STUDY ON SATISFACTION OF SPIN AMONG POSTGRADUATE STUDENT Advisor: Pn Zakiah Binti Mohd Saat

1. STUDY ON SATISFACTION OF SPIN AMONG POSTGRADUATE STUDENTAdvisor: PnZakiahBintiMohdSaat

2. GROUP MEMBER • NORAFAEDAH MOHAMAD P63111 • SITI SURIANI CHE HUSSIN P63646 • NURUL’IZZAH ISMAIL P63283 • NINA ATIQAH MAT SUPRI P63110 • DEEPASHINI A/P HARITHASAN P64636

3. OUTLINE • INTRODUCTION • RESEARCH BACKGROUND • RESEARCH QUESTION • HYPOTHESIS • OBJECTIVES • METHODOLOGY • RESULT • DISCUSSION • CONCLUSION • REFERRENCES

4. INTRODUCTION • E learning is the use of networking and multimedia technology in enhancing the learning quality in allowing the accessibility of information and sources to form a knowledge society (WEWC & OUM , Malaysia 2004) • ICT is used as a learning tools by UKM, known as SPIN which was firstly introduced at 2008.

5. RESEARCH BACKGROUND • Comparing to the e-learning services from other university, SPIN in UKM accoutered some problem in its usage and services. • MalikM.W, (2009) stated that student’s satisfaction in online education are affected by few factors such as students factor, design factors, course factors and support system factors.

6. RESEARCH QUESTION • Is student satisfied with SPIN as an e-learning tool?

7. HYPOTHESIS • Ho - SPIN satisfaction is not influenced by the student factor, design factor, course factor and support system factor.

8. OBJECTIVES General Objective • To identifystudent satisfaction towards SPIN

9. OBJECTIVE Specific Objective • To determine level of satisfaction on SPIN among student • To determine level of satisfaction between gender, type of program, mode of program and department • To determine the relationship between eachfactors and level of satisfaction

10. METHODOLOGY • Study design: cross sectional • Sample frame: List of postgraduate student in Faculty of Health Sciences

11. METHODOLOGY Sample size calculation (Krejcie& Morgan formula). • Sample Population (N) = 244 • Confidence Interval: 95% • Significance level : 0.05 n = x² NP (1-P) Δ²(N-1)+ x²P(1-P) n= 150

12. METHODOLOGY • Questionnaire (distributed 150, returned 100) • Divide into 3 section, total of 22 questions. • Section 1- background and demography • Section 2- usage and satisfaction • Every question has a scale of 5 to 1, which represent strongly agree to strongly disagree. • Section 3- open question/ asking for an opinion

13. RESULT

15. PERCENTAGE OF STUDENT SATISFACTION

16. PERCENTAGE STUDENT SATISFACTION ACCORDING TO FACTOR

17. PERCENTAGE OF STUDENT SATISFACTION

18. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT SATISFACTION AND DEMOGRAPHIC • From the Fisher Exact test: • Gender: there is no significant association pvalue 0.754 • Mode of study: there is no significant, p value 1.0 • Study programme: there is no significant, p value 0.732 • Type of study: there is no significant, p value 1.0

19. RELATIONSHIP ON STUDENT FACTOR The odd of student factor satisfaction is 0.63 times greater among PHD student compared to master student

20. REALTIONSHIP ON DESIGN FACTOR The odd of design factor satisfaction is 2.795 times greater among PHD student compared to master student

21. RELATIONSHIP ON SYSTEM FACTOR The odd of system factor satisfaction is 0.238 times greater among PHD student compared to master student

22. RELATIONSHIP ON COURSE FACTOR The odd of course factor satisfaction is 2.974 times greater among PHD student compared to master student

23. DISCUSSION • From our study, all factors does not influence the level of student satisfaction which is not parallel with the study done by Arbaugh 2000. • There is no association between student satisfaction with demographic • The highest odd ratio is observed in course factor.

24. DISCUSSION • Student factor: positive attitude towards computer , proficiency in computers • Course factor: flexibility of time and location • Design factor: friendly and ease of to use interface, data security • Support system factors: high speed internet, effective technical support • Others: helpful communication with the lecturer

25. LIMITATION • Unable to recruit samples based on sample size calculation due to time constraint.

26. CONCLUSION • Level of satisfaction does not influence by student factor, design factor, system support factor, and course factor.

27. REFERENCES 1.Choy S, McNickle, C, & Clayton, C (2002). Learners expectations and experiences: an examination of students view of support in online learning.Leabrook, SA: Australian National Training Authority.2.Diekelman, N, & Mendias, E.P. (2005). Being supportive presence in online courses: attending to students online presence with each other. Journal of Nursing Education, 44 (9), 393-396.3. Samarawickrema, R.G (2005). Determinants of student readiness for flexible learning: some preliminary findings. Distance education , 26 (1), 49-674. Powers, S., & Rossman, M. (1985) Students Satisfaction with graduate education: Dimensionality and assessment in a college education. Psychology, 22, 46-495. Northrup (2002). Online learners preferences for interaction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 32, 219-226.6. Howland, J.L., and J.L. Moore, 2002. Students perceptions as distance learners in internet based courses. Distance Education 23 (2): 83-1957. Belcheir, M.J, & Cucek, M (2001). Student perceptions of their distance education courses.http://online.ucf.edu/cdl/webctstats.htm8. Mahwish W.M. 2009. Student satisfaction toward e-Learning: Influential role of key factor. Faculty of Management Sciences, International Islamic University, Islamabad.

28. Thank YOU