Cited by 119Online and Blended LearningTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesOnline Learning and Analytics

Structural relationship of key factors for student satisfaction and achievement in asynchronous online learning

Open access
Kim, Sohee, Kim, Dae-Jin·2021·Sustainability

Abstract

This study examines the structural relationship among key factors influencing student satisfaction and achievement in online learning. A structural model was developed by considering course structure, student–student interaction, instructor presence, student engagement, student satisfaction and achievement as key factors. In order to verify the effectiveness of the developed structural model, we utilized the survey data collected from a total of 250 students enrolled in two asynchronous online courses offered at Kyung Hee University in Korea in the fall semester of 2020. Then, the collected survey data were analyzed using the structural equation model. The verification of the statistical analysis results indicates that the course structure has a more significant effect on the student satisfaction and achievement than the other key factors such as the student–student interaction, instructor presence and student engagement. It also reveals that the student engagement affects only the student satisfaction and has a mediated effect between student–student interaction and student satisfaction.

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 · 10.3390/su13126734

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Effective interactive content reduces network loss and promotes high levels of learner engagement in learning activities, and has a positive impact on learning outcomes.

    “Effective interactive content, which reduces network loss and promotes high levels of learner engagement in learning activities, has a positive impact on learning outcomes (Kim and Kim, 2021).”

    From Exploring the factors influencing college students’ learning satisfaction in generative AI-supported MOOCs learning environment: a learning experience framework perspective (2025) · cites this paper as Kim and Kim, 2021

    The Discussion (§4.4; page unavailable) reports that course structure positively affects academic achievement and that student-student interaction positively affects engagement. It does not report that interactive content reduces network loss. It also finds that engagement has no significant effect on academic achievement, so the claimed pathway to learning outcomes is not established. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Sier, A. Accessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in Web-based Online Learning Environment. J. Interact. Online Learn. 2009, 8, 102-120.
  2. Sorensen, C.; Baylen, D.M. Interaction in Interactive Television Instruction: Perception or Reality. In Proceedings of the Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Montreal, QC, Canada, 19-23 April 1999.
  3. Imsa-ard, P. Thai university students' perceptions towards the abrupt transition to 'forced' online learning in the COVID-19 situation. J. Educ. Khon Univ. 2020, 43, 30-44.
  4. Trowler, V. Student Engagement Literature Review, The Higher Education Academy. 2010. Available online: https://d1wqtxts1 xzle7.cloudfront.net (accessed on 28 January 2021).
  5. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Analysis of Variance; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1992.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, S., & Kim, D.-J.
Affiliations
  • Center for Teaching and Learning, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 02447, Korea
  • Kyung Hee University (KR)
Corresponding author
Kim, Dae-Jin
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-06-14
Volume
13
Issue
12
Pages
6734
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3171598681
Cited by
107
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 6
FWCI
32.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Research Foundation of Korea (2020R1A2C1014806)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
asynchronous online learning, student satisfaction, academic performance, course structure, student-student interaction, teacher presence, student engagement, mediating effect, online course design

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