Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Research in Management & Technovation

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2022M3034

Citation: Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Research in Management & Technovation, Viet Ha Hoang, Vijender Kumar Solanki, Nguyen Thi Hong Nga, Shivani Agarwal (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 34, pages 87–92 (2022)

Full text

Abstract. Online learning is one of the trend in modern education today. In the context of the complicated Covid-19 epidemic, the role of online learning in teaching and research activities is even more critical. Innovative teaching methodologies and providing materials are two decisive factors in online education, so improving those two factors will help increase the quality of online learning. The research explores the influence of innovative teaching approach and the effectiveness of delivery materials on student satisfaction at higher education institutions in Vietnam. The research collected data through survey questionnaires with 527 responses. The study tested the measurement quality and examined hypotheses through multivariate regression analysis. The findings confirmed a positive effect of innovative teaching approaches and the effectiveness of delivering materials on student satisfaction in online courses. Based on the findings, the research proposed some recommendations to improve innovative teaching methodologies and provide materials in e-learning to enhance the quality of online learning.

References

1. AlHamad, A. Q., Al Qawasmi, K. I., & AlHamad, A. Q. (2014). Key Factors in Determining Students' Satisfaction in Online Learning Based on'Web Programming'course within Zarqa University. International Journal of Global Business, 7(1), 7-14.
2. Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. Theory and practice of online learning, 2, 15-44.
3. Ally, M., Lin, F. O., McGreal, R., Woo, B., & Li, Q. (2005). An intelligent agent for adapting and delivering electronic course materials to mobile learners.
4. Baskaran, K., & Rajarathinam, M. (2018). Innovative teaching practices in educational institutions (ITPEI). International Journal of Educational Sciences, 20, 72-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2017.1420599
5. Bolliger, D. U., & Martin, F. (2018). Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement strategies. Distance Education, 39(4), 568-583. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520041
6. Cao, C., Shang, L., & Meng, Q. (2020). Applying the job demands-resources model to exploring predictors of innovative teaching among university teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89, 103009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103009
7. CEDEFOP. (2001). 2001 Annual Report. Retrieved from http://aei.pitt.edu/42113/1/2001_CEDEFOP.pdf
8. Center for Innovation in Teaching & Learning. DELIVERING CONTENT ONLINE. Online course-in-a-box. Retrieved from https://citl.illinois.edu/citl-101/online-strategy-development/develop-or-revise-an-online-course/online-course-in-a-box/building-your-course/delivering-content/delivering-content-online
9. Chang, S. J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the Editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.88
10. Elshami, W., Taha, M. H., Abuzaid, M., Saravanan, C., Al Kawas, S., & Abdalla, M. E. (2021). Satisfaction with online learning in the new normal: perspective of students and faculty at medical and health sciences colleges. Medical Education Online, 26(1), 1920090. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.1920090
11. Giap, H. T., Vu, B. T. T., Tran, Q. T., & Nguyen, H. H. (2022). Learners’ Perceived Self-Efficacy, Engagement, and Satisfaction in Online Learning of Accounting and Auditing University Students. Vietnam Journal of Education, 6(2), 179-186. https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2022.200
12. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis: 7th Edition. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
13. Harvey, H. L., Parahoo, S., & Santally, M. (2017). Should gender differences be considered when assessing student satisfaction in the online learning environment for millennials? Higher Education Quarterly, 71(2), 141-158.
14. Holsapple, C. W., & Lee‐Post, A. (2006). Defining, assessing, and promoting e‐learning success: An information systems perspective. Decision sciences journal of innovative education, 4(1), 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00102.x
15. Hu, M., & Li, H. (2017). Student engagement in online learning: A review. Paper presented at the 2017 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET).
16. Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and organizational psychology, 73(3), 287-302. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038
17. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
18. Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 915-931.
19. Lee, P.-C., Lin, C.-T., & Kang, H.-H. (2016). The influence of open innovative teaching approach toward student satisfaction: a case of Si-Men Primary School. Qual Quant, 50, 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0160-x
20. McFarland, D., & Hamilton, D. (2005). Factors affecting student performance and satisfaction: Online versus traditional course delivery. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(2), 25-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2006.11645880
21. Nguyễn Đình Thọ. (2013). Giáo trình phương pháp nghiên cứu khoa học trong kinh doanh. Trường Đại học Kinh tế TP. Hồ Chí Minh: Nhà xuất bản Tài chính.
22. Nguyen, D. T. (2013). Giáo trình phương pháp nghiên cứu khoa học trong kinh doanh [Research method in business]. Trường Đại học Kinh tế TP. Hồ Chí Minh: Nhà xuất bản Tài chính.
23. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
24. Oblinger, D. G., & Hawkins, B. L. (2005). IT Myths The Myth about E-Learning. Educause review, 40(4), 14.
25. Palmer, S. R., & Holt, D. M. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of computer assisted learning, 25(2), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00294.x
26. Plouffe, C. R., Vandenbosch, M., & Hulland, J. (2001). Intermediating technologies and multi‐group adoption: a comparison of consumer and merchant adoption intentions toward a new electronic payment system. Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication of The Product Development & Management Association, 18(2), 65-81.
27. Schmidt, A., & Winterhalter, C. (2004). User context aware delivery of e-learning material: Approach and architecture. J. Univers. Comput. Sci., 10(1), 28-36.
28. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1).
29. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Inc.
30. Urdan, T., Weggen, C., & Cornelia, C. (2000). Corporate e-Learning: Exploring a New Frontier, March 2000. A Research Paper from WR.
31. Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted innovation: What happened to e-learning and why. Retrieved from Pennsylvania: