurashi, E. (2016). Self-efficacy in online learning environments: A literature review. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 9(1), 45-51.
  3. Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133-148.
  4. Artino, A. R. (2008). Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instructional quality: Predicting satisfaction with online training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 260-270.
  5. Artino, A. R., Jr., & McCoach, D. B. (2008). Development and initial validation of the Online Learning Value and Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 279-303.
  6. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
  7. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
  8. Blackmon, S. J., & Major, C. (2012). Student experiences in online courses: A qualitative research synthesis. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(2), 77-85.
  9. Blau, G., Mittal, N., Schirmer, M., & Ozkan B. (2017). Differences in business undergraduate perceptions by preferred classroom learning environment. Journal of Education for Business, 92(6), 280-287.
  10. Bowers, J., & Kumar, P. (2015). Students' perceptions of teaching and social presence: A comparative analysis of face-to-face and online learning environments. International Journal of Web Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 10, 27-44. doi: 10.4018/ijwltt.2015010103 · DOI
  11. Bradley, R. L., Browne, B. L., & Kelley, H. M. (2017). Examining the influence of self-efficacy and self-regulation in online learning. College Student Journal, 51(4), 518-530.
  12. Bristow, D., Shepherd, C. D., Humphreys, M., & Ziebell, M. (2011). To be or not to be: That isn't the question! An empirical look at online versus traditional brick-and-mortar courses at the university level. Marketing Education Review, 21(3), 241-250.
  13. Chang, C.-S., Liu, E. Z.-F., Sung, H.-Y., Lin, C.-H., Chen, N.-S., & Cheng, S.-S. (2014). Effects of online college student's internet self-efficacy on learning motivation and performance. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(4), 366-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.771429 · DOI
  14. Chen, H., Islam, A. Y. M. A., Gu, X., Teo, T., & Peng, Z. (2019). Technology-enhanced learning and research using databases in higher education: The application of the ODAS model. Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1614149 · DOI
  15. Chu, R. J. (2010). How family support and internet self-efficacy influence the effects of e-learning among higher aged adults-Analyses of gender and age differences. Computers & Education, 55(1), 255-264.
  16. Cochran, J. D., Baker, H. M., Benson, D., & Rhea, W. (2016). Business student perceptions of online learning: Using focus groups for richer understanding of student perspectives. Organization Management Journal, 13(3), 149-166.
  17. Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., Thompson, J., Kramer, L., DeCantis, G., & Hermsdorfer, A. (2015). Student satisfaction with online learning: Is it a psychological contract? Online Learning, 19(2), 122-136. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i2.496 · DOI
  18. Endres, M. L., Chowdhury, S., Frye, C., & Hurtubis, C. A. (2009). The multifaceted nature of online MBA student satisfaction and impacts on behavioral intentions. Journal of Education for Business, 84(5), 304-312.
  19. Eom, S. B. (2012). Effects of LMS, Self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning on LMS effectiveness in business education. Journal of International Education in Business, 5(2), 129-144.
  20. 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, 14(2), 185-215.
  21. Gaytan, J. (2015). Comparing faculty and student perceptions regarding factors that affect student retention in online education. American Journal of Distance Education, 29, 56-66. doi: 10.1080/08923647.2015.994365 · DOI
  22. Hammouri, Q., & Abu-Shanab, E. (2018). Exploring factors affecting users' satisfaction toward E- learning systems. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 14(1), 44-57.
  23. Hobson, T. D., & Puruhito, K. K. (2018). Going the distance: Online course performance and motivation of distance learning students. Online Learning, 22(4), 129-140.
  24. Hodges, C. B. (2008). Self-efficacy, motivational email, and achievement in an asynchronous math course. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(3), 265-285.
  25. Horspool, A., & Lange, C. (2012). Applying the scholarship of teaching and learning: student perceptions, behaviours and success online and face-to-face. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 73-88.
  26. Islam, A. Y. M. A., Leng, C. H., & Singh, D. (2015). Efficacy of the Technology Satisfaction Model (TSM): An empirical study. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), 11(2), 45-60.
  27. Jackson, L. C., Jones, S. J., & Rodriguez, R. C. (2010). Faculty actions that result in student satisfaction in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14, 78-96.
  28. 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.
  29. Jensen, S. A. (2011). In-class versus online video lectures: Similar learning outcomes, but a preference for in-class. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 298-302.
  30. Kırmızı, Ö. (2015). The influence of learner readiness on student satisfaction and academic achievement in an online program at higher education. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 133-142
  31. Kokko, T., Pesonen, H., Kontu, E., & Pirttimaa, R. (2015). Why study online in upper secondary school? Qualitative analysis of online learning experiences. Human Technology, 11(1), 57-70.
  32. Kucuk, S., & Richardson, J.C. (2019). A structural equation model of predictors of online learners' engagement and satisfaction. Online Learning, 23(2), 196-216. doi: 10.24059/olj.v23i2.1455 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Kuo, Y.-C., & Belland, B. R. (2016). An exploratory study of adult learners' perceptions of online learning: Minority students in continuing education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 661-680.
  34. Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 16-39.
  35. Lai, C.-L., Hwang, G.-J., & Tu, Y.-H. (2018). The effects of computer-supported self-regulation in science inquiry on learning outcomes, learning processes, and self-efficacy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 863-892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018- 9585-y · DOI
  36. Lee, J. K. & Hwang, C. Y. (2007). The effects of computer self-efficacy and learning management system quality on e-Learner's satisfaction. In L. Cameron, A. Voerman, & J. Dalziel (Eds), Proceedings of the 2007 European LAMS Conference: Designing the future of learning (pp. 73- 79). LAMS Foundation.
  37. Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers & Education, 48(2), 185-204.
  38. Li, N., Marsh, V., Rienties, B., & Whitelock, D. (2017). Online learning experiences of new versus continuing learners: A large-scale replication study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 657-672. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1176989 · DOI
  39. Liaw, S.-S., & Huang, H.-M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 14-24.
  40. 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.
  41. Lin, Y.-M., Lin, G.-Y., & Laffey, J. M. (2008). Building a social and motivational framework for understanding satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(1), 1-27.
  42. Martin, F., Tutty, J. I., & Su, Y. (2010). Influence of learning management systems self-efficacy on e-learning performance. Journal on School Educational Technology, 5(3), 26-35.
  43. Nistor, N., & Neubauer, K. (2010). From participation to dropout: Quantitative participation patterns in online university courses. Computers & Education, 55(2), 663-672.
  44. Palmer, S. R., & Holt, D. M. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 101-113.
  45. Palmer, S., & Holt, D. (2010). Students' perceptions of the value of the elements of an online learning environment: Looking back in moving forward. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(2), 135-151.
  46. Parahoo, S., Santally, M., Rajabalee, Y., & Harvey, H. (2016). Designing a predictive model of student satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(1), 1-19.
  47. Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2014). How do students self-regulate? Review of Zimmerman's cyclical model of self-regulated learning. Anales de Psicología, 30(2), 450-462.
  48. Riley, K., & Schmidt, D. (2016). Does online learning click with rural nurses? A qualitative study. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 24, 265-270.
  49. 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.
  50. Su, Y., Li, Y., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2018). Moving literature circles into wiki-based environment: The role of online self-regulation in EFL learners' attitude toward collaborative learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1527363 · DOI
  51. Sun, J. C.-Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191-204.
  52. Waldman, L., Perreault, H., Alexander, M., & Zhao, J. (2009). Comparing the perceptions of online learning between students with experience and those new to online learning. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 25(2), 20-29.
  53. Wang, C.-H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students' characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302-323.
  54. 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.
  55. Zimmerman, B. J. (1995a). Attaining reciprocality between learning and development through self- regulation. Human Development, 38(6), 367-372.
  56. Zimmerman, B. J. (1995b). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217-221.
  57. Zimmerman, W. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2016). Online learning self-efficacy in students with and without online learning experience. American Journal of Distance Education, 30(3), 180-191.
  58. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290.
  59. Zimmerman, B. J., Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2017). The role of self-efficacy and related beliefs in self-regulation of learning and performance. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 313-333). Guilford Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Landrum, B.
Affiliations
University of Dallas (US)
Corresponding author
Landrum, Brittany
ORCID
Landrum, Brittany
Venue
Online Learning
Publisher
The Online Learning Consortium
Published
2020-09-01
Volume
24
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 1092-8235 (ISSN-L)
  • 2472-5730
  • 2472-5749
DOI
10.24059/olj.v24i3.2066
OpenAlex
W3082480120
Cited by
168
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 1
FWCI
43.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Online Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Education and Learning Interventions
Keywords
student self-confidence, student self-regulation, computer self-efficacy, virtual learning environments, student satisfaction, perceived usefulness, time management, online learning experience, university students

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