| Literature DB >> 36128058 |
Abstract
As the COVID-19 pandemic pushed universities worldwide to shift from traditional to online learning, there is a need to capture the students' perception of online learning using an appropriate tool. Hence, this study explores the appropriateness of the online learning assessment survey (OLAS) model for assessing the students' perception of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. It included the undergraduate students (N = 2523) of the selected four health science colleges at Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University (IAU) during 2020-2021. The data was obtained through OLAS using "Google Docs" from 728 students. The structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis revealed that each item showed a significant positive relationship with its respective variable of OLAS. The proposed OLAS model with five variables showed a good fit to assess the students' perception of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Those variables enable the university policy planners to evaluate the students' perception of online learning during the pandemic, thereby supporting them in framing appropriate strategies to improve the quality and success of online learning. Further research is necessary to include all students of various programs offered at Saudi universities to generalize the outcomes. OLAS can include a global item assessing overall students' satisfaction with online learning, and the influence of OLAS variables on the overall students' satisfaction can be evaluated in future studies.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; Online learning; Structural equation modeling; Students perception; Survey tool
Year: 2022 PMID: 36128058 PMCID: PMC9477607 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10632
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Theoretical model – OLAS.
Descriptive statistics of OLAS variables.
| Variables | Mean | Standard Deviation | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Better experience for commute students (BECS) | 3.47 | 0.720 | −0.850 | 1.191 |
| Better engage students (BES) | 3.70 | 1.025 | −0.776 | 0.376 |
| Better interaction (BI) | 3.70 | 1.048 | −0.701 | 0.205 |
| Effective use of technology (EUT) | 3.89 | 0.934 | −0.894 | 0.924 |
| Learning outcomes (LOs) | 3.81 | 0.986 | −0.824 | 0.691 |
Reliability and validity of OLAS.
| Variables | No. of items | Cronbach’s Alpha (α) | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BECS | 05 | 0.71 | 0.882 | 0.600 |
| BES | 03 | 0.87 | 0.743 | 0.519 |
| BI | 04 | 0.94 | 0.903 | 0.699 |
| EUT | 04 | 0.86 | 0.807 | 0.521 |
| LOs | 04 | 0.92 | 0.775 | 0.517 |
| Overall | 20 | 0.96 |
Common communalities of OLAS.
| Item no. | Items | Initial | Extraction |
|---|---|---|---|
| BECS1 | This course allowed me to have more flexibility in my personal schedule | 1.000 | 0.689 |
| BECS2 | This course allowed me to reduce my total travel time to campus each week | 1.000 | 0.776 |
| BECS3 | I felt connected to other students in this course | 1.000 | 0.732 |
| BECS4 | I was overwhelmed with information in this course | 1.000 | 0.691 |
| BECS5 | This course required extra effort. | 1.000 | 0.693 |
| BES1 | The course expectations were clearly communicated. | 1.000 | 0.798 |
| BES2 | I was more engaged in this course | 1.000 | 0.690 |
| BES3 | I was more likely to ask questions in this course. | 1.000 | 0.687 |
| BI1 | The amount of my interaction with other students in this course increased | 1.000 | 0.812 |
| BI2 | The quality of my interaction with other students in this course was better. | 1.000 | 0.847 |
| BI3 | The amount of my interaction with the instructor in this course increased. | 1.000 | 0.785 |
| BI4 | The quality of my interaction with the instructor in this course was better. | 1.000 | 0.823 |
| EUT1 | I was able to find course information easily at the Blackboard. | 1.000 | 0.761 |
| EUT2 | The resources at the Blackboard were useful. | 1.000 | 0.736 |
| EUT3 | The technology used for this course was reliable. | 1.000 | 0.745 |
| EUT4 | The technology used in this course interfered with my learning | 1.000 | 0.640 |
| Los 1 | Taking this course increased my interest in the material. | 1.000 | 0.701 |
| Los 2 | This course improved my understanding of key concepts. | 1.000 | 0.722 |
| Los 3 | This course helped me develop better communication skills. | 1.000 | 0.726 |
| Los 4 | I had more opportunities in this course to reflect on what I have learned | 1.000 | 0.756 |
Factor loading for OLAS.
| Items | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This course allowed me to have more flexibility in my personal schedule | 0.734 | ||||
| This course allowed me to reduce my total travel time to campus each week | 0.720 | ||||
| I felt connected to other students in this course | 0.788 | ||||
| I was overwhelmed with information in this course | 0.795 | ||||
| This course required extra effort. | 0.831 | ||||
| The course expectations were clearly communicated. | 0.766 | ||||
| I was more engaged in this course | 0.645 | ||||
| I was more likely to ask questions in this course. | 0.689 | ||||
| The amount of my interaction with other students in this course increased | 0.844 | ||||
| The quality of my interaction with other students in this course was better. | 0.859 | ||||
| The amount of my interaction with the instructor in this course increased. | 0.818 | ||||
| The quality of my interaction with the instructor in this course was better. | 0.823 | ||||
| I was able to find course information easily at the blackboard. | 0.808 | ||||
| The resources at the blackboard were useful. | 0.777 | ||||
| The technology used for this course was reliable. | 0.772 | ||||
| The technology used in this course interfered with my learning | 0.610 | ||||
| Taking this course increased my interest in the material. | 0.702 | ||||
| This course improved my understanding of key concepts. | 0.620 | ||||
| This course helped me develop better communication skills. | 0.704 | ||||
| I had more opportunities in this course to reflect on what I have learned | 0.693 | ||||
| Eigen Value | 11.82 | 1.43 | 1.26 | 0.73 | 0.63 |
| Variance explained (%) | 59.10 | 7.158 | 6.284 | 3.659 | 3.168 |
| Total Variance explained (%) | 72.543 |
Correlation between OLAS variables.
| Variables | BECS | BES | BI | EUS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BES | 615 | |||
| BI | 630 | 795 | ||
| EUS | 642 | 760 | 674 | |
| LOs | 628 | 793 | 770 | 756 |
Significant at 0.05 level.
Figure 2Structural equation modeling (SEM) of OLAS.
Regression weights.
| Items | Path | Constructs/Variables | Estimate | Standard Error | Critical Ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BECS1 | <--- | BECS | 1.000 | |||
| BECS2 | <--- | BECS | 1.046 | 0.507 | 11.785 | |
| BECS3 | <--- | BECS | 1.329 | 0.340 | 11.787 | |
| BECS4 | <--- | BECS | 1.916 | 0.796 | 11.758 | |
| BECS5 | <--- | BECS | 1.671 | 0.970 | 11.787 | |
| BES1 | <--- | BES | 1.000 | |||
| BES2 | <--- | BES | 1.033 | 0.040 | 26.032 | |
| BES3 | <--- | BES | 1.053 | 0.039 | 27.266 | |
| BI1 | <--- | BI | 1.000 | |||
| BI2 | <--- | BI | 1.034 | 0.028 | 37.416 | |
| BI3 | <--- | BI | 0.987 | 0.027 | 36.942 | |
| BI4 | <--- | BI | 1.008 | 0.029 | 34.830 | |
| EUT1 | <--- | EUT | 1.000 | |||
| EUT2 | <--- | EUT | 1.539 | .097 | 15.896 | |
| EUT3 | <--- | EUT | 1.392 | .088 | 15.832 | |
| EUT4 | <--- | EUT | 1.579 | .099 | 15.902 | |
| Los 1 | <--- | Los | 1.000 | |||
| Los 2 | <--- | Los | .943 | .027 | 34.708 | |
| Los 3 | <--- | Los | 1.035 | .030 | 34.750 | |
| Los 4 | <--- | Los | .974 | .033 | 29.338 |
Significant at 0.05 level.
Model fit indices.
| Model fit indices | Obtained value | Recommended value |
|---|---|---|
| Chi-square | 882.428 (p < 0.05) | p > 0.05 ( |
| Chi-square/degrees of freedom | 4.765 | 2 to 5 ( |
| GFI | 0.972 | ≥0.90 ( |
| AGFI | 0.961 | ≥0.80 ( |
| CFI | 0.973 | ≥0.90 ( |
| NFI | 0.964 | ≥0.90 ( |
| IFI | 0.974 | ≥0.95 ( |
| TLI | 0.950 | ≥0.95 ( |
| RMSEA | 0.042 | <0.05 ( |