Scribd
Upload
10 views

References

Uploaded by

Chelwin Glenn Pelaez Asuncion
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
10 views

References

Uploaded by

Chelwin Glenn Pelaez Asuncion
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Table 1

https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-016-0247-7

Table 2

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/blog/why-ask-for-survey-respondents-age

Table 3

Table 4

Study indicate that most respondents with heavy usage found network quality indifferent among
ISPs and demonstrated hesitation in direct contact with customer service, making information
support the most significant dimension. Service quality directly influenced customers’ complaining
and switching intention. It was clarified in study that intention to continue the contract also
depended on factors such as switching barriers, value and promotional offers (Thu Nguyen Quach,
Charles Jebarajakirthy, Park Thaichon, 2016).

Thu Nguyen Quach, Charles Jebarajakirthy, Park Thaichon

The effects of service quality on internet service provider customers’ behaviour: A mixed methods
study.

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics

ISSN: 1355-5855 Article publication date: 13 June 2016

Table 5

Given the catchment areas of many higher education institutions (HEIs) cover both urban and
rural areas, variation in connectivity may impact the type of online model that staff can
deliver, or constrain certain groups of students from fully engaging with online-based
content. Differences in the quality of broadband connectivity for students living at home, as
opposed to on campus, is likely also an important consideration in this potential divide
(Rasheed et al., 2020).
Rasheed, A. R., Kamsin, A., & Nor, A. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended
learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701

Table 6

Beng, J. T., Tiatri, S., Lusiana, F., & Wangi, V. H. (2020). Intensity of gadgets usage for achieving prime
social and cognitive health of adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. In The 2nd Tarumanagara
International Conference on the Applications of Social Sciences and Humanities (TICASH 2020), 735–
741, Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201209.116.

Baticulon, R. E., Sy, J. J., Alberto, N. R. I., Baron, M. B. C., Mabulay, R. E. C., Rizada, L. G. T., Tiu, C. J. S.,
Clarion, C. A. and Reyes, J. C. B. (2021). Barriers to online learning in the time of COVID-19: A
national survey of medical students in the Philippines. Medical science educator. 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01231-z.

Table 7

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/online-learning-challenges-inaccessibility-to-tech-and-
academic-dishonesty/

Table 8

Li, Lung-Yu; Lee, Long-Yuan

Higher Education Studies, v6 n3 p147-156 2016

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1111001

Table 9

https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/explore-our-resources/learning-online/motivation-
and-online-study

Table 10

Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance?
Computers and Education, 95, 270–284.

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.
Asoodar, M., Vaezi, S., & Izanloo, B. (2016). Framework to improve e-learner satisfaction and further
strengthen e-learning implementation. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 704–716.

Bollinger, D., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online
courses. Int J E-learning, 3(1), 61–67.

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.

Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’
satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior,
71, 402–417.

Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, E. K. (2011). Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence:
Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictor in a structural model.
Computers & Education, 57(2), 1654–1664.

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. Computers &
Education, 51(1), 318–336.

Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An
empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education,
50(4), 1183–1202.

Table 11

Arthur, L. (2009). From performativity to professionalism: Lecturers’ responses to student feedback.


Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), 441–454.

Crews, T., & Butterfield, J. (2014). Data for flipped classroom design: Using student feedback to
identify the best components from online and face-to-face classes. Higher Education Studies, 4(3),
38–47.

Van Wart, M., Ni, A., Ready, D., Shayo, C., & Court, J. (2020). Factors leading to online learner
satisfaction. Business Educational Innovation Journal, 12(1), 15–24.

Arruabarrena, R., Sánchez, A., Blanco, J. M., et al. (2019). Integration of good practices of active
methodologies with the reuse of student-generated content. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 16, #10.

Kay, R., MacDonald, T., & DiGiuseppe, M. (2019). A comparison of lecture-based, active, and flipped
classroom teaching approaches in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31,
449–471.

Nouri, J. (2016). The flipped classroom: For active, effective and increased learning – Especially for
low achievers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13, #33.
Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2017). The effect of games and simulations on higher education: A
systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,
14, #22.

Table 12

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
282699144_Student_Satisfaction_with_Online_Learning_Is_it_a_Psychological_Contract

You might also like