Influencing Factors of Online Learning Courses Satisfaction in Art Major: A Case Study of Chongqing, China
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14456/shserj.2025.75Keywords:
Satisfaction, Online-Learning, Self-Efficacy, Content Quality, InteractivityAbstract
Purpose: This study employs a mixed-methods approach to investigate online learning satisfaction of students in art education. It determines relationship between self-efficacy, content quality, interactivity, delivery method, social presence, and satisfaction with online learning course. Research design, data, and methodology: Qualitative methods include observations, interviews, and surveys, capturing insights into students' experiences and challenges. The target population is students, majoring in art at the School of Journalism and Communication, Sichuan International Studies University. Index of Item-Objective Congruence and pilot test were implemented to prove validity and reliability of the research items. The quantitative phase involves administering structured questionnaires to 80 students and analyzing data using SPSS. The strategic plan involves 30 students. Results: Integrating qualitative and quantitative findings, the study offers a comprehensive understanding of satisfaction in online art education. The paired-sample T-test analysis results for six variables related to student satisfaction, comparing the phases before and after implementing a strategic plan, has been found significant mean different. Conclusions: The research contributes to the discourse on online learning satisfaction, offering implications for designing effective online art education programs.
References
Al-Fraihat, A. M., Al-Hunaiyyan, A., Al-Azani, S., & Al-Mamari, A. (2020). Factors affecting students' satisfaction with e-learning systems in Oman. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 10(1), 24-31.
Ali, F., Zhou, Y., Hussain, K., Nair, P., & Neethiahnanthan, A. R. (2016). Does higher education service quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty?. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(1), 70-94. https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-02-2014-0008
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2015). Linking empowering leadership to job satisfaction, work effort, and creativity: The role of self-leadership and psychological empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(3), 304-323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051814565819
Anderson, T., & Lehman, T. (1997). The role of evaluation in the development of an effective distance education system. In D. Tharp (Ed.), Distance education: The new frontier (pp. 46-57). Harper Collins.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral patterns. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (1st ed.). Freeman.
Basuony, M. A. K., Bouaddi, M., Ali, H., & EmadEldeen, R. (2021). The effect of COVID ‐19 pandemic on global stock markets: Return, volatility, and bad state probability dynamics. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2761
Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning (1st ed.). Tony Bates Associates.
Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Towards a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456-480. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270
Cheng, Y. M. (2020). Students' satisfaction and continuance intention of the cloud-based e-learning system: Roles of interactivity and course quality factors. Education + Training, 62(9), 1037-1059. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-10-2019-0245
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198). Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2-3), 147-166.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool in Business Research. European Business Review, 26, 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Hodgins, H. W., & Cohen, A. (1996). Educational psychology: Development, diversity, and context (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 50-68.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000304
Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The revised self-leadership questionnaire: Testing a hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 672-691. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940210450484
Kehrwald, B. (2008). Social presence in online education. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational psychology (pp. 971-975). Sage Publications.
Liaw, S. S., & Huang, H. M. (2000). An empirical study on student satisfaction in a web-based teaching and learning environment. Computers & Education, 35(3), 191-203.
McGreal, R., & Elliott, A. (2004). Learning objects: A practical guide. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1), 1-16.
McMillan, S. J., & Hwang, J. J. (2002). Measures of perceived interactivity: An exploration. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 29-45.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. (1st ed.). U.S. Department of Education.
Mirabolghasemi, M., Iahad, N., & Nor Zairah, A. R. (2015). Students' Perception Towards the Potential and Barriers of Social Network Sites in Higher Education. Springer International Publishing.
Neubert, M. J., & Wu, J.-C. C. (2006). An investigation of the generalizability of the Houghton and Neck Revised Self-Leadership Questionnaire to a Chinese context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 360-373. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610663132
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The Assessment of Reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3, 248-292.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic setting. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543
Rafaeli, S. (1988). Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R. P. Hawkins, B. O. Berent, & J. E. Colman (Eds.), Advances in communication research (pp. 110-139). JAI Press.
Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2003). Designing web-based instruction (1st ed.). Merrill Prentice Hall.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 155-172). Plenum Press.
Selim, H. M. (2007). Learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in a hybrid MBA program. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(6), 564-576.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Contemporary Sociology, 7(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.2307/2065899
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Zvacek, S., & Gibson, C. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. (1st ed.). Cengage Learning.
Siritongthaworn, S., Krairit, D., Dimmitt, N., & Paul, H. (2006). The study of e-learning technology implementation: A preliminary investigation of universities in Thailand. Education and Information Technologies, 11(2), 137-160.
Strong, R. (2012). Investigating Students’ Satisfaction with eLearning Courses: The Effect of Learning Environment and Social Presence. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(3), 98-110. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.03098
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
Wang, Y., & Spence, P. R. (2009). Online learning: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology Education, 8, 103-122.
Webster, J., & Trevino, L. K. (1995). Rational and social theories as complementary explanations of communication internalization. Communication Research, 22(2), 157-192. https://doi.org/10.5465/256843
Wiley, D. A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a meta-theory, a taxonomy, and some exampes. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects (pp. 21-45). Reusability. http://reusability.it.co.edu/papers/ID2.htm
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Wu Yue

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The submitting author warrants that the submission is original and that she/he is the author of the submission together with the named co-authors; to the extend the submission incorporates text passages, figures, data, or other material from the work of others, the submitting author has obtained any necessary permission.
Articles in this journal are published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY What does this mean?). This is to get more legal certainty about what readers can do with published articles, and thus a wider dissemination and archiving, which in turn makes publishing with this journal more valuable for you, the authors.