Main Article Content


and learning to online mode. This had huge impact on the students, especially for those who had not been used to being online for learning before. This mixed methods study utilized correlation, factor analysis and multiple regression techniques to identify significant predictors of students’ satisfaction with online learning in a higher education institution in Vietnam amid COVID-19 Pandemic. The study results show that learners’ interaction with content, peers and instructors correlated to and predicted student satisfaction. The study also indicated that although students valued the chance to be online for learning during the historic time, they viewed that interaction was limited and instructors should improve online teaching pedagogy. These findings provide learners, teachers and curriculum developers with new insights into learner interaction and its relation to course contents, teaching pedagogy and learning satisfaction in an Asian context.


e-Learning Covid-19 Satisfaction Course content Interaction Online Pedagogy Course Content

Article Details

How to Cite
Thach, P., Lai, P., Nguyen, V., & Nguyen, H. (2021). Online learning amid Covid-19 pandemic: students’ experience and satisfaction. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 17(1), 39-48.


  1. Abraham, L.B. (2008). Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 199–226.
  2. Bich, T. (2020). Giáo dục đại học xoay trở lên trực tuyến trong đại dịch COVID-19 [Higher education institutions in their efforts to move online during COVID-19].
  3. Chen, W. S., & Yao A. Y. T. (2016). An empirical evaluation of critical factors influencing learner satisfaction in blended learning: A pilot study. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(7). 1667-1671.
  4. Cox, S., Black J., Heney J., & Keith M. (2015). Promoting teacher presence: Strategies for effective and efficient feedback to student writing online. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 2(4), 376-391.
  5. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  6. Eneau, J., & Develotte C. (2012). Working together online to enhance learner autonomy: Analysis of learners’ perceptions of their online learning experience. ReCALL, 24(1), 3–19.
  7. Gameel, B.G. (2017). Learner satisfaction with Massive Open Online Courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(2), 98-111.
  8. Ghadirian, H., Ayub A. F. M., & Salehi K. (2017). Students’ perceptions of online discussions, participation and e-moderation behaviours in peer moderated asynchronous online discussions. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(1), 85-100.
  9. Gómez-Rey, P., Barbera F., & Fernández-Navarro F. (2017). Student voices on the roles of instructors in asynchronous learning environments in the 21st century. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2).
  10. Goh, C., Leong C., Kasmin K., Hii P., & Tan O. (2017). Students’ experiences, learning outcomesand satisfaction in e-Learning. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(2), 117-128.
  11. Hair, J.F., Celsi M.W., Money A.H., Samuoel P. & Page, M.J. (2011). Essentials of business methods (2nd ed). M.E. Sharpe Inc.
  12. Joseph, C., Kerryn B-H., Rudolph R., & Matthias G. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1). Retrieved from
  13. Kang, M., & Im T. (2013). Factors of learner–instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 292–301.
  14. Kim, M. (2017). Korean EFL learners’ perceptions of online interaction. Linguistic Research, 34, 97-124.
  15. Kuo, Y.-C., Walker A. E., Schroder K. E., & Belland B. R. (2014). Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50.
  16. Le, Q.X. (2013). Fostering learner autonomy in language learning in tertiary education: An intervention study of university students in Hochiminh City, Vietnam, (Doctoral thesis, University of Nottingham, UK).
  17. Lee, J. W., Jones P. S., & Mineyama Y. (2002). Cultural differences in response to a Likert scale. Research in Nursing and Health, 25(4), 295–306.
  18. Loi N.V. (2016). Learner autonomy in Vietnam: Insights from English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. In Barnard, R. and Li, J (Eds) Language Learner Autonomy: Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Asian Contexts. Phnom Penh: IDP Education.
  19. Lowenthal, P., Borup, J., West, R. & Archambault, L. (2020), Thinking Beyond Zoom: Using Asynchronous Video to Maintain Connection and Engagement During the COVID-19 Pandemic”. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 282, 383-391. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved from
  20. Marzban, A. (2011). Improvement of reading comprehension through computer-assisted language learning in Iranian intermediate EFL students. Procedia Computer Science, 3(2011), 3–10.
  21. Miles, M. B., Huberman A. M., & Saldaña J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Publications.
  22. MOET. (2020). The information and communications going along with education and training in the preventing COVID-19. (Publication No. 02/04/2020). Retrieved from
  23. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.
  24. Mukhtar, K., Javed K., Arooj M.,& Sethi A. (2020). Advantages, imitations and recommendations for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic era. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 36(COVID19-S4), doi:10.12669/pjms.36.COVID19-S4.2785
  25. Nagar, S. (2020). Assessing students’ perception toward e-learning and effectiveness of online sessions amid COVID-19 Lockdown Phase in India: An analysis. UGC Care Journal, 19(13), 272-291.
  26. Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual (4th ed.). New York, NY: Open University Press.
  27. Raymond, C.Y., & Choon T.T. (2017). Understanding Asian students learning styles, cultural influence and learning strategies. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 1(7), 194-210.
  28. Shen, D., Cho M.-H., Tsai C.-L., & Marra R. (2013). Unpacking online learning experiences: Online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 19(3), 10–17.
  29. Spathis, P., & Dey, R. (2020). What is Zoom not telling you: Lessons from an online course during COVID-19. Paper presented at ACM Sigcomm Education Workshop. Retrieved from
  30. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage Publications.
  31. Thanh, P.T.N., Thong, N.N., & Thao, N. T. P. (2020). Cảm nhận của sinh viên chính quy khi trải nghiệm học trực tuyến hoàn toàn trong thời gian phòng chống dịch COVID-19. Tạp chí Khoa học Đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, 15(4), 18-28. [Full-time students’ perceived experience in fully online learning during COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Science – Hochiminh City Open University. 15(4), 18-28].
  32. Yükselir, C. (2016). English foreign language (EFL) instructors’ and teachers’ perceptions towards the integration of Internet-assisted language leaching (IALT) into EFL instruction. Journal on Efciency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 9(1), 23-30.
  33. Zaili, N., Moi L. Y., Yusof N. A., Hanf, M. N., & Suhaimi M. H. (2019). The factors of satisfaction on e-learning usage among Universiti Malaysia Kelantan students. Journal of Information System and Technology Management, 4(11), 73-83.
  34. Wang, R., Hempton B., Dugan J. P., & Komives S. R. (2007). Cultural differences or what? Why Asians avoid extreme responses. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Anaheim, CA.

DB Error: Unknown column 'Array' in 'where clause'