Student Preferences towards Online Learning in Open University Malaysia

Abstract: Countries all across the world have been placed under lockdown as a result of the unexpected emergence of the worldwide health disaster known as the Coronavirus Disease (or COVID-19). The crisis has also put the world's educational systems under strain, forcing academics to switch from face to face to online learning. Open and Distance Learning (ODL) method is one of the most suitable strategies that integrates virtual technology which consequently allows the continuation of the teaching and learning process. As an open university that already has ODL, learning methods and student service should be more robust. Quantitative research was conducted using a 34-item questionnaire to explore the challenges students face in the context of online learning; and to identify the student’s preferences for their convenience for the adoption of quality improvement in online learning. Data was collected from sixty-four (64) postgraduates students enrolled in the Faculty of Technology and Applied Sciences, Open University Malaysia. The study revealed that staying motivated and engaged in online classes, with a Relative Importance Index (RII) of 0.6188, stands out as the most significant challenge for the students. On a positive note, the availability of clear learning objectives, with the highest RII of 0.8188, emerged as the top preference among students for adopting quality improvement in online learning. These findings underscore the importance of addressing motivational factors and emphasising clear learning objectives to enhance the overall online learning experience.

online learning, open distance learning, student challenges, student preferences

1. Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133-148. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Betts, K., Keeler, A., & Kennedy, K. (2020). The transition to online teaching in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative exploration of faculty experiences. Online Learning, 24(2), 207-225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Brown, A., & Johnson, M. (2022). Enhancing Online Learning Experiences: A Comprehensive Review. Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 112-129. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chen, Y., Okudan, G. E. & Riley, D. R. (2010). Sustainable performance criteria for construction method selection in concrete buildings. Automation in construction, 19(2), 235-244. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Clegg, S., Hudson, A., & Steel, J. (2003). The emperor’s new clothes: Globalization and e -learning in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(1), 39 –53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3593303 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Dervan, S., McCosker, C., MacDaniel, B., & O’Nuallain, C. (2006). Educational multimedia. In A. MéndezVilas, A. Solano Martín, J.A. Mesa González and J. Mesa González (Eds.), Current Developments in Technology-Assisted Education, Badajoz, Spain: Formatex, 810-805 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Devisakti, A., & Ramayah, T. (2021). Sense of belonging and grit in e-learning portal usage in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Etikan, I., Musa, S.A.& Alkassim, R.S. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Gray, J.A. & DiLoreto, M. (2016). The Effects of Student Engagement, Student Satisfaction, and Perceived Learning in Online Learning Environments. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11(1– May), 1 – 20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Guo, P. J., Kim, J & Rubin, R. (2014). How Video Production Affects Student Engagement: An Empirical Study of MOOC Videos. Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Huang, J., Saleh, S & Liu, Y. (2021). A Review on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 10(3), 206 – 217. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Jones, R., & White, L. (2021). Strategies for Motivating Online Learners: A Meta-analysis. Online Education Review, 28(2), 45-62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). Student engagement in the educational interface: Understanding the mechanisms of student success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 58-71 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kamaludin K and Sundarasen S (2023) COVID-19 and online distance learning in Malaysia: A blessing or a curse? Frontiers Education. 8:1062219, 1 – 12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kizilcec, R. F., et al. (2017). Lessons from MOOCs to Future Learning. Nature, 550(7676), 291-293. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Lee, J., & 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Lin, W. S., & Wang, C. H. (2012). Antecedences to continued intentions of adopting e-learning system in blended learning instruction: A contingency framework based on models of information system success and task-technology fit. Computers and Education, 58(1), 88–99. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Liu, Z., Liu, S., Liu, L., Sun, J., Peng, X., and Wang, T. (2016). Sentiment recognition of online course reviews using multi-swarm optimization-based selected features. Neurocomputing, 185, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Lu, H.S. & Smiles, R. (2022). The Role of Collaborative Learning in the Online Education. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research, 6(06), 97 – 106. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Mallery, P., & George, D. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. Boston Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Mayer, R. E. (2019). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mohajan, H. (2020). Quantitative Research: A Successful Investigation in Natural and Social Sciences, MPRA Paper 105149, University Library of Munich, Germany. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Mohamad, S. A., Hashim, H., Azer, I., Hamzah, H. C., & Khalid, R. A. H. (2020). Gender Differences in Students’ Satisfaction and Intention to the Continuation of Online Distance Learning. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(9), 641–650. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Nasir, S., & Hameed, M. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on the Learning Processes of Typically Developing and Special Needs Students in Pakistan. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(3), 67-75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Rooshdi, R. R.R. M, Majid, M. Z. A.., Sahamir, S. R., Ismail, N. A. A. (2018). Relative importance index of sustainable design and construction activities criteria for greenhighway, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 63, 151-156. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Sadeghi, M. (2019). A shift from classroom to distance learning: Advantages and limitations. International Journal of Research in English Education, 4(1), 80-88. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Samat, M. F., Awang, N. A., Hussin, S. N. A., & Nawi, F. A. M. (2020). Online Distance Learning Amidst Covid-19 Pandemic Among University Students: A Practicality of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(3), 220– 233. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Smith, J., et al. (2023). Addressing Technical Challenges in Online Learning: A Case Study Approach. Journal of Distance Education, 36(1), 78-92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Traxler, J. (2018). Distance learning: Predictions and possibilities. Education Sciences, 8(1), 35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Vahed, A., Walters, M.M & Ross, A. H. A. (2021): Continuous assessment fit for purpose? Analysing the experiences of academics from a South African university of technology. Education Inquiry, 1 – 17. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Wikramanayake, G. N. (2014). Impact of Digital Technology on Education. Proceedings of 24th National Information Technology Conference. 82 – 91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Decision Tree and Automatic Linear Modeling Approaches to Predict Body Weight in Indigenous Sabi Sheep and Matebele Goat Females of Zimbabwe
• Microcontroller – Based Automatic Railway Crossing Control and Track Obstacle Monitoring System
• Modelling the Role of Absorptive Capacity in Foreign Direct Investment - Economic Growth Nexus: A Focus on South Africa’s Manufacturing Sector
• AI-Powered Wristband for Accurate BAC Monitoring Using Smart Data Fusion
• Climate Change Impacts on Different Regions