PM UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA R IG H T U PERCEIVED LEARNING AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS, INSTRUCTOR IMMEDIACY BEHAVIOR, LEARNER CHARACTERISTICS AND COURSE SATISFACTION AMONG UNDERGRADUATE DISTANCE LEARNERS © C O PY AZADEH AMOOZEGAR FPP 2018 9 PM IG H T U PERCEIVED LEARNING AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS, INSTRUCTOR IMMEDIACY BEHAVIOR, LEARNER CHARACTERISTICS AND COURSE SATISFACTION AMONG UNDERGRADUATE DISTANCE LEARNERS R By © C O PY AZADEH AMOOZEGAR Thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia in Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy November 2017 COPYRIGHT PM All material contained within the thesis, including without limitation text, logos, icons, photographs and all other artwork, is copyright material of Universiti Putra Malaysia unless otherwise stated. Use may be made of any material contained within the thesis for non-commercial purposes from the copyright holder. Commercial use of material may only be made with the express, prior, written permission of Universiti Putra Malaysia. © C O PY R IG H T U Copyright © Universiti Putra Malaysia Abstract of thesis presented to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia in fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Doctor of Philosophy PM PERCEIVED LEARNING AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS, INSTRUCTOR IMMEDIACY BEHAVIOR, LEARNER CHARACTERISTICS AND COURSE SATISFACTION AMONG UNDERGRADUATE DISTANCE LEARNERS AZADEH AMOOZEGAR H : Shaffe Mohd Daud, PhD : Educational Studies IG Chairman Faculty T November 2017 U By © C O PY R Distance learning in Malaysia has seen phenomenal growth especially in higher education where there are numerous universities offering online courses that have specifically provided access to students who were challenged by space and time constraints. In spite of the dramatic increase of online courses and student enrollment, there are many indications that online courses are unsuccessful at meeting students’ needs and students are dissatisfied with their online course experiences, which brings about a serious concern regarding the dropout rates of online courses. For solving this issue, it is crucial that researchers identify and study the factors that lead to student satisfaction with online courses because course satisfaction is considered to be the largest determinant in reducing dropout in distance learning environment. Hence, the purpose of this study is to identify factors contributing to course satisfaction among distance learners in Malaysian research universities. The factors are categorized into institutional factors (administrative support, technology support, and university support), learner characteristics (motivation, self-regulated learning and self-efficacy) and instructor immediacy behavior. Further, investigate the role of perceived learning as a mediator, and finally, develop a model for course satisfaction in distance education setting. These factors were selected based on the social presence and transactional distance theory and on previous studies on satisfaction of students. This study is based on a quantitative descriptive design with sample size of 367 undergraduates’ students in the third-fourth years at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) and Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). The sample was selected based on the proportional stratified technique. The main instrument used was a questionnaire, which was adopted from previous studies whose content validity was checked by panel i of experts. A pilot study was conducted on 30 students to assist the reliability of the instrument, which ranged from 0.79 and 0.88 by the value of Cronbach’s alpha. U PM The data was analyzed descriptively using IBM SPSS and inferentially using the Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS). The descriptive findings indicated that course satisfaction level was a moderate. Among eight variables affecting course satisfaction only motivation and self-efficacy were found to be high; whereas the level of other variables including perceived learning, technical, administrative, and university support, instructor immediacy behavior and self-regulated learning were moderate. Among 22 hypotheses were tested, 20 were supported. Two hypotheses did not support in this study. The first one is the influence of technical support on perceived learning, which is rejected. Perceived learning also was not identified as mediator factor that influence technical support towards course satisfaction. PY R IG H T The most salient factor influencing course satisfaction was instructor immediacy behavior (β= 0.236, P< 0.01), followed by administrative support (β= 0.198, P< 0.001), university support (β= 0.229, P< 0.001), and self-efficacy (β= 0.179, P= 0.01). Contrary, technical support (β= 0.11, P= 0.039) and self-regulated learning (β= 0.11, P= 0.034) perceived as less important factor influencing course satisfaction among distance learning students in Malaysian Research Universities. The findings of this study concurred that the influence of administrative support (β= 0.06, P= 0.007), university support (β= 0.049, P=0.013) and instructor immediacy behavior (β= 0.094, P=0.001) partially mediated by perceived learning, whereas the influence of motivation (β= 0.058, P= 0.021), self-regulated learning (β= 0.042, P= 0.038), and self-efficacy (β= 0.076, P= 0.003) fully mediated by perceived learning. The results attained from the analyses also produced a model that predicts the satisfaction of students among the undergraduates, which explained 69.7% of course satisfaction. © C O Several implications were also drawn from the findings of this study. The proposed model is a definitive model that synthesizes what is known and provides knowledge to guide future research in related field. ii Abstrak tesis yang dikemukakan kepada Senat Universiti Putra Malaysia sebagai memenuhi keperluan untuk ijazah Doktor Falsafah PM PEMBELAJARAN TERANGGAP SEBAGAI MEDIATOR ANTARA FAKTOR INSTITUSI, TINGKAH LAKU LANGSUNG INSTRUKTOR, CIRI PELAJAR DAN KEPUASAN KURSUS DALAM KALANGAN PELAJAR PRASISWAZAH PENDIDIKAN JARAK JAUH AZADEH AMOOZEGAR H : Shaffe Mohd Daud, PhD : Pengajian Pendidikan IG Pengerusi Fakulti T November 2017 U Oleh © C O PY R Pembelajaran jarak jauh di Malaysia telah memperlihatkan fenomena pertumbuhan,terutama dalam pendidikan tinggi yang melibatkan pelbagai universiti yang menawarkan kursus atas talian yang secara khusus memberikan akses kepada pelajar yang dicabar oleh kekangan dari segi ruang dan masa. Walaupun terdapat peningkatan yang dramatik dari segi kursus atas talian dan enrolmen pelajar, terdapat banyak petunjuk bahawa kursus atas talian adalah tidak berjaya untuk memenuhi keperluan pelajar dan pelajar tidak berpuas hati dengan pengalaman kursus atas talian mereka yang membawa kepada perhatian yang serius mengenai kadar keciciran kursus atas talian. Bagi menangani isu ini, adalah penting bagi penyelidik untuk mengenal pasti dan mengkaji faktor yang menyebabkan kepuasan pelajar terhadap kursus atas talian kerana kepuasan kursus dianggap sebagai penentu utama dalam mengurangkan kadar keciciran dalam persekitaran pembelajaran jarak jauh. Oleh sebab itu, tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk mengenal pasti faktor penyumbang kepada kepuasan kursus dalam kalangan pelajar jarak jauh di universiti penyelidikan Malaysia. Faktor tersebut dikategorikan kepada faktor institusi (sokongan pentadbiran, sokongan teknologi, dan sokongan universiti), ciri pelajar (motivasi, pembelajaran pengaturan kendiri dan kecukupan kendiri) dan tingkah laku langsung instruktor. Di samping itu, kajian ini juga menyelidiki peranan pembelajaran teranggap sebagai mediator dan akhirnya, membangunkan model bagi kepuasan kursus dalam seting pendidikan jarak jauh. Faktor tersebut dipilih berdasarkan kewujudan sosial dan teori jarak jauh transaksional dan berdasarkan kajian lepas mengenai kepuasan pelajar. Kajian ini berdasarkan reka bentuk deskriptif kuantitatif dengan saiz sampel sebanyak 367 pelajar prasiswazah dalam tahun ketiga-keempat di Universiti Kebangsaan iii Malaysia (UKM) dan Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). Sampel dipilih berdasarkan teknik bertumpu proporsional. Instrumen utama yang digunakan ialah soal selidik yang telah diadaptasikan daripada kajian lepas yang kesahan kandungannya telah disemak oleh panel pakar. Kajian rintis telah dijalankan ke atas 30 orang pelajar bagi membantu kebolehpercayaan instrumen yang berjulat dari 0.79 dan 0.88 pada nilai alfa Cronbach. H T U PM Data telah dianalisis secara deskriptif menggunakan SPSS IBM dan secara inferensi menggunakan Analisis Struktur Momen (AMOS). Dapatan deskriptif menunjukkan bahawa tahap kepuasan kursus adalah sederhana. Antara lapan pemboleh ubah yang memberi kesan pada kepuasan kursus, hanya motivasi dan kecukupan kendiri didapati tinggi; manakala tahap pemboleh ubah lain, termasuk pembelajaran teranggap, sokongan teknikal, pentadbiran, dan universiti, tingkah laku langsung instruktor dan pembelajaran pengaturan kendiri adalah sederhana. Antara 22 hipotesis yang diuji, 20 menyokong. Dua hipotesis tidak menyokong dalam kajian ini. Faktor pertama ialah pengaruh sokongan teknikal terhadap pembelajaran teranggap yang telah ditolak. Pembelajaran teranggap juga tidak dikenal pasti sebagai faktor mediator yang mempengaruhi sokongan teknikal terhadap kepuasan kursus. © C O PY R IG Faktor paling penting yang mempengaruhi kepuasan kursus ialah tingkah laku langsung instruktor (β= 0.236, P< 0.01), diikuti oleh sokongan pentadbiran (β= 0.198, P< 0.001), sokongan universiti (β= 0.229, P< 0.001), dan kecukupan kendiri (β= 0.179, P= 0.01). Sebaliknya, sokongan teknikal (β= 0.11, P= 0.039) dan pembelajaran pengaturan kendiri (β= 0.11, P= 0.034) dianggap sebagai faktor kurang penting yang mempengaruhi kepuasan kursus dalam kalangan pelajar jarak jauh di Universiti Penyelidikan Malaysia. Dapatan kajian ini menyimpulkan bahawa pengaruh sokongan pentadbiran (β= 0.06, P= 0.007), sokongan universiti (β= 0.049, P=0.013) dan tingkah laku langsung instruktor (β= 0.094, P=0.001), sebahagiannya dipengaruhi oleh pembelajaran teranggap, manakala pengaruh motivasi (β= 0.058, P= 0.021), pembelajaran pengaturan kendiri (β= 0.042, P= 0.038), dan kecukupan kendiri (β= 0.076, P= 0.003), sepenuhnya dipengaruhi oleh pembelajaran teranggap. Dapatan yang diperoleh daripada analisis juga menghasilkan suatu model yang dapat menjangkakan kepuasan pelajar prasiswazah yang memperlihatkan sebanyak 69.7% kepuasan kursus. Beberapa implikasi juga telah diperoleh daripada dapatan kajian ini. Model yang dicadangkan merupakan model definitif yang mensintesiskan perkara yang diketahui dan memberikan ilmu pengetahuan bagi membimbing penyelidikan masa hadapan dalam bidang berkaitan. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS U PM I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my supervisor, Dr. Shaffe Mohd Daud for his consistent academic guidance, expertise, understanding and support throughout the whole research project. I cannot thank him enough for his unabated help especially in hard times during the course of my studies at UPM. I will always be grateful for both his unmatchable patience and professional advice. Dr Shaffe’s professional attitude, objectivity and never-ending patience set the new frontier for my professional development. Moreover, I would like to express my utmost thanks to the members of my dissertation committee Assoc. Professor Dr. Rosnaini Mahmud, and Assoc. Professor Dr. Habibah binti Ab Jalil who have provided me with the support and encouragement. Thanks to both of you for your time, commitment, and enthusiasm for this project. Furthermore, thank you for being such wonderful academic role models. IG H T I want to extend my gratitude to all the lecturers, relevant authorities in Malaysian Universities who made this research possible by permitting me to collect data in their online courses. Also, I want to give thanks to all students from the distance education programmes in two Malaysian research universities, who took part in this research and responded to the survey questionnaires. I appreciate all of you for being open-minded and for providing me with significant assistance in my academic aspiration. © C O PY R I also want to express my great thanks and appreciation to my family. My husband has been a great support to me and helped me through the hard times. The successful completion of this research would not have been possible without him. And my dear parents who have always been my inspiration and life role models. They are always my main supply base and it is their love and encouragement that has kept me focused and on track both in my study and my life. Also, I would like to thank my lovely daughter, Paniz for her high tolerance and for providing lots of fun to relieve my stressed mind. I express my deepest appreciation to them for their consistent love, affection and support. I owe all my successes to them and can never pay back for their kindness and love towards me. I will never forget how my family has been a wall of strength for me and have kept me going through the challenges of life. None of this would have been possible without each of you. v © T H IG PY R O C PM U This thesis submitted to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia and has been accepted as fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The members of the Supervisory Committee were as follows: PM Shaffe Mohd Daud, PhD Senior Lecturer Faculty of Educational Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia (Chairman) T H PY R IG Habibah Ab Jalil, PhD Associate professor Faculty of Educational Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia (Member) U Rosnaini Mahmud, PhD Associate professor Faculty of Educational Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia (Member) O ROBIAH BINTI YUNUS, PhD Professor and Dean School of Graduate Studies Universiti Putra Malaysia © C Date: vii Declaration by graduate student IG H T U PM I hereby confirm that:  this thesis is my original work;  quotations, illustrations and citations have been duly referenced; this thesis has not been submitted previously or concurrently for any other degree at any other institutions;  intellectual property from the thesis and copyright of thesis are fully-owned by Universiti Putra Malaysia, as according to the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Research) Rules 2012;  written permission must be obtained from supervisor and the office of deputy ViceChancellor (Research and Innovation) before thesis is published (in the form of written, printed or in electronic form) including books, journals, modules, proceedings, popular writings, seminar papers, manuscripts, posters, reports, lecture notes, learning modules or any other materials as stated in the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Research) Rules 2012;  there is no plagiarism or data falsification/fabrication in the thesis, and scholarly integrity is upheld as according to the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Graduate Studies) Rules 2003 (Revision 2012-2013) and the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Research) Rules 2012. The thesis has undergone plagiarism detection software. Signature: Date: © C O PY R Name and Matric No.: Azadeh Amoozegar, GS36629 viii Declaration by Members of Supervisory Committee PM This is to confirm that:  the research conducted and the writing of this thesis was under our supervision;  supervision responsibilities as stated in the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Graduate Studies) Rules 2003 (Revision 2012-2013) are adhered to. IG R Associate Professor Dr. Rosnaini Mahmud PY Signature: Name of Member of Supervisory Committee: H T U Signature: Name of Chairman of Supervisory Committee: Dr. Shaffe Mohd Daud Associate Professor Dr. Habibah Ab Jalil © C O Signature: Name of Member of Supervisory Committee: ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i iii v vi viii xiv xvi xvii PM ABSTRACT ABSTRAK ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPROVAL DECLARATION LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 6 9 12 13 13 15 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 20 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Distance Learning (DL) 2.3 Distance Learning in Malaysian Research Universities 2.3.1 Learning Management System (LMS) 2.3.2 Benefits of Distance Learning 2.4 Student Satisfaction with Online Courses 2.5 Factors Influencing Student Satisfaction with Online Courses 2.5.1 Perceived Learning 2.5.2 Institutional Factors 2.5.2.1 Technical Support 2.5.2.2 Administrative Support 21 21 21 24 26 28 29 31 33 36 37 39 H IG R PY O © C 2 1 1 2 5 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study 1.1.1 Distance Learning in Malaysian Higher Education 1.1.2 Student Satisfaction with Online Courses 1.1.3 Factors Influencing Student Satisfaction with Online Courses 1.2 Problem Statement 1.3 Research Objectives 1.4 Research Questions 1.5 Research Hypotheses 1.6 Significance of the Study 1.7 Limitations of the Study 1.8 Definition of Terms 1.8.1 Distance Learning 1.8.2 Course Satisfaction 1.8.3 Perceived Learning 1.8.4 Institutional factors 1.8.5 Instructor Immediacy Behavior 1.8.6 Learner characteristics T 1 U CHAPTER x METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Research Design 3.3 Population 3.4 Sample size 3.5 Sampling Procedure 3.6 Instrumentation 3.5.1 Demographic Information Questionnaire 3.5.2 Course Satisfaction Questionnaire 3.5.3 Perceived Learning Questionnaire 3.5.4 Institutional Factors Questionnaire 3.5.5 Instructor Immediacy Behavior Questionnaire 3.5.6 Learner Characteristics Questionnaire 3.7 Data Transformation 3.7.1 Interpretation and Scoring for Course Satisfaction Level 3.7.2 Interpretation and Scoring for Factors influencing Course Satisfaction 3.8 Back-to-Back Translation 3.9 Validity and Reliability of Instrument 3.9.1 Validity 3.9.2 Reliability 3.10 Pilot Test 3.11 Data Collection Procedure 3.12 Data Analysis 3.12.1 Descriptive Statistics 3.12.2 Inferential Statistics 3.12.3 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 3.13 Summary of SEM Process 3.14 Mediation Analysis 3.15 Data Analysis Assumption 3.15.1 Outlier 3.15.2 Normality Test 3.15.3 Multicollinearity 3.15.4 Linearity and Homoscedasticity © C O PY R IG H T 3 U 2.7 2.8 2.9 xi 40 42 44 45 47 49 51 52 55 56 58 60 61 PM 2.6 2.5.2.3 University Support 2.5.3 Instructor Immediacy Behavior 2.5.4 Learner Characteristics 2.5.4.1 Motivation 2.5.4.2 Self-Regulated Learning 2.5.4.3 Self-Efficacy Theories Related to the Study 2.6.1 Transactional Distance Theory (TDT) 2.6.2 Social Presence Theory (SPT) 2.6.3 Online Interaction Learning Model Theoretical Framework of the Study Conceptual Framework of the Study Summary 63 63 63 64 66 70 71 72 72 73 73 74 74 75 75 76 76 77 77 78 79 80 82 82 83 83 84 86 87 87 88 89 90 3.16 91 91 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Demographic Data of Undergraduates 4.3 Descriptive Statistics 4.3.1 Level of Course Satisfaction 4.3.2 Level of Factors Influencing Course Satisfaction 4.3.2.1 Perceived Learning 4.3.2.2 Technical Support 4.3.2.3 Administrative Support 4.3.2.4 University Support 4.3.2.5 nstructor Immediacy Behavior 4.3.2.6 Motivation 4.3.2.7 Self-Regulated Learning 4.3.2.8 Self-Efficacy 4.4 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 4.4.1 Measurement Model 4.4.1 Convergent Validity 4.4.2 Discriminant Validity 4.4.3 Path Analysis 4.4.4 Results and discussion for the formulated hypotheses related to research questions two: 4.4.5 H1: Technical support has a significant influence on course satisfaction. 4.4.6 H2: Administrative support has a significant influence on course satisfaction. 4.4.7 H3: University support has a significant influence on course satisfaction. 4.4.8 H4: Instructor immediacy behavior has a significant influence on course satisfaction. 4.4.9 H5: Motivation has a significant influence on course satisfaction. 4.4.10 H6: Self-Regulated learning has a significant influence on course satisfaction. 4.4.11 H7: Self-Efficacy has a significant influence on course satisfaction. 4.4.12 Result of Perceived Learning (Mediator) 4.4.13 Results and discussion for the formulated hypotheses related to research questions three and four: 4.4.14 H8: Technical support has a significant influence on perceived learning. 4.4.15 H9: Administrative support has a significant influence on perceived learning. 4.4.16 H10: University support has a significant influence on perceived learning. 92 92 92 93 93 95 95 98 99 100 101 103 104 106 107 108 111 112 113 © C O PY R IG H T U PM 4 3.15.5 Common Method Variance Summary xii 116 116 117 118 119 121 122 123 124 127 127 128 129 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Summary of the Study 5.3 Conclusion 5.4 Implications of Findings 5.4.1 Theoretical Implications 5.4.2 Practical Implications 5.5 Recommendations for Future Research © C O PY R IG REFERENCES APPENDICES BIODATA OF STUDENT LIST OF PUBLICATIONS H T U 5 131 132 133 134 142 145 PM 4.5 4.6 4.4.17 H11: Instructor immediacy behavior has a significant influence on perceived learning. 4.4.18 H12: Motivation has a significant influence on perceived learning. 4.4.19 H13: Self-regulated learning has a significant influence on perceived learning. 4.4.20 H14: Self-effiacy has a significant influence on perceived learning. Development of a Model to Predict Course Satisfaction Summary xiii AND 147 147 147 149 151 151 153 155 156 198 241 242 LIST OF TABLES Table Page Essential Elements of Distance Learning 23 3.1 Details of Sampling 69 3.2 Sample size Based on Proportional of Distance Learning Students From Target Universities 70 3.3 Questionnaire Components 72 3.4 Course Satisfaction Questionnaire 3.5 Perceived Learning Questionnaire 3.6 Institutional Factors Questionnaire 3.7 Instructor Immediacy Behaviors Questionnaire 74 3.8 Learner Characteristics Questionnaire 75 3.9 Mean Interval Interpretation 3.10 Interpretation and Scoring of Course Satisfaction Level 3.11 Interpretation and Scoring of Factors Influencing Course Satisfaction 3.13 U T H IG 73 75 76 R Cronbach’s Alpha Internal Consistency Reliability for the Instruments 80 Distribution of Final Sample of Distance Learning Students for the Study 82 Objectives and Type of Statistical Analysis 84 3.15 Multivariate Normality Test Based on Mahalanobis Distance 88 3.16 Table of Normality Test among all the Variables 89 3.17 Multicollinearity Test Based on Correlation Coefficients 90 4.1 Distribution of Respondents by Demographic Data 92 4.2 Mean and Standard Deviation for Items Related to Course Satisfaction (n=303) 94 Mean and Standard Deviation for Items Related to Perceived Learning 96 C © 73 76 O 3.14 72 PY 3.12 PM 2.1 4.3 xiv 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 100 Mean and Standard Deviation for Items Related to Instructor Immediacy Behavior (n=303) 102 Mean and Standard Deviation for Items Related to Motivation (n=303) 103 Mean and Standard Deviation for Items Related to self-regulated learning (n=303) 105 Mean and Standard Deviation for Items Related to self-efficacy (n=303) 106 Summary of Total Items and Deleted Items Based on Individual Models 109 PM 4.9 Mean and Standard Deviation for Items Related to University Support (n=303) U 4.8 99 T 4.7 Mean and Standard Deviation for Items Related to Administrative Support (n=303) H 4.6 98 The result of Convergent Validity for integrated measurement model IG 4.5 Mean and Standard Deviation for Items Related to Technical Support (n=303) 112 Correlation of Latent Variables and Discriminant Validity for Integrated Measurement Model R 4.4 113 List of Hypotheses and Relative Paths 113 4.15 Test of the Total Effect of Ivs on Course Satisfaction 116 Regression Weights (Full Mediation Model) 126 Distinguishing Total, Direct and Indirect Effects of Model 136 Testing the hypothesis 140 4.16 4.17 © C O 4.18 PY 4.14 xv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page The General Framework of Moore’s Theory 53 2.2 The relationship between structure, dialogue and autonomy 54 2.3 Online Interaction Learning Model 56 2.4 Theoretical Framework 2.5 Conceptual Framework 3.1 Diagrammatic Distribution of population at the Target University 66 3.2 Recommendation sample size according to Raosoft software 67 3.3 A Chronology of the Data Collection 81 4.1 Initial Measurement Model Based on all Constrcuts 4.2 Modified Measurement Model Based on all Constrcuts 4.3 Direct Path Model without Mediator (Standardized Path Coefficients) PM 2.1 59 IG H T U 60 110 111 115 Overal Path Model with Mediator (Standardized Path Coefficients) 4.5 Course Satisfaction Model of UKM and UPM Undergraduates © C O PY R 4.4 xvi 125 143 Malaysian Education Blueprint MoHE Ministry of Higher Education RU Research University HEIs Higher Learning Institutions ICT Information Communication Technology LMS Learning Management System UM Universiti Malaya UKM Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia UPM Universiti Putra Malaysia USM Universiti Sains Malaysia UTM Universiti Technology Malaysia UMS Universiti Malaysia Sarawak UNIRAZAK Universiti Tun Abdul Razak OUM Open University Malaysia EFA CFA T H C GOF © IG R O SEM Wawasan Open University Average Variance Extracted PY WOU AVE U MEB PM LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Exploratory Factor Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis Structural Equation Modeling Goodness-of-Fit GFI Goodness of Fit Indicator CFI Comparative Fit Index RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation AGFI Adjusted Goodness of Fit Indicator NFI Normed Fit Index TLI Tucker-LewisIndex xvii CHAPTER 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study H T U PM Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Malaysia become interested in implementing Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in teaching and learning activities (Ali, 2015). In order to implement the computer and Internet technology in educational settings, new instructional methods integrated with technological tools are provided. Therefore, the possibilities of Internet technology in educational settings have made distance learning as an effective method for teaching and learning and also distance learning becomes prevalent for pedagogical purposes, which have obtained acceptance among students, teachers, and parents (Bolandifar, 2017). Further, it is being regarded as one of the most practical ways that universities across the world are increasingly adopting in order to increase access to university education (Chawinga & Zozie, 2016). Hence, distance learning as a more developed method of instruction has become established and the public higher educational institutions in Malaysia are moving toward using distance learning as a most acceptable method of learning. © C O PY R IG Distance learning has been utilized since the early 1990s, especially with the advance of the online technical revolution (Mitchell, 2014). Distance learning is very different from traditional learning. Students are responsible for their own learning because they do not have to be physically present a regular classroom and they can decide when, where, and how long to access the learning materials (Wang, 2010). However, distance learning provides freedom of choice for the students regarding the time and place for their instruction and practice, to personalize learning, to reduce facilities’ costs, and to broaden access to the educational resources. According to Kauffman (2015), distance learning is much more convenient compared to regular face-to-face classes, especially when it comes to the requirements of those students who juggle between their occupations, families and their academic pursuits. In conjunction with this, many universities and institutions of higher education are adopting distance learning courses and programs as a method of instruction at a rapid pace (Adadi, 2015). For example, according to Allen and Seaman, the proportion of academic leaders who report that distance learning is critical to their institution’s long-term strategy has grown from 48.8% in 2002 to 70.8% in 2015. This highly significant growth of demand and acknowledgement of distance learning by these academic leaders only shows the enormous positive effect and benefit for the learners and the institutions simultaneously. In spite of the dramatic increase of online courses and student enrollment internationally, there are many indications that online courses are unsuccessful at meeting students’ needs (Khalid, 2014; Rovai & Downey, 2010; Conrad & Donaldson, 2012) and students are dissatisfied with their online course experiences 1 PM (Artino, 2008; Lee, Srinivasan, Trail, Lewis, & Lopez, 2011), which brings about a serious concern regarding the dropout rates of online courses (Doe, Castillo, & Musyoka, 2017). Wang (2003) noted that in any educational institution, the satisfaction of students with online courses can be determined from their level of pleasure as well as the effectiveness of the education, which the student experiences. Students with higher levels of satisfaction towards online courses are reported to show considerably higher level of learning than students with low level of satisfaction (Ali & Ahmad, 2011). IG H T U It is important to acknowledge that student satisfaction with online courses is one of the most prominent factors in assessing the effectiveness of a distance-learning course. The lack of course satisfaction has been identified as an important factor leading to attrition among distance students worldwide (Khalid, 2014; Yu & Richardson, 2015). In this respect, several research studies have mainly focused on course satisfaction because it is considered to be the largest determinant in reducing dropout in distance learning settings (Watts, 2015; Chen & Lien, 2011; Hart, 2012). Clearly, the number of dropouts are still much higher in distance learning education compared to regular courses, in a range of 10% to 50% all in all (Kauffman, 2015). For example, Lee & Choi (2011) reported that compared to face-to-face learning, the retention rates for online learning is 10% to 25% less. Smith (2011) also indicated that in total, 40% to 80% of online students tend to drop from online classes. Hence, it is crucial to identify and study the factors that lead to student satisfaction in online courses, which in turn has poorly been studied so far (Bookout, 2010). © C O PY R There are a number of factors that the researchers have spotted as influencing the overall learning experience of students (as defined by their satisfaction and level of perceived learning), but the strength of this influence is not always clear (Tao, 2009). Accordingly, Hermans, Haytko, and Mott-Stenerson (2009) urge the researchers to identify the factors that strongly influence student satisfaction regarding distance learning. In this context, the study of the distance learning success factors has been a priority for distance education researchers and practitioners. Therefore, in this study we opt for scaling a number of contributing factors at the same time and assessing the amount of influence they have on student satisfaction with online courses. The opportunity that measurement of several factors simultaneously creates, allows us to measure the strength of the influence on student satisfaction and identify the factors, which are more influential in the same online course of study. Showing collective and individual influences of these factors is only the first step on the way to having more successful online students in Malaysian higher education. 1.1.1 Distance Learning in Malaysian Higher Education In its aspiration to become a developed nation by 2020, Malaysia has embarked on an initiative to democratize higher education (Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), 2011). In response to this initiative and with the advent of rapid information and communication technology change, higher education institutions have been improving 2 PM the system of delivering higher education by offering distance learning courses and programs (San, 2010). Distance learning by providing the accessibility, affordability and flexibility has made a positive impact on the democratization of education in Malaysia (Issham, Siti Sarah & Rozhan, 2010). Consequently, it could be expressed that implementation strategies have been designed for distance education in order to prepare cost-effective ways of democratizing education and giving access to lifelong learning for the Malaysians (Ismail, Johari, & Idrus, 2010). IG H T U Distance learning has long been prosperous in Malaysia ever since the mid-1980s (Mok, 2011) and a rapidly developing industry in Malaysia since it provides a new dimension to education through its flexibility and accessibility (Ahmad & Chua, 2015). Moreover, distance learning compensates for the inequality in opportunities for higher education between working adults and full-time university students (Johari & Ismail, 2011). In terms of distance learning, much success has been reported in Malaysia, which gives the country a higher position in comparison with most Asian countries. According to Insight (2015), Malaysia has been countered as one of the three countries with highest growth rate in utilization of distance and e-learning industry, as reported by 2015 census. Based on the importance of distance learning in Malaysia, the government has set an ambitious target to have a large number of the country’s graduates produced via distance learning in the long run. Many higher education institutions have committed to distance learning due to its effectiveness as an alternative method to the traditional classroom method of learning (Ahmad & Chua, 2015); hence, the issue of distance learning activities is very interesting and worthy of exploring in Malaysian context (Abubakar, Harandez, & Magaji, 2009). © C O PY R To enrich and enhance the achievements of the local universities, Malaysia has launched the status of Research Universities (RU). RU in Malaysia refers to the public universities that are acknowledged and pledged to be focal mainly on research activities and education based on research and development (Ministry of Higher education (MOHE), 2011). RUs feature competitive enrolment, which ensures the quality of students and lecturers, and the appropriate ratio of undergraduates to postgraduates, which should idealistically be 50:50 (Ramli et al., 2013). Research universities status was designated under the Malaysian Research Assessment Instrument by the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) to the Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), and Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) (Ramli et al., 2013). These universities are recognized as research universities in Malaysia for their crucial position in research expansion and commercialization activities. However, the mission and vision for RUs calls for leading the development and expansion of innovation nation-wise, creating world-standard of academic research and creation, and finally maintaining a high potential medium for innovative research studies (Tan & Noor, 2013). Thus, providing distance-learning options has pushed older teaching establishments to become more innovative (Puteh, 2007). 3 U PM Research Universities (RU) have become the fastest way for the government to move the nation towards the knowledge-based economic country and achieving greater prosperity (Ramli et al., 2013). The formation of RU has also led to the enhancement of quality research outcomes, mainly due to the competitiveness among them in securing external fund to finance their research projects (Amran et al., 2014). A research university seeks to actively participate in new adventures of ideas, experiment with innovative methods, and take intellectual initiatives to further discover and expand the frontiers of knowledge. However, the RUs shall have an overall research master plan with specific blueprints for identified research thrust areas (Establishment of RU in Malaysia, 2004), which distance learning is one of these plans. Distance learning, by offering course programs beyond the mainstream, is an innovative response to the diverse demands for higher education in Malaysia (Azman & Morshidi, 2014). In this respect, Malaysian government requires setting up systems of quality assurance and accreditation to ensure that distance-learning strategies are indeed superior to traditional and on-campus approaches (Vicziany & Puteh, 2004). PY R IG H T Despite the rapid increase of student enrolment in distance learning courses because of their flexibility, convenience, and their affordability, higher education institutions in Malaysia face the problem of high dropout rate of students before completing their studies and earning a degree (San, 2010). Consequently, several research studies have identified the main factors that play role in making the online courses successful in Malaysia. For instance, Khalid (2014) demonstrated three main presence factors including social, pedagogical and cognitive factors that leverage learner satisfaction in their online courses in Malaysia. In another research, Hidayah and Noor (2015) investigated campus services, technology, and campus facilities and student’s satisfaction in University Utara Malaysia (UUM), Kedah, among 337 undergraduate students and found that only campus services are significant with student satisfaction. © C O In Malaysian context, a comprehensive quantitative study conducted by Lo, Ramayah and Hong (2011) explored into learner satisfaction of Malaysian students and identified a number of correlating factors that each could be considered as an independent variable per se. The study was cross-sectional and investigated over 300 students from 20 different Malaysian public universities to determine the relationship between satisfaction and method of delivery (medium of learning transmission), content of the course, system (infrastructure and technical support), and interaction between student and instructor and peers. Lo et al. (2011) accordingly proposed that the above-mentioned factors correlated with another moderately and were predictors for learner satisfaction. Thus, content, the learning system, delivery method, and interaction were determined to have a significant influence on distance learning satisfaction. However, in Malaysia, student satisfaction with online courses is considered as an essential quality measure in higher education regarding the impact it has on how students react towards their distance learning courses and their decisions to continue with the course or not (Roslina, Shaminah, Nur & Sian-Hoon, 2013). 4 1.1.2 Student Satisfaction with Online Courses H T U PM While distance learning has come a long way in a short time, there are still concerns about the satisfaction of students in distance learning environment (Shen, Yu & Khalifa, 2010; Peterson & Romereim-Holmes, 2011). Student satisfaction is commonly used as a measurement for assessing distance learning, which could briefly be defined as the degree to which a student likes or desired a distance learning course together with the student’s perception of the degree of effectiveness of the course based on the learning overall experience (Yu, 2014). Student’s perception of the delivered online course is influential upon the decision student makes about continuing or quitting a course. The student perception also impacts the degree to which they are satisfied by the online course collectively (Bollinger & Wasilik, 2009). The definition for student satisfaction with online courses could simply be meeting the expected results and having experience of learning to an agreeable level (Gray & Daymond, 2010). An alternative definition suggests subjective assessment of different results and experiences of a distance-learning course by the student based on their participation in learning (Roslina et al., 2013). In other words, student satisfaction, which reflects how positively students perceive their learning experiences, is an important indicator of program- and student-related outcomes. © C O PY R IG The importance of student satisfaction with online courses cannot be under estimated, as it is one of the main factors in measurement of student success, more prominently in distance learning context (Thompson, 2011). As distance-learning clients are tending increasingly to higher education and the number of institutions that take advantage of the demand and make the option available together with face-to-face classes (Noel-Levitz, 2009), the welcoming institutions are paying serious attention to student satisfaction. According to Bookout (2010), the responsibility that comes with the increase of the number of the students of online courses place premium on their needs and demands, thus their satisfaction becomes a crucial issue of research and investigation by the universities conducting the courses. The reason for which satisfaction of the students become fundamental to assessment is that satisfied learners show more persistence and less tendency to quit the course (Wang, et al., 2013; Butterfield, 2014), while conversely, the less satisfied students could bring about unfavorable reputation for the university and cause decrease in rate of enrolment (Roslina et al., 2013). Consequently, student satisfaction has attracted much attention of researchers and scholars as the relevant literature displays. When quality of education is being analyzed, there are a number of factors that come into the frame and student satisfaction is one of those playing a major part, as the rest include being cost-effective, learning-effective, satisfaction towards faculty and towards having access to the resources (Yukselturk & Yildirim, 2008; Yen & Abdous, 2011). Student satisfaction is rather derived from learner engagement, better performance in course of study, and it boosts learner motivation and rate of acquisition, leading the student to greater position in being successful (Bolliger & Halupa, 2012; Watts, 2015). Wang (2003) were cited in the research study of Ali and Ahmad (2011) purporting that regardless of the academic institution, the degree to 5 PM which a student is satisfied by the course could also be estimated through the amount of pleasure the student takes in attending the online course of study, together with the student’s idea of the effectiveness of the course based on the individual’s own experience. By these reasons, student satisfaction found to be a good source of information about the quality of distance courses (Lambert, 2011). Thus, through the data regarding student satisfaction, course designers, educators, and administrators can identify areas where improvement is needed (Kuo et al., 2013). Factors Influencing Student Satisfaction with Online Courses PY 1.1.3 R IG H T U Student satisfaction has held a central role in many studies as one of the measurements for the success of online courses (Mtebe, 2015; Ali, Ramay & Shahzad, 2011; Beqiri, Chase, & Bishka, 2009; Lewis, 2011). For example, Paechter et al. (2010) conducted a cross-sectional quantitative in Austria on 2196 students from 29 different Austrian universities to find out that the agreement of perceived knowledge and acquired skills with expectations and experiences brings about positive correlation between student satisfaction and the expectations from the course and experiences of the course by the online course students. In another study, Lin, Lin and Laffey (2008) surveyed 110 distance learners at a mid-west state university and found that student satisfaction in online courses was positively correlated to learners’ perceived task value, selfefficacy, and social ability. Thus, the necessity could well be sensed for the institutions to assess student satisfaction, so that provide a more satisfactory course that serves the students more effectively. Understanding satisfaction analysis enables better planning and development and the opportunity to add efficiencies in order to create a more effective distance-learning environment (Bookout, 2010). However, the researchers should identify several elements influencing student satisfaction in distance learning to improve the level of satisfaction and reduction of dropout (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009). © C O In order to achieve success in making distance learning as enduring part of higher education, it is critical to understand the driving factors that are responsible for its success (Bookout, 2010). Al-Fahad (2010) suggested that a critical issue for researchers and practitioners alike is to understand clearly the factors influencing student satisfaction with online courses. Several issues of concern to educators are examined as antecedent determinants of student satisfaction with online courses. Past studies have examined factors associated with student satisfaction, but the factors examined in each study have been limited and they only identified or studied a couple of factors influencing student satisfaction while the relevant literature indicates that there are a multitude of such variables affecting satisfaction (Hermans, Haytko, & Mott-Stenerson, 2009). The concern cited in distance learning literature is that the instructor and students are separated. In this regard, there are two theories that address the issue (Marino & Reddick, 2013).Transactional distance theory provided the first comprehensive way of understanding the consequences of physically separating learner and instructor 6 U PM (Starr-glass, 2015). Moore (1993) developed TDT as a psychological and communications gap that is a function of the interplay among structure, dialogue, and autonomy and used to determine the factors influencing the satisfaction of students. Moore and Kearsley (1996) noted that success in distance learning is determined by the extent to which the instructor and the institution are able to provide appropriate structure and the appropriate quality and quantity of dialogue between instructor and learner, taking into account the extent of the learner’s characteristics. This means increasing dialogue and developing support materials to reduce transactional distance, depending on the needs of individual learner characteristics (Stein et al., 2005). Further, social presence theory, which is known as psychological distance, indicates the feeling of separation and isolation (Marino & Reddick, 2013). This theory is connecting the learner socially and emotionally without face-to-face interaction (Tschetter, 2014). The literature suggests that the instructor is responsible firstly to provide this social presence (Aragon, 2003). In this respect, an instructor immediacy behavior embodies in the social presence theory to enhance satisfaction and may aid in retention of students (Peterson & Romereim-Holmes, 2011). PY R IG H T Many researchers have adopted the Online Interaction Learning Model, Transactional Distance Theory (TDT) and Social Presence Theory (SPT) in investigating as well as including constructs that play an influencing role in satisfaction of distance-learning students (Peterson & Romereim-Holmes, 2007; Vasiloudis, Koutsouba & Giossos, 2015; Ustati & Hassan, 2013). Most of the previous studies confirmed these theories, and several researchers attempted to expand the theories to add more factors (StarrGlass, 2012; Alhawiti, 2013). The present study aimed to develop a model to identify the most important factors that influence the satisfaction of students with online courses, which are institutional factors in terms of support (technical support, administrative, and university), instructor immediacy behavior, learner characteristics (motivation, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy), and perceived learning as a mediating factor. © C O Institutional factors are considered as the overall support delivered by the distance learning system to the learners who use this system (Bhuasiri et al., 2012). The success of distance learning is likely to depend to a considerable extent on the level of support students can obtain from their institutions (Melton, 2004; Islam, Jalali & Ariffin, 2011; Cheawjindakarn et al., 2013). In the present study, institutional factors that are the offshoots online course support services are assessed and investigated as prominent variables that directly and significantly impact student satisfaction regarding distancelearning environment. Mwenje and Saruchera's (2013) study concluded that monitoring and assessing quality of support services in distance learning is increasingly becoming critical to distance learning, as institutions seek to reach out to more students and maintain higher levels of student retention. Furthermore, as institutions strive to make their distance education programs successful, they need to solve the support issues that often become barriers to achieving this goal. 7 U PM As distance learning program developed in haste to meet growing demand, but support entities are often not in place to promote the demand (Tallen-Runnels et al., 2006) as institutional support for distance learning are subpar in many institutions (Meyer & Barefield, 2010). Chaney, Chaney and Eddy (2010) claimed that successful distance learning requires a significant amount of institutional support to satisfy student’s needs and bring them closer to university functionaries. Hence, research studies should put greater emphasis on investigating the role of institutional factors in terms of support services on student satisfaction, because dissatisfaction with institution represents a serious waste of resources that are scarce. However, there are different types of institutional factors in terms of support that could influence satisfaction of students (Obasuyi & Okwilagwe, 2016), but one of the most comprehensive lists of elements has been developed by Keast (1997). He identified distinctive types of support for distance learners including administrative support, technical support, and academic support. Hence, this study considered the above-mentioned support services, which fall under Keast’s categories. PY R IG H T Instructor immediacy is a construct that determines the virtual and psychological remoteness between the instructor and the students (Marino & Reddick, 2013). The presence of instructor immediacy promotes increased feelings of closeness and connectedness between students and instructors, and therefore enhances instructional interaction, which in turn has been demonstrated to have a positive effect on both student learning and student satisfaction (Bohnstedt, 2011). Arbaugh (2010) found that instructor immediacy behavior is a critical foundation for the development of community amongst online learners and influences social presence. Moreover, he suggests that instructor immediacy behavior is a strong predictor of student perceived learning and course satisfaction than instructor experience or technological experience. Baker (2008), Mclaren (2010), Wendt and Nisbet (2015) reported that when instructors employ immediacy behavior, students demonstrate increased motivation, enhanced satisfaction, and achieve higher level of learning outcomes. © C O The literature on the impact of student characteristics on success is extensive and well documented (Yusof, 2012; Ergul, 2004; Ng et al., 2012; Gunawardena et al, 2010). While most people make decision to seek distance learning based on personal and practical decision, it is necessary to look at learner characteristics more closely when trying to predict online courses success (Lambert, 2011). Nakayama et al. (2014) recognized learner characteristics as a major factor, which affect online course completion rates. Aktan (2010) suggested that the study of characteristics could shed light on the learner performance, providing information for planning and designing the appropriate tasks and methods of delivery that boost the involvement of the student in an online course. Similarly, Kintu and Zhu (2016) pointed out that successful design of distance learning environment requires a successful examination of learner characteristics. According to Kauffman (2015), identification of learner characteristics that lead to online success versus failure could help in predicting possible learning outcomes and save students from enrolling in online courses. 8 PM In order to design online courses or programs to fit the needs of distance learners, it is necessary to investigate the characteristics of online learners (Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007). Thus, there is considerable evidence to support learner characteristics for promoting the satisfaction of students with online courses. In this respect, various learners’ characteristics may affect learning outcomes of distance learning. Kauffman (2015) points out factors such as motivation, self-regulation and self-efficacy play important roles in online learning. However, as the literature for learner characteristics categories is extensive and well documented, the current study has selected motivation, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy as crucial characteristics of distance learning students based on previous empirical studies (Ergul, 2004; Wang, 2010; Kuo, Walker, Schroder, & Belland, 2014; Yusuf, 2011). PY R IG H T U Assessing perceived learning as an outcome variable for academic success has marked a shift in this area of research. Researchers have previously looked at learning assessed by grade point average, by final course grade, or by grade on an assignment but students required learning extends beyond course content. Students need to acquire learning that will be directly useful in their careers (Lambert, 2011). Perceived learning is defined as what students perceive as gains from taking a distance-learning course. A considerable amount of literature supports the direct effect of the perceived learning on course outcomes ( Eom, Wen, & Ashill, 2006; Chu & Chu, 2010; Nyachae, 2011). For example, Shin and Chan (2004) provided the outline for the majority of research studies examining perceived learning in distance education and found that perceived learning was directly related to overall success. According to Sharma and Chandel (2014), Richardson and Swan (2003), high level of perceived learning will influence student satisfaction with online courses. Hence, based on the strong positive relationship between perceived learning and course satisfaction, it is identified as a meidator in this study. © C O It should be expressed that the present study is the outcome of this researcher’s vast and encompassing review of literature on student satisfaction of distance-earning online courses. The review confirmed that no single set of factors exist that is able to predict course satisfaction. So, several common variables emerged from this literature review that affect student success, which by understanding these factors and implementing procedures to increase learning outcomes, higher education institutions can ensure the course or program quality meets credibility standards (Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007). Therefore, the present study designed a hypothesized model borrowing from prior empirical research studies and determined the relationship between diverse influential factors by means of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to tackle the obstacles on the way to success of online courses. 1.2 Problem Statement The exponential growth of learner population is making Malaysian distance learning an increasingly popular choice (Abedalaziz & Muaidi, 2015), which puts Malaysia in a good position to harness the power of distance learning to widen access to good 9 U PM quality content, enhance the quality of teaching and learning, lower the cost of delivery, and bring Malaysian expertise to the global community (Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (2013). As distance learning established itself as an option in higher education and is poised to take larger role in Malaysia, the rate of students who fail to complete their online courses has continued to increase (Khodabandelou, 2014). Navarrro and Shoemaker (2000) theorize that high student satisfaction should result in lower dropout rates, which is one of the most significant issues for Malaysian distance learning developers, university management, and faculty members particularly in higher education (San, 2010; Ng & Confessore, 2011; Khalid, 2014). A review of available literature on student satisfaction in distance learning revealed that few empirical studies investigated student satisfaction (Ham, 2005). Thus, much more attention is required on conducting a study to highlight student satisfaction in Malaysian Research Universities. O PY R IG H T As distance learning are becoming the norm in higher education, little is known about the variables that contribute to student satisfaction (Keeler, 2006; Kuo et al., 2013). The most important solution that can be offered up for the issue is studying the influencing factors of student satisfaction based on theories and research models. There are many factors that had reported in previous literature influencing student satisfaction such as the main factors of online interaction learning model namely; students’ self-construal, students’ prior CSCL experience, and technology’s usability (Ali, 2015). Variables included in transactional distance theory and social presence theory are self-efficacy, level of technical support, interactivity with instructor, (Ham, 2005), instructional support, peer, and technical support (Lee et al., 2011), and immediacy behavior (Bai, 2002; Schutt, 2010) but finding a unified theory/model which developed to account for this is still a challenge (Kostina, 2011). Moreover, in the context of Malaysia, a few studies have combined institutional factors; instructor immediacy behavior and learner characteristics simultaneously to examine whether these factors can predict student satisfaction. For this reason, there is a need for research to be done in Malaysia to investigate factors influencing student satisfaction by using these theories. Investigating such these factors can reduce the theoretical gap in student satisfaction domain. © C Institutions in Malaysia are facing the challenge of increasing the educational opportunities to advance the country into a developed status (Parsons, 2008). Given such need, it is imperative that institutions equip their students with the necessary of support services (San, 2010) because lack of these supports is one of the main challenges in Malaysian distance learning institutions (Embi, 2011). The result of the study on the experience of 22 multinational and multilingual students in a distance learning program indicates that the students felt dissatisfy by the course because their needs in terms of support services are not fully attended to. The study shows that students in distance learning program are quite frustrated when the support services are incompetent or unreliable (Ustati & Hassan, 2013). According to Lorenzi, MacKeogh and Fox (2004), Mullen and Tallent-Runnels (2006) and Croxton (2014), support services are the most contribute factors, which are positively related to course satisfaction and perceived learning. Previous research has also widely investigated the 10 relationship between institutional factors in terms of support services and student satisfaction (Kee et al., 2012; Marinakou, 2014; Ramírez, 2015). However, the results obtained are inclusive or even contradictory. Consequently, Lee et al. (2011) have concluded that more research is needed in that area. H T U PM Research on instructor immediacy behavior has demonstrated that when instructors employ immediacy behaviors, students demonstrate increased perceived learning and satisfaction (Arbaugh, 2000; Swan, 2001; Richardson & Swan, 2003). In reference to Kim and Moore (2005), when students perceive and regard instructor immediacy behavior highly, they tend to be more satisfied with instruction in online courses. This interaction between student and instructor, cause to lowered feeling of isolation as well as reduction in likelihood that they will drop out of their online courses (Croxton, 2014). While these findings received a lot of attention in the communication literature, most of the studies were conducted in traditional face-to-face and very few studies have examined instructor immediacy in the distance learning (Keeler, 2006; Marino & Reddick, 2013; Spiker, 2014). Despite the lack of research on immediacy in the context of distance learning, a body of research in distance learning suggest that there is a need to extend the existing research of instructor immediacy from traditional to distance learning (Baker, 2010; Taha & El-Hajjar, 2012; Schutt, 2010). © C O PY R IG The presented literacy background leads to the claim that adequate knowledge about the direct relationship between learner characteristics and student satisfaction with online courses is not provided (Bolliger & Erichsen, 2012; Keller & Karau, 2013; Cohen & Baruth, 2017). Even though there is previous evidence regarding the relationship between learner characteristics in terms of motivation, self-regulated, and self-efficacy with student satisfaction in distance learning environment (Sun, 2009; Kintu & Zhu, 2016), this relationship has not been studied enough, and the role that it can play in this area was not taken into consideration (Katt & Collins, 2013). Ng and Confessore (2011) pointed out that a substantial percentage of distance learners in Malaysia show a relatively low level of learner characteristics. Low level of these characteristics causes obstacles to student satisfaction. The awareness of learners' characteristics may help in designing high-quality online courses that meet the needs of learners and improve the level of satisfaction from the course (Kauffman, 2015) but little is known about how to identify the characteristics of the learners who are at the risk of dropping online courses (Asdi, 2015). However, in the absence of sufficient evidence in previous research for the relationship between learner characteristics and student satisfaction, and also mixed findings from prior studies, further research on studying this relationship is necessary (Jan, 2015). The examination of perceived learning as the mediator variable through which the institutional factors, instructor immediacy behavior, and learner characteristics affects course satisfaction is still scare. Due to the reason that very few scholars have empirically investigated the mediation variables in the relationship between independent factors and course satisfaction (Gebara, 2010; Khalid, 2014; Marinakou, 2014) , this research relying on Online Interaction Learning Model (Benbunan-Fich et al., 2005), which attempt to investigate the mediation effect of learning process in 11 order to increase student satisfaction. According to Benbunan-Fich et al. (2005), aspects of learning process such as perceived learning occupy the central place in the online interaction-learning model. Having due consideration, instructors will know how to improve the learning process for students in terms of perceived learning. Therefore, studies focusing on perceived learning as a factor in student success are seriously needed. 1.3 Research Objectives H The objectives of the current research are: T U PM The aforementioned problems may impede the satisfaction of students with online courses at distance learning centers in Malaysian Research Universities, which are not in line with the modernization that students in this country are going through. Inattention to these problems faces higher education institutions with serious challenges in Malaysia. Therefore, this dissertation may make a contribution through studying the factors influencing student satisfaction because high level of satisfaction may be reflected in lower drop out rates as well as rising demand for online courses (Cohen & Baruth, 2017). R IG 1. To determine the level of course satisfaction, perceived learning, institutional factors (technical support, administrative support, and university support), instructor immediacy behavior and learner characteristics (motivation, selfregulated learning, and self-efficacy) among the undergraduate’s distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities. O PY 2. To determine the influence of institutional factors (technical support, administrative support, and university support), instructor immediacy behavior, learner characteristics (motivation, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy) on course satisfaction among the undergraduate’s distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities. © C 3. To determine the influence of institutional factors (technical support, administrative support, and university support), instructor immediacy behavior and learner characteristics (motivation, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy) on perceived learning among the undergraduate’s distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities. 4. To examine the role of perceived learning as a mediator for the relationship between institutional factors (technical support, administrative support, and university support), instructor immediacy behavior and learner characteristics (motivation, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy) with courses satisfaction among the undergraduate’s distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities. 12 5. To develop a model that predicts the course satisfaction among the undergraduate’s distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities. 1.4 Research Questions PM Five research questions were addressed for objective one. Q1.What is the level of course satisfaction among undergraduate distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities? U Q2.What is the level of perceived learning among undergraduate distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities? T Q3.What is the level of technical support among the undergraduate distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities? H Q4.What is the level of administrative support among the undergraduate distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities? IG Q5.What is the level of university support among the undergraduate distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities? R Q6.What is the level of instructor immediacy behavior among the undergraduate’s distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities? PY Q7. What is the level of motivation among the undergraduate distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities? Q8.What is the level of self-regulated learning among the undergraduate distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities? O Q9. What is the level of self-efficacy among the undergraduate’s distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities? © C 1.5 Research Hypotheses The research hypotheses are developed based on the literature and theoretical background. The focus of the study is on the influence of institutional factors (technical support, administrative support, and university support), instructor immediacy behavior and learner characteristics (motivation, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy) on course satisfaction among the undergraduate distance learners in Malaysian Research Universities. Additionally, the study intended to ascertain the role of the mediation effect of perceived learning in the relationship between 13 institutional factors, instructor immediacy behavior and course satisfaction. A total of 18 hypotheses were formulated based on objective two, three, and four, as follows: Objective Two: PM H1: Technical support has a significant influence on course satisfaction. H2: Administrative support has a significant influence on course satisfaction. U H3: University support has a significant influence on course satisfaction. H4:Instructor immediacy behavior has a significant influence on course satisfaction. H T H5: Motivation has a significant influence on course satisfaction. IG H6: Self-regulated learning has a significant influence on course satisfaction. Objective Three: R H7: Self-efficacy has a significant influence on course satisfaction. PY H8: Technical support has a significant influence on perceived learning. O H9: Administrative support has a significant influence on perceived learning. C H10: University support has a significant influence on perceived learning. © H11:Instructor immediacy behavior has a significant influence on perceived learning. H12: Motivation has a significant influence on perceived learning. H13: Self-regulated learning has a significant influence on perceived learning. H14: Self-efficacy has a significant influence on perceived learning. 14 Objective Four: H15: Perceived learning has a significant influence on course satisfaction. PM H16: Perceived learning mediates the influence of technical support on course satisfaction. H17: Perceived learning mediates the influence of administrative support on course satisfaction. U H18: Perceived learning mediates the influence of university support on course satisfaction. H T H19: Perceived learning mediates the influence of instructor immediacy behavior on course satisfaction. IG H20: Perceived learning mediates the influence of motivation on course satisfaction. R H21: Perceived learning mediates the influence of self-regulated learning on course satisfaction. 1.6 PY H22 : Perceived learning mediates the influence of self-efficacy on course satisfaction. Significance of the Study © C O Distance learning has become one of the major trends in education, especially in the 21th century. It has opened the opportunity for learners from all walks of life to continue with their academic pursue (Ustati & Hassan, 2013). Now, the higher education institutions are equipped with distance learning to provide realistic and practical opportunities for students to make learning as independent, useful, sustainable and expansive as possible (Aziz & Abdullah, 2014). Ham (2005) theorizes that high distance learner satisfaction should result in lower dropout rates. He thinks that satisfied distance learners are less apt to drop classes, while dissatisfied distance learners are more likely to drop. Understanding the profile of a successful and satisfied distance learners can guide decisions that administrators make about investing time, resources, and effort into the development of online courses and programs. The significance of this study lies in the fact that higher education administrators and decision makers make daily decision to invest time and money to enter or increase their positions within the distance education market. Yet they have little empirical data 15 about what factors actually relate to student satisfaction and success in distance learning. Identifying success factors, provide reliable data about students’ perception of their online course experience. Such data can inform decision-making about investments in and the organization of distance learning program development at higher education institutions. H T U PM From the theoretical perspective, one of the most significant current discussions in higher education is distance learning in institutions. Although many studies have been conducted about distance learning, large-scale studies from different issues and different point of view are needed to explore perceived learning as mediator between success factors and course satisfaction. In this regard, the current study bridges this gap by exploring the elements of institutional factors, learner characteristics, and instructor immediacy with student satisfaction from students’ point of view in distance learning environment. If the results of the current study show that there is relationship between these elements and course satisfaction through the mediation role of perceived learning, it can help policy makers advocate for distance learning that features these elements and better meets students’ needs. Data from this research should also help higher learning institutions create better programs and support services that foster effective learning environments. PY R IG The researcher hopes that the findings of this study can provide useful insight into improving online courses offered in higher education programs in Malaysian Research Universities. At this juncture, the current study can be important for understanding how IVs influence perceived learning and satisfaction in distance learning environment. It can also be important for examining perception of students’ learning as well as institutional factors, instructor immediacy, and learner characteristics in their online courses. Moreover, understanding more about students’ perceptions of these variables and perceived learning would be meaningful in the field of educational technology studies. Research such as this study is significant to all students, that is, to make use of alternate formats to meet their educational needs. © C O From the practical perspective, based on the available body of research literature, activities directed towards establishing the relationship between the institutional factors (technical, university, and administrative support), instructor immediacy, and learner characteristics (motivation, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy) and perceived learning as mediator with course satisfaction in countries such as Malaysia are extremely rare. Therefore, the present study is seriously needed in research area because its findings will hopefully solve problems in learning practices in distance learning environment in higher education institutions. Lastly, this effort should help to achieve the goals of Ministry of Higher Education to transform Malaysia into a Knowledge-based economy by further planning and developing distance learning. 16 1.7 Limitations of the Study T U PM The limitations of this study are in terms of population, research design, variables and research universities. The population of this study was limited to UPM and UKM only, because these two universities in Malaysia have the highest number of students in distance learning program. The selected population of the present study was limited only to the third-year and fourth-year undergraduates from distance learning centers at research universities. The participants of this study were undergraduate students whose background and experiences have been different from postgraduate or undergraduates of first and second years, because it is assumed that the undergraduates already have good experience in learning through this kind of program. In this respect, the evaluation of students can take place after more than two years of attending the online courses. During the third year and fourth year of studying in university, the students are already believed to have gained experience in using distance-learning program in learning purposes (Tabib, 2016). Hence, the results cannot be generalized to the entire spectrum of distance learners. R IG H In this research, the data was collected through questionnaires, which relied on the perception of the higher education students. This research needs to be acknowledged and accepted as being based on the accuracy of the data and honesty of the respondents. The present research study data collection took place via survey, which relied on self-reported information. In fact, the present study would not be able to assume that all answers of respondents were accurate. However, the primary assumption is the participants understand all the items of the questionnaires and responded truthfully. Hence, the findings and conclusion of the study are limited to the extent that this method yields accurate and honest responses. © C O PY There are many variables, which may have an influence on student satisfaction, for example, delivery method, content, technical support, infrastructure, and interaction. To add to the former, we can also count individual creativity, self-efficacy, student attitude, administrator support, instructor support, relative advantage, being compatible, and complexity of the subject of the study (Kee et al., 2012; Lo et al., 2011). However, this study pursued to investigate the influence of a number of factors (institutional factors, instructor immediacy behavior, learner characteristics, and perceived learning) on course satisfaction, since investigation of all factors was beyond the scope of this study. Further, this study used student satisfaction with their online courses as the only measure of course quality but there are many other measures of quality that are important such as objective measurement of students’ knowledge. Data from this study was obtained only from undergraduate students in higher education and may not be applicable to students at other levels, such as postgraduate and PhD students or the instructors. This study is also limited to Malaysian research universities and may not be generalized to all undergraduates’ population in other higher institutions in Malaysia in terms of accessible population, due to time, energy, and financial constraints. Furthermore, the findings of this study may not be 17 generalized to all Malaysian public universities because not all universities have distance-learning centers. Therefore, the generalization of the present study can only be applied to studies that have similar characteristics with this research and may need considerations when it is applied in other setting environment or circumstances. Although there are some limitations, it is hoped that the results of this study will be significant for further research and justification. Definition of Terms PM 1.8 1.8.1 U The definition of terms should clarify any possible ambiguities within the terms used in this study and help the reader understand what the researcher intends to convey. Distance Learning Course Satisfaction R 1.8.2 IG H T Distance learning is defined as the instruction where students and teachers are separated by distance and sometimes by time. It is designed to deliver education to students who are not physically “on site” (San, 2010). Distance learning refers to instruction that takes place online and there are no requirements for face-to-face meetings between instructors and students (Cheawjindakarn et al., 2013). In this study, distance learning refers to the instruction characterized by separation of teacher and learner in time and/or place; uses multiple media for delivery of instruction; involves two-way communication and occasional face-to-face meeting. O PY Course satisfaction defined as the degree to which a learner is satisfied with or grateful for the learning experience online (Khalid, 2014). Course satisfaction refers to students’ overall perceptions with online course experiences and the value perceived form the courses (Wang, 2010). In this study, course satisfaction refers to the degree that the expectations of distance learners match the experiences of them with online courses. © C 1.8.3 Perceived Learning Perceived learning is the extent to which learners recognize that they have obtained new knowledge or corrected their shortcomings in their earlier knowledge (Nyachae, 2011). Lambert (2011) defined perceived learning as what individual student perceives as gains from taking an online course. In this study, perceived learning is defined as distance learning students’ self-report and assessment of how much they have cognitively learned and gained from online courses. 18 1.8.4 Institutional factors PM Institutional factors refer to quality and difficulty of instructional materials, access to and quality of tutorial support, and the administrative and other support services provided (Williams, Nicholas & Gunter, 2006). In this study, institutional factors refer to overall support delivered by distance-learning system to the learners who use this system, which consists of technical support, administrative support, and university support. T U Technical support: Technical support refers to assistance and support in technology use including easy access, prompt response, and tips on how to use electronic/media programs (Song, 2004). Barbera, Clara and Linder-Vanberschot (2013) defined technical support as the help that learner receives as how to make use of the virtual medium of online course. In the current study, technical support refers to services provided by experts to assist distance-learning students in utilizing the computer and technology for their online courses. R IG H Administrative support: Administrative support defined as what administrators do to facilitate the students’ effective use of technology in the learning processes (Deryakulu & Olkun, 2008). In this study, administrative support refers to advising, assisting and actions performed by administrators to maintain a vital and functional distance-learning environment by facilitating the use of technology to promote the interest of students efficiently with online courses. O PY University Support: University support is defined by Libron-Green (2004) as the tools, methods, facilities, personnel, and services offered by the educational establishment to assist and encourage students in their learning. The university support refers to the measures that university top officials take as to provide the online course, adopt and adapt based on the context, merchandise and upgrade (Kee et al., 2012). In this study, university support refers to measures taken by the Malaysian research universities admissions to design, maintain and upgrade their online courses as to support students to have a successful distance learning experience. © C 1.8.5 Instructor Immediacy Behavior Instructor immediacy behavior is a measure of the psychological distance between instructor and student (Marino & Reddick, 2013). Corona (2012) defines instructor immediacy behavior as communication behaviors that decrease the psychological gap between learner and instructor. Instructor immediacy behavior is verbal and visual behaviors of instructors that reduce the psychological distance between themselves and students (Baker, 2008). In the present study, instructor immediacy behavior refers to the leaner’s perception of instructor’s communicative measures to lessen the psychological gap between learner and instructor. 19 1.8.6 Learner characteristics PM Learner’s characteristics refer to one’s methodical approach and the way that the individual processes information, which is considered to be a measurement tool for learning (Cohen & Baruth, 2017). In this study, learner characteristics is defined as a collection of skills and learning strategies that the learner uses to handle the learning task efficiently and effectively to promote their satisfaction with online courses, which consists of motivation, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy. T U Motivation: Motivation is defined as the internal force that drives individuals to function and reason in the manner they do (Grassl, 2010). According to Amro (2014) motivation refers to the desire or determination to work and complete course through stimulus or incentive that causes a person to act. In this study, motivation refers to the degree to which undergraduate students of online courses are driven by their desire to set educational goals and go forward with the course until they feel self-confident in understanding and comprehending the course. R IG H Self-Regulated Learning: Self-regulated learning is defined as the ability of learners to control the factors or conditions affecting student learning (Sun, 2009). Selfregulated learning is a proactive process that students use to acquire specific academic skills (Peterson, 2011). In this study, self-regulated learning refers to the degree to which a learner is able to plan, monitor and assess one’s goal and one’s progress in the course, manage timing and distance learning environment to fulfill the given learning tasks. © C O PY Self-Efficacy: Self-efficacy is learner’s belief in one’s capability to perform a specific task (Kee et al., 2012). Self-efficacy also refers to self-confidence of learner regarding one’s capability to do the tasks and manage online learning environment (Abbad et al., 2009). In the current study, self-efficacy refers to student’s perception of their ability to fulfill learning tasks in their online courses. 20 6 REFERENCES Abbad, Muneer Mahmood, David Morris, & Carmel De Nahlik (2009). Looking under the bonnet: Factors affecting student adoption of e-learning systems in Jordan. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,10(2), 1-25. PM Abedalaziz, N., & Muaidi, H. (2015). Attitudes Towards Internet-Based Distance Education Among Academic Staff of Malaysian Universities. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(1), 81-90. U Abubakar, A. B., HarandeZ, Y. I., & Magaji, B. (2009). E-learning in Malaysia and Nigeria: A bibliometric study. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on e-Learning: ECEL (p. 1). Academic Conferences Limited. T Adadi, E. (2015). Student Support Services in Distance Learning Environments. An Overlooked Component. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 735-740). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). IG H Aditiawarman, U., & Hussein, R. (2007). Factors influencing e-learning acceptance: A case study of Indonesian open learning university. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2274-2282). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). PY R Adzharuddin, N. A., & Ling, L. H. (2013). Learning Management System (LMS) among University Students: Does It Work? International Journal of eEducation, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 3(3), 248-257. Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2008). School leadership and information communication technology. School leadership and information communication technology. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4),82-91. C O Ahmad, N. A., & Chua, L. N. (2015). Technology and Higher Education: Using an ELearning Tutorial as a Pedagogy for Innovation and Flexible Learning. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 21-31. © Aktan, F. (2010). The Effects of Learner Characteristics on Satisfaction in Distance Education (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Alavi, M., Yoo, Y., & Vogel, D. R. (1997). Using information technology to add value to management education. Academy of management Journal, 40(6), 1310-1333. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Research commentary: Technology-mediated learning—A call for greater depth and breadth of research. Information systems research, 12(1), 1-10. 156 Alexander, M. W., Perreault, H., Zhao, J. J., & Waldman, L. (2009). Comparing AACSB Faculty and Student Online Learning Experiences: Changes between 2000 and 2006. Journal of Educators Online, 6 (1), 1-20. Al-Fahad, F. N. (2010). The learners’ satisfaction toward online e-learning implemented in the college of applied studies and community service, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia: Can e-learning replace the conventional system of education? Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 11(2), 61-72. PM Al Ghamdi, A., Samarji, A., & Watt, A. (2016). Essential considerations in distance education in KSA: Teacher immediacy in a virtual teaching and learning environment. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(1), 37-50. U Al Tabib, Shaima Mohammad (2017). Factors Predicting Mobile Learning Utilization and Its Utilization Level Among Undergraduates In Sultan Qaboos University, Oman (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti of Putra Malaysia). IG H T Alhawiti, M. M. (2013). Transactional Distance Theory in the World Wide Web Environment. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (1823-1828). Alhabeeb, A., & Rowley, J. (2017). Critical success factors for eLearning in Saudi Arabian universities. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(2), 131-147. PY R Ali, A., & Ahmad, I. (2011). Key Factors for Determining Students' Satisfaction in Distance Learning Courses: A Study of Allama Iqbal Open University. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2 (2), 118-134. Ali, A., Ramay, M. I., & Shahzad, M. (2011). Key Factors for Determining Student Satisfaction in Distance Learning Courses: A Study of Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU) Islamabad, Pakistan. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 12 (2), 114-127. O Ali, W. A. W., Nor, H. M., Hamzah, A., & Alwi, H. (2009). The conditions and level of ICT integration in Malaysian Smart Schools. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 5(2), 1-7. © C Ali, S. H. S. (2015). Predictive Model for Learning Productivity in A ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning Platform Among Students in A Malaysian Public University (Doctoral dissertation, University Putra Malaysia). Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC, 1-45. Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade: Online education in the United States, Sloan Consortium. Newburyport, MA. Alshammari, S. H., Ali, M. B., & Rosli, M. S. (2016). The Influences of Technical Support, Self-Efficacy and Instructional Design on the Usage and Acceptance 157 of LMS: A Comprehensive Review. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 15(2), 116-125. Aman, R. R. (2009). Improving student satisfaction and retention with online instruction through systematic faculty peer review of courses (Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University). PM Amran, F. H., Kamal, I., Rahman, A., Salleh, K., Noh, S., Ahmad, S., & Haron, N. H. (2014). Funding trends of research universities in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 164 (2014), 126–134. U Amro, H. J. (2014). The Effects Of Motivation, Technology, And Satisfaction On Student Achievement In Face-To-Face And Online Classes In College Algebra At A College In South Texas (Doctoral dissertation,Texas A&M UniversityKingsville). T Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. IG H Angel, R. (2005). Gaining Administrative Support for Teaching and Learning in Virtual Worlds: An Analysis of Vision, Support, Access, and Time. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1774-1777). R Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100(1), 57– 68. PY Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with internet-based MBA courses. Journal of management education, 24(1), 32-54. O Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42-54. © C Arbaugh, J. B. (2010). Sage, guide, both, or even more? An examination of instructor activity in online MBA courses. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1234-1244. Arbaugh, J. B., & Rau, B. (2007). A study of disciplinary, structural, and behavioral effect on course outcomes in online MBA courses. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 65–93 Artino Jr, A. R. (2007). Online military training: Using a social cognitive view of motivation and self-regulation to understand students' satisfaction, perceived learning, and choice. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 191-202. Artino Jr, A. R. (2008). Learning online: Understanding academic success 158 from a self-regulated learning University of Connecticut). perspective (Doctoral dissertation, 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. PM Artino, A. R. (2009). Think, feel, act: Motivational and emotional influences on military students’ online academic success. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(2), 146-166. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Walker, D. (2010). Introduction to research in education (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. U Asdi, A. K. (2015). Learner Characteristics as Early Predictor of Persistence in Online Courses (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). T Ates, A. (2011). Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Achievement Motivation and Gender as Related to Educational Software Development. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 12(3), 11-22. H Awang, Z. (2014). A Handbook on SME: For Academicians and Practitioners. MPWS Rich Resources. IG Ayars, V. D. (2011). A Comparison of Perceptions of Online and Face-to-Face Learners in the Same Associate Degree Nursing Program (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University Graduate). PY R Aziz, M. I. A., & Abdullah, D. (2014). Finding the next ‘wave’in internationalisation of higher education: Focus on Malaysia. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15(3), 493-502. Azman, N., Sirat, M., & Ahmad, A. R. (2014). Higher education, learning regions and the Malaysian transformation policies. Higher Education Policy, 27(3), 301-321. © C O Bai, H. (2003). Social Presence and Cognitive Engagement in Online Learning Environments. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1483-1486). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Baker, C. (2008). Instructor Immediacy and Presence in the Online Learning Environment : an Investigation of Relationships with Student Affective Learning, Cognition and Motivation (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas). Baker, C. (2010). The Impact of Instructor Immediacy and Presence for Online Student Affective Learning, Cognition and Motivation, Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1–30. Bagheri, A., & Pihie, Z. A. L. (2014). The Factors Shaping Entrepreneurial 159 Intentions. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Baleghi-Zadeh, S., Ayub, A. F. M., Mahmud, R., & Daud, S. M. (2017). The influence of system interactivity and technical support on learning management system utilization. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 9(1), 50-68. PM Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5(1), 307-337. U Barak, M. (2010). Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4), 381-401. T Barbera, E., Clara, M., & Linder-Vanberschot, J. A. (2013). Factors influencing student satisfaction and perceived learning in online courses. E-learning and Digital Media, 10 (3), 226-235. H Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O. & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12 (1), 1-6. IG Basila, C. L. (2016). Academic Performance in College Online Courses : The Role Of Self-Regulated Learning , Motivation and Academic Self-Efficacy (Doctoral dissertation, University of Albany). PY R Baturay, M. H. (2011). Relationships among sense of classroom community, perceived cognitive learning and satisfaction of students at an e-learning course. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 19(5), 563-575. Battistelli, A. (2008). The influence of the organisational context on training motivation. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 4(1), 199-209. O Bean, B. W. (2008). Institutional, Financial, And Student Characteristics Affecting Persistence Of Scholarship Recipients: A Case Study Of First, Second, And Third Year Student Retention For Daniels Fund Scholars (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver). © C Belawati, T., & Baggaley, J. (2010). Policy and practice in Asian distance education. Souh Asia Journal of Management, 18(2), 150-154. Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(4), 298312. Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S. R., & Harasim, L. (2005). The online interaction learning model: An integrated theoretical framework for learning networks. Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks, 19-37. 160 Benzigar, S. (2014). A survey study of the association between perceptions of interactions, learning and satisfaction among undergraduate online students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati). Beqiri, M. S., Chase, N. M., & Bishka, A. (2009). Online course delivery: An empirical investigation of factors affecting student satisfaction. Journal of Education for Business, 85(2), 95-100. PM Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009). Addressing the context of e-learning: Using transactional distance theory to inform design. DistanceEducation, 30(1) 5-21. U Best, A. C. (2012). Online Academic Support Peer Groups for Medical Undergraduates (Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University). T Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843–855. IG H Bohnstedt, K. D. (2011). Instructor interaction and immediacy behaviors in a multipoint videoconferenced instructional environment: A descriptive case study (Doctoral dissertation, University of George Mason). R Bohnstedt, K. D., Jerome, M. K., Lojkovic, D. A., Brigham, F. J., & M.Behrmann, M. (2013). Instructor Interaction and Immediacy Behaviors in a Multipoint Distance Educational Environment: Using Technology to Improve LowIncidence Teacher Preparation, 28(4), 27–41. PY Bolandifar, S (2017). Effect of blended learning on reading. comprehension and critical thinking skills of undergraduate ESL students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Putra Malaysia). O Bolliger, D. U., & Erichsen, E. A. (2012). Student satisfaction with blended and online courses based on personality type. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(1), 1-23. © C Bolliger, D. U. & Martindale (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-learning, 3(1), 6167. Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2012). An exploration of the correlation between student satisfaction and anxiety in the online environment. Distance Education, 33(1), 81-98. Bollinger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning in higher education. Journal of Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116. 161 Bookout Jr, J. M. (2010). An examination of relationships between psychosocial satisfaction scales in an online student-learning environment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama). Borland, M.A. (2012). The relationships between personality characteristics and student achievement: What contributes to student satisfaction in online learning environments (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). PM Boston, W., Diaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2010). An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 3-18. T U Bozkaya, M., & Aydin, İ. E. (2008). The relationship between teacher immediacy behaviors and learners' perceptions of social presence and satisfaction in open and distance education: The case of Anadolu university open education faculty. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(3), 64–70. H Bozkurt, A., Akgun-Ozbek, E., Yilmazel, S., Erdogdu, E., Ucar, H., Guler, E., … Aydin, C. H. (2015). Trends in distance education research: A content analysis of journals 2009-2013. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(1), 330–363. IG Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27(2015), 1-13. PY R Bryant, J. L. (2006). Assessing expectations and perceptions of the campus experience: The Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory. New Directions for Community Colleges, 142(161), 25-35 Butterfield, B. S. (2014). Mind the Gap: A Mixed Methods Study of Student Satisfaction With Faculty Performance and Course Instruction in Higher Education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). O Byrne, B. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2nd ed.), Routledge. © C Caetano, R. V. A. (2007). Training transfer: the mediating role of perception of learning. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(4), 283–296. Calvin, J. (2005). Explaining learner satisfaction with perceived knowledge gained in web-based courses through course structure and learner autonomy (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Campbell, D. E. (2014). The Influence of Teacher Immediacy Behaviors on Student Performance in an Online Course (and the Problem of Method Variance). Teaching of Psychology, 41(2), 163–166 Carabajal, K., Lapointe, D., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2003). Group development in 162 online learning communities. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 217-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: testing three conceptions and their relations to perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11(3), 323–346 PM Cazan, A. M., & Schiopca, B. A. (2014). Self-directed learning, personality traits and academic achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127(2014), 640-644. U Cazan, A. M. (2014). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement in the context of online learning environments. International Scientific Conference Elearning and Software For Education, 3(1), 90-95. T Chaney, D., Chaney, E., & Eddy, J. (2010). The context of distance learning programs in higher education: Five enabling assumptions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(5), 1-7. H Chang, K. Y. (2011). Factors affecting student satisfaction in different learning deliveries (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University). IG Chang, I. Y., & Chang, W. Y. (2012). The effect of student learning motivation on learning satisfaction. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 4(3), 281-305. PY R Chang, C. C., Liang, C., Shu, K. M., & Chiu, Y. C. (2015). Alteration of Influencing Factors of E-Learning Continued Intention for Different Degrees of Online Participation. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(4), 33-61. ChanLin, L. J. (2009). Applying motivational analysis in a Web‐ based course. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 91-103. C O Chawinga, W. D., & Zozie, P. A. (2016). Increasing access to higher education through open and distance learning: Empirical findings from Mzuzu University, Malawi. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 1-20. © Cheawjindakarn, B., Suwannatthachote, P., & Theeraroungchaisri, A. (2013). Critical success factors for online distance learning in higher education: A review of the literature. Creative Education, 3(8), 61-66. Chejlyk, S. (2006). The Effects of Online Course Format and Three Components of Student Perceived Interactions on Overall Course Satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Capella). Chen, P.-S., & Chih, J.-T. (2011). The relations between learner motivation and satisfaction with aspects of management training. International Journal of 163 Management, 29(3), 545-561. Chen, K., & Jang, S. (2010). Motivation in online learning : Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741–752. PM Chen, L.-C., & Lien, Y.-H. (2011). Using author co-citation analysis to examine the intellectual structure of e-learning: A MIS perspective. Scientometrics, 89 (3), 867- 886. Cheng, K. H., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). University students' online academic help seeking: The role of self-regulation and information commitments. The Internet and Higher Education, 16(1), 70–77. U Cheng, B.,Wang, M., Yang, S.J.H., Kinshuk and Peng, J. (2011), Acceptance of competency-based workplace e-learning systems: effects of individual and peer learning support, Computers & Education, 57 (1) , 1317-33. H T Cheung, W., & Huang, W. (2005). Proposing a framework to assess Internet usage in university education: an empirical investigation from a student's perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (2), 237-253. IG Chew, P. H. (1998). Library and Information services for distance education in Malaysia (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Malaya). R Childs, S., Blenkinsopp, E., Hall, A., & Walton, G. (2005). Effective e-learning for health professionals and students – barriers and their solutions. A systematic review of the literature. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 22(2), 20–32. PY Cho, M. H., & Kim, B. J. (2013). Students' self-regulation for interaction with others in online learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 17(2013), 69-75. O Cho, M. H., Kim, Y., & Choi, D. (2017). The effect of self-regulated learning on college students' perceptions of community of inquiry and affective outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 34(2017), 10-17. © C Cho, J., & Yu, H. (2015). Roles of university support for international students in the United States: Analysis of a systematic model of university identification, university support, and psychological well-being. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19 (1), 11-27. Christiana, O. O. (2014). Institutional Factors Affecting the Academic Performance of Public Administration Students in a Nigerian University. Public Administration Research, 3(2), 171–177. Chu, R. J., & Chu, A. Z. (2010). Multi-level analysis of peer support, Internet selfefficacy and e-learning outcomes–The contextual effects of collectivism and 164 group potency. Journal of Computers & Education, 55(1), 145-154. Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrisson, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education (5th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer PM Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. Cohen, A., & Baruth, O. (2017). Personality, learning, and satisfaction in fully online academic courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 72 (2017), 1-12. U Cole, M. T., Shelley, D. J., & Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online instruction, e-learning, and student satisfaction: A three-year study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6), 111-131. H T Conrad, R. M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2012). Continuing to engage the online learner: More activities and resources for creative instruction (Vol. 35). John Wiley & Sons. IG Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business Research Methods (8 th edn.) McGrawHill: New York. Corona, S. F. (2012). Online Instructor Strategies: A Study of Instructor Immediacy and Student Perceived Learning at a Community College (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Capella). PY R Coskun, L. (2014). Investigating the essential factors on student satisfaction: A case of Albanian private university. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(1), 489-503. Costley, J., & Lange, C. (2016). The Effects of Instructor Control of Online Learning Environments on Satisfaction and Perceived Learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(3), 169-180. O Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. © C Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and quantitative descriptive research method approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Creasey, G., Jarvis, P., & Gadke, D. (2009). Student attachment stances, instructor immediacy, and student–instructor relationships as predictors of achievement expectancies in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50 (4), 353-372. Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 314. 165 Curran, M. J. (2013). Institution-Related, Instructor-Related, and Student-Related Factors That Influence Satisfaction for Online Faculty at a For-Profit Institution (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Robert Morris). Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Using web-based pedagogical tools as scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 33(5), 513-540. PM Daniels, B. M. (2008). Motivation, academic success, and learning environments: Comparing high school face-to-face and online courses (Doctoral dissertation, University of George Mason). Daniel, J. (2012). Dual-mode universities in higher education: Way station or final destination. The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 27(1), 89-95. U Davis, A. M. (2014). Measuring student satisfaction in online math courses. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky). H T Davies, R. S., Howell, S. L., & Petrie, J. A. (2010). A review of trends in distance education scholarship at research universities in North America, 19982007. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(3), 42-56. IG Denson, N., Loveday, T., & Dalton, H. (2010). Student evaluation of courses: what predicts satisfaction? Higher Education Research & Development, 29(4), 339-356. R Dixon, M. J. (2015). Institutional factors affecting doctoral degree completion at selected Texas public universities (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas). PY Doe, R., Castillo, M. S., & Musyoka, M. M. (2017). Assessing Online Readiness of Students. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 20(1), 1-13. Drachsler, H., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Learner Characteristics. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (1743-1745). C O Dzega, D., & Pietruszkiewicz, W. (2012). The technological advancement of LMS systems and e-content software. In Higher Education Institutions and Learning Management Systems: Adoption and Standardization (pp. 219245). © Elkins, A. (2015). Student Satisfaction in Hybrid Courses. (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University). Elloumi, F. (2008). Value chain analysis: A strategic approach to online learning. In T.Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.), Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press. Embi, M. A. (2011). E-learning in malaysian higher education institutions: Status, trends, & challenges. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia 166 Eneh, O. C. (2010). Technology transfer, adoption and integration: A review. Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(16), 1814-1819. Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The Determinants of Students ’ Perceived Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction in University Online Education : An Empirical Investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215–235. PM Ergul, H. (2004). Relationship between student characteristics and academic achievement in distance education and application on students of Anadolu University. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 5(2), 81-90. U Falloon, G. (2011). Making the connection: Moore’s theory of transactional distance and its relevance to the use of a virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 187-209. T Fariborzi, E. (2009). Factors influencing the effectiveness of web-based courses in e-learning centers in Iran (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia). IG H Ferguson, J. M., & DeFelice, A. E. (2010). Length of online course and student satisfaction, perceived learning, and academic performance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(2), 73-84. R Ferreira, M., Cardoso, A. P., & Abrantes, J. L. (2011). Motivation and relationship of the student with the school as factors involved in the perceived learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29 (2011), 1707-1714. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage. PY Forehand, M. J. (2014). Working On The Work Framework For Engagement: Impacting Students’perceived Learning, Attitudes Toward School, And Achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University). O Fornell, C.R., Larcker, D.F., (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of marketing research, 18 (1), 39–50. © C Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1),115-134. Freitas, F. A., Myers, S. A., & Avtgis, T. A. (1998). Student perceptions of instructor immediacy in conventional and distributed learning classrooms. Communication Education, 47(4), 366-372. Frick, T. W., Chadha, R., Watson, C., Wang, Y., & Green, P. (2009). College 167 student perceptions of teaching and learning quality. Education Technology Research Development, 57 (5) , 705-720. Fritea, R., & Opre, A. (2015). Enhancing situational interest, perceived utility, and self-efficacy in online learning. An instructional design intervention. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, an Interdisciplinary Journal, 19(4), 285-290. PM Frith, K., & Kee, C. (2003). The effect of com- munication on nursing student outcomes in a web-based course. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(8), 350358. Fuller, R. M., Vician, C., and Brown, S. A. (2006). E- learning and individual characteristics: The role of computer anxiety and communication apprehension. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46 (4), 103-115. U Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2006). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. H T Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1(1), 1-17. IG Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2003). A theory of critical inquiry in online distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 113-127). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. R Garson, G. D. (2008). Statnotes: Topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved on 9 March 2017 from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/statnote.htm. PY Gay, L. R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: competencies for analysis and applications. Ed. Ke-8. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. O Gazza, E. A., & Hunker, D. F. (2014). Facilitating student retention in online graduate nursing education programs: A review of the literature. Nurse Education Today, 34(7), 1125-1129. © C Gebara, N. L. (2010). General self-efficacy and course satisfaction in online learning: A correlational study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri—Columbia). Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M.-c. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1-77. Ghamdi, A. Al, Samarji, A., & Watt, A. (2016). Essential Considerations in Distance Education in KSA: Teacher Immediacy in a Virtual Teaching and Learning Environment. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(1), 17-29. 168 Ghavifekr, S., & Mahmood, H. (2017). Factors affecting use of e-learning platform (SPeCTRUM) among University students in Malaysia. Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 75-100. Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Forest, J., Brunault, P., & Colombat, P. (2012). The impact of organizational factors on psychological needs and their relations with well-being. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 437-450. PM Giossos, Y., Koutsouba, M., Lionarakis, A., & Skavantzos, K. (2009). Reconsidering Moore's transactional distance theory. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 12(2), 1-7. U Glassmeyer, D. M., Dibbs, R. A., Jensen, R. T. (2011). Determing utility of formative assessment through virtual community: Perspectives of online graduate students. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(1), 2335 T Goel, L., Zhang, P., & Templeton, M. (2012). Transactional distance revisited: Bridging face and empirical validity. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1122-1129. IG H Godambe, D., Picciano, A. G., Schroeder, R., & Schweber, C. (2004). Faculty perspectives. Presentation at the Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning. Chicago, IL. R Goel, L., Zhang, P., & Templeton, M. (2012). Transactional distance revisited: Bridging face and empirical validity. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1122-1129 PY Goodyear, P. M., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(1),65–72. O Gómez-Rey, P., Barbera, E., & Fernández-Navarro, F. (2016). The Impact of Cultural Dimensions on Online Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 225-238. C Gorsky, P., & Caspi. (2005). A critical analysis of transactional distance theory. Journal of Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), l -11. © Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Journal of Internet and Higher Education, 18(1), 4–14. Grassl, R. (2010). The Effects of Motivation, Perceived Learning Strategy Use, and Mathematics Anxiety on the Mathematics Competency of Postsecondary Developmental Mathematics Students (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti of Wisconsin-Milwaukee). Gratz, S. D. (2011). Online Learners and Their Choice of Institution (Doctoral 169 dissertation, Lincoln Memorial University). Gravetter, F.J., & Wallnau, L.B. (2013). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (Eighth ed.). rev.edu.Belmont CA: Wadsmoth. Gray, D., & Daymond, J. (2010). The influence of student engagement levels on satisfaction and behavioural intentions. In Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Annual Conference (Vol. 29). PM Green, J. T. (2010). The relationship between technology support and extent of technology integration into college-level foreign language curricula (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida). U Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 826. H T Gunawardena, C. N., Linder-VanBerschot, J. A., LaPointe, D. K., & Rao, L. (2010). Predictors of learner satisfaction and transfer of learning in a corporate online education program. The American Journal of Distance Education, 24(4), 207-226. IG Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L. & Grablowsky B.J. (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis. Simon and Schuster, New York. R Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson prentice Hall PY Ham, M. (2005). Students' Perceptions of Web-based Distance Learning: A Study of Satisfaction and Success. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 53(1), 21-33. O Hamat, A., Embi, M. A., & Sulaiman, A. H. (2011). e-Learning in Malaysian Higher Education Institutions: Status Trends & Challenges. Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Higher Education. C Hao, Y. W. (2004). Students' attitudes toward interaction in online learning: exploring the relationship between attitudes, learning styles, and course satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin). © Harmann, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 11(1), 19-31. Hartnett, M., George, A. S., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation in online distance learning environments: Complex, multifaceted and situationdependent. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed 170 Learning, 12(6), 20-38. Hashemyolia, S. (2015).Relationships Between Putralms Successful Factors, Motivation To Learn, And Self-Regulated Learning Strategies Among Undergradute Students In a Malaysian Public University (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia). PM Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), Advances in International Marketing, 20(2), 277-319. Hermans, C. M., Haytko, D. L., & Mott-Stenerson, B. (2009). Student satisfaction in web-enhanced learning environments. Journal of instructional pedagogies, 1(1), 1-19. T U Hibberts, M., Burke Johnson, R., & Hudson, K. (2012). Common Survey Sampling Techniques. In L. Gideon, Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences (pp. 53-74). New York: Springer. H Hidayah, N., & Noor, M. (2015). The factors affecting student's satisfaction in University Utara Malaysia, Kedah (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Utara Malaysia). R IG Hill, J. D. (2013). Student success and perceptions of course satisfaction in face-toface, hybrid, and online sections of introductory biology classes at three, open enrollment, two-year colleges in southern Missouri (Doctoral dissertation, Lindenwood University). PY Hinkle, D., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. (2003). Determining power and sample size. Applied statistics for the behavioral science. (5th ed). Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 297-330. Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Intellect Books. O Hirt, J. B., Cain, D., Bryant, B., & Williams, E. (2003). Cyberservices: What’s important and how are we doing. NASPA Journal, 40(2), 98-118. © C Ho, Y. S. (2006). Review of second-order models for adsorption systems. Journal of hazardous materials, 136(3), 681-689. Hodges, C. B., & Kim, C. (2010). Email, self-regulation, self-efficacy, and achievement in a college online mathematics course. Educational Computing Research, 43(2), 207–223. Hoey, R., McCracken, F., Gehrett, M., & Snoeyink, R. (2014). Evaluating the Impact of the Administrator and Administrative Structure of Online Programs at Nonprofit Private Colleges. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 17(3), 1-20. 171 Holmberg, B. (1995). Theory and practice of distance education. (2nd ed). New York: Routledge. Holmberg, B. (2005). Theory and practice of distance education. (3rd ed). New York: Routledge PM Hoyle, R. H., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). Sample size, reliability, and tests of statistical mediation. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 195–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hong, K. S., Lai, K. W., & Holton, D. (2003). Students’ satisfaction and perceived learning with a web-based course. Educational Technology & Society, 6(1), 116-124. U Horzum, M. B., Kaymak, Z. D., & Gungoren, O. C. (2015). Structural equation modeling towards online learning readiness, academic motivations, and perceived learning. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 15(3), 759– 770. H T Hu, P., & Hui, W. (2012). Examining the role of learning engagement in technology-mediated learning and its effects on learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Decision Support Systems, 53(4), 782–792 IG Huett, J. B., Moller, L., Young, J., Bray, M., & Huett, K. C. (2008). Supporting the distant student: The effect of ARCS-based strategies on confidence and performance. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2), 113. R Hung, M. L., Chou, C., Chen, C. H., & Own, Z. Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080–1090. PY Huang, X., Chandra, A., DePaolo, C., Cribbs, J., & Simmons, L. (2015). Measuring transactional distance in web-based learning environments: an initial instrument development. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 30 (2), 106-126. C O Hytti, U., Stenholm, P., Heinonen, J., & Seikkula-Leino, J. (2010). Perceived learning outcomes in entrepreneurship education: The impact of student motivation and team behaviour. Education and Training, 52 (89), 587-606. © Ice, P. R. (2006). The relationship between technical support and pedagogical guidance provided to faculty and student satisfaction in online courses (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University). Idrus, R. M. (2008). Demystifying the Challenges of e-learning: A Malaysian Analysis and Proposal. ASAIHL International Conference, Nonthaburi, Thailand, 7-10 April, 2008. Insight, A. (2015). The 2015-2020 Market. Ambient Insight, LLC. 172 Worldwide Self-paced eLearning Islam, A. K. M. N. (2013). Investigating e-learning system usage outcomes in the university context. Journal of Computers & Education, 69 (2013), 387–399. Ismail, I., Johari, S. S. M., & Idrus, R. M. (2010). Technical Appliance in ELearning: Student's Perception on the Usage of Online Learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 5(2), 31-35. PM Islam, M. A., Jalali, A. R., & Ariffin, K. H. K. (2011). Service satisfaction: The case of a higher learning institution in Malaysia. International education studies, 4(1), 182-194. U Isabwe, G. M. N. (2013). Enhancing Mathematics Learning Through Peer Assessment Using Mobile Tablet Based Solutions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Agder). T Ivankova, N. V., & Stick, S. L. (2007). Students' persistence in a distributed doctoral program in educational leadership in higher education: A mixed methods study. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 93-135. H 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(4), 78-98. IG Jahng, N. (2010). Examining Collaborative Learning Processes (Doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia). R Jan, S. K. (2015). The relationships between academic self-efficacy, computer selfefficacy, prior experience, and satisfaction with online learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(1), 30-40. PY Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2014). The 2014 Inside Higher Ed Survey of College and University Business Offcers. Washington DC: Inside Higher Ed. O Johari, S. S. M., & Ismail, I. (2011). The Effectiveness of e-Learning Portal in Distance Education as Perceived by Students in Universiti Sains Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 47–57. © C Johnson, Z. S., Cascio, R., & Massiah, C. A. (2014). Explaining student interaction and satisfaction: An empirical investigation of delivery mode influence. Marketing Education Review, 24(3), 227-238. Joo, Y. J., Seo, H., Joung, S., & Lee, Y. K. (2012). The effects of academic selfefficacy, learning strategies, and perceived instructional strategies on high and low achievers' in the middle school Korean language. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 9(2), 239-257. Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, J. (2013). Locus of control, self-efficacy, and task value as predictors of learning outcome in an online university context. Computers & Education, 62(2), 149-158. 173 Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1982). Recent developments in structural equation modeling. Journal of marketing research, 19(4), 404-416. Juhary, J. (2014). Perceived usefulness and ease of use of the learning management system as a learning tool. Journal of International Education Studies, 7(8) 23-29. PM Jung, I. (2011). The dimensions of e-learning quality: from the learner’s perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 445-464. U Jung, H. Y. (2006). Transactional distance and student motivation: Student perception of teacher immediacy, solidarity toward peer students and student motivation in distance education (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University). T Jusoff, K., & Khodabandelou, R. (2009). Preliminary study on the role of social presence in blended learning environment in higher education. International Education Studies, 2(4), 79-86. H Kabak, G. A. (2014). An examination of factors faculty have on student retention at community colleges (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). IG Kang, H., & Gyorke, A. S. (2008). Rethinking distance-learning activities: A comparison of transactional distance theory and activity theory. Open Learning, 23(3), 203-214. R Kaplan, D. (2008). Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. Sage, London PY Karami, R. (2011). Factor influsing achivement motivation in leadersip role of extension agents in Iran. (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia) O Karimi, L., & Ahmad, T. B. T. (2013). Perceived Learning and Satisfaction in Blended Teacher Education Program: An Experience of Malaysian Teacher Trainees. Contemporary Educational Technology, 4(3), 197-211. © C Kassandrinou, A., Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2014). Transactional Distance among Open University Students: How Does it Affect the Learning Process. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 17(1), 26-42. Katt, J. A., & Collins, S. J. (2013). The power of provisional/immediate language Revisited: Adding student personality traits to the mix. Communication Research Reports, 30(2), 85-95. Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning. Research in Learning Technology, 23(1), 26-50. Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers & Education, 55(2), 808-820. 174 Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Toronto, ON: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. Keast, D. A. (1997). Toward an effective model for implementing distance education programs. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(2), 39-55. PM Kee, N. S., Omar, B., & Mohamed, R. (2012). Towards Student-Centred Learning : Factors Contributing to the Adoption of E-Learn @ USM. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 1–24. Keegan, D. (1988). Concepts: Problems in defining the field of distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 2(2), 4-11 U Keeler, L. C. (2006). Student satisfaction and types of interaction in distance education courses (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado State). T Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e-learning. Distance Education, 29(2), 175-185 H Keller, H., & Karau, S. J. (2013). The importance of personality in students' perceptions of the online learning experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2494-2500. IG Khalid, N. M. (2014). Factors affecting course satisfaction of online Malaysian university students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado State). R Khan, S. (2007). The Effects of Instructor Immediacy Behaviours on Student Learning Experience in an Online Course (Doctoral dissertation, Carleton University). PY Khodabandelou, R. (2014). Differences In Community Of Inquiry And Perceived Learning Among Distance Education Students in Blended Learning Environments (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti of Putra Malaysia). O Kim, K. S., & Moore, J. (2005). Web–based learning: Factors affecting students’ satisfaction and learning experience. First Monday, 10(11), 1-10. © C King, P., & Witt, P. (2009). Teacher immediacy, confidence testing, and the measurement of cognitive learning. Communication Education, 58(1), 110– 123. Kintu, M. J., & Zhu, C. (2016). Student Characteristics and Learning Outcomes in a Blended Learning Environment Intervention in a Ugandan University. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(3), 181-195. Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2017). Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 7-20. Kirtley, K. E. (2002). A study of students’ characteristics and their effect on student 175 satisfaction with online courses (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University). Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel psychology, 59(3), 665-702. PM Kline, B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilfor Kline, B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (3rd ed). New York: Guilford U Koo, A.C., Song, H.S.Y. & Ling, S.W. (2010). Guidelines for engaging in Online Collaborative Learning. In Z. Abas, I. Jung & J. Luca (Eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2010--Global Conference on Learning and Technology (pp. 1342-1347). Penang, Malaysia: Association for the T Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). IG H Kostina, M. V. (2011). Exploration Of Student Perceptions Of Autonomy, StudentInstructor Dialogue And Satisfaction In A Web-Based Distance Russian Language Classroom: A Mixed Methods Study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa). Kuchinke, K. P., Aragon, S. R., & Bartlett, K. (2001). Online instructional delivery: Lessons from the instructor’s perspective. Performance Improvement, 40(1), 19- 27. PY R Küçük, M., Genç-Kumtepe, E., & Taşcı, D. (2010). Support services and learning styles influencing interaction in asynchronous online discussions. Educational Media International, 47(1), 39 - 56. Kumar, C.R. (2011). Research methodology:a step by step for beginners. London: Stage Publications © C O Kuo, Y. C., & Kuo, Y. T. (2013). Internet Self-Efficacy, Self-Regulation, and Student Performance: African-American Adult Learners in Online Learning. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 671-676). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Kuo, Y. , Walker, A.E., Belland, B.R., Schroder, K. 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. Kuo, Y.-C. (2010). Interaction, Internet Self-Efficacy, and Self-Regulated Learning as Predictors Of Student Satisfaction In Distance Education Courses (Doctoral dissertation,Utah State University). Kuo, Y., Eastmond, J. N., & Bennett, L. J. (2009). Student Perceptions of Interactions and Course Satisfaction in a Blended Learning Environment. 176 In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 4372-4380). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Kuong, H. C. (2015). Enhancing Online Learning Experience: From Learners’ Perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191(2015), 10021005. PM Lambert, W. E. (2011). Psychosocial Factors That Predict Graduate Student Success In Distance Education (Doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate University). Lao, T. & Gonzales, C. (2005). Understanding online learning through a qualitative description of professors and students’ experience. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 459 – 474. T U LaPointe, D. K., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2004). Developing, testing and refining of a model to understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in computer mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83-106. New York, NY: Routledge H Latchem, C., & Jung, I. (2010). Distance and Blended Learning in Asia. IG Lau, L. K. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention. EducationIndianapolis then Chula Vista-, 124(1), 126-136. R Lau, H. Y. K. and K. L. Mak (2005). Problem-based learning with an e-learning platform for industrial engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(2), 262–276. PY Lee, S. J., Srinivasan, S., Trail, T., Lewis, D., & Lopez, S. (2011). Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 158-163 O Lee, J. Y. (2003). Current status of learner support in distance education: emerging issues and directions for future research. Asia Pacific Education Review, 4(2), 181-188. © C Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, T. R. K. (2004). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communication of the Association for Information Systems, 12(50), 752-780. Lee, J. W. (2010). Online Support Service Quality, Online Learning Acceptance, And Student Satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 277283. Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593-618. 177 Lee, S., & Kim, K. J. (2007). Factors affecting the implementation success of Internet-based information systems. Computers in human behavior, 23(4), 1853-1880. Lee, J. W., & Mendlinger, S. (2011). Perceived self-efficacy and its effect on online learning acceptance and student satisfaction. Journal of Service Science and Management, 4(03), 243-252. PM Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2008). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation. New York: Routledge. U LeFebvre, L., & Allen, M. (2014). Teacher immediacy and student learning: An examination of lecture/laboratory and self-contained course sections. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(2), 2945. T Conceição, S. C., & Lehman, R. M. (2016). Students’ Perceptions about Online Support Services: Institutional, Instructional, and Self-Care Implications. Intrnational Journal of E-Learning, 15(4), 433-443. H Lei, P.W., &Wu, Q. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling: Issues and practical considerations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(3), 33-43. IG Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Journal of Computers and Education, 48(2), 185–204 PY R Lewis, J. L. M. (2011). The Computer at My Classroom: Assessing Student Interactions, Perceived Learning, and Satisfaction in Online Community College Career Technical Education Courses (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi). Li, H. (2007). Taiwanese Students’ Perceived Levels Of General Self- Efficacy, Computer Self-Efficacy, And Satisfaction With E- Learning Courses (Doctoral dissertation, The University of South Dakota). C O Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Internet self-efficacy and preferences toward constructivist Internet-based learning environments: A study of pre-school teachers in Taiwan. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 226–237. © Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864-873. Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in elearning environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 14-24. Libron-Green, D. M. (2004). Awareness and utilization of institutional support services by Internet-based learners (Doctoral dissertation, University of 178 Johnson & Wales University). Lim, C. K. (2001). Computer self-efficacy, academic self-concept, and other predictor of satisfaction and future participation of adult distance learners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 41-51. PM Lim, D., & Kim, H. (2003). Motivation and Learner Characteristics Affecting Online Learning and Learning Application. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31(4), 423–439. 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 U Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864-873. H T Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in elearning environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 14-24. IG Lo, C. C., Johnson, E. L., & Tenorio, K. A. (2012). Promoting student learning by having college students participate in an online environment. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 1-15. R Lo, M.-C., Ramayah, T., & Hong, T. C. (2011). Modeling user satisfaction in elearning: A supplementary tool to enhance learning. Review of Business Research,11(2), 128- 133. PY Lorenzi, F., MacKeogh, K., & Fox, S. (2004). Preparing students for learning in an online world: an evaluation of the student passport to elearning (SPEL) Model. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 7(1),16-30. O Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2), 1-16. © C Macon, D. K. (2011). Student Satisfaction with Online Courses versus Traditional Courses: A Meta-Analysis (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University). Madonna, S., & Philpot, V. D. (2013). Motivation and Learning Strategies, and academic and student self-efficacy in predicting self-efficacy in college seniors. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(3), 163–168. Mafakheri, K. (2012). Factors Affecting Virtual Knowledge Sharing Behaviour Among Academics At Malaysian Public Universities (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025. (2013). Preliminary Report. Preschool to Post-Secondary Education. Ministry of Education Malaysia 179 Mallinckrodt, B., & Wang, C. C. (2004). Quantitative methods for verifying semantic equivalence of translated research instruments: a Chinese version of the experiences in close relationships scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(3), 368-379. PM Marinakou, E. (2014). An Investigation of Factors that Contribute to Student Satisfaction from Online Courses: The Example of an Online Accounting Course. In e-Learning" Best Practices in Management, Design and Development of e-Courses: Standards of Excellence and Creativity", 2013 Fourth International Conference on (pp. 462-468). IEEE. U Marino, K., & Reddick, K. (2013, June). Teaching and Learning: Instructor Social Presence in the Online Classroom. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 846-855). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). T Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29(4), 531-563. H Marsh, G. B. (2010). An Exploratory Investigation of the Relationship between Institutional Characteristics and Student Retention in Public Four-Year Colleges and Universities, USA: Lamar University-Beaumont. IG Martín-Rodríguez, Ó., Fernández-Molina, J. C., Montero-Alonso, M. Á., & González-Gómez, F. (2015). The main components of satisfaction with elearning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(2), 267–277. PY R Martinez, B. D. (2009). The relationship between students' computer self-efficacy, self-regulation, and engagement in distance learning (Doctoral dissertation University of Southern California). Martins L, Kellermanns W. (2004). A model of business school students’ acceptance of a web-based course management system. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(1), 7–26. C O Martinez-Torres, M. R., Toral, S. L., & Barrero, F. (2011). Identification of the design variables of elearning tools. Interacting With Computers, 23(2), 279-288. © Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2005). Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology (4th ed). Thomson Wadsworth, London Mayer, R. E. (2010). Learning with technology. In H. Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning. Using research to inspire practice (pp. 179–198). Paris: OECD McGhee, R. M. H. (2010). Asynchronous Interaction, Online Technologies SelfEfficacy and Self-Regulated Learning as Predictors of Academic Achievement in an Online Class (Doctoral Dissertation, University of 180 Southern). Mclaren, A. (2010). The effects of instructor-learner interactions on learner satisfaction in online masters courses (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wayne State). Mehrabian, A. (1969). Measures of achieving tendency. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 29(4), 445–451 PM Melton, R. F. (2004). Planning and Developing Open and Distance Learning: A Framework for Quality. London: Routledge. U Metz, K. F. (2011). Predictors Of Secondary Students ‘Achievement and Satisfaction In Online Courses (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Liberty). Meyer, J. D. (2009). Administrative support for online teaching faculty (Doctoral Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University). H T Meyer, J. D., & Barefield, A. C. (2010). Infrastructure and Administrative Support for Online Programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(3), 1-14. IG Milman, N. B., Posey, L., Pintz, C., Wright, K., & Zhou, P. (2015). Online master’s students’ perceptions of institutional supports and resources: Initial survey results. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 19(4), 2012–2013. R Ministry of Education (2015). Executive summary Malaysia Education Blue Print 2015 - 2025 (Higher Education). Putrajaya, Malaysia: Author (2015) PY Mirzajani, H. (2017). Factors Predicting ICT Utilization Among Student Teachers of Malaysian Research Universities (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia). Mitchell, A. (2014). Online courses and online teaching strategies in higher education. Creative Education, 5(23), 1-4. C O Ministry of Higher Education (2011). National Higher Education Strategic Plan, Retrieved 25 February, 2012, from http://www.mohe.gov.my /portal/en/info/psptn.html © Min, K. S., Yamin, F. M., & Ishak, W. H. W. (2012). The Usage of LMS among Undergraduate Students, International Journal of Computer and Information Technology, 1(2), 39-42. Mlay, J. (2013). Provision of Learner Support Services to Undergraduate Students of the Open University of Tanzania: A Case Study of Temeke Regional Centre (Doctoral dissertation, The Open University of Tanzania). Mok, K. H. (2011). The quest for regional hub of education: Growing heterarchies, organizational hybridization, and new governance in 181 Singapore and Malaysia. Journal of Education Policy, 26(1), 81. 61- Monolescu, D., Schifter, C. & Greenwood, L. (2003). The Distance Education Evolution: Issues and Case Studies. IGI Global. Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (p. 22-38). London: Routledge PM Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (2005) Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems approach. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. U Moore, J. C., & Fetsner, M. J. (2009). The road to retention: A closer look at institutions that achieve high course completion rates. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(3), 3-22. H T Mosakhani, M., & Jamporazmey, M. (2010, September). Introduce critical success factors (CSFs) of elearning for evaluating e-learning implementation success. In Educational and Information Technology (ICEIT), 2010 International Conference on (pp. 1-224). IEEE. IG Moser, F. Z. (2007). Faculty adoption of educational technology. Educause Quarterly, 30(1), 6-69. PY R Moses, P., Bakar, K. A., Mahmud, R., & Wong, S. L. (2012). ICT Infrastructure, Technical and Administrative Support as Correlates of Teachers’ Laptop Use. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59(2012), 709–714. Mtebe, J. S. (2015). Learning Management System success : Increasing Learning Management System usage in higher education in subSaharan Africa Joel S . Mtebe, 11(2), 51–64 O Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance education, 26(1), 29-48. © C Mullen, G. E., & Tallent-Runnels, M. K. (2006). Student outcomes and perceptions of instructors' demands and support in online and traditional classrooms. Journal of Internet and Higher Education, 9 (2006), 257-266. Murphy, D. T., & Gunter, G. A. (1998). Administrative support: A key component of technology integration. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 252-254). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Mwenje, S., & Saruchera, K. (2013). Assessing student support services quality in Open and Distance Learning (ODL): a learner perspective at Zimbabwe Open University (ZOU)-Manicaland 182 Region. Journal of Educational Research and Review, 2(6), 131138. Nakayama, M., Mutsuura, K., & Yamamoto, H. (2014). Impact of Learner's Characteristics and Learning Behaviour on Learning Performance during a Fully Online Course. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 12(4), 394-408 PM Nakayama, M., & Santiago, R. (2012). Learner characteristics and online learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 17451747). Navarro, P. & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace. The American journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 15-35. U Nawawi, M. H., Asmuni, A., & Romiszowski, A. (2003). Distance education public policy and practice in the higher education: The case of Malaysia. Brazilian Review of Open and Distance Learning, 2(2), 1-20. H T Neben, J. (2014). Attributes and Barriers Impacting Diffusion of Online Education at the Institutional Level: Considering Faculty Perceptions. Distance Learning, 11(1), 41 IG Neo, M., Neo, K. T., Lim, T. L., Tan, H. Y. J., & Kwok, W. J. (2013). Instructional relationships within a web-based learning environment: Students’ perceptions in a Malaysian classroom. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103(2013), 515-525. PY R Ng, S. F. (2009). Learner autonomy and some selected correlates among adult distance learners in Malaysia (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia). Ng, S. F., & Confessore, G. J. (2011). Assessing the capacity for success in distance learning in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(2011), 1742-1750. C O Ng, S. K., Omar, B., & Mohamed, R. (2012). Towards Student-Centred Learning : Factors Contributing to the Adoption of E-Learn @ USM. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 1–24 © Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, L. K. J., & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250267. Ni, S.-F., & Aust, R. (2008). Examining Teacher Verbal Immediacy and Sense of Classroom Community in Online Classes. International Journal on ELearning, 7(3), 477–498 Ning, H. K., & Downing, K. (2010). The reciprocal relationship between motivation and self-regulation: A longitudinal study on academic 183 performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 682-686. Noel-Levitz, X. (2009). National online learners priorities report. Nellevits, Denver, Colorado Nong, T. D. (2013). Factors Contributing to Perceptions of Southeast Asian Learners Regarding Satisfaction and Quality in Online Education (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University). PM Noor, M. (2015). The factors affecting student's satisfaction in University Utara Malaysia, Kedah (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Utara Malaysia). U Nyachae, J. N. (2011). The Effect of Social Presence on Students' Perceived Learning and Satisfaction in Online Courses (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia). T Obasuyi, L., & Okwilagwe, O. A. (2016). Institutional factors influencing utilisation of Research4Life databases by National Agricultural Research Institutes scientists in Nigeria. Information Development Journal, 18(1), 19-24. H O'Connor, P. J. (2000). Administrative support of counseling programs. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Department of Educational Administration). IG Ohana, M. (2012). Perceived organizational support as mediator of distributive justice and job satisfaction: The moderating role of group commitment. Journal of Applied Business Research, 28(5), 1063-1072. PY R Ojokheta, K.O. 2010. A path-analytic study of some correlate predicting persistence and student’s success in distance education in Nigeria. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 181- 192. Oliver, K., Osborne, J., Patel, R., & Kleiman, G. (2009). Issues surrounding the deployment of a new statewide virtual public school. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(1), 37-49. O Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Corwith, S. (2010). Distance education: Where it started and where it stands for gifted children and their educators. Gifted Child Today, 34(3), 16-65. © C Ormrod, Jeanne (2011). Educational Psychology – Developing Learners, (7th ed). Pearson, New York. Osborne, J. W, & Overbay, A (2004). The power of outliers and why researchers should always check for them, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(6), 1-12 Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: 328 Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(3), 25-34 184 Paechter, M., Maier, M., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Journal of Computers & Education, 54(2010), 222-229 Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. New York, NY: Open University Press. PM Palmer, S. R., & Holt, D. M. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of computer assisted learning, 25(2), 101-113. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2010). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. USA, John Wiley & Sons. U Parahoo, S. K., Santally, M. I., Rajabalee, Y., & Harvey, H. L. (2015). Designing a predictive model of student satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(1), 1–19 H T Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors Influencing Adult Learners' Decision to Drop Out or Persist in Online Learning. Educational Technology & Society,12(4), 207-217. IG Parsons, A. M. (2008). A Delphi study of best practices of online instructional design practices in Malaysia (Doctoral dissertation, University of Capella). R Payne, A. R. (2008). Student satisfaction with online learning effectiveness at a Connecticut community college (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). The Educator's PY Peerani, N. (2013). Barriers to Distance Learning: Viewpoint. Distance Learning, 10(2), 29-33. Pelt, J (2008). The Relationship Between Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement In Middle School Students: A Cross- Cultural Perspective (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina). O Peterson, S. (2011). Self-regulation and online course satisfaction in high school (Doctoral dissertation, University Of Southern California). © C Peterson, D., & Romereim-Holmes, L. (2011, March). Creating an Active Social Presence in the Online Learning Environment. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 19331940). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Petrides, L.A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 69–77. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational 185 Psychology, 82(1), 33-40. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813. PM Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2007). Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom. In the Scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 731-810). Springer, Dordrecht. Pittman, C. N. (2013). The Impact of Student Motivation on Participation and Academic Performance in Distance Learning (Doctoral Dissertation, Mississippi State University). U Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. H T Poon, W.-C., Low, K. L.-T., & Yong, D. G.-F. (2004). A study of Web-based learning (WBL) environment in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(6), 374–385 IG Poon, J. (2013). Blended Learning: An Institutional Approach for Enhancing Students’ Learning Experiences. Merlot Jolt, 9(2), 271–290. Poon, J., & Brownlow, M. (2015). Real estate student satisfaction in Australia: what matters most? Property Management, 33(2), 100-132. PY R Powers, S. M., Janz, K., & Ande, T. (2006). Using Theories of Social Presence and Transactional Distance to Understand Technology Enhanced Instruction. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 502-505). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). O Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2010). The interplay between motivation, selfefficacy, and approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 283- 305. © C Provost, A. L. (2015). Perceived Organizational Support for Online Education and its Association with Motivation, Commitment, and Satisfaction: A Study of Online Teaching Faculty and Organizational Leaders. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Idaho). Purkis, H. M. & Lipp, O. V. (2010). Stimulus competition in pre/post and online ratings in an evaluative learning design. Learning and Motivation, 41(2), 84 – 94. Puteh, M. (2007). E-learning in Malaysian Public Universities: Case Studies of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. 1 st International Malaysian Educational Technology Convention, (pp. 825– 186 834). Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 72-89. PM Quaddus, M., & Hofmeyer, G. (2007). An investigation into the factors influencing the adoption of B2B trading exchanges in small businesses. European Journal of Information Systems, 16 (3), 202-215. Quince, B. C. R. (2013). The effects of self-regulated learning strategy instruction and structured-diary use on students' self-regulated learning conduct and academic success in online community-college general education courses (Doctoral Dissertation, University of San Francisco). U Raghavan, S. and P. R. Kumar. (2008). The need for participation in open and distance education: The open university Malaysia experience. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(4), 77-89. H T Ramayah, T., Wai, J., & Lee, C. (2012). System Characteristics , Satisfaction And E-Learning Usage : A Structural Equation Model, Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 26–28. IG Ramli, N., Zainol, Z. A., Aziz, J. A., Ali, H. M., Hassim, J., Hirwani, W. M., Wan, H., Markom, R., Wan Dahalan, W. S. A., Yaakob, N. I. (2013). The Concept of Research University: The Implementation in the Context of Malaysian University System. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 307–317. R Ramírez, J. (2015). Factors That Contribute to High Dropout Rate in Online Classes: A Faculty Perspective (Doctoral Dissertation, University Of Texas). PY Reio Jr, T. G., & Crim, S. J. (2013). Social presence and student satisfaction as predictors of online enrollment intent. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(2), 122-133. O Resta, P. (Ed.). (2002). Information and communication technologies in teacher education: A planning guide. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, Division of Higher Education, UNESCO. © C Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). Examing social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 7(1), 68-88. Roberson, B. N. (2013). Motivation towards learning perceived in Socratic seminar versus traditional lecture (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University). Robinson, D. L. (2008). Relationship of student self-directedness, computer selfefficacy, and student satisfaction to persistence in online higher education programs (Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville). Roblyer, M. D., Davis, L., Mills, S. C., Marshall, J., & Pape, L. (2008). Toward 187 practical procedures for predicting and promoting success in virtual school students. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 90-109. Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Wendt, J., Whighting, M., & Nisbet, D. (2016). The predictive relationship among the community of inquiry framework, perceived learning and online, and graduate students’ course grades in online synchronous and asynchronous courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 18-25. PM Rogers, J. and Smith, M. (2011), Demonstrating genuine interest in students’ needs and progress implications for student satisfaction with courses, Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 3(1), 6-14. U Romsa, K. (2012). Freshman student-faculty interactions and GPA: Predictors of retention and overall satisfaction (Doctoral Dissertation, Minnesota State University). T Rose, D. (2012). A Brief Examination of Immediacy Behaviors in Online Learning Environments. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2012 (1), 823-826. IG H Rose, D. (2009). Fostering Immediacy in the Online Classroom. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2009 (1), 503-506. R Roslina, A. T., Nur Shaminah, M. K., & Sian-Hoon, T. (2013). Students' Satisfaction on Blended Learning: A Preliminary Study. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 21(3), 1119-1131. PY Rothweiler, B. M. (2012). Factors Related To Successful Course Completion In An Online Program For Returning High School Dropouts (Doctoral Dissertation, The University of New Mexico). O Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 51–70. C Rovai, A. P. (2008). Distance Learning In Higher Education A Programmatic Approach To Planning, Design, Instruction, Evaluation, And Accreditation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press © Rovai, A. P. (2009). The Internet and Higher Education: Achieving global reach. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. T. (2007). On-line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. International Journal of ELearning & Distance Education, 18(1), 57-73. Rovai, A. P., & Downey, J. R. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment. The Internet and Higher 188 Education, 13(3), 141-147. Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2), 1-13. PM Safwan, N. (2010, May). Perceived Distance Learning Satisfaction Among University Students. In Global Learn (pp. 4044-4050). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Sahin, S. (2006). The relationship between student characteristics, including learning styles, and their perceptions and satisfaction in Web-based courses in higher education. (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University). U Salkind, N. J. (2006). Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics. USA: Sage. H T Samruayruen, B., Natakuatoong, O., & Samruayruen, K. (2010). Self-Regulated Learning Strategies in Online Learning Environments in Thailand. In ELearn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 2010(1), 1175-1184 IG Sampson, P. M., Leonard, J., Ballenger, J. W., & Coleman, J. C. (2010). Student satisfaction of online courses for educational leadership. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(3), 1-6. R San, N. M. (2010). Impact of service quality,satisfaction and personal factors on student retention in open distance learning institutions in Malaysia (Master dissertation, Open University Malaysia). PY Sánchez, R. A., & Hueros, A. D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in human behavior, 26(6), 1632-1640. O Schreiner, L. A. (2009). Linking student satisfaction and retention. Coralville, IA: Noel- Levitz. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. © C Schutt, M. (2007). The effects of instructor immediacy in online learning environments (Doctoral dissertation, San Diego State University). Schutt, M., Allen, B. S., & Laumakis, M. A. (2009). The effects of instructor immediacy behaviors in online learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 135-148. Schutt, M. (2010). Instructor immediacy and social presence in online, audio sessions: implications for podcasting. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 859-863). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). 189 Scott, K. E. (2008). Strategic factors of institutional practice impacting student success in the community college as perceived by students and faculty: Academic preparation, work ethics and institutional support (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University). PM Sebastianelli, R., Swift, C., & Tamimi, N. (2016). 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. Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49(2), 396– 413. U Sekaran, U. (2000). Research methods for business: A skill building approach, (3rd ed), New York: John Wiley. T Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. H Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research Method for Business, A Skill Building Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons. IG Sharma, S., Dick, G., Chin, W. W., & Land, L. (2007). Self-Regulation and E-Learning. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Information Systems (pp.383-394). University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen PY R Shariati, F., & Gholami, K. (2013). Feasibility study of Web-based Instruction Application in Iran’s distance education. International Journal of Learning and Development, 3(6), 1-6. Sharma, S. K., & Chandel, J. K. (2014). Students ’ acceptance and satisfaction of learning through course websites. Journal of Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 7(3), 152-166. © C O Shaughnessy, M.F. (2004). An interview with Anita Woolfolk: The educational psychology of teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology Review, 16(1), 153–176. Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., & Pickett, A. (2000). Student satisfaction and perceived learning in internet-based higher education. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp.1067-1072). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Shea, P., Vickers, J., & Hayes, S. (2010). Online instructional effort measured through the lens of teaching presence in the community of inquiry framework: A re-examination of measures and approach. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 127-154. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2014). Does online learning impede degree completion? 190 A national study of community college students. Journal of Computers & Education, 75(2014), 103-111. Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of selfefficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a community of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721-1731. PM Shen, K.N., Yu, A.Y., & Khalifa, M., (2010). Knowledge contribution in virtual communities: accounting for multiple dimensions of social presence through social identify. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(4) 337-348. U Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in Web-based Online Learning Environment, Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102– 120. T Sherven, P. J. (2016). The Role of Technology: A Path Analysis of Factors Contributing to Undergraduates' Satisfaction with their Overall University Experience (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). IG H Shin, N., & Chan, J. K. (2004). Direct and indirect effects of online learning on distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 275288. R Shih, P., Muñoz, D., & Sanchez, F. (2006). The effect of previous experience with information and communication technologies on performance in a webbased learning program. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(6), 962–970 PY Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons Sickler, S. L. (2013). Undergraduate Student Perceptions of Service Quality as a Predictor of Student Retention in the First Two Years (Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University). © C O Sletten, S. R. (2015). Investigating self-regulated learning strategies in the flipped classroom. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 497-501). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Slizewski, N. (2012). The Effects of Instructor Immediacy and Online Course Design in Student Satisfaction and Successful Course Completion (Doctoral dissertation, Regis University). Smeding, A., Dompnier, B., Meier, E., Darnon, C., Baumberger, B., & Butera, F. (2015). The motivation to learn as a self-presentation tool among Swiss high school students: The moderating role of mastery goals' perceived social value on learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 43(2015), 204-210. Smith, A. (2004). “Off-campus support” in distance learning–how do our 191 students define quality? Quality Assurance in Education, 12(1), 2838. Smith, P. S. (2011). From Scarcity to Abundance: IT’s Role in Achieving qualityassured mass higher education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(2), 6–21. PM Snarski, R. D. (2008). Teaching Self-Directed Learning Theory to Enhance Online Course Satisfaction: Preparing Graduate Level Information Technology Students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Capella). U So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Journal of Computers & Education, 51(2008), 318-336. T Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59-70. H Song, H. (2004). A study of selected factors related to satisfaction among students enrolled in online courses at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Doctoral dissertation, University of Candidacy). IG Spiker, Chance W. (2014). Exploring factors that lead to perceived instructional immediacy in online learning environments (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas). PY R Squires, A. F. (2011). Investigating The Relationship Between Online Pedagogy And Student Perceived Learning Of Systems Engineerin (Doctoral dissertation, University of Stevens). Starr-glass, D. (2015). From Connectivity to Connected Learners: Transactional Distance and Social Presence. Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 3(6), 113-143. © C O Stefanovic, M., Arsovski, S., Arsovski, Z., Aleksic, A., Nestic, S., Rajkovic, D., & Punosevac, Z. (2012). Integration of Virtual and Networked Organization Using Server Oriented Architecture. Virtual and Networked Organizations, Emergent Technologies and Tools, 12(3), 165-175. Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Calvin, J., Overtoom, C., & Wheaton, J. E. (2005). Bridging the transactional distance gap in online learning environments. Journal of Distance Education, 19(2), 105-118. Stevens, T., & Switzer, C. (2006). Differences between online and traditional students: A study of motivational orientation, self-efficacy, and attitudes. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 90-100. Sun, C. Y. J. (2009). Motivational influences in distance education: The role of interest, self-efficacy, and self-regulation (Doctoral dissertation, University 192 of Southern California). 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. PM Sun, P.C., Tsai, R.J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.Y. and Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction , Journal of Computers and Education, 50(4), 1183-202. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance education, 22(2), 306-331. U Swan, K. (2004). Learning online: A review of current research on issues of interface, teaching presence and learner characteristics. Elements of quality online education, into the mainstream, 5(1), 63-79. H T Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics, (4th ed). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. IG Taha, M., & El-Hajjar, S. (2012). Modeling Critical Factors Influencing the Implementation of E-Learning Related Studies of E-Learning. Global TimeOnline Conference on Technology, Innovation, Media and Education. (pp. 283–293), Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) PY R Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. O Tan, C. N. L., & Md. Noor, S. (2013). Knowledge management enablers, knowledge sharing and research collaboration: a study of knowledge management at research universities in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 21(2), 251-276. C Tao, Y. (2009). The relationship between motivation and online social presence in an online class (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida). © Teo, T. (2010). Development and validation of the e-learning acceptance mea- sure (ElAM). Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 148-152. Thompson, B. (2011). Evaluating the Satisfaction of Distance Education Students of the University of the West Indies, Open Campus. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 960-965). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Thyer, B. (2009). Evidence-based practice, science and social work. In A. R. Roberts (ed), Social Workers’ Desk Reference (2nd ed.), pp. 1115–1119. 193 Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tickle, B. R., Chang, M., & Kim, S. (2011). Administrative support and its mediating effect on US public school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 342-349. Tinto, V. (1993). Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. (2nd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. PM Tóth, Z. E., & Jónás, T. (2014). Enhancing student satisfaction based on course evaluations at budapest university of technology and economics. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 11(6), 95–112. U Tsai, C. C., Chuang, S. C., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, M. J. (2011). Self-efficacy in Internet-based Learning Environments: A Literature Review. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 222-240 T Tschetter, E. (2014). Student satisfaction with online learning in higher education in the decade 2002-2012: A meta-analytic review (Doctoral dissertation, University Of South Dakota). IG H Tuquero, J. M. (2010). A meta-ethnographic synthesis of support services for adult learners in distance learning programs (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). R Tung, L. C. (2012). Proactive Intervention Strategies for Improving Online Student Retention in a Malaysian Distance Education Institution. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 312–324 PY Ustati, R., & Hassan, S. S. S. (2013). Distance learning students’ need: Evaluating interactions from Moore’s Theory of Transactional Distance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 292-304. O Vamosi, A. R., Pierce, B. G., & Slotkin, M. H. (2004). Distance learning in an accounting principles course—Student satisfaction and perceptions of efficacy. Journal of Education for Business, 79(6), 360-366. © C Vasiloudis, G., Koutsouba, M., Giossos, Y., & Mavroidis, I. (2015). Transactional distance and autonomy in a distance-learning environment. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 18(1), 114-122. Velada, R., & Caetano, A. (2007). Training transfer: the mediating role of perception of learning. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(4), 283296. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. 194 Vicziany, M., & Puteh, M. (2004, June). Vision 2020, the multimedia supercorridor and Malaysian universities. Paper Presented at the 15th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, Canberra, 29 June – 2 July 2004. Wan, Z. (2010). E-Learning Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes: Theoretical Development and Empirical Investigations (Doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario). PM Wan, Z., Fang, Y., & Neufeld, D. J. (2007). The role of information technology in technology-mediated learning: A review of the past for the future. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(2), 183-195. U Wang, Y. S. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information and Management, 41(1), 75–86. T Wang, C. (2010). Students’ Characteristics, Self-Regulated Learning, Technology Self-Efficacy, and Course Outcomes in Web-Based Courses (Doctoral dissertation, University of Auburn). H Wang, C.-H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, selfregulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302–323 IG Waschull, S. B. (2005). Predicting success in online psychology courses: Self-discipline and motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 190-192 R Watts, S. W. (2015). Andragogy and online course satisfaction: A correlation study (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University). PY Webster, R. S. (2012). Challenging student satisfaction through the education of desires. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(9), 81–92. C O Wendt, J., & Nisbet, D. (2015). Teacher Immediacy : The Relationship with Perceived Learning and Student Outcomes in the U.S .International Classroom, In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp.976-980). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). © Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton Century Crofts. Wiersma, W. (2000). Research Methods in Education :An Introduction. New York, Allyn and Bacon. Wijekumar, K., Ferguson, L., & Wagoner, D. (2006). Problem with assessment validity and reliability in web-based distance learning environments and solutions. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 15(2), 199– 195 215. Williams, P., Nicholas, D., & Gunter, B. (2005, April). E-learning: What the literature tells us about distance education: An overview. In Aslib Proceedings 57 (2),109-122. Emerald Group Publishing. PM Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R.D. and Hsia, T.-L. (2010), A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Journal of Computers & Education, 55(1), 155-64. Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2010).The role of students’ motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 916-930. U Yadolahi, F. J., Meisam, M., Mahmoud, M., & Aidin, S. (2014). Institutional Factors Affecting Academic Entrepreneurship : The Case of University of Tehran. Journal of Economic Analysis, 74 (2), 139-159. T Yalof, B. (2012). Marshaling Resources: A Classic Grounded Theory Study of Online Learners (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University Graduate). IG H Yen, C.-J., & Abdous, M. (2011). A study of the predictive relationships between faculty engagement, learner satisfaction and outcomes in multiple learning delivery modes. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 9(4), 57-70. R Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for student success in an online course. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 71-83, PY Yukselturk, E., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Investigation of interaction, online support, course structure and flexibility as the contributing factors to students' satisfaction in an online certificate program. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 51-65. O Yu, T., & Richardson J. C. (2015). An exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis of the student online learning readiness (SOLR) instrument. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 19(5), 120-141. © C Yusoff, Y. M. (2012). Self-efficacy, perceived social support, and psychological adjustment in international undergraduate students in a public higher education institution in Malaysia. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(4), 353-371. Yusuf, M. (2011). The impact of self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and selfregulated learning strategies on students’ academic achievement. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 15(2011), 2623-2626. Zaman, H. B., Ahmad, A., Sulaiman, R., Ang, M. C., & Nayan, N. M. (2013). Evaluation of Augmented Reality Remedial Worksheet Based on AVCTP 196 Algorithm for Negative Numbers (AR²WN²). In International Visual Informatics Conference (pp. 581-594). Zambrano Ramirez, J. (2016). Prediction factors of student satisfaction in online courses. Ried-Revista Iberoamericana De Educacion A Distancia, 19(2), 217-235. PM Zapf, J. S. (2008). The Relationship Between Students’ Perceptions of Instructor Immediacy and Academic Engagement in Online Courses (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University). Zhang, X., Liu, J., Liu, C., & Cole, M. (2011). Factors Influencing Users’ Perceived Learning During Online Searching. In International Conference on eLearning (p. 200). Academic Conferences International Limited. U Zhou, Y. (2012). Factors affecting faculty technology adoption of online teaching in higher education: literature review (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin). H T Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. IG Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2008). Motivation: An essential dimension of self- regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self- regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. (1st ed., pp. 1-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers PY R Zimmerman, B.J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview and analysis. In Zimmerman, B.J. and Schunk, D. H. (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. (pp. 1-38). Mahwah: Erlbaum O Zolfaghari, S., & Rahimi, A. (2016). Iranian EFL students’ self-assessment, selfefficacy, and gende, An International Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal, 2(4), 63-72. © C Zoubir, T. (2015). Self-efficacy as a construct for understanding teachers and students' engagement with Web 2.0 technologies. In Global Learn (pp. 152157). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). 197