See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353841253

Dimensions of Asynchronous Virtual Classroom and Internet Self-Efficacy:

Gauging Student Satisfaction in Online Learning

Article · July 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 24

2 authors:

Michelle Pamela Ansayam Denis Abao Tan

Bukidnon State University Central Mindanao University
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    55 PUBLICATIONS   281 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dimensions of Asynchronous Virtual Classroom and Internet Self-Efficacy: Guaging Student Satisfaction View project

Dimensions of Asynchronous Virtual Classroom and Internet Self-Efficacy: Gauging Student Satisfaction in Online Learning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michelle Pamela Ansayam on 24 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of English and Education 36
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

Dimensions of Asynchronous Virtual Classroom and Internet

Self-Efficacy: Gauging Student Satisfaction in Online Learning

Michelle Pamela G. Ansayam and Dr. Denis A. Tan

Faculty, Bukidnon State University
Malaybalay City Bukidnon Philippines

Faculty, Central Mindanao University

Musuan, Maramag Bukidnon Philippines

Abstract:

This study investigated the dimensions of asynchronous virtual classroom, internet self-efficacy,
and student satisfaction of Bukidnon State University - College of Education employing
descriptive-correlational research design. One hundred twenty (120) participants were randomly
selected through proportionate stratification. 22.50% were first year students, 31.67% were
second year students, and 45.83% were third year students. As to dimensions of asynchronous
virtual classroom, students agreed with teaching and methodology provided by the teachers (3.90
mean), teacher’s communication in an online class (4.00 mean), and technical aspect (4.00
mean). As to internet self-efficacy, students agreed with them having exploration efficacy (4.20
mean), and students strongly agreed with them having communication efficacy (4.30 mean). The
aggregate mean value of student satisfaction is 3.70 implying that students were satisfied in
online class, thus, satisfaction is at a higher degree. Among the five independent variables, only
communication efficacy (.337 probability at .05 alpha value) has no significant connection to
student satisfaction. Teaching and methodological aspects with probability value of .000 in the
ANOVA is the single determinant of student satisfaction. The positive value in the regression
model connotes increase of student satisfaction when there is upsurge in teaching and
methodological aspects. Hence, when the teacher does more in teaching and develops more
effective methodology in online teaching and learning, student satisfaction accelerates.

Keywords: Dimensions of Asynchronous Virtual Classroom, Internet Self-efficacy, Student

Satisfaction, Descriptive Correlation

Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has produced the biggest interruption of education systems in history
reducing the opportunities of majority to continue learning due to its economic impact (United
Nations, 2020). In the Philippine context, to preserve and deliver quality education even with
lockdown and community quarantine, the new normal should be accounted in the planning and

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 37
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

implementation of the ―new normal educational policy‖ (Tria, 2020). Part of which is the
alternative delivery of education as response to the crisis. And, it is only likely with technology
by which educational institutions over the world at all levels can make ways to cultivate
alternative delivery in order to deliver remote classes (Toquero, 2020).

Due to the first-time global quandary caused by COVID-19, Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) encourage Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning through Virtual Classrooms.
Bukidnon State University plays its role in the CHED’s ingenuity on the Transition to Flexible
Learning supporting capacity building for higher education faculty. Flexible learning, states
Magsambol (2020), in the context of HEIs, encompasses a combination of digital and non-digital
technology that necessarily requires not internet connection. Further, it can take place in a
variety of settings, including in the classroom, at home via the internet for online learning (Top
Hat Glossary, 2020).

In particular, College of Education has been implementing three (3) learning modality
preferences for its students: the provision of Printed Modules with instructions through Short
Messaging System (SMS), PDF Module with instructions via Facebook Group Chat, and e-
module with Google Classroom and Google Meet. Google Meetings and uploading of materials
in the Google Classroom are conducted for instruction and virtual consultation.

These modalities came up due to the consideration of unstable bandwidth in the different places
where the students of the college reside. Other students do not even have connectivity in their
places, especially those who live in remote and mountainous areas. The premise presents three
modalities. However, this paper is focused on the second and third learning modalities

There have been studies about asynchronous online learning or virtual classrooms. In the pursuit
of satisfaction, studies found out factors influencing student satisfaction. Course design and
structure impact satisfaction according to Roach and Lemasters (2006). Nortvig et al (2018)
stated that comparative studies of educational formats show different results, which might mean
that factors other than solely the format affect learning satisfaction.

Kucuk and Richardson (2019) also affirmed that teaching presence, cognitive presence,
emotional engagement, and behavioral engagement are significant predictors of satisfaction,
hence, teaching presence is the dominant determinant of satisfaction. Swan (2006) found that
clarity of design, interaction with instructors, and active discussion among course participants
significantly influence student satisfaction.

Nevertheless, the course of this study uncovered the consequence of the dimensions of an
Asynchronous Virtual Classroom and how the Internet Self-efficacy of students would be of
utility in the existing instructional delivery to attain satisfaction despite COVID-19 pandemic.
Regardless of the description differences between the second and third modalities, as presented
earlier, teachers still push for the Google Classroom platform for asynchronous activities. In
furtherance, the students are not compelled to attend online classes for synchronous virtual
meeting due to limited connectivity denoting asynchronous delivery of instruction.

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 38
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

The study probed around describing the profile of College of Education students as regards to
year level; examining the Asynchronous Virtual Classroom in the dimensions of teaching and
methodological aspects, communication, and technical aspects; determining the level of student
internet self-efficacy in terms of exploration and communication; ascertaining the level of
student satisfaction in online learning; correlating student satisfaction and dimensions of
Asynchronous Virtual Classroom and Internet Self-Efficacy; and identifying the determinant of
student satisfaction.

Review of Literature

Asynchronous Virtual Classroom

The role of the learners in teaching-learning process is very important. They are accountable for
attending class and completing prescribed assignments. Today, we require active student
involvement. But, this traditional outlook is hampered by the present online learning modality
that most, if not all, of the educational institutions are implementing worldwide due to the global
pandemic brought about by COVID-19. This modality is an alternative mode to deliver
education.

According to Josep (2020), traditional education concept has changed comprehensively. Physical
presence is not the sole learning option anymore—not with the extensive use of the internet and
new technologies. Nowadays, anyone has a full access to quality education anytime and
anywhere for as long as computer and internet are accessible. Today, we are moving towards
online education revolution, the new era.

Online learning is education that takes place over the internet, be it synchronous or
asynchronous. It includes correspondence courses conducted through regular mail with little
interaction, PDAs and digital audio players like iPod and MP3 players, telecourses where content
is delivered via radio or television broadcast, CD-ROM courses where the student interacts with
static computer content, mobile learning by means of devices such as cellular phones, and online
learning that is internet-based courses offered synchronously and/or asynchronously, (Stern,
2020).

In addition, Groshell and Groshell (2020) stated that online students are not in the physical
classroom for discussion involvement. Therefore, teachers should make use of the discussion and
collaborative tools in their learning management system to escalate dialogue and interaction.
Teachers should also post video greetings, update their profile pictures, and stimulate dialogue
with the students through written, audio, and video comments.

Asynchronous e-learning or Asynchronous Virtual Classroom is generally regulated by media

such as e-mail, and discussion boards. It supports work associations among learners and with
teachers, even when participants cannot be online at the same time and place. Many people take
online courses because of their asynchronous nature, conjoining education with work, family,
and other unavoidable commitments. Asynchronous e-learning makes logging on to an e-
learning environment at any time and downloading documents or sending messages to teachers

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 39
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

or peers on due schedules or in their convenient time feasible. Students may spend much of their
time refining their activity responses, which are more thoughtful in comparison to synchronous
communication (Hrastinski, 2008).

Various advantages of asynchronous virtual classroom surface dramatically. There are higher
levels of temporal flexibility, which are instantaneously contributory to more accessible learning
experiences for variety of students and archive of past materials. Cognitive engagement increases
since students have ample time to ruminate on the course material. On the other hand, there are
also disadvantages. Students may feel less satisfied without the social interaction between their
peers and instructors. Course material may be misinterpreted or have the potential to be
misconstrued without the real-time discussion or interaction (University of Colorado, 2020).

In the study of Murphy et al. (2011), it was revealed that asynchronous virtual classroom delivers
teaching that fosters self-paced learning and teaching for answering activities and
troubleshooting. Another finding tackled about asynchronous online teaching and learning
methods where it was proven to be an acceptable substitute to classroom-based teaching for both
students and teachers.

Teaching and Methodological Aspect

In an Asynchronous Virtual Classroom, e-learning is never a learning goal itself but rather a
framework for technology-supported learning through which critical thinking, communication,
problem solving, and creativity take place (Egbert, n.d). As a result of ICT tools increase of
utilization in education, it must be distinguished that more universities incorporate Virtual
Learning Environment in traditional courses to address student learning needs and improve
teaching activities. Traditional academic institutions, in this view, reorganize and reconsider their
educational offer by structuring their own e-learning system accessible to students. This kind of
learning does not have a well-defined methodology yet. E-learning has been considered as a
combination of several learning methods regulated by technology (Oproiu, 2017).

Communication Aspect
One of the most important aspects of online school is good and clear communication between
students and teachers. In an online class, it is partly a student’s responsibility to keep their
teachers posted about how they have been doing with the activities designed by the teacher
(Achieve Virtual Academy, 2020). It should be that instructors give utmost priority to effective
communication with students in online classes as it not only subsidizes retention but also delivers
a sense of community (Coursify.me, 2013).

Wilson (2017) raised a viewpoint that a big number of students suggested making improvements
to instructor-student communication and engagement. It is because communication with students
in online classes necessitates frequent, intentional, and multifaceted interaction. As an online
instructor, there is a need to actively combat distance and silence through meaningful
connections with students.

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 40
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

Russell (2014) noted that social cues are still done in online environment, just in different forms.
Responses or non-responses to asynchronous discussion posts can also be supposed as social
cues. If a student perceives that others are expecting for her response to a certain discussion
board post, it may decipher a feeling of greater engagement with peers in the course. For others,
however, knowing that classmates are waiting for a response may cause apprehension over
perceived rudeness or lack of interest.

Due to the absence of body language in the online environment, communicating with students
needs a little more thought and planning than communicating with students in an (F2F) setting.
Since it is limited to using text and/or images to help you express your thoughts, you do not have
the benefit of using body language to help you communicate to your students. Nevertheless,
there should be awareness of limitations to communication capabilities within online
environments which ascertain the development of timely, relevant, and effective communications
with online students (Holder, 2016).

Technical Aspect
It is easy to overlook the technological infrastructure necessary to support the effective delivery
of services in such environments in an excited embrace of distance education and virtual
learning. Hendricks and Bailey (2014) emphasized that the professor's role and technological
proficiency are equally as essential as that of the student. Thus, it is also important to investigate
the technological role and responsibility of the former.

Educational technology doesn’t give effective teaching and learning. It still needs guidance (the
educator) and purpose (relating to curriculum). It requires efficient effort and strategies to
incorporate it effectively into the course material. However, technology can be transformed from
a distraction to an effective teaching tool when utilized properly (Himmelsbach, 2019).

Internet Self-Efficacy
Internet self-efficacy (ISE) is one's capabilities to organize and execute courses of Internet
actions required to generate required outcomes (Hsu & Chiu, 2004). It is reflective of one’s
confidence in the ability to facilitate his own social environment, behavior, and motivation
(Carey & Forsyth, 2009).

The study of Wangpipatwong and Papasratorn (2016) showed that ISE is affected by computer
attitude since student performance differs in terms of low, medium, and high computer attitude.
According to Chuang et al. (2015), students’ pre-experience on internet usage plays a significant
role in ISE. To add up to this, the finding of Suana (2018) confirmed previous trend of research
results that gender gap on basic ISE has disappeared. In the basic skill, women tend to have the
same level of self-reported internet skills as men.

This is in contrary to Torkzadeh’s et al view as cited by Kuo (2010). Males are generally found
to have higher Internet skills than females. User attitude and computer anxiety are both found
influential to Internet self-efficacy. People with high attitudes toward computers have higher

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 41
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

Internet self-efficacy, compared to those with low attitudes toward computers. Accordingly,
training is helpful to improve learners’ ISE, especially those with higher attitudes toward
computers, and those with low computer anxiety. There are many lens through which ISE can be
seen, students’ performance as one. According to Joo as cited by Alqurashi (2016), ISE was
found to determine students’ performance on the search test. However, no significant
relationship between ISE and students’ performance on the written test was found.

Exploration
Exploring the internet can be an exasperating business when a word or a phrase is entered into a
search engine and there appears a queue of irrelevant suggestions (Mind Tools, n. d). In the
perspective of teachers, meaningful learning happens when educators are creative in the way that
computer hardware/software is used to support facilitating education through internet exploration
(Peters, 1996).

Inaba (n. d) stated that resource management on the Internet still requires advanced skill in
exploration because the large amount of information on the Internet is speedily increasing every
day and is easy to be lost. Although many useful browsers and information retrieving services for
this situation have been provided, the upsurge number of such tools and services also baffle
people in the Internet. Hence, each service is not sophisticated enough to cope with the diversity
of Internet users.

Communication
The goal of online communication is similar to face-to-face communication: share information;
be heard and be understood; building links. (Coursify.me, 2013). Studies in learning
communities have compatibly found proof that peer-interactions influence students’ performance
outcomes. A particularly important competence in the modern context is the ability to
communicate ideas in an effective way (Shafipour et al., 2018). Effective communication skills
are vital in online learning because students seek assistance and guidance when they need so. On
the other side of the coin, teachers are willing to help students, but they are unable to pick up on
non-verbal signals, such as a look of confusion on a student's face (Minnesota State, n.d).

Communication and collaboration are important for students using the Internet. Students can set
up keypals (email pen pals) to connect with peers. Students can correspond with experts in
various fields via e-mail. In addition, students can also communicate in real-time setting through
online conferencing. For this, online chat rooms are popular with students and teachers. Audio
and video conferencing using software e-mail activities are a good way to start with the Internet,
as they only need minimal planning. With the Internet, students can engage in real-time data
collection in many ways (National Teacher Training Institute, n. d).

Student Satisfaction in Online Learning

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 42
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

The necessity to assess the delivery of instruction exists regardless of the advantages of online
learning opportunities for students and institutions (Strong et al., 2012). There be many aspects
to assess, and the primary stakeholder to be evaluated is the recipients of education, the students,
and their perspective. Student satisfaction to the delivery, for one, may be a facet. Lee, as cited
by Simpson (2012), claimed that timely feedback from instructors is essential to student
satisfaction in an online learning environment.

Student satisfaction can be describes as a short-term attitude consequential of an evaluation of

students' educational services, facilities, and experience. It was measured by common
satisfaction frameworks earlier, but later, higher education specified satisfaction models that
were developed (Weerasinghe et al., 2017).

Today’s learners require more channels for creativity and collaboration which online learning
environments can provide through a variety of instructional design. Researchers should not be
surprised that identifying the elements for satisfaction has become much more dynamic and
complex (Dziuban et al., 2015). As cited by Pham et al. (2019), Stodnick and Rogers stated that
there have been strategies for enhancing the quality of service in higher education that provokes
a significant public interest as student-centered approach. The core idea of this strategy is to
consider students as customers and universities as provider of the best educational services for
students, which will make students satisfied. According to Cole, Shelley, and Swartz (2014),
student satisfaction results student retention.

Since it is online learning, instruction should always go around the students. And, when it comes
to their satisfaction, one accountable is the instructor. Johnston, Killon and Oomen (2005)
attested that contact and interaction with the instructor was found to be a basic influencer to
student satisfaction. The instructor must be able to translate the instruction to the extent of being
able to adapt it to the delivery method. It is the instructor, not the vehicle that is important
(Internet). In other words, student satisfaction is related more to the instructor and the instruction
than the technology.

To attain student satisfaction, it is through digitized materials provided to them. Choe et al.
(2019) confirmed that multimedia learning can be satisfying and effective. Students have strong
preferences for certain video styles. Impersonal and unfamiliar video styles may be poor for the
students but creating effective, engaging, and satisfying asynchronous lecture videos to support
best practices in online instructions is highly satisfying.

Methodology

Guided by Transactional Distance Theory (TDT), the study employed descriptive-correlational

research design conducted to one hundred twenty (120) participants that were randomly selected
through proportionate stratification process in Bukidnon State University-College of Education
across its four programs: Bachelor of Early Childhood Education (10.83%), Bachelor of
Elementary Education (20.00%), Bachelor of Secondary Education (46.67%), and Physical
Education Department (22.50%). Consequently, the participants were freshmen to junior students

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 43
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

only since there were no senior students in the present academic year responsive of the transition
period between the old curriculum and the present curriculum, which is the K to 12 Curriculum.

The study utilized three (3) instruments using the five-point Likert scale for the three (3) latent
variables, which were administered using Google form in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
first survey questionnaire from the study of Masa et al. (2014) was for the Dimensions of
Asynchronous Virtual Classroom. The questionnaire when tested for reliability scored .958
Cronbach Alpha. The second survey tool was for the Internet Self-efficacy. It was derived out of
a factor analysis by Tsai (2004). The third one adapted from the study of Palmer and Holt (2009)
was for student satisfaction in online learning.

The profile of the College of Education students in terms of year level was taken through
frequency and percentage count. The level of Asynchronous Virtual Classroom dimensions, the
level Internet Self-efficacy, and the level of Student Satisfaction in online learning were treated
utilizing mean statistics. In correlating Student Satisfaction in online learning, and Dimensions of
Asynchronous Virtual Classroom and Internet Self-efficacy, Person-Product Moment for
Correlation was used, and in identifying the determinant of Student Satisfaction in online
learning, Stepwise-Linear Regression was used.

Findings
Asynchronous Virtual Classroom College of Education Students Profile
Table 1 shows that there were 22.50% first year students, 31.67% second year students, and
45.83% third year students of the total population. The figures show that first year students got
the smallest number in terms of choosing the asynchronous virtual classroom, second year is in
the second smallest number, and third year students got the biggest number.
Table 1. College of Education Students Profile as regards to Year Level
Year Level Frequency (N) Percentage (%)

First Year 27 22.50%

Second Year 38 31.67%

Third Year 55 45.83%

Total 120 100%

A meager number of freshmen opted for asynchronous learning because they would need the
necessary instructional support from the teacher that they could not usually get in an
asynchronous virtual classroom. This supports St. Amour’s (2020) statement that first-time
freshmen may not have the skills necessary to do well online.

Level of the Dimensions of Asynchronous Virtual Classroom

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 44
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

Table 2 displays the data on teaching and methodological aspect where the construct that got the
highest mean value of 4.42 is activities proposed are significant to the course, and students
prepare their own material got the lowest mean value of 3.83. The former statement means that
all the activities prescribed by the teacher are within the scope of the course or subject. On the
other hand, the latter means that not the students themselves prepare the materials but the teacher
does, only that the students prepare their response to the prescribed activities.

Overall, this variable got 3.90 mean value, which means that students agree on how the teachers
teach, and use strategies and methods in an asynchronous virtual classroom. Instructors have
been one of the enduring components of instructional systems, which is also true to online
learning environment, according to Oncu and Cakir (2011). Thus, this result reveals that how
teachers teach utilizing specific methodology appropriate for online classes meets the
expectation in an instructional setting.

Table 2. Level of Asynchronous Virtual Classroom in terms of Teaching and Methodological Aspect
INDICATORS MEAN DESCRIPTOR
1 The structure of the subject is clear. 4.08 Agree
2 The subject matter is relevant. 4.36 Strongly Agree
3 Time distribution of the subject is appropriate. 3.97 Agree
4 Organization of the subject is well planned. 4.11 Agree
5 Elements contained in the subject are comprehensive 4.14 Agree
6 Self-regulation of time is encouraged to students. 4.23 Strongly Agree
7 Creativity is observed. 4.17 Agree
8 Interaction and cooperative work is exercised. 3.99 Agree
9 Critical thought and expression of ideas and opinions are present. 4.26 Strongly Agree
10 Activities proposed are significant to the course. 4.42 Strongly Agree
11 Individual work and team work are promoted. 4.13 Agree
12 Tasks undertaken motivate learning. 4.03 Agree
13 Activities provokes desire to continue with the subject. 3.95 Agree
14 Activities are suitable to be done in virtual settings. 3.84 Agree
15 Material provided is diverse. 4.03 Agree
16 Material provided facilitates learning. 4.11 Agree
17 Material is in relation to the content. 4.21 Strongly Agree
18 Students prepare their own material. 3.83 Agree
19 The material contributes to the acquisition of the competencies. 4.09 Agree
Aggregate Mean 3.90 Agree
Legend:
Scale Range Descriptive Rating Qualitative Statement
1 1.00 – 1.80 Strongly Disagree Classroom dimension never meets expectation in an instructional setting.
2 1.81 – 2.60 Disagree Classroom dimension rarely meets expectation in an instructional setting.
3 2.61 – 3.40 Uncertain Classroom dimension hardly meets expectation in an instructional setting.
4 3.41 – 4.20 Agree Classroom dimension meets expectation in an instructional setting.
5 4.21 – 5.00 Strongly Agree Classroom dimension exceeds expectation in an instructional setting.

Table 3 displays the mean results for communication aspect. Students are strongly agreeable that
teacher encourages participation in the virtual classroom, and this got the highest mean value of
4.24. This finding denotes that the instruction the teacher prepares is inclusive of all the learners.

Table 3. Level of Asynchronous Virtual Classroom in terms of Communication Aspect

INDICATORS MEAN DESCRIPTOR
1 Asynchronous virtual classrooms open up new channels of socialization. 4.05 Agree
2 Teacher intervenes in the virtual classroom when needed. 4.08 Agree
3 Teacher encourages participation in the virtual classroom. 4.24 Strongly Agree

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 45
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021
4 Students become involved and participant in the course. 4.18 Agree
5 Teacher’s responses are fast and clear. 3.86 Agree
6 Time distribution is adequate. 3.84 Agree
7 There are new channels of communication between students and teacher. 4.18 Agree
8 Diversity in the virtual classroom is catered for. 4.01 Agree
9 There are feelings of solitude. 3.87 Agree
Aggregate Mean 4.00 Agree
Legend:
Scale Range Descriptive Rating Qualitative Statement
1 1.00 – 1.80 Strongly Disagree Classroom dimension never meets expectation in an instructional setting.
2 1.81 – 2.60 Disagree Classroom dimension rarely meets expectation in an instructional setting.
3 2.61 – 3.40 Uncertain Classroom dimension hardly meets expectation in an instructional setting.
4 3.41 – 4.20 Agree Classroom dimension meets expectation in an instructional setting.
5 4.21 – 5.00 Strongly Agree Classroom dimension exceeds expectation in an instructional setting.

The students are agreeable with the adequacy of time distribution, which got the lowest mean
value of 3.84. This tells that given the adjusted time of material distribution due to the drastic
change of learning modality caused by the pandemic, huge adjustments of schedules were also
considered by both teachers and students.

Overall, this variable got the mean value of 4.00, which denotes that students are agreeable with
how the teacher communicates with the students in an asynchronous virtual classroom, which
should have clarity, completeness, conciseness, concreteness, courtesy, and consideration
(University of Rhode Island, 2020).

Table 4. Level of Asynchronous Virtual Classroom in terms of Technical Aspect

INDICATORS MEAN DESCRIPTOR
1 There is flexibility of the virtual classroom 3.99 Agree
2 Access is in control. 3.82 Agree
3 There is sufficient preparation in each session. 3.89 Agree
4 Creation of scenarios are done. 3.91 Agree
5 The virtual classroom is appropriately structured and organized. 4.41 Strongly Agree
6 The online help system is useful. 3.98 Agree
7 There is quality of texts, images and sound. 4.38 Strongly Agree
8 There is organization and functionality of the elements offered. 3.97 Agree
9 Recording and printing of contents 3.94 Agree
10 There is accessibility of the interfaces. 3.90 Agree
11 Structure and usability of the system ensure optimal cognitive performance 4.00 Agree
Aggregate Mean 4.00 Agree
Legend:
Scale Range Descriptive Rating Qualitative Statement
1 1.00 – 1.80 Strongly Disagree Classroom dimension never meets expectation in an instructional setting.
2 1.81 – 2.60 Disagree Classroom dimension rarely meets expectation in an instructional setting.
3 2.61 – 3.40 Uncertain Classroom dimension hardly meets expectation in an instructional setting.
4 3.41 – 4.20 Agree Classroom dimension meets expectation in an instructional setting.
5 4.21 – 5.00 Strongly Agree Classroom dimension exceeds expectation in an instructional setting.

Further, Mitchell-Holder (n. d) asserts that teachers should not only communicate with online
students to aid retention but also to provide them with a sense of community. Fostering a sense
of community in online classes makes the learning experience more meaningful for online
students and helps them stay connected during the life of the course. Communication is expected
to be in a timely and effective manner.

Table 4 displays the mean scores of the technical aspect constructs. It reveals that students do
strongly agree that virtual classroom is appropriately structured and organized, which got the
mean value of 4.41. Since Google Classroom reinforces instruction, activities are apparently pre-
arranged and well-planned. Access is in control got the lowest mean value of 3.82, indicating that
not all students have easy access to the activities over the Internet due to limited bandwidth in

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 46
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

most places. Overall, it got 4.00 mean value by which it denotes that students agree with the
technical support provided in the asynchronous virtual classroom.

The result is consistent to the statement of Nawaz and Khan (2012) that successful online
learning is dependent on the skills and quality of technical support available to users, thus, the
need for assistance and support in using technology is very important.

Level of Internet Self-efficacy

Table 5 presents the results for the level of student internet self-efficacy in terms of exploration.
It reveals that students strongly agree that they open web browsers like internet explorer or
netscape, which got the highest mean value of 4.53. This reveals that students are skilled to
search the internet using available browsers. Moreover, students agree that they print out
important information on a website, which got the lowest mean value of 3.33. This discloses that
a meager number of them are able to print documents at home because not all possess printer
devices.

Overall, this variable got 4.10 mean value, which means that they agree with them having
efficacy in exploring the internet in search for information that support their learning. This
finding directs to Inaba’s (n. d) statement that internet involves advanced skill in exploration
since information speedily increase every single day that it is easily lost.

Table 5. Level of Student Internet-efficacy in Terms of Exploration

INDICATORS MEAN DESCRIPTOR
1 I open a web browser like internet explorer or netscape 4.53 Strongly Agree
2 I read the texts provided in a website 4.43 Strongly Agree
3 I click on hyperlinks to open other web pages 4.13 Agree
4 I directly key in a URL for opening a specific website 4.08 Agree
5 I make a bookmark for an interesting website 3.67 Agree
6 I print out the important information on a website 3.33 Agree
7 I search information by using keywords in search engines 4.64 Strongly Agree
8 I download pictures from the internet 4.81 Strongly Agree
9 I copy the texts in a website into a word document 3.48 Agree
Aggregate Mean 4.10 Agree
Legend:
Scale Range Descriptive Rating Qualitative Statement
1 1.00 – 1.80 Strongly Disagree Internet self-efficacy is poorly demonstrated.
2 1.81 – 2.60 Disagree Internet self-efficacy is fair and rarely demonstrated.
3 2.61 – 3.40 Uncertain Internet self-efficacy is hardly demonstrated.
4 3.41 – 4.20 Agree Internet self-efficacy is satisfactory and demonstrated almost all the time.
5 4.21 – 5.00 Strongly Agree Internet self-efficacy is outstanding and demonstrated at all time.

Table 6 shows the results for internet self-efficacy in terms of communication. It reveals that
students strongly agree that they display their name in an online chat room, which got the
highest mean value of 5.00. This signifies those students who give importance to making
themselves recognizable especially by their teachers for easy identification, access to their profile
in FB, and recording. Students also agree that they talk privately in an online chat room, which
got the lowest mean value of 3.70. This means that they chat with each other as regards to the
classroom activities, but majority ask the teacher directly for clarity of directives.

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 47
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

Overall, this variable got the mean value of 4.30, which means that students are agreeable with
their efficacy in terms of communicating to the teacher and other students. Hence,
communication is accounted for students’ connection with the teacher and other students,
keeping posted with the activities in the class, and being guided with the lessons.

Table 6. Level of Student Internet-efficacy in Terms of Communication

INDICATORS MEAN DESCRIPTORS
1 I display my name in an online chat room 5.00 Strongly Agree
2 I read information posted in an online chat room 4.44 Strongly Agree
3 I answer questions or provide information in a chat room 4.20 Agree
4 I talk privately in an online chat room 3.70 Agree
Aggregate Mean 4.30 Strongly Agree
Legend:
Scale Range Descriptive Rating Qualitative Statement
1 1.00 – 1.80 Strongly Disagree Internet self-efficacy is poorly demonstrated.
2 1.81 – 2.60 Disagree Internet self-efficacy is fair and rarely demonstrated.
3 2.61 – 3.40 Uncertain Internet self-efficacy is hardly demonstrated.
4 3.41 – 4.20 Agree Internet self-efficacy is satisfactory and demonstrated almost all the time.
5 4.21 – 5.00 Strongly Agree Internet self-efficacy is outstanding and demonstrated at all time.

This result is supported by Shafipour et al. (2018) who affirmed that studies have looked into
evidences pointing to peer-interactions contributory to performance outcomes, since interactions
result to effective communication, which is an important competence. Effective communication
skills in the field of online learning are very essential because students strive for help when they
need it (Minnesota State, n.d). Effective students could make the most of message boards, which
might offer opportunities to engage fellow students and instructors with deeper dialogue and
insightful questions as a technique. Asking questions is a way of moving deeper into the subject
and going deeper makes the subject more comprehensible (Alawamleh et al., 2020).

Level of Student Satisfaction in an Online Learning

Table 7 shows the results for the level of student satisfaction in online learning. Students are
satisfied with the examples and illustrations given to help them grasp things better, which got the
highest mean value of 4.18. This means that the teachers are able to provide them with the
necessary digitized materials essential for learning, at a higher degree.

Table 7. Level of Student Satisfaction in an Online Learning

INDICATORS MEAN DESCRIPTORS
Are you satisfied of…
1 being able to access online/digital learning resources readily? 3.60 Satisfied
2 being able to learn without regular face-to-face contact? 2.93 Undecided
3 organizing and being responsible for your own learning? 3.39 Satisfied
4 being given and/or pointed to current materials? 3.63 Satisfied
5 relating what is learnt to issues in the wider world? 3.83 Satisfied
6 having work that helps make connections to existing knowledge/experience? 3.90 Satisfied
7 interacting online with teaching staff? 3.58 Satisfied
8 interacting online with other students? 3.58 Satisfied
9 interacting with staff who convey their enthusiasm for a particular area? 3.73 Satisfied
10 completing online puzzles/quizzes? 3.66 Satisfied
11 submitting assignments online? 3.57 Satisfied

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 48
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021
12 receiving feedback on assignments online? 3.90 Satisfied
13 having clear expectations of what is required to get good marks? 3.82 Satisfied
14 having the opportunity to develop/practice online technical skills? 4.00 Satisfied
15 learning to judge the quality of online information? 3.83 Satisfied
16 communicating knowledge and ideas online? 3.73 Satisfied
17 what you are supposed to learn in each unit 3.59 Satisfied
18 how you are supposed to learn from various online/digital learning Satisfied
resources? 3.58
19 the amount of work required was appropriate? 3.42 Satisfied
20 being encouraged to rethink my understanding of some aspects of the Satisfied
subject matter? 3.68
21 the examples and illustrations given to help you grasp things better? 4.18 Satisfied
22 being prompted to think about how I could develop my learning? 3.88 Satisfied
23 the staff being patient in explaining things online which seem difficult to Satisfied
grasp? 3.93
24 students’ online support to one another trying to give help when needed? 4.09 Satisfied
26 the feedback given on your assessable work that help you clarify things you
haven’t fully understood? 3.76 Satisfied
Table 7 cont.
27 being able to track down online information in the subject area and use it Satisfied
effectively? 3.79
28 being encouraged to think about ideas and solve problems? 3.85 Satisfied
29 your ability to learn online? 3.48 Satisfied
30 how your teacher delivers every lesson online? 3.78 Satisfied
Aggregate Mean 3.70 Satisfied
Legend:
Scale Range Descriptive Rating Qualitative Statement
1 1.00 – 1.80 Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfaction is at highest degree.
2 1.81 – 2.60 Dissatisfied Dissatisfaction is at higher degree.
3 2.61 – 3.40 Undecided Satisfaction is hardly experienced.
4 3.41 – 4.20 Satisfied Satisfaction is at higher degree.
5 4.21 – 5.00 Very Satisfied Satisfaction is at highest degree.

Student satisfaction can be attained through the digitized materials provided to them. Deep-
rooted to Choe’s et al. (2019) standpoint, multimedia learning can be satisfying and effective
thus creating engaging, effective, and substantial asynchronous lecture videos as instructional
materials is highly satisfying. Students are undecided in being able to learn without regular face-
to-face contact, which got the lowest mean value of 2.93. It simply tells that students are still into
the traditional classroom setting. Thus, they are looking forward to having a face-to-face learning
soon. Online classes are just an option in the present times given the threat of COVID-19. This is
consistent to Partarrieu’s (2015) idea that for the students, face-to-face classes convey linguistic
and emotional complexity where teacher’s body language and cultural insights provide students
with complex information. It’s difficult to imagine a robot or computers entirely replacing
teachers.

Overall, this variable got the aggregate mean value of 3.70, which means that they are satisfied
in online class, consequently, their satisfaction is at a higher degree. The result is directed to the
findings of Ghaderizefreh and Hoover (2018) that student satisfaction increases given high levels
of related factors like understandability, illustration, and enthusiasm in the course.

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 49
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

Correlation between Student Satisfaction and the Independent Variables

Table 8 shows the correlation between student satisfaction and asynchronous virtual classroom in
the dimensions of teaching and methodological aspects, communication aspect, and technical
aspect, and internet self-efficacy in term of exploration and communication.

Table 8. Correlation between Research Productivity and the Independent Variables

CORRELATIONSHIP
VARIABLES COEFFICIENT p-value
Dimensions of Asynchronous Virtual
Classroom
Teaching and Methodological
.573 .000**
Aspects
Communication Aspect .548 .000**
Technical Aspect .438 .000**
Internet Self-efficacy
Exploration .234 .005**
Communication .039 .337
ns – not significant
** - p < .05

Only communication as an internet self-efficacy is found to have no significant relationship to

student satisfaction, with probability value of .337 at .05 alpha value. Therefore, the null
hypothesis, there is no significant connection between student satisfaction and internet self-
efficacy in terms of communication, is accepted, all the rest are rejected.

This entails that communication as an efficacy has nothing to help students be satisfied in online
learning. The insignificance points out that even though students involve in private chats, answer
or provide questions through chats, and read posted information, these acts do nothing with how
they are satisfied with learning because these actions cannot comprehensively suffice the
essential necessities for optimum education. Generally, the result is in contrast to the findings of
Terzic and Ascic (2018) where satisfaction in communication with teaching staff had made a
statistically significant contribution.

Regression Analysis of the

Dimensions of Asynchronous Virtual Classroom
against Student Satisfaction in Online Learning

Table 9 displays the regression analysis. One variable surfaces to be the sole determinant of
student satisfaction employing stepwise linear regression. It is teaching and methodological
aspects with a probability value of .000. The finding is aligned to that of Kauffman’s (2015)
study that found online learning not appropriate for every student. This attribute suggests
adequate instructional methods, which facilitate student satisfaction.

Table 10. Summary of regression analysis

UNSTANDARDIZED STANDARDIZED
PREDICTOR COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 50
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021
Beta Std. Error Beta T PROB.
(Constant) .815 .384 2.125 .036
Teaching and
.707 .093 .573
Methodological Aspect 7.602 .000
R = .573 F-value = 57.795
R²= .329 P-value = .000

Based on the regression model, the total correlation value between the combination of all
independent variables namely teaching and methodological aspects, communication aspect,
technical aspect, exploration, and communication (Xi’s) and dependent variable, student
satisfaction (Y), is .573, which is the correlation coefficient (R) measuring the strength of the
their relationship.

The degree of determination (R²) of student satisfaction, with value of .329, is accounted for
teaching and methodological aspects. Hence, 67.10% of the differences student satisfaction is
attributed to other factors outside the parameter of the study. It brings out F-value of 57.795 and
probability of .000 from the ANOVA, suggesting significance of the regression model.

Subsequently, the null hypothesis stating that there is no determinant of student satisfaction in
online learning stands rejected. The regression equation is:

Y = .818 + .707
where:
Y = student satisfaction
X = teaching and methodological aspects

The positive value connotes that when teaching and methodological aspects increase in value,
student satisfaction also increases in value. Hence, when the teacher does more in teaching and
develops more effective methodology in online teaching and learning, student satisfaction
accelerates.

Nevertheless, the result also reveals a meager value of student satisfaction in an asynchronous
virtual classroom as indicated by the sum of the constant value (.818), beta value (.707), and the
standard error of the estimates (.46953) in the unstandardized coefficients, which is only 1.99. It
implies that students may also need to have an equally effective synchronous regular online
learning where live interactions take place. This suggests hybrid or blended classes where
synchronous learning is done regularly, and reinforced with asynchronous learning for
exploration and self-paced learning using digitized materials.

The finding is aligned to that of Kauffman’s (2015) study. It was found that online learning may
not be appropriate for every student, thus, this attribute suggests adequate instructional methods,
which facilitate student satisfaction.

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 51
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

Conclusions:
There was voluminous third year students in the college. Second year students ranked second in
number. And, first year students were found to be the smallest in number.

As to dimensions of asynchronous virtual classroom, the students in the four programs appeared
to agree on the teaching and methodology provided by the teachers, teachers’ communication
with the students, and the technical aspect given to them. In terms of internet self-efficacy,
students agreed on exploration skill as their possession to support learning, and they strongly
agreed that they would communicate to connect with teachers and other students for updates.

Of the five variables in the study, though students strongly agreed on, communication as an
internet self-efficacy was found to have no significant connection with student satisfaction. The
null hypothesis stating that there is no significant connection between the dependent variable and
internet self-efficacy in terms of communication stood accepted. While, the hypothesis stating no
significant connection between the dependent variable and the rest of the independent variables
was rejected.

Teaching and methodological aspects served as single determinant of student satisfaction

rejecting the third null hypothesis, saying that there is no determinant of student satisfaction in
online learning. This means that this variable has greatly influenced student satisfaction in online
learning.

Suggestions and Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the faculty of the college may find initiatives to intensify
teaching utilizing methodology appropriate to asynchronous online learning. To capacitate the
teachers, the administration, specifically the Office of the Vice-president for Academic Affairs
(OVPAA), may conduct trainings and conferences.

Since satisfaction is only at its higher degree, not to an extremity, some attributing factors to
online learning in the college shall also be considered, like heightened synchronous learning
where students learn through interactions, which is likened to a face-to-face setting. However,
due to low bandwidth in many places where students of the college live, this is not feasible. In
this extent, the government shall play its vital role. It may suffice back up by strengthening the
network connection in numerous places to support education. Further, the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) can also affiliate with the government to establish line of assistance to
support student by providing means of making online learning accessible to the general students.
However, its specifications lie on the former since it is no longer within the parameter of the
study.

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 52
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021
References

Achieve Virtual Academy (2020). Real Indiana Educators. http://bitly.ws/an6j

Alawamleh, M. et al. (2020). The effect of online learning on communication between instructors and
students during Covid-19 pandemic. Emerald Group Publishing http://bitly.ws/aIW

Alqurashi, E. (2016). Self-Efficacy in Online Learning Environments: A Literature Review.

Contemporary Issues in Education Research – First Quarter 2016 Volume 9, Number 1.
http://bitly.ws/am2i

Association for Talent Development (2020). What is instructional design? https://www.td.org/talent-

development-glossary-terms/what-is-instructional-design

Choe, R. et al (2019). Student Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in Asynchronous Online Lecture
Videos. Life Sciences Education, Vol Hendricks, S. & Bailey, S. (2014). What Really Matters?
Technological Proficiency in an Online Course. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
Volume XVII, Number II
https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer172/Hendricks_Bailey172.html

Bukidnon State University (2020). CHED commends BukSU performance http://buksu.edu.ph/?p=7674

Coursify.me (2013). Online Classes: Improving Communication with Students. blog.coursify.me

https://blog.coursify.me/en/online-classes-communication/

Carey, M. & Forsyth, A. (2009). Teaching Tip Sheet: Self-Efficacy. American Psychological Association
http://bitly.ws/akVH. 18, No. 4 http://bitly.ws/amCe

Chuang, S. et al. (2015). An exploration of the relationship between Internet self-efficacy and sources of
Internet self-efficacy among Taiwanese university students. Association for Computing Machinery
Digital Library https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.044

Cole, M., Shelley, D., and Swartz, L. (2014). Online Instruction, E-Learning, and StudentSatisfaction: A
Three Year Study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning
http://bitly.ws/amC3

Cuaton, G. P. (2020). Philippine Higher Education Institutions in the Time of COVID-19 Pandemic.
Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala. Volume 12, Issue 1 Sup. 2, pages 61-70.
http://bitly.ws/akFk

Culatta, R. (2020). Transactional Design. Transactionaldesign.org

https://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/transactional_distance/

Dziuban, C. et al. (2015). Student Satisfaction with Online Learning: Is it a Psychological Contract?
Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness University of Central Florida
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1062943.pdf

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 53
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021
Eastin, M. & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet Self-Efficacy and the Psychology of the Digital Divide. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, Volume 6, Issue 1, 1 September 2000
https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/6/1/JCMC611/4584219

Education Reform. (2013). Great Schools Partnership. http://bitly.ws/an4S

Egbert, J. (n.d) Methods of Education Technology: Principles, Practice, and Tools. Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License. PressBooks http://bitly.ws/an8G

Ghaderizefreh, S. & Hoover, M. (2018). Student Satisfaction with Online Learning in a Blended Course.
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology. McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
International Journal of Digital Society (IJDS), Volume 9, Issue 3, September 2018 http://bitly.ws/an6A

Gorsky, P. & Caspi, A. (A Critical Analysis of Transactional Distance Theory. The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, Volume 6(1), 2005, pp. l-Il. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
https://www.openu.ac.il/personal_sites/download/avner-caspi/Gorsky&Caspi05.pdf

Groshell, Z. & Groshell, S. (2020). The Unproductive Debate of Synchronous vs. Asynchronous
Learning. Education Richsaw. http://bitly.ws/9McA

Himmelsbach, V. (2019). How Does Technology Impact Student Learning? Top Hat Blog.
http://bitly.ws/an7s

Holder, S. M. (2016).Let’s Talk: Effectively Communicating with Your Online Students. Humanizing
Online Teaching and Learning http://bitly.ws/an6A

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronousn and Synchronous E-learning. Educause Review

https://er.educause.edu/articles/2008/11/asynchronous-and-synchronous-elearning

Hsu, M. Chiu, C. (2004). Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. Decision Support
System Volume 38, Issue 3, December 2004, Pages 369-381. Science Direct System
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167923603001222

Inaba, M. (n. d). Internet Consultant: An Integrated Conversational Agent for Internet Exploration.
Department of Information and Computer Sciences University of Hawaii at Manoa
https://tinyurl.com/y6efdfmj

Johnston, J., Killon, J., & Oomen, J. (2005). Student Satisfaction in Virtual Classroom. The Internet
Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice. Vol. 3 No. 2
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=ijahsp

Jong, N. et al. (2011). A comparison of classroom and online asynchronous problem-based learning for
students undertaking statistics training as part of a Public Health Master’s degree. Advances in Health and
Sciences. Springer.com https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3622737/

Josep, G. (2020). 5 Reasons Why Online Learning is the Future of Education. Education.com.
http://bitly.ws/9MaF

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 54
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021
Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online
learning. Communication Sciences and Disorders, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Research
in Learning Technology Vol. 23, 2015 https://repository.alt.ac.uk/2415/1/1648-7585-1-PB.pdf

Kucuk, S. & Richardson, J. (2019). A Structural Equation Model of Predictors of Online Learners’
Engagement and Satisfaction. Online Learning Journal – Volume 23 Issue 2 – June 2019
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1218390.pdf

Kuo, Y. (2010). Interaction, Internet Self-Efficacy, and Self-Regulated Learning as Predictors of Student
Satisfaction in Distance Education Courses. Digital Commons USU. http://bitly.ws/am3t

Magsambol, B. (2020). Fast Facts: CHED's flexible learning. Education in the Philippines. Rappler
http://bitly.ws/bqzv

Masa, J. A. et al. (2014). Assessment of the Use of Synchronous Virtual Classrooms in Higher Education.
The New Education Review http://bitly.ws/aiXV

Mind Tools (n. d). Seven Ways to Find What You Want on the Internet.
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/internet-searching.htm

Minnesota State (n.d). What Makes a Successful Online Learner?

https://careerwise.minnstate.edu/education/successonline.html

Murphy, E. et al. (2011). Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high
school distance education teachers_1112 5. British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 42 No 4 2011
583–591 http://bitly.ws/akUr

National Teacher Training Institute (n. d). Interne Strategies. Why Use Internet in the Classroom.
https://www.thirteen.org/edonline/ntti/resources/internet1.html

Nawaz, A. & Khan, M. Z. (2012). Issues of Technical Support for e-Learning

Systems in Higher Education Institutions. I. J. Modern Education and Computer Science, 2012, 2, 38-44
http://bitly.ws/aITz

Nortvig, A. et al (2018). A Literature Review of the Factors Influencing E-Learning and

Blended Learning in Relation to Learning Outcome, Student Satisfaction and Engagement. The
Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 16 Issue 1 2018 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1175336.pdf

Oncu, S. & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and methodologies.
Computer and Education: An International Journal. Elsevier. http://bitly.ws/aIRQ

Oproiu, G. C. (2017). Methodological Aspects of Designing Online Teaching Activities. The 13th
International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education http://bitly.ws/an7L

Palmer, S. R. & Holt, D. M. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 55
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021
Learning. Journal of computer assisted learning, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 101-113.
http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30022683

Partarrieu, S. (2015). Why we still need face-to-face teaching in the digital age. British Council.
https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/why-we-still-need-face-face-teaching-digital-age

Peters, J. M. (1996). Paired Keyboards as a Tool for Internet Exploration of Third Grade Students.
Journal of Educational Computing Research Vol. 14 Issue 3
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/76TT-X408-JTWR-U90W

Pham, L. et al. (2019). Does e-learning service quality influence e-learning student satisfaction and
loyalty? Evidence from Vietnam. International Journal of Education al Technology in Higher Education
https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/

Racheva, V. (2017). What is synchronous and asynchronous virtual learning? VEDAMO Learning
Management System http://bitly.ws/akNo

Roach, V. & Lemasters, L. (2006). Satisfaction with Online Learning: A Comparative Descriptive Study.
Journal of Interactive Online Learning Volume 5, Number 3, Winter 2006
https://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/5.3.7.pdf

Russel, G. (2014). How Communication Really Works in Online Learning Communities. ValuEd.
Colorado State University Online. http://bitly.ws/an6p

Shafipour et al. (2018). Buildup of speaking skills in an online learning community: a network-analytic
exploration. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-
018-0116-6

Simpson, J. M. (2012). Student Perceptions of Quality and Satisfaction in Online Education.

https://ir.ua.edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/1571/file_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Strong, R. et al. (2012). Investigating Students’ Satisfaction with eLearning Courses: The Effect of
Learning Environment and Social Presence. Journal of Agricultural Education Volume 53, Number 3, pp
98–110 http://bitly.ws/amBu

Stern, J. (2020). Introduction to Online Teaching and Learning.

http://www.wlac.edu/online/documents/otl.pdf

St. Armour, M. (2020). The Moment Is Primed for Asynchronous Learning http://bitly.ws/aIuc

Suana, W. (2018). Students’ Internet Access, Internet Self-Efficacy, and Internet for Learning Physics:
Gender and Grade Differences. Journal of Technology and Science Education JOTSE, 2018 – 8(4): 281-
290 – Online ISSN: 2013-6374 – Print ISSN: 2014-5349 http://bitly.ws/akZX

Swan, K. (2006). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning
in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education Journal Volume 22, 2001 - Issue 2. Taylor Francis
Online. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0158791010220208

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 56
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021
Terzic, E. & Ascic, A. (2018). Linking Students' Satisfaction with Communication and their Overall
Satisfaction: Student as a Customer Approach. ICES 2018 International conference of the school of
economics and business in Sarajevo http://bitly.ws/aK9A

Tsai, M. (2004). Developing the Internet Self-Efficacy Scale (ISES). Proceedings of the 2004 World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hupermedia & Telecommunications (EDMEDIA 2004) Vol. 4.,
4406-4408, Lugano, Switzerland, June 21-26, 2004. http://bitly.ws/akI9

Toquero, C. M. (2020). Emergency Remote Education amid COVID-19 Pandemic in Learning

Institutions in the Philippines. International Journal of Education Research and Innovation. Research and
Education http://bitly.ws/akEM

Top Hat Glossary. (2020). https://tophat.com/glossary/f/flexible-learning/

Tria, J. (2020). The COVID-19 Pandemic through the Lens of Education in the Philippines: The New
Normal. International Journal of Pedagogical Development and Lifelong Learning. Research Gate
http://bitly.ws/akwH

United Nations (2020). Policy Brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond http://bitly.ws/akji

University of Colorado (2020). Pedagogy in Time of Disruption. Working Remotely College of Liberal
Arts and Sciences. University of Colorado, Denver. http://bitly.ws/9MfW

University of Rhode Island (2020). Effective Communication in your Online Class. Online Education. A
Division of the Office for the Advancement of Teaching & Learning http://bitly.ws/aISt

Wangpipatwong, T. & Papasratorn, B. (2016). The Study of Computer Self-efficacy, Internet Self-
efficacy, Computer Attitude in Computer and Information Technology Course. Knowledge Center
https://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/july_dec2007/Thanakorn.pdf

Weerasinghe, S. et al. (2017). Students' Satisfaction in Higher Education Literature Review. American
Journal of Educational Research, 2017, Vol. 5, No. 5, 533-539. Science and Education Publishing
http://bitly.ws/amAo

Wilson, K. (2017). Best Practices for Communicating with Students in Online Classes. School of
Professional Studies. https://tinyurl.com/yd7szt4t

| www.ijee.org
 International Journal of English and Education 57
ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:10, Issue:3, July 2021

View publication stats