View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Undergraduate Students' Satisfaction with Flexible Learning in Humanities and Health during COVID-19: An Application of Self-Determination Theory

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Undergraduate Students' Satisfaction with Flexible Learning in Humanities and Health during COVID-19: An Application of Self-Determination Theory
Language: English
Authors: Fatima M. M. Hasan (ORCID 0000-0001-7110-2694), Moayad A. Wahsheh (ORCID 0000-0002-1682-8422), Zeinab M. Hassan (ORCID 0000-0003-4650-7176)
Source: International Review of Education. 2025 71(1):81-107.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Undergraduate Students, Student Satisfaction, Blended Learning, COVID-19, Pandemics, Self Determination, Teacher Student Relationship, Technological Literacy, Health Education, Humanities Instruction
DOI: 10.1007/s11159-024-10091-9
ISSN: 0020-8566
1573-0638
Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the widespread adoption of flexible learning, which allows students to access educational materials and participate in classes remotely. Self-determination theory, a focus of this article, promotes self-motivation in the digital world of flexible learning. This study aimed to determine the link between undergraduate students' satisfaction with flexible learning and the following variables: (a) student-instructor connection; (b) the technological competency of students and instructors; and (c) the association between students' satisfaction and health and humanities courses. A descriptive correlational research design and binary logistic regression model were used to analyse data from 610 undergraduate students (53% female, 47% male) enrolled in at least one flexible learning course at a university in Jordan in 2020/2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study found that 63.4% of participants were enrolled in three or more flexible learning courses, while 27.2% were enrolled in two or more. However, 52.8% expressed dissatisfaction with these courses. Additionally, the study showed a moderately positive relationship between students' satisfaction and connection to their instructor, as well as a significant positive relationship between student-instructor connection and students' technological competency. Students in humanities courses were more satisfied and did better academically with flexible learning than those in health courses. High technological competency in instructors led to two times greater satisfaction with flexible learning and a positive perception of online education quality. Finally, a significant difference was found between students' attitudes towards flexible learning and their courses in humanities and health. Thus, applying self-determination theory is crucial for designing effective online learning during challenging times.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1487714
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHdzomxXEj56jsDJcn97nXaAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFGjrKLnXteUCN5z8QIBEICBm6Uu6Lu86grz8fWFDeS5mRLCU98vRtubNVLnIcdm_HewcxH2mVPFdQR8fn9Kh4FXnQWdlWizBUyTx_dOGEV-lCwXm6JFZ9SO5t3y0fwqLnKLdOfBszxW61ylp-DU2AjwxUmyFPJ98gl6-5zhOfrGF3jaFdEKk2M1MlErNzccCUy2GL8Y_2ZjPKGJkUYuXIF_4gFNXDFPBWelIqT-
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183751790;ire01feb.25;2025Mar19.03:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183751790-1">Undergraduate students' satisfaction with flexible learning in humanities and health during COVID-19: An application of self-determination theory: Undergraduate students' satisfaction with flexible learning...: F. M. M. Hasan et al </title> <p>The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the widespread adoption of flexible learning, which allows students to access educational materials and participate in classes remotely. Self-determination theory, a focus of this article, promotes self-motivation in the digital world of flexible learning. This study aimed to determine the link between undergraduate students' satisfaction with flexible learning and the following variables: (a) student–instructor connection; (b) the technological competency of students and instructors; and (c) the association between students' satisfaction and health and humanities courses. A descriptive correlational research design and binary logistic regression model were used to analyse data from 610 undergraduate students (53% female, 47% male) enrolled in at least one flexible learning course at a university in Jordan in 2020/2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study found that 63.4% of participants were enrolled in three or more flexible learning courses, while 27.2% were enrolled in two or more. However, 52.8% expressed dissatisfaction with these courses. Additionally, the study showed a moderately positive relationship between students' satisfaction and connection to their instructor, as well as a significant positive relationship between student–instructor connection and students' technological competency. Students in humanities courses were more satisfied and did better academically with flexible learning than those in health courses. High technological competency in instructors led to two times greater satisfaction with flexible learning and a positive perception of online education quality. Finally, a significant difference was found between students' attitudes towards flexible learning and their courses in humanities and health. Thus, applying self-determination theory is crucial for designing effective online learning during challenging times.</p> <p>Résumé: Satisfaction des étudiants de premier cycle concernant l'apprentissage flexible en sciences humaines et en santé pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 : une mise en pratique de la théorie de l'autodétermination – La pandémie de COVID-19 a conduit à une adoption massive de l'apprentissage flexible qui permet aux étudiants d'accéder à des matériels éducatifs et de suivre les cours à distance. Le présent article est notamment consacré à la théorie de l'autodétermination qui favorise l'automotivation dans l'environnement numérique de l'apprentissage flexible. L'étude avait pour objectif de définir le lien entre la satisfaction des étudiants de premier cycle concernant l'apprentissage flexible à la lumière des variables suivantes : (a) les relations étudiants-enseignants, (b) les compétences technologiques des étudiants et des enseignants, et (c) le rapport entre la satisfaction des étudiants et les cours en sciences humaines et en santé. Pour cela, une méthode de recherche corrélationnelle descriptive et un modèle de régression logistique binaire ont été utilisés afin d'analyser les données de 610 étudiants de premier cycle inscrits à au moins un cours d'apprentissage flexible dans une université en Jordanie pendant l'année universitaire 2020/2021, durant la pandémie. Les résultats indiquent que 63,4 % des participants étaient inscrits à au moins trois cours en apprentissage flexible, tandis que 27,2 % en suivaient deux ou plus. Cependant, 52,8 % des étudiants ont exprimé leur insatisfaction concernant ces cours. En outre, l'étude a révélé un rapport modérément positif entre la satisfaction des étudiants et les relations avec leurs enseignants, de même qu'un lien positif significatif entre les relations étudiants-enseignants et les compétences technologiques des étudiants. Les étudiants en sciences humaines étaient plus satisfaits et obtenaient de meilleurs résultats dans le cadre de l'apprentissage que ceux en santé. Un niveau de compétence technologique élevé chez les enseignants correspondait à un niveau de satisfaction doublement élevé chez les étudiants et à une perception positive de la qualité de l'enseignement en ligne. Enfin, on a constaté une différence significative entre les attitudes des étudiants à l'égard de l'apprentissage flexible et des cours de sciences humaines ou de santé. Utiliser la théorie de l'autodétermination s'avère par conséquent essentiel pour la conception d'un apprentissage en ligne efficace en période de crise.</p> <p>الخلاصة: أدت جائحة كورونا-19 إلى اعتماد التعلم المرن على نطاق واسع، والذي يسمح للطلبة بالوصول إلى المواد التعليمية والمشاركة في المواد الدراسية عن بعد. تعزز نظرية التحديد الذاتي/تقرير المصير، وهي محور هذه الدراسة، الدافع الذاتي في العالم الرقمي للتعلم المرن. هدفت هذه الدراسة إلى تحديد الصلة بين رضا الطلبة الجامعيين عن التعلم المرن والمتغيرات التالية: (أ) اتصال الطالب بالمدرس، (ب) الكفاءة التكنولوجية عند الطلبة والمدرسين، و (جـ) العلاقة بين رضا الطلبة والمساقات الدراسية في مجال الصحة والعلوم الإنسانية. تم استخدام تصميم بحث ارتباطي وصفي ونموذج الانحدار اللوجستي الثنائي لتحليل بيانات 610 من الطلبة الجامعيين (53٪ إناث، 47٪ ذكور) مسجلين في مساق تعليمي مرن واحد على الأقل في إحدى الجامعات في الأردن في العام الدراسي 2020/2021 أثناء جائحة كوفيد-19. وجدت الدراسة أن 63.4٪ من المشاركين مسجلين في ثلاث مساقات تعليمية مرنة أو أكثر، بينما كان 27.2٪ مسجلين في مساقين أو أكثر. ومع ذلك، فقد عبر 52.8% منهم عن عدم رضاهم عن هذه المساقات. بالإضافة إلى ذلك، أظهرت الدراسة وجود علاقة إيجابية متوسطة بين رضا الطلبة واتصالهم بمدرسهم، ووجود علاقة إيجابية ذات دلالة احصائية بين اتصال الطالب بالمدرس والكفاءة التكنولوجية عند الطلبة. كان الطلبة في مساقات العلوم الإنسانية أكثر رضا وأفضل أكاديميا في التعلم المرن مقارنة بأولئك الطلبة في المساقات الصحية. أدت الكفاءة التكنولوجية العالية لدى المدرسين إلى زيادة الرضا عن التعلم المرن بمقدار الضعف وإدراك إيجابي لجودة التعليم عبر الإنترنت. أخيرا، ظهر فرق ذات دلالة احصائية بين اتجاهات الطلبة نحو التعلم المرن ومساقاتهم الدراسية في العلوم الإنسانية والصحية. وبالتالي، فإن تطبيق نظرية التحديد الذاتي/تقرير المصير يعتبر أمرا مهما لتصميم التعلم الفعال عبر الإنترنت خلال الأوقات الصعبة.</p> <p>Keywords: flexible learning courses; e-learning; self-paced learning, student satisfaction; undergraduate students; self-determination theory; technology competency; COVID-19; Jordan; Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-2">Background</hd> <p>Students nowadays are part of the digital world. They use the internet, play video games and interact with computers. The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted learning in over 150 countries and affected 1.6 billion students (Barron Rodriguez et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref1">4</reflink>]). It has also driven educational institutions to deliver teaching using flexible learning rather than a face-to-face approach (Miranda and Cruz [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref2">16</reflink>]; Nabayra and Tambong [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref3">19</reflink>]; Zeng and Wang [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref4">32</reflink>]; Ghaderizefreh and Hoover [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>]). Flexible learning can offer academic institutions a low-cost, "elastic" way to provide education with regard to time and place (Miranda and Cruz [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref6">16</reflink>]; Nabayra and Tambong [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref7">19</reflink>]; Zeng and Wang [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref8">32</reflink>]; Ghaderizefreh and Hoover [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>]). In 2014, approximately 6.1 million higher-education students in the United States were enrolled in at least one online course (Cole et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref10">8</reflink>]; Zeng and Wang [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref11">32</reflink>]), while in 2020, this number rose to 14.2 million (NCES [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>The lower socioeconomic status of many students has been shown to lead them to actively participate in the educational process (Kim and Lee [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref13">12</reflink>]; Cole et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]). When students are satisfied with their learning experiences, they are also more likely to achieve better academic outcomes (Bradford and Wyatt [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref15">6</reflink>]). While flexible learning has become a valuable method for curriculum distribution worldwide, there are also potential technical difficulties (Somosot [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref16">26</reflink>]). We explore these in more detail below.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-3">Flexible learning</hd> <p>Flexible learning is a set of educational philosophies and systems concerned with providing students with increased choice, convenience and personalisation. In particular, flexible learning provides students with choices about where, when and how learning occurs (Shurville et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]). Other researchers (Rhim and Han [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref18">23</reflink>]; Somosot [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref19">26</reflink>]) have described flexible learning as an educational approach that enables students to learn at their own pace and schedule using flexible courses, distance education or blended learning programmes. It aims to make education more accessible and convenient for everyone, regardless of location, schedule or personal circumstances. It fosters independence and self-motivation as students manage their own time and progress. Virtual communication platforms also facilitate connections between students and faculty (teaching) staff, allowing teachers to provide support and guidance as needed (Nabayra and Tambong [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref20">19</reflink>]; Miranda and Cruz [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>]). In the current study, flexible learning is conceptually defined as a student-centred approach that combines in-person and online learning methods, promoting personalised education, self-motivation and independence, and ultimately enhancing knowledge retention.</p> <p>Flexible learning can affect students positively, particularly those with full-time jobs, female students with family responsibilities and those with medical or developmental challenges (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]; Bradford and Wyatt [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>]). Flexible learning allows students to select their preferred learning time, determine the content of learning materials and repeat their study of the materials over time (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>]; Bradford and Wyatt [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>]). It also removes the barriers of time and distance from learning (Somosot [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref26">26</reflink>]; Yalley [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref27">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Flexible learning, which combines live "e-learning" (electronic learning delivered through digital devices) and self-paced learning, faces challenges such as high technology costs, inadequate training, technological issues, content adaptation, decreased motivation and weakened relationships between students and teachers (Elshami et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref28">9</reflink>]; Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref29">13</reflink>]). Abundant research has revealed that flexible learning requirements, teaching approaches and proficiencies differ from those of traditional education (Miranda and Cruz [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref30">16</reflink>]; Nabayra and Tambong [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref31">19</reflink>]; Zeng and Wang [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]; Ghaderizefreh and Hoover [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]). Universities should encourage flexible learning to balance the needs of both traditional and new-generation students, promoting self-directed learning, critical thinking and digital literacy skills, and accommodating diverse learning styles and preferences. Emphasising digital literacy skills equips students with the necessary tools to navigate and thrive in an increasingly technology-driven world (Mahdavi Ardestani et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref34">15</reflink>]; Miranda and Cruz [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref35">16</reflink>]). By providing options for both in-person and online discussions, universities can ensure equal opportunities for all students (Mahdavi Ardestani et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref36">15</reflink>]; Miranda and Cruz [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Flexible learning emphasises the importance of student–instructor interaction, which involves exchanging information, encouragement and feedback. Online instructors require communication skills similar to face-to-face teachers. Quality learning is largely a result of ample interaction between instructors, students and educational content. Instructors can foster or hinder the influence of other factors in the learning process, such as student interaction and instructor technology competency (Somosot [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref38">26</reflink>]; Nabayra and Tambong [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]). Students and instructors must find ways to convey information, determine understanding levels and create a feedback system to improve interaction (Miranda and Cruz [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref40">16</reflink>]; Nabayra and Tambong [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref41">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Online technologies like personal e-mail, chat rooms and discussion forums can improve interaction. Instructors can enhance their technology competency with tools like learning management systems and virtual classrooms, allowing real-time communication, document sharing and interactive activities (Somosot [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref42">26</reflink>]; Prentice et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref43">22</reflink>]). By leveraging these resources effectively, students and instructors can overcome the limitations of online learning and promote effective interaction (Somosot [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref44">26</reflink>]; Prentice et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref45">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-4">Students' satisfaction with flexible learning</hd> <p>Satisfaction with flexible learning means that students experience positive professional relationships with their instructors, flexible course design and a straightforward delivery method (Miranda and Cruz [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref46">16</reflink>]; Nabayra and Tambong [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref47">19</reflink>]; Kim and Lee [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref48">12</reflink>]). Importantly, interactions among peers, and between students and instructors, have been shown to positively affect students' accomplishment and satisfaction (Elshami et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref49">9</reflink>]; Cole et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref50">8</reflink>]). Several published studies (Zeng and Wang [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref51">32</reflink>]; Muzammil et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>]; Backfisch et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>]; Ghaderizefreh and Hoover [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref54">10</reflink>]) have revealed some crucial factors that determine students' satisfaction with flexible learning, including: (a) having an instructor available to answer students' questions or address problems; (b) giving students a second chance to correct their errors; (c) encouraging constructive feedback among peers; and (d) addressing privacy, security and safety, including of students' personal information.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-5">Student–instructor interaction</hd> <p>The most critical element affecting students' satisfaction is student–instructor interaction rather than student–student interaction (Sher [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref55">24</reflink>]). Students with high levels of interaction with their instructors have higher levels of learning (Alamri and Tyler-Wood [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>]; Bolliger and Martin [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref57">5</reflink>]). The literature (Yekefallah et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]; Cole et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref59">8</reflink>]) describes the role of an online instructor as a guide, mentor, facilitator and coach for students. Instructors need to be trained to convey flexible course content in a simple, clear and logical way that increases students' satisfaction and engagement. Additionally, instructors should be proficient in using various online tools and platforms to enhance the learning experience. By providing practical guidance and support, instructors can create a conducive environment for interactive learning, fostering a sense of community and collaboration among students in online classrooms (Yekefallah et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref60">30</reflink>]; Bolliger and Martin [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref61">5</reflink>]; Cole et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref62">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Instructors have four crucial flexible learning responsibilities: (a) simplifying the content of online courses; (b) guiding students in their studying; (c) communicating professionally with students; and (d) offering professional help for students in a timely manner (Philipsen et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>]; Bolliger and Martin [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>]). Effective teaching is essential to permit vital two-way connections between students and instructors. Interaction is also necessary for the success of an online course experience (Backfisch et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref65">3</reflink>]; Ghaderizefreh and Hoover [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref66">10</reflink>]). Therefore, the online course design and tools used to meet the expected outcomes of a course must be easy for students to access (Zeng and Wang [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>]; Cole et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref68">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-6">Students' technological competency</hd> <p>Scholarly research (Mahdavi Ardestani et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref69">15</reflink>]; Yalley [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref70">29</reflink>]) indicates that technology-based educational programmes effectively enhance academic performance and student engagement by providing in-depth knowledge and encouraging motivation. Studies have shown that many students need more confidence in their ability to undertake flexible learning and are often more concerned about lost or misplaced assignments rather than completing them correctly (Cole et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref71">8</reflink>]; Jones [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref72">11</reflink>]). If students encounter technological problems or cannot log into an online course for a few days, they can become overwhelmed or frustrated or think that flexible learning is too difficult, leading them to leave the course (Rhim and Han [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref73">23</reflink>]; Jones [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref74">11</reflink>]). Educational experts recommend using different methods to deliver information to meet students' expectations and make it possible to implement different learning strategies (Turan et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref75">28</reflink>]; Rhim and Han [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref76">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-7">Self-determination theory</hd> <p>In self-determination theory, autonomy, competence and relatedness are three concepts that increase students' satisfaction and motivation in educational settings. <emph>Autonomy</emph> refers to the need for individuals to feel a sense of choice and control over their actions and decisions. <emph>Competence</emph> involves feeling capable and effective in one's abilities, while <emph>relatedness</emph> focuses on the need for meaningful connections and relationships with others. These three concepts work together to create an environment that fosters students' satisfaction and engagement in their learning journey (Chiu [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref77">7</reflink>]; Prentice et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref78">22</reflink>]). Figure 1 clarifies the application of self-determination theory.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Application of self-determination theory</p> <p>In flexible learning environments, students are allowed to make choices about their learning path and take ownership of their education. This sense of autonomy empowers them to feel more motivated and invested in their studies. Additionally, by providing opportunities for students to demonstrate and develop their skills and abilities, instructors can promote a sense of competence among students. This boosts students' confidence and encourages them to actively participate in learning (Miranda and Cruz [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref79">16</reflink>]; Chiu [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref80">7</reflink>]; Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref81">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-8">Flexible learning in humanities and health courses</hd> <p>The COVID-19 pandemic forced medical schools (tertiary institutions focused on medicine, which prepare students for medical degrees through a curriculum that includes medical teaching, research, and patient care, divided into preclinical and clinical phases) to transition from face-to-face instruction to flexible learning, including online, blended and hybrid options. This shift was rapid and students, instructors and schools were unprepared. The pandemic also accelerated the use of advanced technologies, particularly artificial intelligence and virtual reality, in learning (Elshami et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref82">9</reflink>]; Zeng and Wang [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref83">32</reflink>]). A study by Xiaofang Zeng and Tingzeng Wang ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref84">32</reflink>]) found that some students in health courses were less satisfied with flexible learning than those in other courses. This dissatisfaction can influence students' enrolment in flexible courses and influence the decision to further engage in a graduate degree (Zeng and Wang [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref85">32</reflink>]; Elshami et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref86">9</reflink>]; Lust et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref87">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>The study we present in this article investigated students' satisfaction with flexible learning in humanities and health courses during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on self-determination theory and factors contributing to satisfaction. It is our hope that our findings will inform educational institutions about how to improve flexible learning strategies and help educators tailor teaching methods to meet students' needs in similar circumstances (Elshami et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref88">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-9">The current study</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183751790-10">Significance</hd> <p>The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of technology in education, but there is also a need to understand the factors affecting students' satisfaction with flexible learning. In response, our study aimed to: (a) identify students' difficulties and evaluate online educational designers' skills in designing courses; (b) provide insights into instructors' and students' challenges in using flexible learning; and (c) determine undergraduate students' satisfaction with an online educational programme in Jordan, including identifying potential barriers and challenges that students face. Achieving these goals will provide valuable insights for improving the overall quality of online education in Jordan.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-11">Hypotheses</hd> <p>Our study examined the validity of the following hypotheses:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> A significant positive correlation exists between students' satisfaction with flexible learning and their connection to the instructor.</item> <p></p> <item> A significant positive correlation exists between students' satisfaction with flexible learning and their instructor's technological competency.</item> <p></p> <item> A significant positive correlation exists between students' satisfaction with flexible learning and their own technological competency.</item> <p></p> <item> There is a significant association between students' satisfaction with flexible learning in humanities and health courses.</item> <p></p> <item> The predicting variables (i.e., gender, humanities and health courses, instructors' technological competency, students' connection to their instructor and students' technological competency) affect students' satisfaction with an overall learning experience.</item> <p></p> <item> The predicting variables (i.e., gender, humanities and health courses) affect students' attitudes towards flexible learning.</item> <p></p> <item> There is a significant difference between students' attitudes towards flexible learning and demographic variables (i.e., gender, humanities and health courses).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0183751790-12">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183751790-13">Research design</hd> <p>We used a descriptive correlational research design in the current study. This design describes the variables being studied and the relationships among the variables. We also used a binary logistic regression model to analyse data. This model allowed us to identify the variables that impact students' satisfaction levels and to examine the relationships between predictor variables and satisfaction levels.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-14">Setting</hd> <p>We conducted our study at a public university in Jordan, which offers both on-campus and online programmes for students enrolled in its different schools, such as the School of Humanities Sciences. With around 1,100 of the university's students enrolled in humanities and health e-learning courses, the university offers over ten online courses covering sports sciences, education, psychology and healthcare. This flexible approach allows students to tailor their education to fit their schedules and preferences, ensuring a comprehensive and personalised learning experience. Before undertaking the study, we obtained ethics approval from Hashemite University (No.13/8/2020/2021).</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-15">Sample</hd> <p>Our study involved 610 undergraduate students who were enrolled in humanities and health-related courses, including at least one fully online course. A new sample of 150 students was taken to assess the students' attitudes towards flexible learning. One hundred and thirty-seven out of 150 students responded to our survey, a response rate of 91%.</p> <p>The inclusion criteria were that the students had prior exposure to online learning and were academically qualified for the study. We also sought to confirm the students' willingness to actively participate in the research process, as their engagement and cooperation were crucial for obtaining reliable data. We therefore considered those students for inclusion who showed a strong interest in the research topic, actively participating in discussions and asking insightful questions, indicating a strong desire to further explore the subject matter. Exclusion criteria included graduate students and those who did not complete the online survey. We calculated the preferred sample size using Cohen's (1988) guidelines, with alpha set at <emph>p</emph> = 0.05 and the preferred power at 80% to yield a medium effect. We found that the sample size should be at least 590 students. After excluding incomplete surveys, our final sample included 610 students.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-16">Instruments</hd> <p>We developed a survey for our study using scales based on the available literature (e.g., Bolliger and Martin [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>]; Ghaderizefreh and Hoover [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref90">10</reflink>]; Alamri and Tyler-Wood [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref91">2</reflink>]; Cole et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref92">8</reflink>]; Bradford and Wyatt [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref93">6</reflink>]). The survey was reviewed by five qualified academics who each held a doctorate in philosophy and had the experience to provide feedback about accuracy, appropriateness, appearance, design and wording, and whether the measurement scales were appropriate and readable.</p> <p>The survey was divided into four sections. The first section was designed to collect demographic information such as gender and number of flexible learning courses undertaken. The second section consisted of twelve questions regarding satisfaction with flexible learning (e.g., "The course lessons or lecture notes used in this class facilitated my learning"). Participants ranked items on a 5-point Likert scale, and the scores for this section ranged from 12 to 60. The third section presented ten questions regarding students' connection to their instructor (e.g., "I received timely feedback within 24–48 hours from my instructor"). Participants ranked items on a 5-point Likert scale, and the scores ranged from 10 to 50. The fourth section contained thirteen items regarding students' technological competency (e.g., "I can deal with most difficulties I encounter when using computers"). Participants ranked items on a 5-point Likert scale, and the scores ranged from 13 to 65.</p> <p>The responses in this instrument were scored in a way that supported positively worded statements and did not support negatively worded statements. The answer "strongly agree" was given a score of 5, which indicated favourable feelings towards flexible learning. If the term was negatively worded, the answer "strongly agree" was given a score of 1, which indicated unfavourable feelings towards flexible learning.</p> <p>To assess students' attitudes towards flexible learning, we used the instrument developed and published online by Suhaib Muflih et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref94">17</reflink>]). The instrument included two sections: sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., gender, students' courses in humanities and health areas) and an attitudes scale. The scale's reliability was determined using Cronbach's alpha, with the sixteen-item attitude scale having an acceptable internal consistency (i.e., the alpha was 0.82). Students' responses were recorded using a 3-point Likert scale, with negative statements reversed to indicate a more positive attitude. Participants who scored between 2.34 and 3.00 were considered to have a high level of attitude towards flexible learning, while those scoring between 1.67 and 2.33 were classified as having a moderate level of attitude. Scores falling between 1.00 and 1.66 indicated a low level of attitude towards flexible learning.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-17">Protection of participants</hd> <p>We maintained participant confidentiality at all times. Participation in completing the survey implied informed consent. Data were securely stored in a password-protected file on the internet and in the personal computer files of the researchers.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-18">Pilot study</hd> <p>We conducted a pilot study with 60 undergraduate students at the university before undertaking the main data collection to determine whether the survey questions were clear. After analysing the results from the pilot study, no particular problems were identified. Thus, we decided to proceed with gathering data for the study.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-19">Data collection</hd> <p>We collected data for the current study between the end of the winter semester (December 2020) and the beginning of the spring semester (February 2021). We informed students about the study via e-mail and social media, and any interested students e-mailed the principal researcher to advise that they would like to participate. The principal researcher then determined in each case whether the student met the inclusion criteria for the study. The researcher gave each student instructions on accessing and completing the online survey (conducted via surveymonkey.com).</p> <p>The first (introductory) page of the survey indicated that completing it was optional. It would have no impact on course grades, and the researchers would keep the answers private. Students were advised that the entire 4-page survey would take about 10–15 minutes to finish. Pages 2–4 contained the survey items. Once students completed the survey, we exported data from the SurveyMonkey website to Excel so that we could perform statistical analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-20">Data analysis</hd> <p>Frequencies and percentages were calculated for categorical variables. We set all significance values at <emph>p</emph> < 0.05. The number of students who completed the survey was 610 out of 1,100 enrolled in humanities and health e-learning courses, the acceptance rate was 55.45%. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for sections 2–4 of the survey were: satisfaction with online courses, which yielded an alpha of 0.88; students' connection to their instructor, which yielded an alpha of 0.82; and students' technological competency, which yielded an alpha of 0.80. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the entire survey was 0.83.</p> <p>After the data were collected and exported into an Excel spreadsheet, statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 22 for Windows. A descriptive analysis, such as numbers and percentages for nominal measures, was performed for each section of the survey. A Pearson correlation coefficient was used to test the relationships between evaluating students' educational experiences, services and facilities in online learning and the variables of student–instructor connection and students' technological competency. A chi-square test was used to assess the relationships between students' satisfaction with flexible learning in humanities and health courses.</p> <p>Finally, we employed the binary logistic regression model to identify the predicting variables (i.e., gender, humanities and health courses, instructors' technological competency, students' connection to their instructor, and students' technological competency) that affect students' satisfaction and dissatisfaction with an overall learning experience. The dependent variable was satisfaction, with binary outcomes of 0 and 1.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-21">Results</hd> <p>Table 1 shows the distribution of the demographic (independent) and dependent variables of the study sample (<emph>N</emph> = 610). The sample comprised 323 (53%) females and 287 (47%) males. More than half of these students (<emph>n</emph> = 338; 55.4%) were studying health courses, and less than half (<emph>n</emph> = 272; 44.6%) were studying humanities courses. Almost two thirds of the participants (<emph>n</emph> = 387; 63.4%) were enrolled in three or more flexible learning courses, more than one quarter (<emph>n</emph> = 166; 27.2%) were enrolled in two flexible learning courses and less than one tenth (<emph>n</emph> = 57; 9.3%) were enrolled in one flexible learning course. Additionally, just over half of the participants (<emph>n</emph> = 322; 52.8%) expressed dissatisfaction with flexible learning courses. These results indicate potential areas for improvement in flexible learning.</p> <p>Table 1 Distribution of students' demographic (independent) and dependent variables (<emph>N</emph> = 610)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>Male</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>287 (47%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Female</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>323 (53%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Course</p></td><td align="left"><p>Humanities</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>272 (44.6%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Health</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>338 (55.4%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Number of flexible learning courses enrolled in</p></td><td align="left"><p>One course</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>57 (9.3%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Two courses</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>166 (27.2%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Three or more courses</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>387 (63.4%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Students' satisfaction with flexible learning courses</p></td><td align="left"><p>Satisfied</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>288 (47.2%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Dissatisfied</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>322 (52.8)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2 shows the range of scores and means for the following three variables: students' connection to their instructor, students' technological competency, and students' satisfaction with flexible learning courses. The mean scores for the three variables (29.70; 33.67; 38.68) were low, demonstrating that students had weak connections with their instructors, low technological competency and low satisfaction with flexible learning courses.</p> <p>Table 2 Range of scores and means for student variables (<emph>N</emph> = 610)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>Score range</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Students' connection to their instructor</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>10–50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>29.70</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Students' technological competency</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>13–65</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>33.67</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Students' satisfaction with flexible learning courses</p></td><td char="–" align="char"><p>12–60</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>38.68</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 3 shows the results of the correlation matrix for the degree to which students felt connected to their instructor, their technological competency and their satisfaction with flexible learning courses, revealing the strength and direction of the relationships between these variables. The analyses revealed a moderately positive relationship (<emph>r</emph> = 0.587; <emph>p</emph> < 0.000) between students' connection to their instructor and their satisfaction with flexible learning courses.</p> <p>Table 3 Correlation matrix for student variables (<emph>N</emph> = 610)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>Students' connection to their instructor</p></th><th align="left"><p>Students' technological competency</p></th><th align="left"><p>Students' satisfaction with flexible learning courses</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Students' connection to their instructor</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.00</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Students' technological competency</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.494**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.00</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Students' satisfaction with flexible learning courses</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.587**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0. 880**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.00</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Notes</emph>: *<emph>p </emph><.05, **<emph>p </emph><.01</p> <p>Figure 2 shows the total scores for student–instructor connection and students' satisfaction with flexible learning courses. These results indicate that the more students feel connected to their instructor, the more they are satisfied with their learning experience. This highlights the importance of establishing robust student–instructor relationships to promote satisfaction with flexible learning. However, it is essential to note that other factors may also contribute to students' satisfaction, such as course content and instruction quality. Additionally, Table 3 shows the significant and positive relationship (<emph>r</emph> = 0.494; <emph>p</emph> < 0.000) between students' connection to their instructor and students' technological competency.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Student–instructor connection and students' satisfaction with flexible learning courses</p> <p>Figure 3 shows the total scores for student–instructor connection and students' technological competency in using educational tools.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Students' technological competency in using educational tools and student–instructor connection</p> <p>Furthermore, a significant and moderate positive correlation (<emph>r</emph> = 0.880; <emph>p</emph> < 0.000) existed between students' technological competency and their satisfaction with flexible learning courses, depicted in Figure 4. This result implies that technological competency plays a crucial role in enhancing the overall learning experience for students.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Students' technological competency and their satisfaction with flexible learning courses</p> <p>The analyses revealed a significant association between students' satisfaction with flexible learning in humanities and health courses (<emph>p</emph> < 0.000, see Table 4). Students in humanities courses (<emph>n</emph> = 189) were more satisfied with flexible learning than students in health courses (<emph>n</emph> = 99). This result means that flexible learning strategies may be more effective in humanities than health courses. Further research could explore specific factors contributing to this difference in satisfaction levels and identify ways to enhance flexible learning experiences in health-related disciplines.</p> <p>Table 4 Students' satisfaction with flexible learning in humanities and health courses (<emph>N</emph> = 610)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left"><p>Humanities courses</p></th><th align="left"><p>Health courses</p></th><th align="left"><p>Total</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Students' satisfaction with flexible learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Satisfied</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>189</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>99</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>288</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>0.00**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Dissatisfied</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>239</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>322</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>: **<emph>p </emph><.01</p> <p>Table 5 shows numbers and percentages of responses based on the 5-point Likert scale for each item across three sections: students' satisfaction with flexible learning, students' connection to their instructor and students' technological competency (<emph>N</emph> = 610). The results showed that many students had low satisfaction with flexible learning, weak connections with their instructors and low technological competency in using educational tools.</p> <p>Table 5 Participant responses for each item across three sections: students' satisfaction with flexible learning, connection to their instructor and technological competency (<emph>N</emph> = 610)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Item</p></th><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>Section 2: Students' satisfaction with flexible learning*</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Very satisfied</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Satisfied</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Neutral</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Dissatisfied</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Very dissatisfied</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Not applicable</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>The course documents, lessons or lecture notes used in this class facilitated my learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>63</p><p>(10.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>348</p><p>(57%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>199</p><p>(32.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The websites linked to this course facilitated my learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>24</p><p>(3.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>21</p><p>(3.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p><p>(3.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>239</p><p>(39.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>292</p><p>(47.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p><p>(2.5%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The assignments and projects in this course facilitated my learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>36</p><p>(5.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p><p>(5.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>76</p><p>(12.5 %)</p></td><td align="left"><p>141</p><p>(23.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>323</p><p>(53%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I am very satisfied with this online course</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p><p>(2.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p><p>(2.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>26</p><p>(4.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>216</p><p>(35.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>336</p><p>(55.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Preparation for quizzes/exams in this course facilitated my learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p><p>(2.1 %)</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p><p>(3.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p><p>(4.1 %)</p></td><td align="left"><p>227</p><p>(37.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>326</p><p>(53.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I would like to take another online course</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p><p>(1.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p><p>(1.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>37</p><p>(6.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>198</p><p>(32.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>354</p><p>(58%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The learning activities in this course required application of problem-solving skills that facilitated learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>53</p><p>(8.7%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>49</p><p>(8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>44</p><p>(7.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>138</p><p>(22.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>326</p><p>(53.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I feel this online class experience helped improve my written communication skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>35</p><p>(5.7%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p><p>(5.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>73</p><p>(12%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>138</p><p>(22.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>326</p><p>(53.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p><p>(0.8%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>This online course encouraged students to discuss ideas and concepts with other students</p></td><td align="left"><p>43</p><p>(7%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p><p>(1.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>62</p><p>(10.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>127</p><p>(20.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>359</p><p>(58.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p><p>(1.6%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>This online course meets my learning needs</p></td><td align="left"><p>55</p><p>(9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>36</p><p>(5.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p><p>(1.0%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>320</p><p>(%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>185</p><p>(30.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p><p>(1.3%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I learned as much in this online course as I have during in-person (face-to-face) courses</p></td><td align="left"><p>26</p><p>(4.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>26</p><p>(4.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>71</p><p>(11.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>227</p><p>(37.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>199</p><p>(32.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>61</p><p>(10%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I think in online education more time is needed</p></td><td align="left"><p>39</p><p>(6.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>116</p><p>(19%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>52</p><p>(8.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>254</p><p>(41.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>149</p><p>(24.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Item</p></th><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>Section 3: Students' connection to their instructor</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Strongly agree</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Agree</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Neutral</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Disagree</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Strongly disagree</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Not applicable</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>I received timely feedback (within 24–48 hours) from my professor</p></td><td align="left"><p>308</p><p>(50.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>196</p><p>(32.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>36</p><p>(5.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>37</p><p>(6.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p><p>(5.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I was able to get individualised attention from my teacher when needed</p></td><td align="left"><p>246</p><p>(40.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>232</p><p>(38%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p><p>(5.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>66</p><p>(10.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p><p>(5.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The teacher functioned as a facilitator of the course by continuously encouraging communication</p></td><td align="left"><p>259</p><p>(42.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>239</p><p>(39.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>55</p><p>(9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p><p>(4.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p><p>(5.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I could not see the teacher of the class, but I always felt his/her presence</p></td><td align="left"><p>288</p><p>(47.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>159</p><p>(26.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>54</p><p>(8.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>57</p><p>(9.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>52</p><p>(8.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The teacher identified clear topics and provided instruction for completing assignments in a timely manner</p></td><td align="left"><p>166</p><p>(27.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>112</p><p>(18.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>63</p><p>(10.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>156</p><p>(25.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>113</p><p>(18.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The instructor provided instruction in online discussion forums, chats or other</p></td><td align="left"><p>303</p><p>(49.7%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>170</p><p>(27.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>22</p><p>(3.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>83</p><p>(13.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p><p>(5.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The online instructor made sure that learning goals were achieved</p></td><td align="left"><p>249</p><p>(40.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>245</p><p>(40.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p><p>(5.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>55</p><p>(9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>29</p><p>(4.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The instructor utilised a variety of sources that assisted student learning (articles, links to websites, etc.)</p></td><td align="left"><p>308</p><p>(50.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>143</p><p>(23.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>118</p><p>(19.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>35</p><p>(5.7%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p><p>(1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The online instructor created a collaboration area</p></td><td align="left"><p>326</p><p>(53.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>177</p><p>(29%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>76</p><p>(12.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p><p>(4.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p><p>(1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The instructor promoted students' desire to learn</p></td><td align="left"><p>281</p><p>(46.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>212</p><p>(34.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>18</p><p>(3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>71</p><p>(11.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p><p>(4.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Item</p></th><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>Section 4: Students' technological competency</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Strongly disagree</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Disagree</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Neutral</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Agree</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Strongly agree</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Not applicable</p><p><italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>I can deal with most difficulties I encounter when using computers</p></td><td align="left"><p>302</p><p>(49.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>161</p><p>(26.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>31</p><p>(5.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>78</p><p>(12.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>38</p><p>(6.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Working with computers is very easy</p></td><td align="left"><p>176</p><p>(28.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>209</p><p>(34.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>59</p><p>(9.7%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>118</p><p>(19.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>48</p><p>(7.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I am very unsure of my abilities to use computers</p></td><td align="left"><p>38</p><p>(6.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>65</p><p>(10.7%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>50</p><p>(8.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>326</p><p>(53.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>131</p><p>(21.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I enjoy working with computers</p></td><td align="left"><p>62</p><p>(10.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>50</p><p>(8.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p><p>(2.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>278</p><p>(45.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>206</p><p>(33.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Computers make me much more productive</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p><p>(3.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>115</p><p>(18.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>22</p><p>(3.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>300</p><p>(49.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>150</p><p>(24.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I often have difficulties when learning to use a new computer software package</p></td><td align="left"><p>49</p><p>(8 %)</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p><p>(1.8 %)</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p><p>(0.8 %)</p></td><td align="left"><p>182</p><p>(29.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>291</p><p>(47.7%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>72</p><p>(11.8%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I am confident in my abilities to use computers</p></td><td align="left"><p>138</p><p>(22.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>189</p><p>(31%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>119</p><p>(19.5%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>114</p><p>(18.7%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>48</p><p>(7.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p><p>(0.3%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Using computers makes learning more interesting</p></td><td align="left"><p>95</p><p>(15.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p><p>(2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p><p>(1.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>183</p><p>(30%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>272</p><p>(44.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>37</p><p>(6.1%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I have frequent problems when trying to use computers</p></td><td align="left"><p>42</p><p>(6.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>79</p><p>(13%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>54</p><p>(8.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>285</p><p>(46.7%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>150</p><p>(24.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Computer software packages make learning easier</p></td><td align="left"><p>36</p><p>(5.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>79</p><p>(13%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>75</p><p>(12.3%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>164</p><p>(26.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>255</p><p>(41.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p><p>(0.2%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>I consider myself a skilled computer user</p></td><td align="left"><p>199</p><p>(32.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>222</p><p>(36.4%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p><p>(4.9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>104</p><p>(17%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>55</p><p>(9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p><p>(0%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>When using computers, I worry that I might press the wrong button and damage the computer</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p><p>(4.6%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>56</p><p>(9.2%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>31</p><p>(5.1%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>267</p><p>(43.8%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>175</p><p>(28.7%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>53</p><p>(8.7%)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note:</emph> *Section 1 was merely an introductory page, indicating that completing the survey questionnaire was optional</p> <p>Table 6 shows the predicting variables that affected students' satisfaction and dissatisfaction with their overall learning experience. Students studying humanities courses performed better academically than those in health courses, with an estimated odds ratio of 6.511. High technological competency among instructors also led to two times greater satisfaction with flexible learning and a positive perception of the quality of online education.</p> <p>Table 6 Results of the binary logistic regression model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>B</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>SE</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Wald</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Sig.</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Exp (B)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>95.0% CI</p><p>for Exp (B)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>lower</p></th><th align="left"><p>upper</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.338</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.187</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.269</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.071</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.403</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.972</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.023</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Humanities and health courses</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.873</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.193</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>94.563</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.000**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.511</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.463</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.49</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Instructors' technological competency</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.993</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.156</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>40.651</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.000**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.698</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.989</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.66</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Students' connection to their instructor</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.024</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.084</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.084</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.772</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.024</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.870</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.20</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Students' technological competency</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.053</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.077</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.481</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.488</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.055</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.907</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.22</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Constant</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>–6.888</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.656</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.550</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.060</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.001</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 7 shows the means, standard deviations and level of students' attitudes and perceptions towards flexible learning. Our study found a wide range of attitudes towards flexible learning among students, with only three items ranking as high (e.g., "I prefer face-to-face contact with my instructors and colleagues for more efficient learning"), eight as moderate (e.g., "I can easily work within a group in online courses") and five as low (e.g., "I feel comfortable to actively communicate with my instructors and colleagues online"). Further analysis is needed to understand the factors influencing these varying attitudes.</p> <p>Table 7 Students' attitudes and perceptions towards flexible learning (<emph>n</emph> = 137)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Statement</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p>Level</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1. I prefer face-to-face (in-class) contact with my instructors and colleagues for more efficient learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.80</p></td><td align="left"><p>High</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. I prefer the on-campus approach since it allows me to better communicate with my professors and colleagues</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.80</p></td><td align="left"><p>High</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Online learning leads to increased academic burdens on students</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.60</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.70</p></td><td align="left"><p>High</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. My university provides technical support for online learning</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.24</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.71</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moderate</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. I am able to easily access the internet to get enrolled in online education</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moderate</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. My English language can be improved more in online courses rather than in the classroom</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.88</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moderate</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. I can easily work within a group in online courses</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.78</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.88</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moderate</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. In general, my university provides a high-quality online learning experience</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>Low</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. I can ask my professors questions and receive a quick response in online courses</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.42</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.74</p></td><td align="left"><p>Low</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. Online learning helps students to organise their time efficiently and in their homework and assignments</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.86</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moderate</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. Online learning helps me to achieve my future plans</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.72</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.88</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moderate</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12. I feel comfortable to actively communicate with my instructors and colleagues online</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>Low</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>13. Online learning helps in brainstorming in a better way in contrast to an on-campus approach</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.35</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>Low</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>14. I feel that taking my courses online helps me to study them and master them better</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.76</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.85</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moderate</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>15. I would prefer online learning to continue being used and to become the new norm</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.85</p></td><td align="left"><p>Moderate</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>16. I can get enrolled in all of my online courses without facing any obstacles</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>.56</p></td><td align="left"><p>Low</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 8 reveals a significant difference between students' attitudes towards flexible learning and their courses in humanities and health (<emph>p</emph> =.012). The mean for humanities courses was 29.98, while the mean for health courses was 29.16. On the other hand, significant differences did not exist based on students' gender.</p> <p>Table 8 Students' attitudes towards flexible learning and selected demographic variables (<emph>n</emph> = 137)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Demographic variable</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Gender</p></td><td align="left"><p>Male</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>61</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>28.52</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.75</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>.167</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Female</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>76</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>30.43</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.06</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Course</p></td><td align="left"><p>Humanities</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>70</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>29.98</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.64</p></td><td char="." align="char" rowspan="2"><p>.012*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Health</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>29.16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.17</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph>: *<emph>p </emph><.05</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-22">Discussion</hd> <p>Flexible learning facilitates students' completion of coursework on their own schedule and allows them to revisit lectures as needed. However, the current study found that many undergraduate students had negative experiences with flexible learning, with over 52% being dissatisfied. In other research, Michele Cole et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref95">8</reflink>]) used an online survey to determine the level of satisfaction with online courses among 553 business students at an unspecified university (probably in the United States). They found that 59% were extremely satisfied or satisfied overall. Course design and disconnect with the instructor were identified as reasons for students' dissatisfaction with flexible learning. George Bradford and Shelly Wyatt ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref96">6</reflink>]) found that online undergraduate students enrolled at two American universities (in Florida and New York) experienced more difficulties and isolation than traditional undergraduate students. Ida Jones ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref97">11</reflink>]) concluded that if students experience failure in online education, they might leave flexible learning and refuse to take another online class. Students also want more face-to-face communication and immediate feedback in their online courses (Lust et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref98">14</reflink>]). These findings suggest that while flexible learning offers convenience and accessibility, it may not fully meet students' social and interaction needs. To address these concerns, educators should consider incorporating more opportunities for face-to-face interaction and provide timely feedback to enhance the online learning experience.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-23">Student–instructor interaction</hd> <p>Instructor responsibilities in flexible learning are crucial, including monitoring online courses and providing feedback to students. With the growth of distance learning, online courses have become more popular, allowing instructors to engage with students in various ways and providing flexibility for students to access course materials and participate in discussions at their convenience (Turan et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref99">28</reflink>]). The success of any online class depends on instructors and educational designers recognising clear learning objectives and organising the entire course to achieve those objectives. Special attention and deeper insight should be applied to the learning situation in terms of students' needs, access to resources and involvement in the implementation of information technologies (Alamri and Tyler-Wood [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref100">2</reflink>]; Cole et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref101">8</reflink>]; Bradford and Wyatt [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref102">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Communication between students and instructors is influential in promoting student satisfaction. The overall relationship between students and instructors significantly impacts students' satisfaction and academic performance. However, in the current study, around 80% of students reported having a weak connection with their instructors and expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of feedback they received on assignments. A strong connection fosters a positive learning environment, encourages open communication and provides personalised guidance, fostering a sense of belonging and motivation and leading to higher engagement and success (Mahdavi Ardestani et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref103">15</reflink>]). Students also need to collaborate with their instructors and peers for academic success. The role of an instructor in an online course includes encouraging the exchange of students' knowledge, skills and experiences through interactive discussions, positively affecting students' satisfaction (Ghaderizefreh and Hoover [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref104">10</reflink>]; Cole et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref105">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-24">Technological competency</hd> <p>Technical difficulties pose a significant challenge for students in developing countries who are pressured to complete projects, participate in online discussions and follow video lectures on time. Some students lack technical knowledge, making flexible learning less interesting and potentially depressing. However, the use of multimedia and videos can also make the learning experience more motivating for students (Backfisch et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref106">3</reflink>]; Muzammil et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref107">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Students' confidence in using technology can influence their experience of flexible learning. Instructors with strong technology skills can effectively use online platforms and tools to facilitate interactive discussions, provide timely feedback and deliver engaging content (Yalley [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref108">29</reflink>]; Rhim and Han [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref109">23</reflink>]; Bolliger and Martin [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref110">5</reflink>]). They can also troubleshoot technical issues quickly to ensure a seamless learning experience. These skills are fundamental in online learning environments, where students heavily rely on technology for their coursework. Instructors with these skills can create a more inclusive and interactive learning environment, allowing all students to actively participate in and benefit from discussions (Zeng and Wang [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref111">32</reflink>]; Lust et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref112">14</reflink>]; Kim and Lee [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref113">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-25">Humanities versus health courses</hd> <p>The findings in Table 4 suggest that implementing flexible learning strategies may be more effective in humanities rather than health courses. Educators and institutions should consider these differences in student satisfaction when designing and implementing flexible learning approaches in different academic disciplines. Humanities courses often involve more critical thinking, discussion and analysis, which can be better facilitated through flexible learning methods such as online discussions and virtual collaborations. On the other hand, health courses may require more hands-on practical training and direct interaction with instructors, making it challenging to replicate the same level of engagement in a flexible learning environment. Therefore, understanding students' unique needs and preferences in different academic disciplines is crucial for ensuring their satisfaction and success in flexible learning settings.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-26">Attitudes towards flexible learning</hd> <p>The current study found a significant difference between students' attitudes towards flexible learning and their courses in humanities and health (<emph>p</emph> =.012). This result indicates that students enrolled in humanities courses may generally have a more positive attitude towards flexible learning compared to those in health courses. This finding is possibly due to the nature of humanities courses, which involve discussion and critical thinking, and the rigid schedules and practical requirements in health courses, which may hinder the full embrace of flexible learning methods.</p> <p>The results of the current study are consistent with those of other studies (e.g., Thapa et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref114">27</reflink>]) which indicated a positive attitude towards flexible learning, while others (e.g., Abbasi et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref115">1</reflink>]) found a negative attitude. A study conducted in Nepal by Pratima Thapa et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref116">27</reflink>]) revealed that 58.9% of respondents preferred e-learning, citing its main advantages as ease of learning, technical support, reduced learning stressors, flexibility in scheduling and cost-effectiveness. However, internet problems and technical issues were major disadvantages. Another study, conducted by Sahar Abbasi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>]) at a private medical college in Pakistan showed that 77% of students had negative attitudes towards online learning during COVID-19. Their study suggested that when implementing online learning programmes, educators should provide adequate support, promote positive technology use and emphasise the benefits of online education.</p> <p>Flexible learning allows students to customise their learning methods in various settings, leading to increased engagement, collaboration and independence. A positive attitude towards flexible learning enhances success and satisfaction in education, supporting students to overcome challenges, adapt to new technologies and embrace change more readily. Assessing attitudes towards flexible learning is crucial to identifying barriers and misconceptions, enabling educators to provide targeted support to help students fully embrace this approach and maximise their learning potential (Thapa et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref118">27</reflink>]; Abbasi et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref119">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, the current study found no significant difference between students' attitudes towards flexible learning based on gender. Further research could explore the reasons behind this result. It could also examine how gender may impact students' success in different academic disciplines.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-27">Variables identification</hd> <p>Our use of the binary logistic regression model helped us in identifying the variables that significantly affected students' satisfaction levels, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships between predictor variables and satisfaction levels. The results of the model highlight the importance of instructors' technological skills in enhancing students' satisfaction and academic performance in flexible learning environments. Therefore, high technological competency is crucial for a successful online education experience.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-28">Limitations</hd> <p>The current study's research design was correlational, implying no causation among the variables. The participants were also from a single university in Jordan, limiting the applicability of the findings. Furthermore, while we measured two concepts in self-determination theory – competence and relatedness – we did not measure autonomy. Therefore, future research should consider additional measures and replicate the study with a diverse sample from multiple universities to improve generalisability. Replicating the study with a more diverse sample would also enhance the findings and ensure they are not limited to one institution. Furthermore, incorporating measures that assess the concept of autonomy would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the variables under investigation.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-29">Recommendations</hd> <p>Due to the online learning barriers in developing countries, we recommend that students work closely with their academic instructors via e-mails and meetings, so they can more fully understand the particular requirements of their online courses. It is also necessary to ask students about their ideas for course improvement. Additionally, students should be encouraged to provide their instructors with feedback about what they did well and what they struggled with, in order to suggest possible course modifications. In our study, we observed that group projects can facilitate critical thinking among students, so group work should be part of online learning where possible. Educational institutions could also require students to pass a computer literacy test before registering for their first online course.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-30">Conclusion</hd> <p>The findings from our study suggest that the quality of the student–instructor relationship plays a crucial role in students' satisfaction with flexible learning. The positive correlation between students' satisfaction with flexible learning and their connection to the instructor highlights the importance of establishing a supportive and engaging learning environment where students feel comfortable reaching out for assistance and guidance. Additionally, it highlights the importance of instructors' technological skills in creating a positive learning experience for students in flexible learning environments.</p> <p>Students in health courses face particular challenges in flexible learning due to the growth in online education during COVID-19, resulting in limited resources and face-to-face interactions. Regular online discussions and group projects foster collaboration, allowing students to exchange ideas and perspectives. Thus, effective online education for students in health courses should involve active learning through interactive case studies, simulations, online discussion forums and virtual group projects (Zayapragassarazan [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref120">31</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-31">Author contributions</hd> <p>Conceptualisation – F. H., M. W. and Z. H.; methodology – F. H., M. W. and Z. H.; formal analysis – F. H., M. W. and Z. H.; investigation – F. H., M. W. and Z. H.; writing (original draft preparation) – F. H., M. W. and Z. H.; writing (review and editing) – M. W.; project administration – F. H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-32">Funding</hd> <p>This research received no external funding.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-33">Data availability</hd> <p>The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy reasons.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-34">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183751790-35">Institutional review board statement</hd> <p>The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki for studies involving humans.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-36">Conflicts of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0183751790-37">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0183751790-38"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref115" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abbasi, S, Ayoob, T, Malik, A, & Memon, S. I. (2020). Perceptions of students regarding e-learning during Covid-19 at a private medical college. Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 36(COVID19-S4), S57–S61. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.COVID19-S4.2766</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref56" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alamri A, Tyler-Wood T. Factors affecting learners with disabilities: Instructor interaction in online learning. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2017; 32; 2: 59-69. 10.1177/0162643416681497</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref53" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Backfisch, I, Lachner, A, Hische, C, Loose, F, & Scheiter, K. (2020). Professional knowledge or motivation? Investigating the role of teachers' expertise on the quality of technology-enhanced lesson plans. Learning and Instruction, 66, Article no. 101300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101300</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref1" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barron Rodriguez, M, Cobo, C, MuñozNajar, A, & Sánchez Ciarrusta, I.(2021). Remote learning during the global school lockdown: Multi-country lessons. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Retrieved 1 January 2025 from https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/668741627975171644/pdf/Remote-Learning-During-the-Global-School-Lockdown-Multi-Country-Lessons.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref57" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bolliger DU, Martin F. Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement strategies. Distance Education. 2018; 39; 4: 568-583. 10.1080/01587919.2018.1520041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref15" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bradford G, Wyatt S. Online learning and student satisfaction: Academic standing, ethnicity and their influence on facilitated learning, engagement, and information fluency. Internet and Higher Education. 2010; 13; 3: 108-114. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.02.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref77" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chiu TKF. School learning support for teacher technology integration from a self-determination theory perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2022; 70; 3: 931-949. 10.1007/s11423-022-10096-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref10" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cole, M. T, Shelley, D. J, & Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online instruction, e-learning, and student satisfaction: A three-year study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6). 111–131 https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1748</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref28" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Elshami, W, Taha, M. H, Abuzaid, M, Saravanan, C, Al Kawas, S, & Abdalla, M. E. (2021). Satisfaction with online learning in the new normal: perspective of students and faculty at medical and health sciences colleges. Medical Education Online, 26(1), Article no. 1920090. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.1920090</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghaderizefreh S, Hoover ML. Student satisfaction with online learning in a blended course. International Journal of Digital Society. 2018; 9; 3: 1393-1398. 10.20533/ijds.2040.2570.2018.0172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones IM. Can you see me now? Defining teaching presence in the online classroom through building a learning community. Journal of Legal Studies Education. 2011; 28; 1: 67-116. 10.1111/j.1744-1722.2010.01085.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim J, Lee W. Assistance and possibilities: Analysis of learning-related factors affecting the online learning satisfaction of underprivileged students. Computers and Education. 2011; 57; 4: 2395-2405. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li X, Yang Y, Chu SKW, Zainuddin Z, Zhang Y. Applying blended synchronous teaching and learning for flexible learning in higher education: An action research study at a university in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 2020; 42; 2: 211-227. 10.1080/02188791.2020.1766417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lust G, Elen J, Clarebout G. Regulation of tool-use within a blended course: Student differences and performance effects. Computers and Education. 2013; 60; 1: 385-395. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahdavi Ardestani, S. F, Adibi, S, Golshan, A, & Sadeghian, P. (2023). Factors Influencing the effectiveness of e-learning in healthcare: A fuzzy ANP study. Healthcare, 11(14), Article no. 2035. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11142035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miranda, J. P, & Cruz, M. A. D. (2023). Tourism and hospitality management faculty satisfaction towards flexible learning: A cross-sectional survey from higher educational institutions in Central Luzon, Philippines. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 10(2), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe.2319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muflih, S, Abuhammad, S, Al-Azzam, S, Alzoubi, K. H, Muflih, M, & Karasneh, R. (2021). Online learning for undergraduate health professional education during COVID-19: Jordanian medical students' attitudes and perceptions. Heliyon, 7(9), Article no. e08031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muzammil, M, Sutawijaya, A, & Harsasi, M. (2020). Investigating student satisfaction in online learning: The role of student interaction and engagement in distance learning university. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(Special Issue-IODL), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.770928</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nabayra, J. N, & Tambong, C. R. (2023). Readiness level, satisfaction indicators, and overall satisfaction towards flexible learning through the lens of public university teacher education students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 13(8). 1230–1241. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.8.1925</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) (2022). Table 311.15: Number and percentage of students enrolled in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by distance education participation, location of student, level of enrollment, and control and level of institution, fall 2020 and fall 2021. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (IES). Retrieved 1 January 2025 from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_311.15.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Philipsen B, Tondeur J, Pareja Roblin N, Vanslambrouck S, Zhu C. Improving teacher professional development for online and blended learning: A systematic meta-aggregative review. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2019; 67; 5: 1145-1174. 10.1007/s11423-019-09645-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prentice M, Jayawickreme E, Fleeson W. Integrating whole trait theory and self-determination theory. Journal of Personality. 2019; 87; 1: 56-69. 10.1111/jopy.12417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhim HC, Han H. Teaching online: foundational concepts of online learning and practical guidelines. Korean Journal of Medical Education. 2020; 32; 3: 175-183. 10.3946/kjme.2020.171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sher A. Assessing the relationship of student–instructor and student–student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 2009; 8; 2: 102-120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shurville S, O'Grady T, Mayall P. Educational and institutional flexibility of Australian educational software. Campus-Wide Information Systems. 2008; 25; 2: 74-84. 10.1108/10650740810866576</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Somosot, I. S. (2022). We can make it: A probabilistic analysis on the satisfaction in flexible learning. Journal of Research, Policy and Practice of Teachers and Teacher Education, 12(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.37134/jrpptte.vol12.2.1.2022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thapa, P, Bhandari, S. L, & Pathak, S. (2021). Nursing students' attitude on the practice of e-learning: A cross-sectional survey amid COVID-19 in Nepal. PloS one, 16(6), Article no. e0253651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253651</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turan, Z, Kucuk, S, & Cilligol Karabey, S. (2022). The university students' self-regulated effort, flexibility and satisfaction in distance education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), Article no. 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00342-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yalley AA. Student readiness for e-learning co-production in developing countries higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 27; 9: 12421-12448. 10.1007/s10639-022-11134-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yekefallah, L, Namdar, P, Panahi, R, & Dehghankar, L. (2021). Factors related to students' satisfaction with holding e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic based on the dimensions of e-learning. Heliyon, 7(7), Article no. e07628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07628</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zayapragassarazan, Z. (2020). COVID-19: Strategies for engaging remote learners in medical education [version 1; not peer reviewed]. F1000Research, 9:246 (document) https://doi.org/10.7490/f1000research.1117846.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeng, X, & Wang, T. (2021). College student satisfaction with online learning during COVID-19: A review and implications. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education, 6(1), 182–195. Retrieved 15 November 2024 from https://<ulink href="http://www.ojed.org/jimphe/article/view/3502/1483">www.ojed.org/jimphe/article/view/3502/1483</ulink></bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Fatima M. M. Hasan; Moayad A. Wahsheh and Zeinab M. Hassan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Fatima M. M. Hasan Fatima M. M. Hasan PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Basic Sciences at College Princess Rahma, Al-Balqa Applied University, Jordan. Her research interests are related to education history, schools, student challenges, health education, media education, and historical documentary studies. Her research has been well-received in academic circles, contributing valuable insights to the field of education. Hasan's work has emphasised pressing issues in education and provided practical recommendations for improvement, significantly contributing to educational studies.</p> <p>Moayad A. Wahsheh Moayad A. Wahsheh PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sport Rehabilitation, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, The Hashemite University, Jordan. His research interests are related to promoting college students' health, placing more emphasis on enhancing their healthy lifestyle by increasing their health knowledge and modifying their unhealthy behaviours. His employment experiences of teaching health courses in different settings include universities. He achieved international awards from The Society for Public Health Education (SOPHE) in 2005 for creative and innovative research, and from Venus International Foundation in 2024 for outstanding researcher in health education promotion.</p> <p>Zeinab M. Hassan Zeinab M. Hassan RN, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Adult Health Nursing, School of Nursing, The Hashemite University, Jordan. Her research interests are Hospital Infection Control, particularly controlling and preventing nosocomial infections and chronic diseases. Hassan is an active member of international societies related to the nursing field, such as the International Society for Infectious Diseases in Washington, DC. She is a member of the Nursing and Healthcare International Journal's editorial board. Hassan received international honours, such as the SHEA International Ambassador Award (2015) from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref120"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1487714
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Undergraduate Students' Satisfaction with Flexible Learning in Humanities and Health during COVID-19: An Application of Self-Determination Theory
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fatima+M%2E+M%2E+Hasan%22">Fatima M. M. Hasan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7110-2694">0000-0001-7110-2694</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Moayad+A%2E+Wahsheh%22">Moayad A. Wahsheh</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1682-8422">0000-0002-1682-8422</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zeinab+M%2E+Hassan%22">Zeinab M. Hassan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4650-7176">0000-0003-4650-7176</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Review+of+Education%22"><i>International Review of Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 71(1):81-107.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Satisfaction%22">Student Satisfaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Blended+Learning%22">Blended Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22COVID-19%22">COVID-19</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pandemics%22">Pandemics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Determination%22">Self Determination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technological+Literacy%22">Technological Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+Education%22">Health Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Humanities+Instruction%22">Humanities Instruction</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11159-024-10091-9
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0020-8566<br />1573-0638
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the widespread adoption of flexible learning, which allows students to access educational materials and participate in classes remotely. Self-determination theory, a focus of this article, promotes self-motivation in the digital world of flexible learning. This study aimed to determine the link between undergraduate students' satisfaction with flexible learning and the following variables: (a) student-instructor connection; (b) the technological competency of students and instructors; and (c) the association between students' satisfaction and health and humanities courses. A descriptive correlational research design and binary logistic regression model were used to analyse data from 610 undergraduate students (53% female, 47% male) enrolled in at least one flexible learning course at a university in Jordan in 2020/2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study found that 63.4% of participants were enrolled in three or more flexible learning courses, while 27.2% were enrolled in two or more. However, 52.8% expressed dissatisfaction with these courses. Additionally, the study showed a moderately positive relationship between students' satisfaction and connection to their instructor, as well as a significant positive relationship between student-instructor connection and students' technological competency. Students in humanities courses were more satisfied and did better academically with flexible learning than those in health courses. High technological competency in instructors led to two times greater satisfaction with flexible learning and a positive perception of online education quality. Finally, a significant difference was found between students' attitudes towards flexible learning and their courses in humanities and health. Thus, applying self-determination theory is crucial for designing effective online learning during challenging times.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1487714
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1487714
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11159-024-10091-9
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 81
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Satisfaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Blended Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: COVID-19
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pandemics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Determination
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technological Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Health Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Humanities Instruction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Undergraduate Students' Satisfaction with Flexible Learning in Humanities and Health during COVID-19: An Application of Self-Determination Theory
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fatima M. M. Hasan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Moayad A. Wahsheh
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zeinab M. Hassan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0020-8566
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-0638
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 71
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Review of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1