Abuhassna et al.

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher

Education (2020) 17:38
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00216-z

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

Development of a new model on utilizing

online learning platforms to improve
students’ academic achievements and
satisfaction
Hassan Abuhassna1* , Waleed Mugahed Al-Rahmi1, Noraffandy Yahya1, Megat Aman Zahiri Megat Zakaria1,
Azlina Bt. Mohd Kosnin1 and Mohamad Darwish2

* Correspondence: mahassan@utm.
my Abstract
1
Faculty of Social Sciences &
Humanities, School of Education, This research aims to explore and investigate potential factors influencing students’
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM, academic achievements and satisfaction with using online learning platforms. This
81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia study was constructed based on Transactional Distance Theory (TDT) and Bloom’s
Full list of author information is
available at the end of the article Taxonomy Theory (BTT). This study was conducted on 243 students using online
learning platforms in higher education. This research utilized a quantitative research
method. The model of this research illustrates eleven factors on using online learning
platforms to improve students’ academic achievements and satisfaction. The findings
showed that the students’ background, experience, collaborations, interactions, and
autonomy positively affected students’ satisfaction. Moreover, effects of the students’
application, remembering, understanding, analyzing, and satisfaction was positively
aligned with students’ academic achievements. Consequently, the empirical findings
present a strong support to the integrative association between TDT and BTT
theories in relation to using online learning platforms to improve students’ academic
achievements and satisfaction, which could help decision makers in universities and
higher education and colleges to plan, evaluate, and implement online learning
platforms in their institutions.
Keywords: Online learning platforms, Students’ achievements, student’s satisfaction,
Transactional distance theory (TDT), Bloom’s taxonomy theory (BTT)

Introduction
Higher education organizations over the previous two decades have offered full courses
online as an integral part of their curricula, besides encouraging the completion
throughout the online courses. Additionally, the number of students who are not par-
ticipating in any courses online has continued to drop over the past few years. Simi-
larly, it is perfectly possible to state that learning online is obviously an educational
platform (Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016). Courses online are trying to connect
social networking components, experts’ content, because online resources are growing
© The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit
line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 2 of 23

on daily basis. Such courses depend on active participation of a significant number of

learners who participate independently in accordance with their education objectives,
skills, and previous background and experience (McAuley, Stewart, Siemens, &
Cormier, 2010). Nevertheless, learners differ in their previous background and expe-
rience, along with their education techniques, which clearly influence their online
courses results besides their achievement (Kauffman, 2015). Consequently, despite the
online learning evolution, learning online possibly will not be appropriate for each
learner (Bouhnik & Carmi, 2013). Nevertheless, while online learning application
among academic world has grown rapidly, not enough is identified regarding learners’
previous background and experience in learning online. Not so long ago, investigation
concentrated on particular characteristics of learners’ experiences along with beliefs, for
instance collaboration with their own instructor, online course quality, or studying with
a certain learning management system (LMS) (Alexander & Golja, 2007; (Lester &
King, 2009). Generally, limited courses or a single institution were investigated (Coates,
James, & Baldwin, 2005; Lee, Yoon, & Lee, 2009). Few studies examined bigger
sample sizes between one or more particular institutes (Alexander & Golja, 2007).
Additionally, there is a shortage of researches that examine learners’ previous back-
ground and experience comparing face-to-face along with learning online elements,
e.g., (Bliuc, Goodyear, & Ellis, 2007). The development of learners’ previous back-
ground and experience, skills, are realized to be the major advantages for adminis-
trative level for learning online.
Similarly, learners’ satisfaction and academic achievement towards learning online
attracted considerable attention from scholars who employed several theoretical models
in order to evaluate learners’ satisfaction and academic achievements (Abuhassna,
Megat, Yahaya, Azlina, & Al-rahmi, 2020; Abuhassna & Yahaya, 2018; Al-Rahmi,
Othman, & Yusuf, 2015a; Al-Rahmi, Othman, & Yusuf, 2015b). This present study
highlights the effects of online learning platforms on student’s satisfaction, in relation
to their background and prior experiences towards online learning platforms to identify
learners that are going to be satisfied toward online course. Furthermore, this research
explores the effects of transactional distance theory (TDT); student collaboration, stu-
dent- instructor dialogue or communication, and student autonomy in relation to their
satisfaction. Accordingly, this study investigates students’ academic achievements
within online platforms, utilizing Bloom theory to measure students’ achievements
through four main components, namely, understanding, remembering, applying, and
analyzing. This study could have a significant influence on online course design and de-
velopment. Additionally, this research may influence not only academic online courses
but then other educational organizations according to the fact that several organiza-
tions offer training courses and solutions online. Both researchers and Instructors will
be able to utilize and elaborate in accordance with the preliminary model, which was
developed throughout this research, on the effects of online platforms on student’s sat-
isfaction and academic achievements. Advantages of online learning and along with its
applications were mentioned in earlier correlated literature (Abuhassna et al., 2020;
Abuhassna & Yahaya, 2018; Al-Rahmi et al., 2018). However, despite the growing usage
of online platforms, there is a shortage of employing this technology, which creates an
issue in itself (Abuhassna & Yahaya, 2018; Al-Rahmi et al., 2018). Consequently, the re-
search problem lies in the point that a model needs to be created to locate the
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 3 of 23

significant evidence based on the data of student’s background, experiences and inter-
actions within online learning environments which influence their academic perform-
ance and satisfaction. Thus, this developed model must be as a guidance for instructors
and decision makers in the online education industry in terms of using online platforms
to improve students learning experience through online platforms. Bearing in mind
these conditions, our major problem was: how could we enhance students online learn-
ing experience in relation to both their academic achievements and satisfaction?

Research questions
The major research question that are anticipated to be answered is:
how could we enhance students online learning experience in relation to both their
academic achievements and satisfaction?
To be able to answer this question, it is required to examine numerous sub-questions
which have been stated as follow:

Q1: What is the relationship between students’ background and students’ satisfaction?
Q2: What is the relationship between students’ experience and students’ satisfaction?
Q3: What is the relationship between students’ collaboration and students’
satisfaction?
Q4: What is the relationship between students’ interaction and students’ satisfaction?
Q5: What is the relationship between students’ autonomy and students’ satisfaction?
Q6: What is the relationship between students’ satisfaction and students’ academic
achievements?
Q7: What is the relationship between students’ application and students’ academic
achievements?
Q8: What is the relationship between students’ remembering and students’ academic
achievements?
Q9: What is the relationship between students’ understanding and students’ academic
achievements?
Q10: What is the relationship between students’ analyzing and students’ academic
achievements?

Research theory and hypotheses development

When designing web-courses within online learning instructions or mechanisms in
general, educators are left with several decisions and considerations to face, which ac-
cordingly affect how students experience instruction, how they construct and process
knowledge, how students could be satisfied through this experiment, and how web-
based learning courses could enhance their academic achievements. In this study, we
construct our theoretical framework according to Moore transactional distance theory
(TDT) to measure student’s satisfaction, in addition to Bloom theory components to
measure students’ academic achievements. Though the origins of TDT can be traced to
the work of Dewey, it is Michael Moore who is identified as the innovator of this theory
that first appeared in 1972. In his study and development of the theory, he acknowl-
edged three main components of TDT that work as the base for much of the research
on DL. Also, Bloom’s Taxonomy was established in 1956 under the direction of
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 4 of 23

educational psychologist to measure students’ academic achievement (Bloom, Engel-

hart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). TDT theory has been selected in this study since
Transactional distance’s term indicates the geographical space between the student and
instructor. Based on the learning understanding, which happens through learner’s inter-
action with his environment. This theory considers the role of each of these elements
(Student’s autonomy, Dialogue, and class structure) whereas these three elements could
help to investigate student’s satisfaction. Moore’s (1990) notion of ‘Transactional Dis-
tance’ adopt the distance that happens in all relations in education. The distance in the
theory is mainly specified the dialogue’s amount which happens between the student
and the teacher, and the structure’s amount in the course design. Which serves the
main goal of this study as to enhance students online learning experience in relation to
their satisfaction. Whereas, Bloom Theory has been selected in this study in addition to
TDT to enhance students online learning experience in relation to their student’s
achievements. In a conclusion both methods were implemented to develop and hypoth-
esis this study hypothesis. See Fig. 1.

Hypothesis of the study

H1: There is a significant relationship between students’ background and students’
satisfaction.
H2: There is a significant relationship between students’ experience and students’
satisfaction.
H3: There is a significant relationship between students’ collaboration and students’
satisfaction.
H4: There is a significant relationship between students’ interaction and students’
satisfaction.
H5: There is a significant relationship between students’ autonomy and students’
satisfaction.
H6: There is a significant relationship between students’ satisfaction and students’
academic achievements.
H7: There is a significant relationship between students’ application and students’
academic achievements.
H8: There is a significant relationship between students’ remembering and students’
academic achievements.

Fig. 1 Research Model and Hypotheses

Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 5 of 23

H9: There is a significant relationship between students’ understanding and students’

academic achievements.
H10: There is a significant relationship between students’ analyzing and students’ aca-
demic achievements.

Hypothesis developments and literature review

This Section of the study will discuss the study hypothesis and relates each hypothesis
to its related studies from the literature.
H1: There is a significant relationship between students’ background and stu-
dents’ satisfaction.

Students background toward online platforms

Students’ background regarding online platforms in this study is referred to as their
readiness and willingness to use and adapt to different online platforms, providing
them with the needed support and assistance. Students’ background towards online
learning is a crucial component throughout this process, as prior research revealed that
there are implementation issues, for instance; the deficiency of qualified lecturers, infra-
structure and facilities, in addition to students’ readiness, besides students’ resistance to
accept online learning platforms in addition to the Learning Management System
(LMS) platforms, as educational tools (Azhari & Ming, 2015). However, student de-
mand continued to increase, spreading to global audiences due to its exceptional func-
tionality, flexibility and eventual accessibility (Azhari & Ming, 2015). There have been
persistent apprehensions regarding online learning quality compared with traditional
learning settings. In their research, (Paechter & Maier, 2010; Panyajamorn, Suthathip,
Kohda, Chongphaisal, & Supnithi, 2018) have discovered that Austrian learners con-
tinue to prefer traditional learning environments due to communication goals, along
with the interpersonal relations preservation. Moreover, (Lau & Shaikh, 2012) have dis-
covered that Malaysian learners’ internet efficiency and computer skills, along with
their personal demographics like gender, background, level of the study, as well as their
financial income lead to a significant difference in their readiness towards online learn-
ing platforms. Abuhassna and Yahaya (2018) claimed that the current technologies in
education play an essential role in providing a full online learning experience which is
close enough to a face-to-face class in spite of the physical separation of the students
from their educator, along with other students. Platforms of online learning lend them-
selves towards a less hierarchical methodology in education, fulfilling the learning de-
sires of individuals which do not approach new information in a linear or a systematic
manner. Platforms of online learning additionally are the most suitable ways for
autonomous students (Abuhassna et al., 2020; Abuhassna & Yahaya, 2018; Paechter &
Maier, 2010; Panyajamorn et al., 2018).
H2: There is a significant relationship between students’ experience and
students’ satisfaction.

Students experience toward online platforms

Students’ experience in the current research indicates that learners must have prior ex-
perience in relation to utilizing online learning platform in their education settings.
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 6 of 23

Thus, students experience towards online learning offers several advantages among them-
selves and their instructors in strengthening students’ learning experiences especially for
isolated learners (Jaques & Salmon, 2007; Lau & Shaikh, 2012; Salmon, 2011; Salmon,
2014). Regardless of student recognition of the advantages towards supporting their learn-
ing throughout utilizing the technology, difficulties may occur through the boundaries
about their technical capabilities and prior experiences towards utilizing the software itself
from the perspective of its functionality. As demonstrated over learner’s experience and
feedback from several online sessions over the years, this may frequently become a frus-
tration source between both learners and their instructors, as this may make typically
uncomplicated duties, for instance, watching a video, uploading a document, and other
simple tasks to be progressively complicated for them, having no such prior experience.
Furthermore, when filling out evaluations, for instance, online group presentations, the
relatively limited capability to communicate face-to-face then to rely on a non-verbal sig-
nal along with audience’s body language might be a discouraging component. Nonethe-
less, the significance of being in a position to participate with other colleagues employing
online sessions, which are occasionally nonvisual, for instance; teleconference format is a
progressively significant skill in the modern workplace, thus affirming the importance of
concise, clear, intensive interactions skills (Salmon, 2011; Salmon, 2014).
H3: There is a significant relationship between students’ collaboration and
students’ satisfaction.

Student collaboration among themselves in online platforms

Students’ collaborations in the current study refers to the communication and feedback
among themselves in online platforms. To refine and measure transactional distance
using a survey tool, (Rabinovich, 2009) created a survey instrument to measure transac-
tional distance in a higher education setting. A survey was sent to 235 students enrolled
in a synchronous web-based graduate class in business regarding transactional distance
and Collaborations (Rabinovich, 2009). The synchronous learning environment was de-
scribed as a place where “live on-campus classes are conveyed simultaneously to both
in-class students on campus and remote students on the Web who join via virtual
classroom Web collaboration software” (Rabinovich, 2009). The virtual classroom soft-
ware is similar to the characteristics of the two different software described by (Falloon,
2011; Mathieson, 2012) that it allows for students to interact with the educator and fel-
low students in real-time (Rabinovich, 2009). Moreover, (Kassandrinou, Angelaki, &
Mavroidis, 2014) reported that the instructor plays a crucial role as interaction and
communication helpers, as they are tasked with fostering, reassuring and assisting com-
munication and interaction among students. Face-to-face tutorials have proven to be a
vast opportunity for a multitude of students to interchange ideas, argue the content of
the course and its related concerns (Vasala & Andreadou, 2010).
H4: There is a significant relationship between students’ interaction and
students’ satisfaction.

Students’ interactions with the instructor in online platforms

Purposeful interaction or (dialogue) in the current study describes communication that is
learner-learner and learner-instructor which is designed to improve the understanding of
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 7 of 23

the student. According to (Shearer, 2010) communication should also be constructive in

that it builds upon ideas and work from others, as well as assists others in learning.
(Moore, 1972) affirmed that learners also must realize that, and value the importance of
the learning interactions as a vital part of the learning process. In a manner similar to
(Benson & Samarawickrema, 2009] study of teacher preparatory students, (Falloon, 2011)
investigated the use of digital tools in a case study at a teacher education program in New
Zealand. (Mathieson, 2012) also explored the role dialogue plays in digital learning envi-
ronments. She created a digital survey that examined students’ perception of audio-visual
feedback in courses that utilize screen casting digital tools. (Moore, 2007) discusses au-
tonomous learners searching for courses that do not stress structure and dialogue in order
explain and enhance their learning progression. (Abuhassna et al., 2020; Abuhassna &
Yahaya, 2018; Al-Rahmi et al., 2015b; Al-Rahmi, Othman, & Yusuf, 2015d; Furnborough,
2012) concluded that the feeling of cooperation that learners’ share with their fellow
students effect their reaction concerning their collaboration with their peers.
H5: There is a significant relationship between students’ autonomy and students’
satisfaction.

Student autonomy in online platforms

Student autonomy in the current study refers to their independence and motivation to-
wards learning. The learner is the motivation of the way toward learning, along with their
expectations and requirements, thinking about everyone as a unique individual and hence
investigating their own capacities and possibilities. Thus, extraordinary importance is
attributed to autonomy in DL environments, since the option of instructive intercession
offered in distance education empowers students towards learning autonomy (Massimo,
2014). In this respect, the connection between autonomy of student and explicit parts of
the learning procedure are in the center of consideration as mentioned. (Madjar, Nave, &
Hen, 2013) concluded that a learners’ autonomy-supportive environment provides these
learners with adoption of a more aims guided learning, leading to more learning achieve-
ments. This is why autonomy is desired in the online settings for both individual develop-
ment and greater achievement in academic environments. The researchers also indicate
in their research that while autonomy supports outcomes in goals and aims guiding, edu-
cator practices mainly lead to goals which necessary cannot adapt. Thus, supportive-
autonomy learning process needs to be designed with affective elements consideration as
well. However, (Stroet, Opdenakker, & Minnaert, 2013) efficiently surveyed 71 experimen-
tal studies on the impacts of autonomy supportive teaching on motivation of learner and
discovered a clear positive correlation. Similar to attribution theory, the relationship be-
tween learner control and inspiration involves the possibility of learners adjusting their
own inspirations, for example, learners may be competent to change self-determined ex-
trinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation. However, (Jacobs, Renandya, & Power, 2016)
further indicated that learners will not reach the same level of autonomy without review-
ing learner’s autonomy insights, reflecting on their learning experiences, sharing these
experiences and reflections with other learners, and realizing the elements influencing all
these processes, and the process of learning as well.
H6: There is a significant relationship between students’ satisfaction and
students’ academic achievements.
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 8 of 23

Student satisfaction in online platforms

Student satisfaction in the current study refers to the fact that there are many factors
that play a role in determining the learner’s satisfaction, such as faculty, institution, in-
dividual learner element, interaction/communication elements, the course elements,
and learning environment. Discussion of the elements also related to the role of the in-
structor, with the learner’s attitude, social presence, usefulness, and effectiveness of On-
line Platforms. (Yu, 2015) investigated that student satisfaction was positively
associated with interaction, self-efficacy and self-regulation without significant gender
variations. (Choy & Quek, 2016). examined the relationships between the learners’
perceived teaching, social, and cognitive element. In addition, satisfaction, academic
performance, and achievement can be measured using a revised form of the survey in-
strument. (Kirmizi, 2014) studied connection between 6 psychosocial scales: personal
relevance, educator assistance, student interaction and collaboration, student auton-
omy, authentic learning, along with active learning. A moderate level of correlation was
found between these mentioned variables. Learner satisfaction predictors were educator
support, personal relevance and authentic learning, while authentic learning was the
only academic success predictor. Findings of (Bordelon, 2013) determined and de-
scribed a positive correlation between both achievement and satisfaction. He demon-
strated that the reasons behind these conclusions could be cultural variations in
learner’s satisfaction which point out learning accession Zhu (2012). Scholars in the
field of student satisfaction emphasis on the delivery besides the operational side of the
student’s experience in the teaching process (Al-Rahmi, Othman, & Yusuf, 2015e).

Students’ academic achievements in online platforms

Students achievements in this study refers to Bloom’s main four components of
achievements, which are remembering, understanding, applying, and analyzing. Finding
in a study conducted by (Whitmer, 2013) revealed the relationships between student
academic achievement and the LMS usage, thus the findings showed a highly system-
atic association (p < .0000) in relation to every variable. These variables described 12%
and 23% of variations within the final course marks, which indicates that learners who
employed the LMS more often obtained higher marks than the others. Thus, the correl-
ation techniques examined these variables separately to ascertain their association with
the final mark. Moreover, it is not the technology itself; it is the educational methods in
relation to which technology has been utilized that create a change in learners’ achieve-
ment. Instruments used are significant in identifying the technology impact, moreover,
it is the implementation of those instruments under specific activities and for certain
purposes which indicates whether or not they are effective. In contrast, a study con-
ducted by (Barkand, 2017) revealed that LMS tools were not considered to have an
effect on semester final grades when categorized by school year. In his study, semester
final grades were a measure of student achievement, which has subjective elements. To
account for the subjective elements in semester final grades, the study also included ob-
jective post test scores to evaluate student learning. Additionally, in this study, we refer
to Bloom’s Taxonomy established in 1956 under the direction of educational psycholo-
gist for measuring students’ academic achievement (Bloom et al., 1956). Moreover, in
this study, we selected fours domains of Blooms Taxonomy in order to achieve this
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 9 of 23

study objectives, which are; application: which refers to using a concept in new context,
for instance; applying what has been learned inside the classroom into different circum-
stances; remembering, which refers to recalling or retrieving prior learned knowledge;
understanding, which refers to realizing the meaning, then clarification of problems in-
structions; analyzing, which refers to separating concepts or material into parts in such
a way that its structure can be distinguished, understood among inferences and facts.
H7: There is a significant relationship between students’ application and
students’ academic achievements.

Students’ application
Applying involves “carrying out or using a procedure through executing or implement-
ing” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Applying in this study refers to the student’s abil-
ity to use online platforms, such as how to log in, how to end session, how to
download materials, how to access links and videos. Students can exchange information
about a specific topic in online platforms such as Moodle, Google Documents, Wikis
and apply knowledge to create and participate in online platforms.
H8: There is a significant relationship between students’ remembering and
students’ academic achievements.

Students’ remembering
Remembering is defined as “retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge
from long-term memory” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). In this study, remembering is
referred to the ability to organize and remember online resources to easily find infor-
mation on the internet. Moreover, students can easily cooperate with their colleagues
and educator, contributing to the educational process and justifying their study proced-
ure. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) In their review of Bloom’s taxonomy, Anderson
and Krathwohl (2001) recognized greater learning levels as creating, evaluating, and
analyzing, with the lower learning levels as applying, understanding, and remembering.
H9: There is a significant relationship between students’ understanding and
students’ academic achievements.

Students’ understanding
Understanding involves “constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic mes-
sages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, compar-
ing, and explaining” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). In this study, understanding is
referred to as understanding regarding a subject then putting forward new suggestions
about online settings, for instance; understanding how e-learning works, or LMS. For
example, students use online platforms to review concepts, courses, and prominent
resources are being used inside the classroom environment.
H10: There is a significant relationship between students’ analyzing and
students’ academic achievements.

Students’ analyzing
Analyzing includes “breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts
relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating,
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 10 of 23

organizing, and attributing” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Analyzing refers to the stu-
dent’s ability to connect, discuss, mark-up, then evaluate the information received into
one certain workplace or playground. Solomon and Schrum (2010) claim that educators
have started employing online platforms for a range of activities, since they have be-
come more familiar and there are ways for learners to benefit from using them. Gener-
ally, the purpose and goal are to publicize the development types, innovation, as well as
additional activities that their learners usually do independently. Such instruments have
also provided instructors ways to encourage and promote genuine cooperation in their
project’s development (Solomon & Schrum, 2010).

Research methodology
A quantitative approach was implemented in this study to provide an inclusive insight in re-
lation to students online learning experience and how to enhance both their satisfaction
and academic achievements using a questionnaire. Two experts were referred for the evalu-
ation of the questionnaire’s content. Before the collection of the data, permission regarding
the current research purpose has been obtained from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
(UTM). In relation to the sampling and population, this research was conducted among
undergraduate learners who have been online learning users. Learners, who had manually
obtained the questionnaires, have been requested to fill in their details, then fill their own
assessments regarding online learning platforms and its effects towards their academic
achievements. Thus, for data analysis, the data that were attained from questionnaires were
then analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Specifically, Struc-
tural Equation Modeling (SEM- Amos), which has been employed as a primary data analysis
tool. Moreover, utilizing SEM-Amos process involves two main phases: evaluating construct
validity, the convergent validity, along with the discriminant validity of the measurements;
then analyzing the structural model. These mentioned two phases followed the recommen-
dations of (Bagozzi, Yi, & Nassen, 1998; Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, & Mena, 2012a, 2012b).

Sample characteristics and data collection

A total of 283 questionnaires were distributed manually; of these, only 264, which make up
93.3% of the total number, were returned to the authors. Excluding the 26 incomplete ques-
tionnaires, 264 were evaluated employing SPSS. A total of 21 questionnaires have been ex-
cluded: 14 were incomplete and 7 having outliners. Thus, the overall number of valid
questionnaires was 243 following this exclusion. This exclusion step is being supported by
Hair et al. (2012a, 2012b). Moreover, Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012 who pointed out that
this procedure is essential to be implemented as the existence of outliers could be a reason
for inaccurate results. Regarding the respondent’s demographic details: 91 (37.4%) were
males, and 152 (62.6%) were females. 149 (61.3%) were in the age range of 18 t0 20 years
old, 77 (31.7%) were in the age range of 21 to 24 years old, and 17 (7.0%) were in the age
range of 25 to 29 years old. Regarding level of study: 63 (25.9%) were from level 1, 72
(29.6%) were from level 2, 50 (20.6%) were from level 3, and 58 (23.9%) were from level 4.

Measurement instruments
The questionnaire in this study has been developed to fit the study hypothesis. Conse-
quently, it was developed based into both theories that have been utilized in this study.
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 11 of 23

The questionnaire has two main sections, first section aims to measure student satisfac-
tion which is based on the TDT theory variables. Second section of the questionnaire
has been developed to measure students’ academic achievement based on Bloom the-
ory. According to Bloom theory there are four variables that measure students’ achieve-
ments, which are application, remembering, understanding, analyzing. On that basis
the questionnaire has been developed to measure both students’ satisfaction and aca-
demic achievements. The construct items were adapted to ensure content validity. This
questionnaire consisted of two main sections. First part covered the demographic de-
tails of the respondents’ including age, gender, educational level. The second part com-
prises 51 items which were adapted from previous researches as following; student
background, five items, student experience, five items adapted from (Akaslan & Law,
2011), student collaborations, and, student interactions items adapted from (Bolliger &
Inan, 2012), student autonomy, five items adapted from (Barnard et al., 2009; Pintrich,
Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991), student satisfaction, six items adapted from (The
blended learning impact evaluation at UCF is conducted by Research Initiative for
Teaching Effectiveness, n.d.). Moreover, effects of the students’ application, four items,
students’ remembering, four items, students’ understanding, four items, students’ ana-
lyzing, four items, and students’ academic achievements, four items adapted from (Pek-
run, Goetz, & Perry, 2005). The questionnaire has been distributed to the students after
taking the online course.

Result and analysis

Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient result was 0.917 among all research model fac-
tors. Thus, the discriminant validity (DV) assessment was carried out through utilizing
three criteria, which are: index between variables, which is expected to be less than
0.80 (Bagozzi, Yi, & Nassen, 1988); each construct AVE value must be equal to or
higher than 0.50; square of (AVE) between every construct should be higher, in value,
than the inter construct correlations (IC) associated with the factor [49]. Furthermore,
the crematory factor analysis (CFA) findings along with factor loading (FL) should
therefore be 0.70 or above although the Cronbach’s Alpha (CA) results are confirmed
to be ≥0.70 [50]. Researchers have also added that composite reliability (CR) is
supposed to be ≥0.70.

Model analysis
Current research employed AMOS 23 to analyze the data. Both structural equation
modeling (SEM) as well as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have been employed as
the main analysis tools. Uni-dimensionality, reliability, convergent validity along with
discriminant validity have been employed to assess the measurement model. (Bagozzi
et al., 1988; Byrne, 2010; Kline, 2011) highlighted that goodness-of-fit guidelines, such
as the normed chi-square, chi-square/degree of freedom, normed fit index (NFI), rela-
tive fit index (RFI), Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI) comparative fit index (CFI), incre-
mental fit index (IFI), the parsimonious goodness of fit index (PGFI), thus, the root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) besides the root mean-square residual
(RMR). All these are tools which could be utilized as the assessment procedures for the
model estimation. See Table 1 & Fig. 2.
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 12 of 23

Table 1 Summary of Goodness Fit Indices for the Measurement Model (IDT and TAM)
Type of measure Acceptable level of fit Values
Chi–square (χ2) ≤ 3.5 to 0 (perfect fit) and (ρ > .01) 3092.872/
1169
Normed Chi–square (χ2) Value should be greater than1.0 and less than 5.0 2.646
Root-Mean Residual (RMR) Close to 0 (perfect fit) 0.33
Normed Fit Index (NFI) Value should be equal to or greater than 0.90. 0.962
Relative Fit Index (RFI) Value should be equal to or greater than 0.90. 0.961
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) Value should be equal to or greater than 0.90. 0.955
Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) Value should be equal to or greater than 0.90. 0.944
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Value should be equal to or greater than 0.90. 0.932
Root-Mean Square Error of Value below 0.10 indicates a good fit and below 0.05 is 0.041
Approximation (RMSEA) deemed a very good fit.

Measurement model
Such type of validity is commonly employed to specify the size difference between a
concept and its indicators and other concepts (Hair et al., 2012a, 2012b). Through ana-
lysis in this context, discriminant validity has proven to be positive over all concepts
given that values have been over 0.50 (cut-off value) from p = 0.001 according to For-
nell and Larcker (1981). In line with Hair et al. (2012a, 2012b). Bagozzi, Yi, & Nassen,
(1998), the correlation between items at any two specified constructs must not exceed
the square root of the average variance that is shared between them in a single con-
struct. The outcomes values of composite reliability (CR) besides those of Cronbach’s
Alpha (CA) remained about 0.70 and over, while the outcomes of the average variance
extracted (AVE) remained about 0.50 and higher, indicating that all factor loadings

Fig. 2 Measurement Model

Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 13 of 23

(FL) were significant, thereby fulfilling conventions in the current assessment Bagozzi,
Yi, & Nassen, (1998), and Byrne (2010). Following sections expand on the results of the
measurement model. Findings of validity, reliability, average variance extracted (AVE),
composite reliability (CR) as well as Cronbach’s Alpha (CA) have all been accepted,
which also demonstrated determining the discriminant validity. It is determined that all
the values of (CR) vary between 0.812 and 0.917, meaning they are above the cut-off
value of 0.70. The (CA) result values also varied between 0.839 and 0.897 exceeding the
cut-off value of 0.70. Thus, the (AVE) was similarly higher than 0.50, varying between
0.610 and 0.684. All these findings are positive, thus indicating significant (FLs) and
they comply with the conventional assessment guidelines Bagozzi, Yi, & Nassen, (1998),
along with Fornell and Larcker (1981). See Table 2 and Additional file 1.

Structural model analysis

In the current study, the path modeling analysis has been utilized to examine the im-
pact of students’ academic achievements among higher education institutions through
the following factors (students’ background, students’ experience, students’ collabora-
tions, students’ interaction, students’ autonomy, students’ remembering, students’ un-
derstanding, students’ analyzing, students’ application, students’ satisfaction), which is
based on online learning. The findings are displayed then compared in hypothesis test-
ing discussion. Subsequently, as the second stage, factor analysis (CFA) has being
conducted on structural equation modeling (SEM) in order to assess the proposed
hypotheses as demonstrated in Fig. 3.
As shown in both Figs. 3 and 4, all hypotheses have been accepted. Moreover, Table 3
below shows that the fundamental statistics of the model was good, which indicates model
validity along with the testing results of the hypotheses through demonstrating the values
of unstandardized coefficients besides standard errors of the structural model.
The first direct five assumptions, students’ background, students’ experience, students’
collaborations, students’ interaction; students’ autonomy with students’ satisfaction, were

Table 2 Validity and Reliability for the Model

Factors Code SB SE SC SI SA SAR SAU SAN SPA SS SAA
Students Background SB .811
Students Experience SE .420 .902
Students Collaborations SC .438 .540 .883
Students Interaction SI .390 .421 .482 .925
Students Autonomy SA .502 .430 .503 .394 .889
Students Remembering SAR .492 .493 .450 .539 .541 .900
Students Understanding SAU .496 .591 .482 .429 .438 .437 .892
Students Analysing SAN .601 .482 .485 .496 .432 .462 .452 .887
Students Application SPA .492 .490 .592 .540 .439 .473 .459 .400 .893
Students Satisfaction SS .530 .436 .491 .429 .539 .459 .569 .601 .540 .907
Students’ Academic Achievements SAA .501 .482 .439 .482 .497 .382 .528 .465 .501 .450 .917
Composite Reliability CR .823 .921 .943 .882 .832 .907 .900 .859 .920 .942 .893
Cronbach’s Alpha CA .899 .881 .925 .834 .849 .911 .849 .901 .895 .827 .899
Average Variance Extracted AVE .611 .634 .598 .578 .600 .628 .639 .682 .597 .618 .632
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 14 of 23

Fig. 3 Findings for the Proposed Model Path analysis

addressed. In accordance with Fig. 4 and Table 3, relations between students’ background
and students’ satisfaction was (β = .281, t = 5.591, p < 0.001), demonstrating that the first
hypothesis (H1) has suggested a positive and significant relationship. Following hypothesis
illustrated the relationship between students’ experience and students’ satisfaction
(β = .111, t = 1.951, p < 0.001), demonstrating that the second hypothesis (H2) proposed a
positive and significant relationship. Third hypothesis illustrated the relationship between
students’ collaborations and students’ satisfaction (β = .123, t = 2.584, p < 0.001) demon-
strating that the third hypothesis (H3) has suggested a positive and significant relation-
ship. Additionally, the relationship between students’ background and students’
satisfaction was (β = .116, t = 2.212, p < 0.001), indicating that the fourth hypothesis (H4)
has suggested a positive and significant relationship. Further to the above-mentioned find-
ings, the relationship between students’ autonomy and students’ satisfaction was (β = .470,
t = 7.711, p < 0.001), demonstrating that the fifth hypothesis (H5) has suggested a positive
and significant relationship. Moreover, in the second section, five assumptions were dis-
cussed, which are students’ satisfaction, students’ remembering, students’ understanding,
students’ analyzing, students’ application along with students’ academic achievements.
As shown in Fig. 4 and Table 3, the association between students’ satisfaction and
students’ academic achievements was (β = .135, t = 3.473, p < 0.001), demonstrating that
the sixth hypothesis (H6) has suggested a positive and significant relationship. Follow-
ing hypothesis indicated the relationship between students’ application and students’
academic achievements (β = .215, t = 6.361, p < 0.001), indicating that the seventh hy-
pothesis (H7) has suggested a positive and significant relationship. Thus, the eighth hy-
pothesis indicated the relationship between students’ remembering and students’
academic achievements was (β = .154, t = 4.228, p < 0.001), demonstrating that the eight
hypothesis (H8) has suggested a positive and significant relationship. Additionally, the
correlation between students’ understanding and students’ academic achievements was
(β = .252, t = 6.513, p < 0.001), demonstrating that the ninth hypothesis (H9) has sug-
gested a positive and significant relationship. Finally, the relationship between students’
analyzing and students’ academic achievements was (β = .179, t = 6.215, p < 0.001), dem-
onstrating that the tenth hypothesis (H10) has suggested a positive and significant rela-
tionship. Accordingly, this current model demonstrated student’s compatibility to use
online learning platforms to improve students’ academic achievements and satisfaction.
This is in accordance with earlier investigations (Abuhassna & Yahaya, 2018; Al-Rahmi
et al., 2018; Al-rahmi, Othman, & Yusuf, 2015c; Barkand, 2017; Madjar et al., 2013;
Salmon, 2014).
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 15 of 23

Fig. 4 Findings for the Proposed Model T.Values

Discussion and implications

Developing a new hybrid technology acceptance model through combining TDT and
BTT has been the major objective of the current research, which aimed to investigate
the guiding factors towards utilizing online learning platforms to improve students’ aca-
demic achievements and satisfaction in higher education institutions. The current re-
search is intensifying a step forward by implementing TDT along with a BTT model.
Using the proposed model, the current research examined how students’ background,
students’ experience, students’ collaborations, students’ interactions, and students’ au-
tonomy positively affected students’ satisfaction. Moreover, effects of the students’ ap-
plication, students’ remembering, students’ understanding, students’ analyzing, and
students’ satisfaction positively affected students’ academic achievements. The current
research found that students’ background, students’ experience, students’ collabora-
tions, students’ interactions, and students’ autonomy were influenced by students’ satis-
faction. Also, effects of the students’ application, students’ remembering, students’
understanding, students’ analyzing, and students’ satisfaction positively affected stu-
dents’ academic achievements. This conclusion is consistent with earlier correlated lit-
erature. Thus, this reveals that learners first make sure whether using platforms of
online learning were able to meet their study requirements, or that using platforms of
online learning are relevant to their study process before considering employing such
technology in their study. Learners have been noted to perceive that platforms of online
learning is more useful only once they discover that such a technology is actually better
than the traditional learning which does not include online learning platforms (Choy &

Table 3 Testing Results of the Hypothesis

H Independent Relationship Dependent Estimate S.E. C.R. P Result
H1 SB → SS .281 .050 5.591 .000 Supported
H2 SE → SS .111 .057 1.951 .044 Supported
H3 SC → SS .123 .048 2.584 .010 Supported
H4 SI → SS .116 .052 2.212 .027 Supported
H5 SA → SS .470 .061 7.711 .000 Supported
H6 SS → SAA .135 .039 3.473 .000 Supported
H7 SAP → SAA .215 .034 6.361 .000 Supported
H8 SAR → SAA .154 .036 4.228 .000 Supported
H9 SAU → SAA .252 .039 6.513 .000 Supported
H10 SAN → SAA .179 .029 6.215 .000 Supported
Note: SE Standard Error, C.R. Critical Ratio or t-value and P: P-value
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 16 of 23

Quek, 2016; Illinois Online Network, 2003). Using the proposed model, the current re-
search examined how to improve students’ academic achievements and satisfaction.
Thus, the following section will be a comparison between this study results and pre-
vious research, as follows.
H1: There is a significant relationship between students’ background and
students’ satisfaction.

Students background toward online platforms

The first hypotheses of this study demonstrated a positive and significant association
between students’ prior background towards online platforms with their satisfaction.
As clearly investigated in Osika and Sharp (2002) study, numerous learners deprived of
these main skills enroll in the courses, struggle, and subsequently drop out. In addition,
Bocchi, Eastman, and Swift (2004) investigation claimed that prior knowledge of stu-
dents’ concerns, demands along with their anticipations is crucial in constructing an ef-
ficient instruction. Thus, to clarify, students must have prior knowledge and
background before letting them into the online platforms. On the other hand, there are
constant concerns about the online learning platforms quality in comparison to a face-
to-face learning environment, as students do not have the essential skills required to-
ward using online learning platforms (Illinois Online Network, 2003). Moreover, a
study by Alalwan et al. (2019) discovered that Austrian learners still would rather
choose face-to-face learning for communication purposes, and the preservation of
interpersonal relations. This is due to the fact that learners do not as yet have the back-
ground knowledge and skills needed towards using online learning platforms. Add-
itional research by Orton-Johnson (2009) among UK learners claimed that learners
have not accepted online materials, and continue to prefer traditional context materials
as the medium for their learning, which also indicates the importance of prior know-
ledge and background towards online platforms before going through such a
technology.
H2: There is a significant relationship between students’ experience and
students’ satisfaction.

Students experience toward online platforms

The second hypotheses of this study proposed a positive and significant association be-
tween students’ experience along with students’ satisfaction, which revealed that put-
ting the students in such an experience would provide and support them with the
ability to overcome all difficulties that arise through the limits around the technical
ability of the online platforms. This is in line with some earlier researches regarding the
reasons that lead to people’s technology acceptance behavior. One reason is the notion
of “conformity,” which means the degree to which an individual take into consideration
that an innovation is consistent with their existing demands, experiences, values and
practices (Chau & Hu, 2002; Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 2003; Taylor & Todd,
1995). Moreover, (Anderson & Reed, 1998; Galvin, 2003; Lewis, 2004) claimed that
most students who had prior experience with online education tended to exhibit posi-
tive attitudes toward online education, and it affects their attitudes toward online learn-
ing platforms.
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 17 of 23

H3: There is a significant relationship between students’ collaboration and stu-

dents’ satisfaction.

Student collaboration among themselves in online platforms

The third hypotheses of this study demonstrated a positive and significant association
among student collaboration with themselves in online platforms, which indicates the
key role of collaboration between students in order to make the experiment more real-
istic and increase their ability to feel more involved and active. This is agreement with
Al-rahmi, Othman, and Yusuf (2015f) who claimed that type, quality, and amount of
feedback that each student received was correlated to a student’s sense of success or
course satisfaction. Moreover, Rabinovich (2009) found that all types of dialogue were
important to transactional distance, which make it easier for the student to adapt to
online learning platform. Also, online learning platforms enable learners to share then
exchange information among their colleagues Abuhassna et al., 2020; Abuhassna &
Yahaya, 2018).
H4: There is a significant relationship between students’ interaction and
students’ satisfaction.

Students’ interaction with the instructor in online platforms

The fourth hypothesis of this study proposed a positive and significant correlation be-
tween students’ collaborations and students’ satisfaction, which indicates the signifi-
cance of the communication between students and their instructor throughout the
online platforms experiment. These results agree with (Mathieson, 2012) results, which
stated that the ability of communication between students and their instructor lowered
the sense of separation between learner and educator. Moreover, in line with (Kassan-
drinou et al., 2014), communication guides learners to undergo constructive emotions,
for example relief, satisfaction and excitement, which assist them to achieve their edu-
cational goals. In addition, (Furnborough, 2012) draws conclusion that learners’ feeling
of cooperating with their fellow students effects their reaction concerning their collab-
oration with their peers. Moreover, Kassandrinou et al., 2014 focused on the instructor
as crucial part as interaction and communication helpers, as they are thought to con-
stantly foster, reassure and assist communication and interaction amongst students.
H5: There is a significant relationship between students’ autonomy and students’
satisfaction.

Student’s autonomy in online platforms

The fifth hypotheses of this study proposed a positive and significant relationship be-
tween student’s autonomy and online learning platforms, which indicates that students
need a sense of dependence towards online platforms, which agrees with Madjar et al.
(2013) who concluded that a learners’ autonomy-supportive environment provides
these learners with adoption of more aims, leading to more learning achievements.
Moreover, Stroet et al. (2013) found a clear positive correlation on the impacts of au-
tonomy supportive teaching on motivation of learner. O’Donnell, Chang, and Miller
(2013) also argues that autonomy is the ability of the learners to govern themselves,
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 18 of 23

especially in the process of making decisions and setting their own course and taking
responsibility for their own actions.
H6: There is a significant relationship between students’ satisfaction and
students’ academic achievements.

Student’s satisfaction in online platforms

The sixth hypotheses of this study proposed a positive and significant correlation be-
tween student’s satisfaction with online learning platforms, which indicates a level of
acceptance by the students to adapt into online learning platforms. This is in agree-
ment with Zhu (2012) who reported that student’s satisfaction in online platforms is a
statement of confidence with the system. Moreover, Kirmizi (2014) study revealed that
the predictors of the learners’ satisfaction were educator’s support, personal relevance
and authentic learning, whereas the authentic learning is only the predictor of academic
success. Furthermore, the findings of Bordelon (2013) stated and determined a positive
correlation between both satisfaction and achievement. In addition, the results of Mahle
(2011) clarified that student satisfaction occurs when it is realized that the accomplish-
ment has met the learners’ expectations, which is then considered a short-term attitude
toward the learning procedure.

Students’ academic achievements in online platforms

Hypotheses seven, eight, nine and ten of this study proposed a positive and significant
relationship between student’s academic achievements with online learning platforms,
which indicates the key main role of online platform with students’ academic achieve-
ments. This agrees with Whitmer (2013) findings, which revealed that the associations
between student usage of the LMS and academic achievement exposed a highly system-
atic relationship. In contrast, Barkand (2017) found that there is no significant differ-
ence in students’ academic achievements in utilizing online platforms regarding
students’ academic achievements, which is due to the fact that academic achievement
towards online learning platforms requires a certain set of skills and knowledge as
mentioned in the above sections in order to make such technology a success.
H7: There is a significant relationship between students’ application and
students’ academic achievements.

Students’ application
The seventh hypotheses of this study proposed a positive and significant correlation be-
tween students’ application and students’ academic achievements, which indicates the
major key of applying in the learning process as an effected element. This is in line with
the Computer Science Teachers’ Association (CSTA) taskforce in the U. S (Computer
Science Teachers’ Association (CSTA), 2011), where they mentioned that applying ele-
ments of computer skills is essential in all state curricula, directing to their value for
improving pupils’ higher order thinking in addition to general problem-solving abilities.
Moreover, Gouws, Bradshaw, and Wentworth (2013) created a theoretical framework
which drawn education computational thoughts compared to cognitive levels estab-
lished from Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Purposes. Four thinking skill levels have
been utilized to assess the ‘cognitive demands’ initiated by computational concepts for
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 19 of 23

instance abstraction, modelling, developing algorithms, generating automated pro-

cesses. Through the iPad app, LightBot. thinking skills remained recognizing (which
means recognize and recall expertise correlating to the problem); Understanding (inter-
pret, compare besides explain the problem); whereas, applying (make use of computer
skills to create a solution) then Assimilating (critically decompose and analyses the
problem).
H8: There is a significant relationship between students’ remembering and stu-
dents’ academic achievements.

Students’ remembering
The eighth hypotheses of this study proposed a positive and significant correlation be-
tween students’ remembering and students’ academic achievements, which indicates
the importance of remembering as a process of retrieving information relating to what
needed to be done and/or outcome attributes) over the procedure of learning according
to Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Additionally, Falloon (2016) claimed
that responding to data indicated the use of general thinking skills to clarify and under-
stand steps and stages needed to complete a task (average 29%); recalling or remember-
ing information about a task or available tools (average 13%); and discussing and
understanding success criteria (average 3%).
H9: There is a significant relationship between students’ understanding and
students’ academic achievements.

Students’ understanding
The ninth hypotheses of this study proposed a positive and significant correlation be-
tween students’ understanding and students’ academic achievements, which indicates
its significance with the academic achievements as a process of criticizing the task or
the problem faced by the students into phases or activities to help understanding of
how to resolve the problem. The current results agree with Falloon (2016) who demon-
strated the necessity to build understanding over the thinking processes employed by
students once they are engaged in their work. In addition, Falloon (2016) suggested that
the purpose and nature of questioning was broader than this, with questioning of self
and others being an important strategy in solution development. In many respects, the
questioning for those students was not much a perspective, although more a practice,
to the degree that assisted them to understand their tasks, analyze intended or
developed explanations and to evaluate their outcomes.
H10: There is a significant relationship between students’ analyzing and
students’ academic achievements.

Students’ analyzing
The tenth hypotheses of this study proposed a positive and significant correlation be-
tween students’ understanding and students’ academic achievements, which reveals the
importance of analysis as a process of employing general thinking besides computa-
tional knowledge in order to realize the challenges through using online platforms, in
addition to predictive thinking to categorize, explore and fix any possible errors
throughout the whole process. Falloon (2016) claimed that analyzing was often a
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 20 of 23

collaborative procedure between pairs receiving and giving counseling from others to as-
sist in solving complications. On the other hand, online learning platforms are highly
dependent on connecting and sharing as a basic strategy that needs to be employed over
all stages of online learning settings, whether between students and students, or between
students and their instructor. Moreover, Falloon (2016) findings showed that Analyzing
(average 17%) was present in various phases of these online students’ work, which is based
on what phase they were at together with their tasks, despite the fact that most analysis
was associated with students depending on themselves during online process.

Conclusion and future work

In this investigation, both transactional distance theory (TDT) and Bloom’s Taxonomy
theory (BTT) have been validated in the educational context, providing further under-
standing towards the students’ prospective perceptions on using online learning plat-
forms to improve students’ academic achievement and satisfaction. The contribution
that the current research might have to the field of online learning platforms have been
discussed and explained. Additional insights towards students’ satisfactions and stu-
dents’ academic achievements have also been presented. The current research empha-
sizes that the incorporation of both TDT and BTT can positively influence the research
outcome. The current research has determined that numerous stakeholders, for in-
stance developers, system designers, along with institutional users of online learning
platforms reasonably consider student demands and needs, then ensure that the such a
system is effectively meeting their requirements and needs. Adoption among users of
online learning platforms could be broadly clarified by the eleven factor features which
is based on this research model. Thus, the current research suggests more investigation
be carried out to examine relationships among the complexity of online learning
platforms combined with technology acceptance model (TAM).

Recommendations for stakeholders of online platforms

Based on the study findings, the first recommendation would be for administrators of higher
institution. In order to implement online learning, there must be more interest given to the
course structure design, whereas it should be based on theories and prior literature. More-
over, instructor and course developer need to be trained and skilled to achieve online learn-
ing platforms goals. Workshops and training sessions must be given for both instructors
and students to make them more familiar in order to take the most advantages of the learn-
ing management system like Moodle and LMS. The software itself is not enough for creat-
ing an online learning environment that is suitable for students and instructors. If
instructors were not trained and unaware of utilizing the software (e.g. Moodle) in
the class, then the quality of education imparted to students will be jeopardized.
Training and assessing the class instructor and making modifications to the soft-
ware could result in a good environment for the instructor and a quality education
for the student. Both students’ satisfaction and academic achievements depends on
their prior knowledge and experience in relation to online learning. This current
research intended to investigate student satisfaction and academic achievements in
relation to online learning platforms in on of the higher education in Malaysia.
Future research could integrate more in relation to blended learning settings.
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 21 of 23

Supplementary information
Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00216-z.

Additional file 1. General objective of the study

Acknowledgements
Not applicable.

Declarations
The study involved both undergraduate and graduate students at unviersiti teknologi Malaysia (UTM), an ethical
approve was taken before collecting any data from the participants

Authors’ contributions
The corresponding author worked in writing the paper, collecting the data, the second author done all the statistical
analysis. Moreover, all authors worked collaboratively to write the literature review and discussion and read and
approved the final manuscript.

Funding
Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

All the hardcopy questionnaires, data and statistical analysis are available.

Competing interests
This paper is an original work, as its main objective is to develop a model to enhance students’ satisfaction and
academic achievement towards using online platforms. As Universiti teknologi Malaysia (UTM) implementing a fully
online courses starting from the second semester of 2020.

Author details
1
Faculty of Social Sciences & Humanities, School of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM, 81310 Skudai, Johor,
Malaysia. 2Faculty of Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM, 81310 Skudai, Johor,
Malaysia.

Received: 10 March 2020 Accepted: 19 May 2020

References
Abuhassna, H., Megat, A., Yahaya, N., Azlina, M., & Al-rahmi, W. M. (2020). Examining Students' satisfaction and learning
autonomy through web-based courses. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering,
1(9), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2020/53912020.
Abuhassna, H., & Yahaya, N. (2018). Students’ utilization of distance learning through an interventional online module based
on Moore transactional distance theory. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(7), 3043–
3052. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/91606.
Akaslan, D., & Law, E. L.-C. (2011). Measuring student E-learning readiness: A case about the subject of Electricity in Higher
Education Institutions in Turkey. In H. Leung, E. Popescu, Y. Cao, R. W. H. Lau, & W. Nejdl (Eds.), ICWL 2011. LNCS, vol. 7048,
(pp. 209–218). Heidelberg: Springer.
Alalwan, N., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Alfarraj, O., Alzahrani, A., Yahaya, N., & Al-Rahmi, A. M. (2019). Integrated three theories to
develop a model of factors affecting students’ academic performance in higher education. IEEE Access, 7, 98725–98742.
Alexander, S., & Golja, T. (2007). Using students' experiences to derive quality in an e-learning system: An institution's
perspective. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 17–33.
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson
survey research group and the online learning consortium (OLC), Pearson, and WCET state authorization Network.
Al-Rahmi, W., Othman, M. S., & Yusuf, L. M. (2015b). The role of social media for collaborative learning to improve academic
performance of students and researchers in Malaysian higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 16(4). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2326. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i4.
2326.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Alias, N., Othman, M. S., Alzahrani, A. I., Alfarraj, O., Saged, A. A., & Rahman, N. S. A. (2018). Use of e-learning
by university students in Malaysian higher educational institutions: A case in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. IEEE Access, 6,
14268–14276.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., & Yusuf, L. M. (2015a). The effectiveness of using e-learning in Malaysian higher education: A
case study Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(5), 625–625.
Al-rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., & Yusuf, L. M. (2015c). Using social media for research: The role of interactivity, collaborative
learning, and engagement on the performance of students in Malaysian post-secondary institutes. Mediterranean Journal
of Social Sciences, 6(5), 536.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., & Yusuf, L. M. (2015d). Exploring the factors that affect student satisfaction through using e-
learning in Malaysian higher education institutions. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 299.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., & Yusuf, L. M. (2015e). Effect of engagement and collaborative learning on satisfaction
through the use of social media on Malaysian higher education. Res. J. Appl. Sci., Eng. Technol, 9(12), 1132–1142.
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 22 of 23

Anderson, D. K., & Reed, W. M. (1998). The effects of internet instruction, prior computer experience, and learning style on
teachers’ internet attitudes and knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(3), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.
2190/8WX1-5Q3J-P3BW-JD61.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s
taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Azhari, F. A., & Ming, L. C. (2015). Review of e-learning practice at the tertiary education level in Malaysia. Indian Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education and Research, 49(4), 248–257.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Nassen, K. D. (1988). Representation of measurement error in marketing variables: Review of approaches
and extension to three-facet designs. Elsevier. Journal of Econometrics, 89(1–2), 393–421.
Barkand, J. M. (2017). Using educational data mining techniques to analyze the effect of instructors' LMS tool use frequency
on student learning and achievement in online secondary courses. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. Retrieved from https://vpn.utm.my/docview/2007550976?accountid=41678
Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M, Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning
environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.005.
Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009). Addressing the context of e-learning: Using transactional distance theory to inform
design. Distance Education Journal, 30(1), 5–21.
Bliuc, A. M., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students' experiences
of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 231–244.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I:
The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Bocchi, J., Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2004). Retaining the online learner: Profile of students in an online MBA program and
implications for teaching them. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 245–253.
Bolliger, D. U., & Inan, F. A. (2012). Development and validation of the online student connectedness survey (OSCS). The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1171.
Bordelon, K. (2013). Perceptions of achievement and satisfaction as related to interactions in online courses (PhD dissertation).
Northcentral University.
Bouhnik, D., & Carmi, G. (2013). Thinking styles in virtual learning courses, (p. 141e145). Toronto: Proceedings of the 2013
international conference on information society (i-society) Retrieved from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.
jsp?punumber¼6619545.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, (2nd ed., ). New York: Routledge.
Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2002). Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An
exploratory study. Journal of Management Information System, 18(4), 191–229.
Choy, J. L. F., & Quek, C. L. (2016). Modelling relationships between students’ academic achievement and community of
inquiry in an online learning environment for a blended course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4),
106–124 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2500.
Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university
teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 19–36.
Computer Science Teachers’ Association (CSTA). (2011) The computational thinking leadership toolkit. [Online] Available from:
http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CompThinking.html [Accessed 13 Jan 2020].
Falloon, G. (2011). Exploring the virtual classroom: What students need to know (and teachers should consider). Journal of
online learning and teaching., 7(4), 439–451.
Falloon, G. W. (2016). An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic coding tasks using scratch Jnr. On the
iPad. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 32, 576–379.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
Furnborough, C. (2012). Making the most of others: Autonomous interdependence in adult beginner distance language
learners. Distance Education, 33(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012.667962.
Galvin, T. (2003). The (22nd Annual) 2003. Industry report. Training, 40(9), 19–45.
Gouws, L., Bradshaw, K., & Wentworth, P. (2013). Computational thinking in educational activities. In J. Carter, I. Utting, & A.
Clear (Eds.), The proceedings of the 18th conference on innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, (pp. 10–
15). Canterbury: ACM.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012a). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation
modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science., 40(3), 414–433.
Illinois Online Network. 2003. Learning styles and the online environment. Illinois Online Network and the Board of Trustees
of the University of Illinois, http://illinois.online.uillinois.edu/IONresources/instructionaldesign/learningstyles.html
Jacobs, G. M., Renandya, W. A., & Power, M. (2016). Learner autonomy. In G. Jacobs, W. A. Renandya, & M. Power (Eds.), Simple, powerful
strategies for student centered learning. New York: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25712-9_3.
Jaques, D., & Salmon, G. (2007). Learning in groups: A handbook for face-to-face and online environments. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kassandrinou, A., Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2014). Transactional distance among Open University students. How does it
affect the learning Progress? European journal of open. Distance and e-Learning, 16(1), 78–93.
Kauffman, H. (2015). A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning. Research in
Learning Technology, 23, 1e13. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26507.
Kirmizi, O. (2014). A Study on the Predictors of Success and Satisfaction in an Online Higher Education Program in Turkey.
International Journal of Education, 6, 4.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, (3rd ed., ). New York: The Guilford Press.
Lau, C. Y., & Shaikh, J. M. (2012). The impacts of personal qualities on online learning readiness at Curtin Sarawak Malaysia
(CSM). Educational Research and Reviews, 7(20), 430–444.
Lee, B. C., Yoon, J. O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners' acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Computers &
Education, 53, 1320–1329.
Lester, P. M., & King, C. M. (2009). Analog vs. digital instruction and learning: Teaching within first and second life
environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 457–483.
Abuhassna et al. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (2020) 17:38 Page 23 of 23

Lewis, N. (2004). Military student participation in distance learning. Doctorate dissertation. Johnson & Wales University. USA.
Madjar, N., Nave, A., & Hen, S. (2013). Are teachers’ psychological control, autonomy support and autonomy suppression
associated with students’ goals? Educational Studies, 39(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2012.667871.
Mahle, M. (2011). Effects of interaction on student achievement and motivation in distance education. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 12(3), 207–215, 222.
Massimo, P. (2014). Multidimensional analysis applied to the quality of the websites: Some empirical evidences from the
Italian public sector. Economics and Sociology, 7(4), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2014/7- 4/9.
Mathieson, K. (2012). Exploring student perceptions of audiovisual feedback via screen casting in online courses. American
Journal of Distance Education, 26(3), 143–156.
McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice (created through funding
received by the University of Prince Edward Island through the social sciences and humanities research Council's “knowledge
synthesis Grants on the digital economy”).
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perception of adopting an information
technology innovation. Information System Research, 2(3), 192–223.
Moore, M. (1990). Background and overview of contemporary American distance education. In M. Moore (Ed.) Contemporary
issues in American distance education.
Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning.
Moore, M. G. (2007). Theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
O’Donnell, S. L., Chang, K. B., & Miller, K. S. (2013). Relations among autonomy, attribution style, and happiness in college
students. College Student Journal.
Orton-Johnson, K. (2009). ‘I’ve stuck to the path I’m afraid’: Exploring student non-use of blended learning. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 40(5), 837–847.
Osika, R. E., & Sharp, D. P. (2002). Minimum technical competencies for distance learning students. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 34(3), 318–325.
Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. Internet and
Higher Education, 13(4), 292–297.
Panyajamorn, T., Suthathip, S., Kohda, Y., Chongphaisal, P., & Supnithi, T. (2018). Effectiveness of E learning design and
affecting variables in Thai public schools. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 15(1), 1–34.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Perry, P. R. (2005). Academic Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ): User's Manual. Munich: University of Munich,
Department of Psychology; University of Manitoba Retrieved February 21, 2017. Available online at: https://de.scribd.com/
doc/217451779/2005-AEQ-Manual# (Accessed 17 July 2019.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning
questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
Rabinovich, T. (2009). Transactional distance in a synchronous web-extended classroom learning environment. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts: Boston University.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, (5th ed., ). New York: Free Press.
Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online, (3rd ed., ). London: Routledge.
Salmon, G. (2014). Learning innovation: A framework for transformation. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning,
17(1), 219–235.
Shearer, R. L. (2010). Transactional distance and dialogue: An exploratory study to refine the theoretical construct of dialogue
in online learning. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 71, 800.
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2010). Web 2.0 how-to for educators.
Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and
engagement: A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 9, 65–87.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 561–570.
The blended learning impact evaluation at UCF is conducted by Research Initiative for Teaching Effectiveness. (n.d.)
https://digitallearning.ucf.edu/learning-analytics/. Accessed 25 Feb 2020.
Vasala, P., & Andreadou, D. (2010). Student’s support from tutors and peer students in distance learning. Perceptions of
Hellenic Open University “studies in education” postgraduate program graduates. Open Education – The Journal for Open
and Distance Education and Educational Technology, 6(1–2), 123–137 (in Greek with English abstract).
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Whitmer J.C. (2013). Logging on to improve achievement: Evaluating the relationship between use of the learning
management system, student characteristics, and academic achievement in a hybrid large enrollment undergraduate
course. Doctorate dissertation, university of California. USA.
Yu, Z. (2015). Indicators of satisfaction in clickers aided EFL class. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 587 https://www.frontiersin.org/
articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00587/full.
Zhu, C. (2012). Student satisfaction, performance, and knowledge construction in online collaborative learning. Educational
Technology & Society, 15(1), 127–136.

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.