Health Profession Education Students’ Satisfaction toward Online Courses during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Authors

Diantha Soemantri, Department of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta 10430, IndonesiaFollow
Zhafirah Salsabila, Department of Health Administration and Policy, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, IndonesiaFollow
Vernonia Yorasaki, Department of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitas Bengkulu, Bengkulu 38119, IndonesiaFollow

ORCID ID

Diantha Soemantri : 0000-0002-3956-1265

Zhafirah Salsabila : 0000-0002-1337-8868

Vernonia Yorasaki : 0000-0003-0606-6919

Abstract

Background: Given the extensive use of e-learning, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, a validated instrument is deemed important for continuous evaluation. This study aimed to measure health profession education students’ satisfaction toward the e-learning process within all health sciences cluster (HSC) courses, following further validation of the satisfaction scale for the e-learning process.

Methods: A cross-sectional study using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to validate the 29-item Indonesian version of the satisfaction scale for the e-learning process. That the validated tool was used to measure 2,471 students’ satisfaction toward the e-learning process.

Results: The EFA resulted in 19 items divided into three subscales: the teaching process (5 items), the instructional content (4 items), and the interaction and evaluation (10 items). The scores of students’ satisfaction toward the e-learning process are at 84–94% of the possible maximum score of the whole instrument or each subscale.

Conclusions: The Indonesian version of the satisfaction scale for the e-learning process serves as a valid tool to measure students’ satisfaction toward e-learning. Current students have relatively good perceptions toward e-learning used in all HSC courses, including the interaction domain, which is an important aspect in an e-learning system. Strategies are warranted to maintain and further improve the e-learning process.

References

1. Daniel M, Gordon M, Patricio M, Hider A, Pawlik C, Bhagdev R, et al. An update on developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A BEME scoping review: BEME Guide No. 64. Med Teach. 2021;43:253–71.
2. Genn JM. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 23 (Part 2): Curriculum, environment, climate, quality and change in medical education - A unifying perspective. Med Teach. 2001;23:445–54.
3. Rodriguez MC, Ooms A, Montañez M. Students’ perceptions of online-learning quality given comfort, motivation, satisfaction, and experience. J Interact Online Learn. 2008;7:105–25.
4. Baber H. Determinants of students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online learning during the pandemic of COVID19. J Educ e-Learn Res. 2020;7:285–92.
5. Almusharraf NM, Khahro SH. Students’ satisfaction with online learning experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Emerg Technol Learn. 2020;15:246–67.
6. Owusu-Fordjour C, Koomson CK, Hanson D. The impact of COVID-19 on learning – The perspective of the Ghanaian student. Eur J Educ Stud. 2020;7:88–101.
7. Suryani NK, Sugianingrat IAPW. Student E-learning satisfaction during the Covid-19 pandemic in Bali, Indonesia. Jurnal Economia. 2021;17:141–51.
8. Sun PC, Tsai RJ, Finger G, Chen YY, Yeh D. What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Comput Educ. 2008;50:1183–202.
9. Piccoli G, Ahmad R, Ives B. Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Q. 2001;25:401–26.
10. Gulbahar Y. Study of developing scales for assessment of the levels of readiness and satisfaction of participants in e-learning environments. Ankara Univ J Faculty Educ Sci. 2012;45:119–38.
11. Kolcu MİB, Öztürkçü ÖSK, Kaki GD. Evaluation of a distance education course using the 4C-ID model for continuing endodontics education. J Dent Educ. 2020;84:62–71.
12. Abriya W, Simadibrata M, Soemantri D. Adaptasi kuesioner satisfaction scale for E-learning process versi Indonesia: Evaluasi kepuasan mahasiswa terhadap pembelajaran 4C/ID. eJKI. 2021;9:169–77.
13. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications, 3^rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications; 2003.
14. Tinsley HEA, Tinsley DJ. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 1987;34:414–24.
15. Hammick M, Olckers L, Campion-Smith C. Learning in interprofessional teams: AMEE Guide no 38. Med Teach. 2009;31:1–12.
16. Anderson T, Rourke L, Garrison DR, Archer W. Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Online Learn. 2001;5:1-17.
17. Bernard RM, Abrami PC, Borokhovski E, Wade CA, Tamim RM, Surkes MA, et al. A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Rev Educ Res. 2009;79:1243–89.
18. Coetzee M, Oosthuizen RM. Students’ sense of coherence, study engagement and self-efficacy in relation to their study and employability satisfaction. J Psychol Afr. 2012;22:315–22.
19. El-Sayad G, Md Saad NH, Thurasamy R. How higher education students in Egypt perceived online learning engagement and satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Comput Educ. 2021;8:527–50.
20. Gebauer MM, McElvany N, Bos W, Köller O, Schöber C. Determinants of academic self-efficacy in different socialization contexts: investigating the relationship between students’ academic self-efficacy and its sources in different contexts. Soc Psychol Educ. 2020;23:339–58.
21. Kim S, Kim DJ. Structural relationship of key factors for student satisfaction and achievement in asynchronous online learning. Sustainability. 2021;13:6734.
22. Klem AM, Connell JP. Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. J Sch Health. 2004;74:262–73.
23. Knowles MS, Holton III EF, Swanson RA, Swanson R, Robinson PA. The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 9^th ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2020.
24. Kurucay M, Inan FA. Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Comput Educ. 2017;115:20–37.
25. Laird TFN. College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking. Res High Educ. 2005;46:365–87.
26. Moore MG. Editorial: Three types of interaction. Am J Distance Educ. 1989;3:1–7.
27. Moore MG, Kearsley G. Distance learning: A systems view of online learning. California: Wadsworth, OH: Cengage Learning; 2011.
28. She L, Ma L, Jan A, Sharif Nia H, Rahmatpour P. Online learning satisfaction during COVID-19 pandemic among Chinese university students: The serial mediation model. Front Psychol. 2021;12:743936.
29. Skinner E, Furrer C, Marchand G, Kindermann T. Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? J Educ Psychol. 2008;100:765–81.
30. Zhang Q. Assessing the effects of instructor enthusiasm on classroom engagement, learning goal orientation, and academic self-efficacy. Commun Teach. 2014;28:44–56.
31. Maresca C, Barrero C, Duggan D, Platin E, Rivera E, Hannum W, et al. Utilization of blended learning to teach preclinical endodontics. J Dent Educ. 2014;78:1194–204.
32. Yang M, Shao Z, Liu Q, Liu C. Understanding the quality factors that influence the continuance intention of students toward participation in MOOCs. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2017;65:1195–214.
33. Instructional Design Australia. Instructional design. Australia: Instructional Design Australia, 2019.
34. Baticulon RE, Sy JJ, Alberto NRI, Baron MBC, Mabulay REC, Rizada LGT, et al. Barriers to online learning in the time of COVID-19: A national survey of medical students in the Philippines. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31:615–26.
35. Martin F, Bolliger DU. Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learn. 2018;22:205–22.
36. Ellman MS, Schulman-Green D, Blatt L, Asher S, Viveiros D, Clark J, et al. Using online learning and interactive simulation to teach spiritual and cultural aspects of palliative care to interprofessional students. J Palliat Med. 2012;15:1240–7.
37. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–5.

Recommended Citation

Soemantri D, Salsabila Z, Yorasaki V. Health Profession Education Students’ Satisfaction toward Online Courses during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Makara J Health Res. 2023;27.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.