Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

A class of one: Students’ satisfaction with online

learning

Brittany Landrum, Jennifer Bannister, Gilbert Garza & Susan Rhame

To cite this article: Brittany Landrum, Jennifer Bannister, Gilbert Garza & Susan Rhame (2020):
A class of one: Students’ satisfaction with online learning, Journal of Education for Business, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2020.1757592

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2020.1757592

Published online: 04 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2020.1757592

ORIGINAL AND APPLIED RESEARCH

A class of one: Students’ satisfaction with online learning

Brittany Landruma, Jennifer Bannisterb, Gilbert Garzaa, and Susan Rhameb
a
Department of Psychology, University of Dallas, Irving, Texas, USA; bSatish & Yasmin Gupta College of Business, Irving, United States

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study explores how students evaluate their satisfaction with online classes. Data from Online learning;
three focus groups of undergraduate and graduate students was analyzed using Thematic perceptions; qualitative
Collation and Thematic Analysis to illuminate how students evaluate their satisfaction with methods; satisfaction
online classes. Student satisfaction with online learning emerged as a lived consonance, that
is a “gearing together” of student concerns. The main dimensions of these concerns are stu-
dent expectations regarding the time and space of online learning, self-motivation, and the
role of others, including fellow students and the teacher. Ultimately, student satisfaction
depends on the convergence of the student’s expectations regarding these dimensions with
the student’s overarching educational and life goals for taking the course.

In a period characterized by declining overall enroll-
ment, enrollment in online education has continued
to steadily increase, and the number of students not
participating in online courses has declined drastically
(Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018). Viewing students as
consumers, which factors contribute to consumer (stu-
dent) satisfaction has become a pressing question in
online learning research. Although numerous, mostly
quantitative, studies have investigated student satisfac-
tion with online classes, results are mixed. This quali-
tative study analyzed data from three focus groups to
potentially reconcile some of these past contradictory
results to illuminate how students evaluate their satis-
faction with online classes.
Literature review
The literature exploring students’ perceptions of
online versus face-to-face (FTF) learning is mixed.
While some students perceived both modalities as
equally effective (Horspool & Lange, 2012) and of
similar quality (Waldman, Perreault, Alexander, &
Zhao, 2009), other students believed online courses
are not equivalent (Platt, Raile, & Yu, 2014); they can
complement but not replace FTF (AlHamad,
Qawasmi, & AlHamad, 2014). While students are will-
ing to participate in online education, they prefer a
FTF environment (Fish & Snodgrass, 2015). Students’
perceptions of the differences between these two
modalities are perceived as both advantageous and
disadvantageous.
Student perceptions of online vs. FTF learning
When describing online learning, students mentioned
the ability to stay home and study as an advantage
(AlHamad et al., 2014). Indeed, students cited the
flexibility of online classes as a motive for choosing
them (Fish, 2016; Horspool & Lange, 2012; Platt et al.,
2014). Convenience, family obligations, and health
concerns are also among students’ reasons for pursu-
ing online higher education (Dyrbye, Cumyn, Day, &
Heflin, 2009; Kokko, Kontu, Pesonen, & Pirttimaa,
2015). The convenience and flexibility afforded by
online classes seem to contribute to their proliferation
and popularity.
Comparing online to FTF classes, research has
revealed mixed findings regarding the quality of inter-
action. According to Horspool and Lange (2012), stu-
dents in both environments perceive high quality
communication with the instructor, with some stu-
dents reporting having as much or more interaction
with the instructors of online courses as FTF courses
(Boyd, 2008). However, despite receiving feedback
from online instructors within 24 hours, students still
expressed dissatisfaction with the timeliness of
responses (Boyd, 2008). Students also reported general
dissatisfaction with instructor interaction in an online

CONTACT Susan Rhame srhame@udallas.edu Satish & Yasmin Gupta College of Business, 1845 E. Northgate Drive, Irving, 75062-4736 United States.
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 B. LANDRUM ET AL.
environment, primarily as a result of a lack of oppor-
tunities to interact with the instructor, general confu-
sion about the instructor’s expectations, and
uncertainty about the evaluation of their work (Boyd,
2008; Platt et al., 2014). In addition to difficulties
interacting with the instructor, students often reported
difficulty interacting with peers in an online environ-
ment (AlHamad et al., 2014; Boyd, 2008; Dyrbye
et al., 2009; Horspool & Lange, 2012; Waldman
et al., 2009).
Mixed findings have also emerged regarding stu-
dents’ perceptions of benefits and drawbacks.
Concerningly, students perceived that they gain
slightly less knowledge in an online environment
(Platt et al., 2014). Regarding time, students perceived
online courses require a higher time investment than
FTF courses (Fish, 2016; Horspool & Lange, 2012;
Waldman et al., 2009). In contrast, other students per-
ceived no differences in time investment, yet students
preferred the FTF environment in terms of motiv-
ation, discipline, self-directed learning, and independ-
ence (Fish & Snodgrass, 2015). Additionally, students
disliked the self-directed learning associated with an
online class, although they valued the independence
the classes offer (Fish, 2016). Students who prefer
online courses to FTF perceive more timely gradu-
ation with online courses (Blau, Mittal, Schirmer, &
Ozkan, 2017). Students also view online courses more
favorably for qualitative and introductory courses
(Comer, Lenaghan, & Sengupta, 2015).
Students with more online experience found the
online environment more conducive to learning (Platt
et al., 2014) and more enjoyable (Waldman et al.,
2009) compared to students who were new to online
courses. Over the course of a semester, student per-
ceptions generally remained unchanged with the
exception of motivation and perceived facility of
cheating decreasing over time, and online classes
being perceived as more difficult as the class pro-
gressed (Fish, 2016). These mixed and changing per-
ceived advantages and disadvantages of online classes
have implications for student satisfaction.
Student satisfaction
With rising competition among universities, student
satisfaction has become a focal point, leading to cus-
tomer-oriented business models (Parahoo, Santally,
Rajabalee, & Harvey, 2016). Studies examining predic-
tors of student satisfaction in online courses have
commonly identified factors such as interaction,
computer self-efficacy, course content, self-regulation
and perceived usefulness.
Using focus groups, Parahoo et al. (2016) found
that students’ interactions with staff, faculty, and fel-
low classmates along with the school’s reputation were
dimensions of students’ experienced satisfaction.
Research findings are mixed regarding whether inter-
action positively or negatively impacts satisfaction.
Kuo, Walker, Belland, and Schroder (2013) found
learner-instructor interaction, learner-content inter-
action and internet self-efficacy to be significant
positive predictors of student satisfaction, but learner-
learner interaction and self-regulated learning were
insignificant. Wu, Tennyson, and Hsia (2010) also
found student and instructor interaction, to be signifi-
cantly positively related to the online learning climate
and performance expectations, which in turn contrib-
uted to student satisfaction.
Computer self-efficacy, content features, and system
functionality were also positively related to perform-
ance expectations. Application-specific computer self-
efficacy, perceived usefulness, interaction, and social
presence were all positively associated with course sat-
isfaction (Johnson, Hornik, & Salas, 2008).
Additionally, self-regulated learning, self-efficacy,
computer self-efficacy, an interactive learning environ-
ment, perceived usefulness, ease of use, and quality of
interaction positively relates to student satisfaction,
while perceived anxiety negatively relates (Alqurashi,
2016; Lee & Hwang, 2007; Liaw & Huang, 2013;
Pellas, 2014). The positive relationship between self-
regulated learning and satisfaction makes sense in
light of the online learning difficulties explored by
Sun (2014) who noted that the main difficulties for
online students were adhering to the schedule and
studying regularly, as well as, staying motivated and
self-regulating. Beqiri, Chase, and Bishka (2009) found
students are more satisfied with online learning if
they generally liked online courses, perceived online
courses as an appropriate way of learning, or were
somewhat familiar with the course background.
Exploring student satisfaction, researchers have iden-
tified factors that can be categorized into course, fac-
ulty, and student driven (Blackmon & Major, 2012;
Cochran, Baker, Benson, & Rhea, 2016; Endres,
Chowdhury, Frye, & Hurtubis, 2009). Sebastianelli,
Swift, and Tamimi (2015) found course content was
the most important factor for both perceived learning
and satisfaction. Both Li, Marsh, and Rienties (2016)
and Price, Arthur, and Pauli (2016) found course clar-
ity/course design and interaction (student/teacher) were
positively related to student satisfaction. Li et al. (2016)

also identified learner control (flexibility) while Price
et al. (2016) found qualification aim (met student’s goal)
were additional predictors of satisfaction. Beyond the
importance of interacting with the teacher, the role of
faculty has also been shown to impact student satisfac-
tion. Focusing on instructor activities, Arbaugh (2010)
found both formal (e.g. course design) and informal
(e.g. communication behaviors) were positive predictors
of student satisfaction; however, they only explained 6%
of the variance. When asked to describe an effective
online class, students cited the following faculty driven
dimensions: instructional design, course organization,
direct instruction, and assessment (Mehta, Makani-Lim,
Rajan, & Easter, 2017). These studies indicate that other
factors, possibly student driven ones, are crucial to satis-
faction with online courses.
Focusing on student related factors in a qualitative
study, Toufaily, Zalan, and Lee (2018) classified online
undergraduate and graduate students’ perceived value
as either “Gets” (increased value) or “Gives” (costs-sac-
rifices). “Gets” included functional value (e.g. employ-
ment opportunities, career advancement, and a
University degree), personal value, and epistemic value
(knowledge/skills), while the “Gives” also included
functional value and belonging value. When students
evaluate their online class experience in terms of giving
and getting, whether this balanced out or favored one
side over the other might depend in part on the stu-
dents’ own motivations and goals for the course. The
overlap between these values (e.g. an employment
opportunity as both a get and a give) indicates that the
decisive factor is the outcome’s value to the student.
While many of the satisfaction models discussed
above identified similar predictors of student satisfac-
tion, findings were often mixed or contradictory. The
mixed findings regarding the impact of interaction (e.g.
Kuo et al., 2013; Parahoo et al., 2016) and the concep-
tualization of value as either getting or giving (Toufaily
et al., 2018) strongly suggest the role of individual eval-
uations based on the students’ goals and values (e.g.
Beqiri et al., 2009; Price et al., 2016). Asking students
about their goals and values using a qualitative
approach allows for a more focused investigation of
how these evaluations relate to perceived satisfaction
and helps illuminate the apparent contradictions in
the literature.
Method
Participants
Three focus groups (30–60 min; N ¼ 16; Mage
¼27.56 ± 7.92, range ¼ 18–52, median ¼ 26) were
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 3
conducted using convenience and snowball sampling.
On average, students had taken 4.47 ± 4.19 online
classes with a median of 4, ranging from 0 to 12. The
first focus group (n ¼ 4) was conducted at a mid-size
(15,000 undergraduates) public university in North
Texas with the first author’s class; students were
offered extra credit for participating. Students were
asked about their experiences with online classes or
anticipated thoughts if they had not taken an online
class. The second and third focus groups were con-
ducted at a small (1,300 undergraduates and 1,000
graduates) private liberal arts university in North
Texas, one with eight graduate business students and
another with four undergraduate business students.
Both universities are accredited by the Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). To
encourage participation, participants were offered the
opportunity to win one gift card worth $25 using a
random draw. The only requirement for participation
was having taken at least one online class for the last
two groups.
Focus group procedure
All three focus group procedures were approved by
the respective Institutional Review Board. The first
author served as primary facilitator by asking the
questions and leading the discussion. The other
authors asked follow-up questions and asked for clari-
fication when appropriate. All participants signed an
informed consent statement agreeing to the focus
group being audio recorded. All participants were
encouraged to participate and there was high partici-
pation in all the groups. The students were asked: (a)
What do you like most/least about online classes; (b)
In your opinion, what are the differences between
online and face-to-face classes; (c) If given the choice
between a class online or face-to-face, which do you
prefer and why; and (d) What makes a good online
learning teacher?
Data analysis
The audio-recorded focus groups were analyzed using
a combination of Garza’s thematic collation technique
(2011) and Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis
(2006). Our analysis of the data was aimed at illumi-
nating the following guiding questions: “How do stu-
dents evaluate their satisfaction with online classes?
What informs students’ evaluation of online classes?”
All four authors listened to the focus groups inde-
pendently and noted the moments in the data that
4 B. LANDRUM ET AL.
Figure 1. Thematic narrative: satisfaction with online learning.
shed light on these questions. The moments, or spe-
cific points in the data, comprise statements and
descriptions of experiences that answer the guiding
questions above. This initial analysis entailed a list of
preliminary findings and time markers denoting
where in the audio-recording this finding emerged.
Afterwards, we grouped these moments into larger
themes and arrived at a consensus on the identified
themes that best exemplified the main dimensions
through which an understanding of students’ satisfac-
tion emerged. The results comprise thematic descrip-
tions of the major elements, with supporting quotes, a
thematic map (Braun & Clarke, 2006) illustrating the
relationship of these elements, and a structural narra-
tive providing a description of our findings
(Garza, 2011).
Results
The question of students’ satisfaction emerged within
the context of an overarching sense that the online
class is “for YOU,” the experience that one is the sole
student in the class. Satisfaction with online learning
emerged as a lived “gearing together” of student con-
cerns and student expectations regarding the time and
space of online learning, the demands of self, the role
of others, including fellow students and the teacher.
This entails the students’ “access” to the course con-
tent and their overarching goals for learning/the class,
the “place” it takes in their overall educational and
life goals.
Students’ satisfaction with online learning com-
prises a lived understanding of the consonance of
their expectations regarding the class across the fol-
lowing dimensions depicted in Figure 1. Students’
appraisal and satisfaction emerged when their orienta-
tion to the spatiality and temporality of the online
course cohered with their style of self-motivation and
self-directedness and coincided with their expectations
of classmates. These student-driven gears must further
mesh with the students’ expectations of the teacher,
who sets the stage, tone and direction. Students’ satis-
faction expresses an understanding of whether and
how these gears fit into place in the furtherance of
their educational project.
Online classes can take place anytime and any-
where. This flexibility affords students a wide range of
placements ranging from on the go in the midst of
their broader lives, to designated exclusive time and
space for studying and learning.
I like that I can go at my own pace. If I want to get
it done really quickly, I can get a class done really
quickly. Like if I didn’t feel like doing anything, I
didn’t have to do anything.

With online classes you have material you can go
back to … with a physical class, you can’t really do
this unless you record the class.
Satisfaction with online learning entails the stu-
dent’s valuation of the class and the place afforded
others in the learning process. When classmates are
understood to derail the progress of the class, to hin-
der the student’s progress in their own understanding,
they are understood as hindrances, distractions,
impediments to the realization of the student’s educa-
tional or learning goals. Contrastingly, when class-
mates are understood to proffer additional insight,
new perspectives and meaningful questions, they are
viewed as enhancing the learning experience.
Analogously, when the temporal flexibility is lived as
integrating the learning experience into the complex
time demands of the student’s world, this flexibility is
taken to enhance the availability of the class and its
benefits to the student. However, this flexibility can be
taken up as an illusory understanding of the class as
“always there,” and thus never bound by urgency or
deadlines. These alternate ways of understanding time
and others can be taken as desirable or not depending
on how they mesh with the student’s aims for the
course and how the teacher is taken to fit within the
student’s understanding of these goals.
Online classes … it’s a toss-up between what you want
to do and what you want to get out of the class.
For me, it was like the self-discipline … because when
I have that class at a set time that I have to attend,
I’m like “so I’m going to that class.” But then when
it’s like whenever you can do it, whenever you want
to … I struggled with the self-discipline
There are no other voices in the room [in an
online class].
One of the things that I missed in the online classes
was the personal aspect both with the other students
and with the teacher.
When you have nobody to talk to, what do you do?
I’m going to cheat.
The lived consonance between these student
dimensions with the student’s understanding of the
teacher’s role is an important horizon of the lived sat-
isfaction with online learning. Students understand
the teacher to be the model of the accountability
required for the course, the driving force for the
course’s progress. Students are attuned to the per-
ceived effort, presence, seriousness and dedication of
the teacher to the students, the class and its work.
The ideal availability of the teacher is something of
a paradox.
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 5
What I miss with the online class is kind of the
personal aspect, with the other students and the
teacher … the eye contact of physically being with
someone, makes a difference for me.
In online classes no one’s there to monitor your
progress. There’s no pressure to learn at all.
Students want teachers to be readily available, even
“on demand,” to assist, provide guidance and feed-
back, but only when and how the students have made
space for it in their world. Students take the teacher’s
responsiveness to be an index of the teacher’s invest-
ment in the class in terms of priority and effort and
shape their own performance on these dimensions in
line with what they take the teacher to have modeled.
I think the professor has to be the driving gear.
It goes both ways, from the teacher and from the
student. Some lecturers are lazy … some professors
won’t answer you, for 72 hours, because that’s when
they have to … I’m frustrated.
Again, the lived “fit” or consonance between the
student’s aims and goals for the class and what the
teacher models forms an important dimension on
which satisfaction with online learning comes
into focus.
I give [my current online professor] kudos, because if
you send him emails … and he responds … you
know you can always go to him.
I don’t want to be texting my friend like we’re about
to go play basketball and my teacher texts me, like,
‘have you done your essay?’ … I do feel like a line
has been crossed.
The final horizon on which satisfaction with online
learning is framed is the student’s goals for the class.
These goals can range from “getting it over with” to
deep and transformative learning. In either case, the
telic horizon of the student’s aims for the course and its
place in their lives comprise the horizon of understand-
ing the online learning situation as satisfying. These
“aims” inform the way the teacher is taken up and
understood and what the student understands is
required of themselves in reference to these aims.
“Satisfaction” is revealed to be the student’s lived under-
standing of whether and to what extent these horizons
“gear into each other” in facilitating the student’s aims.
Discussion
While categorizing the predictors of student satisfac-
tion into course, faculty and student driven factors is
useful (e.g. Blackmon & Major, 2012; Cochran et al.,
6 B. LANDRUM ET AL.
2016; Endres et al., 2009), we should not lose sight of
how these factors are tied to the students’ goals and
expectations for the course. Indeed, Beqiri et al.
(2009) and Price et al. (2016) hinted at the importance
of the students’ evaluations and goals as being tied to
satisfaction whereby the more students liked the
course, felt it was appropriate, were more familiar
with online courses and ultimately felt the course met
their goals, the more satisfied students were with
online courses. Our results illustrate that the amount
or quantity of these factors is less determinative of
satisfaction than their perceived confluence and fit.
We found students’ satisfaction with online courses
expresses the students’ understanding of how the con-
tent delivery, what the content entails, and how stu-
dents interact with faculty and peers, fits with their
purpose in taking the class. Ultimately, these student
driven factors are not disconnected from their
encounters with faculty and the course itself.
While Arbaugh (2010) found that what the teacher
brings to the class only accounted for 6% of the vari-
ance of student satisfaction, the faculty driven factors
must be considered in light of what the student wants
from the class and how this meshes with their expect-
ations. Pointedly, students indicate various faculty
related factors are important for effectiveness (Mehta
et al., 2017), however, what was missing from previ-
ous studies was this notion of how students’ expecta-
tions (what they want from the class) must “gear in”
with what they are getting from the class (what faculty
bring to the table and how the course is laid out).
Recalling Toufaily et al. (2018), the synchrony, har-
mony, and confluence between getting and giving and
its fit with the students’ expectations are the scaffold-
ing upon which satisfaction is built. If instructors are
present, communicative, available, etc., whether this is
ultimately perceived as satisfying depends on what the
students want from the class. For example, if a teacher
texts their class, some students may find this to be
intrusive while others find it helpful; whether this is
satisfying or not depends on what the student wants.
Likewise, the presence/absence or amount of a course
element/aspect/factor must be assessed in light of the
students’ goals, expectations, and desires for the class.
Finally, the amount of interaction with faculty and
students is not crucial, but whether this interaction is
wanted/expected and how it lines up with and fits
within the online class experience. Indeed, research
revealed mixed findings regarding the impact of stu-
dent-student interaction on satisfaction (Kuo et al.,
2013; Parahoo et al., 2016). The amount of student-
student interaction could be perceived as both
advantageous and disadvantageous and ultimately
whether this is satisfying hinges on the students’ goals.
In our own focus groups, some students described
classmates’ contributions and questions as contribu-
ting to their learning experience offering perspectives
they had not considered themselves. Conversely,
others in our focus group found input from class-
mates to be distracting, slowing down and derailing
their progress in the class. Surely the contribution of
this interaction to course satisfaction would differ for
these students.
The current study utilized a small sample, limiting
the generalizability of these results. However, the
focus groups included students from both a small and
larger university and both undergraduate and graduate
students. This study has illuminated a three-fold
structure of satisfaction exclusively from the perspec-
tive of the student. Future research should investigate
how faculty understand online classes in terms of
their expectations for the course, the students and
themselves. Additional research could expand the stu-
dent sample to explore a broader selection of majors
and grade levels. Future quantitative analyses could
focus on the student’s goals and purposes for taking
classes as well as their liking and preferences for vari-
ous course elements, moving beyond just the amount
or presence of the element. A focus on course con-
struction and development would also be advised to
identify how specific elements of a course impact stu-
dent satisfaction.
References
AlHamad, A., Qawasmi, K., & AlHamad, A. (2014). Key
factors in determining students’ satisfaction in online
learning based on ‘Web Programming’ course within
Zarqa University. International Journal of Global
Business, 7(1), 7–14.
Alqurashi, E. (2016). Self-efficacy in online learning envi-
ronments. A literature review. Contemporary Issues in
Education Research (Cier), 9(1), 45–51. doi:10.19030/cier.
v9i1.9549
Arbaugh, J. (2010). Sage, guide, both, or even more? An
examination of instructor activity in online MBA courses.
Computers and Education, 55(3), 1234–1244. doi:10.1016/
j.compedu.2010.05.020
Beqiri, M., Chase, N., & Bishka, A. (2009). Online course
delivery: An empirical investigation of factors affecting
student satisfaction. Journal of Education for Business,
85(2), 95–100. doi:10.1080/08832320903258527
Blackmon, S. J., & Major, C. (2012). Student experiences in
online courses: A qualitative research synthesis. Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, 13(2), 77–85.
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. doi:10.1080/
08832323.2017.1365679
Boyd, P.W. (2008). Analyzing students’ perceptions of their
learning in online and hybrid first year composition
courses. Computers and Composition, 25, 224–243. doi:10.
1016/i.compcom.2008.01.002
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
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. doi:10.1080/15416518.2016.1218195
Comer, D. R., Lenaghan, J. A., & Sengupta, K. (2015).
Factors that affect students’ capacity to fulfill the role of
online learner. Journal of Education for Business, 90(3),
145–155. doi:10.1080/08832323.2015.1007906
Dyrbye, L., Cumyn, A., Day, H., & Heflin, M. (2009). A
qualitative study of physicians’ experiences with online
learning in a masters degree program: Benefits, chal-
lenges, and proposed Solutions. Medical Teacher, 31(2),
e40–e46. doi:10.1080/01421590802366129
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. doi:10.3200/
JOEB.84.5.304-312
Fish, L. (2016). A preliminary study of changes in online
graduate business student perceptions over a course.
Business Education Innovation Journal, 8(2), 41–50.
Fish, L., & Snodgrass, C. (2015). Business student percep-
tions of online versus face-to-face education: Student
characteristics. Business Education Innovation Journal,
7(2), 83–96.
Garza, G. (2011). Thematic collation: An illustrative analysis
of the experience of regret. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 8(1), 40–65. doi:10.1080/14780880903490839
Horspool, A., & Lange, C. (2012). Applying the scholarship
of teaching and learning: Student perceptions, behaviours
and success online and face-to-face. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 73–88. doi:10.1080/
02602938.2010.496532.
Johnson, R. D., Hornik, S., & Salas, E. (2008). An empirical
examination of factors contributing to the creation of
successful e-learning environments. International Journal
of Human-Computer Studies, 66(5), 356–369. doi:10.1016/
j.ijhcs.2007.11.003
Kokko, T., Kontu, E., Pesonen, H., & Pirttimaa, R. (2015).
Why study online in upper secondary school? Qualitative
analysis of online learning experiences. Human
Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in
ICT Environments, 11(1), 57–70. doi:10.17011/ht/urn.
201505061740.
Kuo, Y.C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder,
K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction
in online education programs. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1),
16–39. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338
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.
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS 7
Dalziel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 European LAMS
Conference: Designing the future of learning (pp. 73–79).
Greenwich: LAMS Foundation.
Li, N., Marsh, V., & Rienties, B. (2016). Modelling and
managing learner satisfaction: Use of learner feedback to
enhance blended and online learning experience. Decision
Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 216–242.
doi:10.1111/dsji.12096
Liaw, S.-S., & Huang, H.-M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction,
perceived usefulness and interactive learning environ-
ments as predictors of self-regulation in e-learning envi-
ronments. Computers and Education, 60(1), 14–24. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.015
Mehta, R., Makani-Lim, B., Rajan, M., & Easter, M. (2017).
Creating online learning spaces for emerging markets: An
investigation of the link between course design and stu-
dent engagement. Journal of Business and Behavioral
Sciences, 29(1), 116–133.
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. doi:10.1080/08841241.2015.1083511
Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy,
metagognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student
engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from
the virtual world of second life. Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, 157–170. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.048
Platt, C. A., Raile, A. N. W., & Yu, N. (2014). Virtually the
same?: Student perceptions of the equivalence of online
classes to face-to-face classes. Journal of Online Learning
& Teaching, 10(3), 489–503. http://www.onlinelearning-
survey.com/highered.html.
Price, R. A., Arthur, T. Y., & Pauli, K. P. (2016). A com-
parison of factors affecting student performance and sat-
isfaction in online, hybrid and traditional courses.
Business Education Innovation Journal, 8(2), 32–40.
Seaman, J., Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase:
Tracking distance education in the United States. Babson
Survey Research Group. https://onlinelearningsurvey.
com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf
Sebastianelli, R., Swift, C., & Tamimi, N. (2015). Factors
affecting perceived learning, satisfaction, and quality in
the online MBA: A structural equation modeling
approach. Journal of Education for Business, 90(6),
296–305. doi:10.1080/08832323.2015.1038979
Sun, S. (2014). Learner perspectives on fully online language
learning. Distance Education, 35(1), 18–42. doi:10.1080/
01587919.2014.891428
Toufaily, E., Zalan, T., & Lee, D. (2018). What do learners
value in online education? An emerging market perspec-
tive. E-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of
Teaching, 12(2), 24–39.
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.
Wu, J.H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T.-L. (2010). A study of
student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system envir-
onment. Computers and Education, 55(1), 155–164. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012