Emergency Online Learning: The Effects of Interactional, Motivational, Self-Regulatory, and Situational Factors on Learning Outcomes and Continuation Intentions
This study investigated the effects of interactional, motivational, self-regulatory, and situational factors on university students’ online learning outcomes and continuation intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected from 255 students taking a business course at a university in southern China. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that while family financial hardship caused by COVID-19 was a marginally significant negative predictor of students’ learning outcomes, learner–content interaction; instructors’ provision of e-resources, course planning, and organisation; and students’ intrinsic goal orientation and meta-cognitive self-regulation were significant positive predictors with the latter two sets of predictors mediating the effects of learner–instructor and learner–learner interactions, respectively. Multinominal logistic regression analyses showed that learner–instructor interaction, learner–content interaction, and private learning space were significant positive predictors of students’ intentions to continue with online learning, but learner–learner interaction was a significant negative predictor. These findings point to the differential effects of various types of interactional and situational factors on learning outcomes and continuation intentions, and the instructor- and learner-level factors that mediate the effects of learner–instructor and learner–learner interactions on learning outcomes. They contribute to our understandings of emergency online learning and provide implications for facilitating it.
Abdullatif, H., & Velázquez-Iturbide, J. Á. (2020). Personality traits and intention to continue using massive open online courses (ICM) in Spain: The mediating role of motivations. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(20), 1953–1967. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1805873
Aguilera-Hermida, A. P. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, Article 100011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149
Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in Internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/108056990006300402
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Tamim, R., Surkes, M., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
Cho, M., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835770
Chu, R. J.-c. (2010). How family support and Internet self-efficacy influence the effects of e-learning among higher aged adults—Analyses of gender and age differences. Computers & Education, 55(1), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.011
Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An update. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 185–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12097
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2021). Online and blended learning: Contexts and conditions for education in an emergency. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1301–1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13130
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Huang, L.-Q., Zhang, J., & Liu, Y. (2017). Antecedents of student MOOC revisit intention: Moderation effect of course difficulty. International Journal of Information Management, 37(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.12.002
Ifinedo, P. (2017). Examining students’ intention to continue using blogs for learning: Perspectives from technology acceptance, motivational, and social-cognitive frameworks. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.049
Johnston, S. C., Greer, D., & Smith, S. J. (2014). Peer learning in virtual schools. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 28(1), 1–31. http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/853
Juwah, C. (Ed.). (2006). Interactions in online learning: Implications for theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203003435
Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 16–39. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338
Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. E. E., & Kuo, Y.-T. (2014). A case study of integrating Interwise: Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and satisfaction in synchronous online learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1664
Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. Internet & Higher Education, 20, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
Li, Y., Nishimura, N., Yagami, H., Park, H.-S. (2021). An empirical study on online learners’ continuance intentions in China. Sustainability, 13(2), Article 889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020889
Lin, C., Zheng, B., & Zhang, Y. (2017a). Interactions and learning outcomes in online language courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 730–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12457
Lin, C., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, B. (2017b). The roles of learning strategies and motivation in online language learning: A structural equation modeling analysis. Computers & Education, 113, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.014
Liu, O. L. (2012). Student evaluation of instruction: In the new paradigm of distance education. Research in Higher Education, 53(4), 471–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9236-1
Lou, Y., Bernard, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate distance education: A theory-based meta-analysis of empirical literature. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 141–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-8252-x
Luo, N., Zhang, M., & Qi, D. (2017). Effects of different interactions on students’ sense of community in e-learning environment. Computers & Education, 115, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.006
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562904271199
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). The interaction equivalency theorem. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 94–104. http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/9.2.1.pdf
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
Moore, M. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge.
Park, S. Y., Nam, M., & Cha, S. (2012). University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 592–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.52
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) (Technical Report No. 91-8-004). University of Michigan. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338122.pdf
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024
Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640802039024
Rehm, M., Moukarzel, S., Daly, A. J., & del Fresno, M. (2021). Exploring online social networks of school leaders in times of COVID-19. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52, 1414–1433. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13099
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001093
Tsai, Y. H., Lin, C. H., Hong, J. C., & Tai, K. H. (2018). The effects of metacognition on online learning interest and continuance to learn with MOOCs. Computers & Education, 121, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.011
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526852
Wang, J., Yang, Y., Li, H., & van Aalst, J. (2021). Continuing to teach in a time of crisis: The Chinese rural educational system’s response and student satisfaction and social and cognitive presence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1494–1512. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13129
Weiner, C. (2003). Key ingredients to online learning: Adolescent students study in cyberspace—The nature of the study. International Journal on E-Learning, 2(3), 44–50. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/14497/
Zhou, M. M. (2016). Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspective. Computer & Education, 92–93, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.012
Zhu, Y., Zhang, J. H., Au, W., & Yates, G. (2020). University students’ online learning attitudes and continuous intention to undertake online courses: A self-regulated learning perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09753-w
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.2069
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In P. R. Pintrich & M. Boekaerts (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The copyright of all content published in IRRODL is retained by the authors.
This copyright agreement and use license ensures, among other things, that an article will be as widely distributed as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific and/or scholarly archive.
You are free to
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.