Open University Malaysia (OUM) is an open and distance learning (ODL) institution; adopting the hybrid learning pedagogy. It provides a flexible, learner friendly, and accessible approach to online learning to ensure that learners can study from anywhere, and at any time. Learners engage in self-learning most of the time. As a pioneer of ODL education, OUM responds to quality learning materials by leveraging Internet-based technology in order to support the learning process in an ODL setting. Main objectives: This study aims to obtain (i) students’ perceptions and actual usage of learning materials, learning modules in particular, and (ii) the importance of instructional design in learning materials satisfaction. Through this study, OUM will be able to obtain feedback from learners of the instructional design elements implemented in the modules. Methodologies: The basic design of data for this research paper was gathered from exploratory and survey questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed to the learners via Google Forms in OUM’s learning management system (LMS) known as myINSPIRE. Feedback from learners in various programmes and learning centres were collected via online surveys for three semesters in the year 2019 (January, May, and September). Results: The findings show that from 969 learners for the January, May, and September 2019 semesters, OUM learners are very satisfied with their modules. The results of this study would be able to provide some insights to OUM on the quality of learning modules from the instructional design perspective. The study certainly benefits the university in taking action to improve the quality of modules focused on instructional design elements. Recommendation: Currently, the survey is focusing only on modules. In the future, we aim to conduct a more extensive survey to measure the learners’ satisfaction with our other learning materials, namely, interactive web-based materials and video lectures.
Sanusi, A. (2001). E-learning and open education: Experience of open universities in Asia-Pacific countries. In International Conference on E-Education (ICEE) 2001, 29–30 October 2001.
Academic Practice Department. (2019). Module evaluation: A brief guide to good practice for module leaders. Birmingham University. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/36VkgiY
Beirne, E., & Romanoski, M. P. (2018, July). Instructional design in higher education: Defining an evolving field. OLC outlook: An environmental scan of the digital learning landscape. OLC Research Center for Digital Learning & Leadership.
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
De Bie, A., & Brown, K. (2017). Forward with FLEXibility: A teaching and learning resource on accessibility and inclusion. McMaster University. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3lyCwlU
Great Schools Partnership. (2021). Learning gap. Retrieved from
http://www.edglossary.org/learning-gap/
Heng Weng Cheong, Farah ‘Aliah Ibrahim, Han Teck Chung, Szu Ming, & Tai Kwan Woo. (2015). Readability of modules and its relationship with student performance in open and distance learning (ODL). In the 29th Annual Conference of the Asian Association of Open Universities, 30 Nov – 2 Dec 2015 at Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3Lk2ncv
Kember, D., & Ginns, P. (2012). Evaluating teaching and learning: A practical handbook for colleges, universities and the scholarship of teaching. Routledge, 66, 375–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9557-9.
Konstantin, B., & Alexander, T. (2018). Recommending remedial learning materials to students by filling their knowledge gaps. MIS Quarterly, 42(1), 330.
Shroff, R. H., Ting, F. S. T., Lam, W. H., Cecot, T., Yang, J., & Chan, L. K. (2021). Conceptualization, Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure Learners’ Perceptions of their Active Learning Strategies within an Active Learning Context. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 7(1), 201–223.
Sutherland, D., Warwick, P., & Anderson, J. (2019). What factors influence student satisfaction with module quality? A comparative analysis in a UK business school context. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(3).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100312
Virtanen, M. A., Kaariainen, M., Liikanen, E., & Haavisto, E. (2017). The comparison of students’ satisfaction between ubiquitous and web-based learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2565–2581.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9561-2
Othman, W., & Abu Bakar, S. (2016). Perceptions of in-service teachers on OUM as an open and distance learning provider. ASEAN Journal of Open Distance Learning, 8(1), 35–39.
Willmot, P., & Perkin, G. (2011). Evaluating the effectiveness of a first year module designed to improve student engagement. Engineering Education, 6(2), 57–69,
https://doi.org/10.11120/ened.2011.06020057
Xie, J., Gulinna, A., & Rice, M. F. (2021). Instructional designers’ roles in Emergency Remote Teaching during COVID-19. Distance Education, 42(1), 70–87
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1869526.
In-Text Citation: (Bakar et al., 2022)
To Cite this Article: Bakar, S. A., Zabidi, N. A., Yasin, N. E., & Ali, S. A. H. (2022). Open University Malaysia Modules Satisfaction with Instructional Design Elements. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(8), 359– 367.
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)
Published by Knowledge Words Publications (www.kwpublications.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
