IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 3 March 2023

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:
1694-2493
e-ISSN:
1694-2116
IJLTER.ORG
Vol.22 No.3

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
(IJLTER)
Vol. 22, No. 3 (March 2023)
Print version: 1694-2493
Online version: 1694-2116
IJLTER
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research (IJLTER)
Vol. 22, No. 3
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machines or similar means, and storage in data banks.
Society for Research and Knowledge Management

The International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal which has been
established for the dissemination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
fields of learning, teaching and educational research.
Aims and Objectives
The main objective of this journal is to provide a platform for educators,
teachers, trainers, academicians, scientists and researchers from over the
world to present the results of their research activities in the following
fields: innovative methodologies in learning, teaching and assessment;
multimedia in digital learning; e-learning; m-learning; e-education;
knowledge management; infrastructure support for online learning;
virtual learning environments; open education; ICT and education;
digital classrooms; blended learning; social networks and education; e-
tutoring: learning management systems; educational portals, classroom
management issues, educational case studies, etc.
Indexing and Abstracting
Research is indexed in Scopus since 2018. The Journal is also indexed in
Google Scholar and CNKI. All articles published in IJLTER are assigned
a unique DOI number.

Foreword
We are very happy to publish this issue of the International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research.
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal committed to
publishing high-quality articles in the field of education. Submissions
may include full-length articles, case studies and innovative solutions to
problems faced by students, educators and directors of educational
organisations. To learn more about this journal, please visit the website
http://www.ijlter.org.
We are grateful to the editor-in-chief, members of the Editorial Board
and the reviewers for accepting only high quality articles in this issue.
We seize this opportunity to thank them for their great collaboration.
The Editorial Board is composed of renowned people from across the
world. Each paper is reviewed by at least two blind reviewers.
We will endeavour to ensure the reputation and quality of this journal
with this issue.
Editors of the March 2023 Issue

VOLUME 22 NUMBER 3 March 2023
Table of Contents
The Role of Teachers and Coordinators of Gifted Students’ in Developing their Students’ Leadership Abilities in
High Schools............................................................................................................................................................................1
Ahmed AL-naim, Fathi Abunaser, Ahlam AL-Naim
International Students' Satisfaction with Online Learning during the COVID-19 at a South Korean University...19
YongJik Lee, Davis O. Robert, Lili Wan
From Classroom to Community: Understanding Community-Based Learning Practices in Malaysian Higher
Education Institutions .......................................................................................................................................................... 33
Nur Farah Amirah Hamzah, Azza Jauhar Ahmad Tajuddin, Raihana Romly, Wahiza Wahi, Sharipah Ruzaina Syed Aris
Multiple Representation Approach in Elementary School Science Learning: A Systematic Literature Review ......51
Rois Saifuddin Zuhri, Insih Wilujeng, Haryanto Haryanto
How Does Emergency Remote Learning Affect the Future Career Readiness of Indonesian EFL Preservice
Teachers?................................................................................................................................................................................ 74
Dodi Siraj Muamar Zain
Analysis of the Submitted Lecturers’ Scientific Works in a Reputable International Journal: A Multiple Case
Study....................................................................................................................................................................................... 93
Hermayawati .
The Difficulties of Teaching Traditional Filipino Games Online.................................................................................. 108
Jem Cloyd M. Tanucan
From Onsite to Online: Perspectives on Preservice Teachers’ Instructional Engagement........................................ 128
Rivika Alda
Lecturers’ Perceptions of Action Research and Current Challenges............................................................................ 141
Behnam Behforouz, Ali Al Ghaithi, Saif Al Weshahi
“Supporting our Lost Boys”: A Research on Gender-based Science Education’s Hidden Curriculum in Malaysia
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 160
Nurfarahin Nasri, Nik Mohd Rahimi, Harwati Hashim, Nurfaradilla Mohamad Nasri
Collaborative Weblog-Based (CWB) Project Approach in Developing Language Learners’ Writing Performance
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 175
Maricel Rivera, Remedios Bacus
Peer Scaffolding among Primary ESL Learners’ Writing Task: Learners’ Behaviors and Triggering Factors........ 191
Tinialishel Laie Gostine Tinggie, Kim Hua Tan, Nazri Muslim, Lim Kar Keng
Using Blended Learning in the EFL Classroom During the Covid-19 Pandemic in Indonesia: A Narrative Inquiry
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 209

Sri Wahyuningsih, Muhamad Afandi
A Bibliometric Analysis of 21st Century Learning Using Scopus Database ............................................................... 225
Nurul Ashikin Izhar, Nor Asniza Ishak, Siti Mastur Baharudin
Active Learning Pedagogy for Enriching Economics Students’ Higher Order Thinking Skills............................... 241
Gailele L. Sekwena
Understanding Student Attitudes toward Delivering English Oral Presentations.................................................... 256
Han Ho, Long Nguyen, Nhon Dang, Hong X. Nguyen
The Role of Literature Teaching in Improving Students' Language Skills..................................................................278
Andri Noviadi, Sumiyadi ., Tedi Permadi
Writing Motivation in the Web of Science and Scopus Databases: A Scientometrics Perspective in CiteSpace.... 294
Wenxuan Wang, Ishak Nor Asniza
Improving Social Communication and Social Interaction Skills in Students with Autism-Spectrum Disorder
through Smart-Board Use.................................................................................................................................................. 310
Norah Abdullah Tawalah, Sherif Adel Gaber
Interests, Barriers, Stress, and Resilience of High School Students: A Caring Christian Religious Education
Teacher ................................................................................................................................................................................. 325
Elisabeth Sitepu, Johanes Waldes Hasugian, May Rauli Simamora
Towards an Enhanced Implementation of Printed Modular Distance Learning in the Philippines: A Meta-
Synthesis .............................................................................................................................................................................. 341
Jem Cloyd M. Tanucan, Blanca Alforque Alejandro, Roberto Bagsarsa Corcino
Coping Strategies for Online Learning from Home ....................................................................................................... 359
Yosahandi Li Ann Alvarez Chara, America Ruth Condori Machaca, Juana Cristina Mejia Yepez, Fabiola Talavera -
Mendoza, Fabian Hugo Rucano Paucar
The Impact of Serious Games on Learning in Primary Education: A Systematic Literature Review...................... 379
Julissa Yeny Arosquipa Lopez, Ruth Nataly Nuñoncca Huaycho, Fernanda Irene Yallercco Santos, Fabiola Talavera -
Mendoza, Fabian Hugo Rucano Paucar
The Role of Locus of Control and Resilience in Student Academic Achievement..................................................... 396
Yenti Arsini, Ahman Ahman, Nandang Rusmana
Model of Community Empowerment through Education Non-Formal Entrepreneurship to Improve
Independence of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises .............................................................................................. 413
Joko Suryono, Mahendra Wijaya, Heru Irianto, Mohamad Harisudin, Nuryani Tri Rahayu, Darsini ., Purwani Indri
Astuti, Henny Sri Kusumawati
Repositioning the Teaching Approaches towards Accounting Curriculum Implementation in Selected South
African Rural Secondary Schools...................................................................................................................................... 430
Thembela Comfort Ntshangase, Maria Sewela Mabusela
SMART for the Improvement of Primary School Teachers' Digital Competence in the 21st Century: An Action
Research Study.................................................................................................................................................................... 448
Aah Ahmad Syahid, Asep Herry Hernawan, Laksmi Dewi
Implementation of Learning Curriculum in Integrated Independent Campus Learning Program Case Study on
KKNT Village Project ......................................................................................................................................................... 470

Indah Prabawati, Meirinawati Meirinawati, Yatim Riyanto, Nunuk Hariyati, Artanti Indrasetianingsih, Suyatno Ladiqi
Voices of Non-English Students and Teachers in English as a Medium of Instruction............................................. 491
I Gde Putu Agus Pramerta, Ni Made Ratminingsih, I Nyoman Adi Jaya Putra, Made Hery Santosa, Luh Putu Artini, Ni
Luh Putu Sri Adnyani
Undergraduate Training Programs Meeting the Expected Learning Outcomes of the National Quality
Framework: Status and Challenges..................................................................................................................................510
Ta Thi Thu Hien, Dang Thi Thanh Thuy, Vu Minh Phuong
Challenging Traditional Teacher Professional Development by Implementing Technology-Supported
Cooperative Learning......................................................................................................................................................... 524
Gordon Sekano, Dorothy Laubscher, Roxanne Bailey
Leadership, Teaching and Learning in Times of Crisis in Southern Tanzania ........................................................... 544
Nipael Mrutu, Peter Kajoro, Hamis Pintson Nkota

1
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 1-18, March 2023
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.3.1
Received Dec 12, 2022; Revised Feb 28, 2023; Accepted Mar 9, 2023
The Role of Teachers and Coordinators of Gifted
Students’ in Developing their Students’
Leadership Abilities in High Schools
Ahmed AL-naim
King Faisal University, University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
Fathi Abunaser*
Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat 123, Oman
Ahlam AL-naim
King Faisal University, University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
Abstract. This study seeks to explore the reality of the role of teachers and
coordinators of gifted students in developing their leadership abilities in
Al-Ahsa high schools from the perspective of teachers, coordinators, and
students. The descriptive analytical method was used whereby two
questionnaires were distributed to a random sample of 78 high school
gifted students and 53 teachers and coordinators at Al-Ahsa governorate
during the academic year 2020-2021. Statistical means, standard
deviations, and an independent t-test were used for the analysis of the
data. Findings show that the role of teachers and coordinators in
developing gifted students’ leadership abilities was at a high level from
the teachers' and coordinators’ perspectives. From students’ perspective,
it was high as well, however, with a lower average compared to that of
teachers. There were statistically significant differences due to the gender
variable in favour of male participants in the dimensions of technical and
competitive leadership abilities. However, there were no statistically
significant differences attributed to gender variables in human leadership
and conceptual leadership abilities dimensions, nor in terms of the job
title variable. Considering these findings, it is recommended the role of
teachers and coordinators of gifted students is strengthened through
specialized leadership training, and by giving more attention to the
development of leadership abilities among females.
Keywords: teachers and coordinators; gifted students; leadership
abilities; high school
*
Abunaser, Fathi, f.abunaser@squ.edu.om
orresponding author:
*C

2
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
1. Introduction
One of the many aspects where growth and development have been globally
witnessed is education which is responsible for developing individuals to be
responsible members of the community. Education in this context denotes all the
components of the educational system where gifted students and their teachers
are regarded as the basis of this system and should be duly identified and
supported.
Gifted individuals are considered to be the human capital that will support Saudi
leadership in achieving their ambitious Vision 2030 and place Saudi Arabia
among the advanced countries. For this reason, the Saudi government has been
focused on providing comprehensive sponsorship programmes such as Misk 2030
Leaders' Program which was launched to incubate promising leaders. This
program acknowledges the role played by future leaders who wish to develop
and innovate and, therefore, achieve progress and the development of the country
(Misk, 2022). This support keeps pace with the latest trends in gifted education to
nurture giftedness, and further with the more recent support that has been geared
towards developing transformational giftedness, i.e., talent investment for the
development of human life and society (Dai, 2022; Reis & Renzulli, 2022; Subotnik
et al., 2022).
Focusing on the talent development paradigm and the contributions of its
theories, this development process is based on the dynamic interaction between
many endogenous and exogenous factors. Internal factors are associated with
individuals, including their different abilities such as leadership abilities, whereas
the latter is associated with the environment; the most important of which is the
educational environment, including teachers and educators as its most important
components (Dai & Li, 2020; Gagne, 2021a, b; Gierczyk & Pfeiffer, 2021; Paik et al.,
2018; Swanson et al., 2020). Recent studies are shifting towards talent
development and exploring the aspects related to it. Therefore, examining the
endogenous and exogenous factors in the development process is important to
ensure the continuity of development and talent growth. Among the important
factors are leadership abilities as an endogenous factor, and the role of teachers'
support to gifted students as an exogenous factor. Reviewing the educational
environment and regulations for gifted people, researchers can conclude that two
roles are responsible for the development of gifted students in public schools:
teachers and coordinators of gifted students. Having different roles to play in this
process may lead to various impacts on students' leadership development. Thus,
the current study attempts to explore the reality of the role of teachers and
coordinators of gifted students in developing their student leadership abilities in
high schools.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Leadership Abilities and Talent Development
Gagne's (2021a) differentiated model of giftedness and talent, and the evolving
complexity theory (ECT) of Dai (2017, 2019) confirmed that the talent
development of gifted students is connected to influential endogenous and
exogenous factors, which support the transition and transformation of such

3
talents from aptitudes to excellence in various fields. For Dai (2017), the individual
is a system, interacting with the surrounding environment with its diverse factors.
These studies have concluded that endogenous factors such as individual abilities,
skills, and personal traits, along with the environmental factors found in the field
of education, especially school and teaching staff, interact to develop talents and
nurture them to reach the maximum possible level (Dai & Li, 2020; Gierczyk &
Pfeiffer, 2021).
Leadership development is one of the main objectives of educational services for
gifted students – particularly in high schools – to prepare them to lead the future
(Little & Kearney, 2021). It is also one of the important skills for gifted individuals
to develop their talent and support the attainment of the expert level in their fields
(Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2021). In this respect, Supriyanto et al. (2020) view
leadership development as a significant factor in guiding individuals and
improving their behaviour. This is confirmed by Olszewski-Kubilius, et al. (2019),
namely that individuals who are productive and privileged have more than just
raw talents in the field or opportunities to develop their talents. They are
distinguished by their abilities to lead and focus on the opportunities they are
offered, and continue to succeed even when success standards are high.
Leadership development has long received the attention of talent researchers.
Leadership from the point of view of gifted education, as stated by Marland in
1972 – when giftedness and talent were first defined by the United States Office
of Education – is “a unique and independent form of giftedness” (Rogers, 2009, p.
633). These abilities have been highly emphasized in the standards of the National
Association for Gifted Children (NAGC, 2019). The State of the States in Gifted
Education 2018-2019 report of the mega project covering the United States of
America showed interest in leadership talent; a total of 16 states have included
leadership abilities in their definition of talent. It was also proposed as a solution
to address the under-representation of special groups of talent, an accredited
educational service for gifted students at the senior level of primary school. Some
services were also suggested to develop leadership abilities (Rinn et al., 2020).
In education, Sisk and Rosselli (1987) designed the first leadership development
model for gifted students. They adapted this model in 2010 to match the needs of
gifted students to develop global leadership (Sisk, 2013). The development of
these abilities has become a key part of some models such as the schoolwide
enrichment model of Reis and Renzulli (2022). Moreover, Sternberg (2022) has
also introduced the active concerned citizenship and ethical leadership (ACCEL)
model, which aims to teach and evaluate active leadership that serves society. This
model has been developed to teach students how to make a positive impact to
make the world a better place.
Leadership abilities are important in all fields. Therefore, preparing students,
planning, and implementing programmes to nurture abilities must be pursued
and supported in order to enable students to make a difference in their societies.
The process of developing the leadership abilities of gifted students is directly
associated with the educational process. It is also linked to the tasks that enable

4
them to demonstrate their high leadership potential (Little & Kearney, 2021).
Students work to exercise leadership abilities in a targeted manner by engaging
in community-serving projects that address associated issues (Choi & Kaufman,
2021; Desmet, 2022; Lee et al., 2021). It is agreed agree that leadership, including
its abilities for gifted students, such as the technical, human, cognitive and
administrative abilities, are significant owing to their importance in formulating
students’ cognitive, psychological, and emotional personalities. It is also
important to determine the level of these abilities and the students’ needs based
on age groups so that these abilities are nurtured appropriately to achieve future
desired goals (Sulaiman, 2015).
3. Role of Teachers and Coordinators in the Development of Gifted
Students’ Leadership Abilities
Following the footsteps of developed countries, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has
supported gifted students by providing them with various talent programmes, as
well as providing and training competent teachers and coordinators to take care
of these students (Ministry of Education, 2016). Among the roles of coordinators
is to develop the abilities needed for gifted students' development, especially
leadership abilities (Henderson & Jarvis, 2021). A study by Swanson et al. (2020)
found that teachers' perceptions and practices toward students are an influential
factor in the development of their talents. They also concluded that there was a
positive impact of developing teachers professionally on providing appropriate
educational opportunities for gifted students and their development.
Having surveyed the standards implemented by the
Education and Training Evaluation Commission (ETEC) (2020) for teachers gifted
students, and the standards of the National Association for Gifted Children
(NAGC) (2019), three roles are found to be played by teachers and coordinators
of gifted students, namely they discover and identify appropriate services, apply
strategies that develop the leadership abilities of gifted students, and employ
available technology such as websites and social media programmes.
The ETEC’s standards (2020) indicate that they identify gifted students in all
dimensions, including leadership abilities. According to the NAGC (2019)
standards, teachers should involve gifted students in identifying their abilities,
including leadership. They should also create a safe learning environment that
promotes the development of leadership abilities. Therefore, teachers should have
the characteristics and abilities which enable them to nurture this category
properly (Hussein, 2017).
Reviewing the literature on the roles of teachers of gifted students and gifted
students’ leadership ability development, and based on the work of Buftean and
Alkhawaldah (2016), Sheikh Jalil (2017), Aljumaili and Zu'bi (2018), teachers of
gifted students are found to be responsible for the development of technical
leadership abilities such as time management, meetings, planning, performance
benchmarking and risk forecasting. In addition they promote human leadership
ability development, such as forming appropriate task teams, identifying tasks
and needs of individuals, investing in their abilities and managing

5
communication and interaction among them. They also foster conceptual
leadership ability development, such as reflection, deduction and thinking in
different, independent, and creative ways and the producing, organizing, and
developing of new ideas. Finally, teachers engender competitive leadership
ability development such as achieving goals efficiently, considering quality
standards, performance evaluation, developing special skills, and benefiting from
and simulating successful experiences.
According to this study, these four roles and the teachers’ own leadership abilities
can shape the leadership abilities needed for gifted students and make those
students with leadership personalities stand out. This study also hypothesizes
that supporting and developing these abilities will significantly affect gifted
students' future. On reviewing studies on leadership and development among
gifted students, a significant local study was identified which was conducted by
Al-Bishri and Al-Harsh (2020) on gifted students in both intermediate and high
schools in Riyadh. Moreover, Elshohry (2019) carried out a study on a sample of
gifted students in intermediate schools in Tabuk. Both studies found a high level
of leadership skills among gifted students.
Globally, Herber (2019) conducted a 15-year longitudinal case study on an
individual with leadership talent. The results showed a range of endogenous and
exogenous factors critical to the development of this talent. Among the
endogenous factors are motivation, emotional and practical intelligence. External
factors include environmental support and family where both endogenous and
exogenous factors contributed to the subject’s psychological and social
development. Meyer and Rinn (2021) reviewed 38 qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed-method studies on leadership and leadership talent development to
conclude that the definition of leadership depends on the developmental stage.
Discrepancies in definition are an influential factor in nurturing these talents and
what aspects on which to focus. A set of endogenous and exogenous factors in
leadership talent development was proposed by Meyer and Rinn (2021) to be paid
due attention by the caregivers, including the social and cultural context of the
teachers, and the school environment.
4. Study Problem
After reviewing literature and previous studies on the development of leadership
skills among gifted students, it was found that leadership development and its
associated variables are among the topics covered by gifted students’
development. This can be conducted either directly or indirectly by including
some of these skills in talent programmes. Notwithstanding this trend, studies
that investigated leadership development in high schools are scarce (Little &
Kearney, 2021). In addition, Sternberg (2022) stated that leadership abilities are
not taught directly in schools, whether for gifted students or others.
A survey conducted by the Gulf Arab States Educational Research Center
(GASERC) (2020) on the main trends and international and local practices in the
Gulf Countries reveals that educational programmes and services for gifted
students are merely focusing on educational enrichment, thinking skills

6
development and some other skills, but are not explicitly focused on leadership
ability development.
A review of local gifted education programmes has also revealed that leadership
abilities are not explicitly focused on in any of these programmes (Department of
Planning and Development, 2020; Ministry of Education, 2016). In addition, local
studies such as those of Al-Bishri and Al-Harsh (2020) and Elshohry (2019) focused
on measuring the level of various leadership aspects of gifted students such as the
skills and traits at different school stages. As far as the literature review is
concerned, this study was triggered by the following:
- Lack of studies aimed at measuring the leadership abilities of high school
gifted students as an initial stage in the preparation of future leaders;
- Lack of studies on the teachers and coordinators’ roles in the development of
these skills despite their importance as exogenous factors, and their abilities
to predict the future and contribute to the preparation of young leaders via
knowledge and competence; and
- Fieldwork conducted in the Ministry of Education which proved that gifted
students require nurturing of their leadership abilities to achieve the highest
levels in their future.
-
4.1 Study Questions
Having the consideration of the aim of the study stated above, this study
endeavours to answer the following two questions:
1. What is the reality of the role of teachers and coordinators in the development
of gifted students’ leadership abilities in Al-Ahsa high schools from their
perspective?
2. Are there statistically significant differences at the level of significance
(α=0.05) in the reality of the role of teachers and coordinators in developing
the leadership abilities of gifted students from teachers and coordinators'
perspectives based on gender (male - female) and job title (teacher -
coordinator)?
5. Methodology
To achieve the objectives and answer the questions of the study, the quantitative
descriptive method has been employed which is one of the forms of organized
scientific analysis and interpretation to describe a specific phenomenon or
problem by collecting, classifying, and analysing standardized data. It is suitable
for describing the reality of the topic being investigated and is related to defining
the roles of teachers and coordinators of gifted students in developing the
leadership abilities of their students in secondary schools in fields of study. The
data were subsequently analysed, and the findings deduced.
5.1 Sample of the Study
The sample consisted of 78 gifted students: 37 males and 41 females, all students
of the same educational level, as well as 53 teachers and 28 coordinators, of
whom 40 were males and 13 females, based on the statistics of the study
population (Department of Planning and Development, 2020). All of them
supervise and teach gifted students in general education schools.

7
6. Instrumentation and Procedures
6.1 Instruments
The self-report questionnaire (prepared by the first author of this research) was
aimed to measure the level of teachers’ and coordinators' practice of leadership
ability development processes of gifted students in high school from the students'
perspective. The instrument consisted of four dimensions that reflect the content
of the role of teachers and coordinators as described in Table 1. It was designed
in the form of two questionnaires: one for gifted students and the other for their
teachers and coordinators.
Table 1. Dimensions of Teachers and Coordinators in Leadership Ability
Development
Dimension Description
Number
of Items
Technical leadership
abilities
It refers to a set of organizational capabilities such as
time and meeting management, preparing plans,
setting performance standards, and risk forecasting.
20
Human leadership
abilities
It refers to a set of personal and social skills, such as
forming the appropriate work team, defining tasks
and needs of individuals and investing in their
abilities, and managing the communication process
and interaction among them.
15
Conceptual
leadership abilities
It refers to a set of mental abilities such as
contemplation; deduction; thinking in different,
independent, and creative ways; and producing,
organizing, and developing new ideas.
13
Competitive
leadership abilities
It refers to a set of practical capabilities such as
achieving goals efficiently, considering quality
standards, evaluating performance, developing
special skills, and benefiting from and simulating
successful experiences.
14
Total 62

8
6.2 Instrument Design
The following steps were followed to build the instrument:
First: The literature and metrics about leadership abilities were reviewed as well
as ways to develop them. Sulaiman (2015), Buftean and Alkhawaldah (2016),
Aljumaili and Zu'bi (2018) and Farwanah and Alhelo (2014) were used as key
references to collect the most important dimensions and key items that fall within
each dimension.
Second: The instrument was formulated in its first draft in two questionnaires
that were validated by nine (9) validators. In its final draft, it consisted of 62 items
to be answered on a five-point Likert scale as follows: Strongly agree = 5; Agree
= 4; Not Sure = 3; Disagree = 2; and Strongly disagree = 1. While all items are
positive, high-grade results from the two questionnaires indicate a high level of
the role of teachers and coordinators of gifted students in leadership ability
development in a high schools.
Third: Reliability and internal validity: To verify the endogenous consistency of
the questionnaires, Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to determine the
degree of association of each item to the overall degree of dimension, and the
degree of the dimension to the scale.
Table 2. Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Items of Dimensions and the
Total Score of Gifted Students'
Pearson Correlation Coefficients between items of dimensions and the total score of
gifted students' questionnaire
Dimension No.
Dimension
correlation
coefficient
No.
Dimension
correlation
coefficient
No.
Dimension
correlation
coefficient
Technical
leadership
abilities
1 0.810** 8 0.816** 15 0.859**
2 0.679** 9 0.799** 16 0.792**
3 0.713** 10 0.777** 17 0.707**
4 0.753** 11 0.828** 18 0.874**
5 0.702** 12 0.751** 19 0.825**
6 0.561** 13 0.839** 20 0.734**
7 0.667** 14 0.793**
Human
leadership
abilities
1 0.614** 6 0.872** 11 0.724**
2 0.836** 7 0.819** 12 0.769**
3 0.749** 8 0.789** 13 0.759**
4 0.768** 9 0.831** 14 0.786**
5 0.740** 10 0.891** 15 0.828**
Conceptual
leadership
abilities
1 0.868** 6 0.827** 11 0.891**
2 0.843** 7 0.762** 12 0.850**
3 0.928** 8 0.885** 13 0.889**
4 0.824** 9 0.751**
5 0.864** 10 0.799**
1 0.845** 6 0.888** 11 0.811**

9
Competitive
leadership
abilities
2 0.828** 7 0.813** 12 0.885**
3 0.887** 8 0.861** 13 0.854**
4 0.837** 9 0.785** 14 0.814**
5 0.813** 10 0.872**
**Statistically significant at level 0.01 or less
Results depicted in Table 2 show a positive correlation coefficient for each item
with its dimension, and that it is statistically significant at the significance level
(0.01) or less. This value indicates the validity of the endogenous consistency of
the questionnaire and its reliability.
Table 3. Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Items' Dimensions and the Total
Score of Gifted Students' Teachers and Coordinators
Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Items' dimensions and the total score of
gifted students' teachers and coordinators' questionnaire
Dimension No.
Dimension
correlation
coefficient
No.
Dimension
correlation
coefficient
No.
Dimension
correlation
coefficient
Technical
leadership
abilities
1 0.690** 8 0.541** 15 0.785**
2 0.771** 9 0.668** 16 0.814**
3 0.695** 10 0.620** 17 0.875**
4 0.826** 11 0.839** 18 0.800**
5 0.754** 12 0.739** 19 0.869**
6 0.754** 13 0.768** 20 0.853**
7 0.761** 14 0.698**
Human
leadership
abilities
1 0.569** 6 0.862** 11 0.812**
2 0.772** 7 0.861** 12 0.598**
3 0.788** 8 0.828** 13 0.745**
4 0.710** 9 0.806** 14 0.724**
5 0.858** 10 0.813** 15 0.760**
Conceptual
leadership
abilities
1 0.817** 6 0.739** 11 0.786**
2 0.724** 7 0.724** 12 0.800**
3 0.772** 8 0.776** 13 0.679**
4 0.769** 9 0.614**
5 0.546** 10 0.836**
Competitive
leadership
abilities
1 0.740** 6 0.657** 11 0.773**
2 0.767** 7 0.548** 12 0.852**
3 0.839** 8 0.674** 13 0.735**
4 0.827** 9 0.659** 14 0.851**
5 0.751** 10 0.771**
**Statistically significant at level (0.01) or less
Results depicted in Table 3 indicate a positive correlation coefficient for each
phrase with its dimension, and that it is statistically significant at the significance
level (0.01) or less. This value proves the endogenous consistency of the
questionnaire, and validity.

10
6.3 Gifted Students' Questionnaire
Table 4. Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Test of Gifted Students' Questionnaire
Dimension Number of Items Cronbach's Alpha
Technical leadership abilities 20 0.962
Human leadership abilities 15 0.955
Conceptual leadership abilities 13 0.965
Competitive leadership abilities 14 0.968
Total 62 0.988
Table (4) illustrates that the result of Cronbach’s alpha reliability measurement is high
at (0.988) which indicates that the tool has a high degree of reliability.
6.4 Teachers’ and Coordinators' Questionnaire
Table 5. Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Test of Teachers’ and Coordinators'
Questionnaire
Dimension Number of Items Cronbach's Alpha
Technical leadership abilities 20 0.955
Human leadership abilities 15 0.948
Conceptual leadership abilities 13 0.896
Competitive leadership abilities 14 0.923
Total 62 0.975
The result of Cronbach’s alpha reliability measurement is high at (0.975) which
indicates a high degree of reliability.
7. Data Analysis
7.1 Findings and Discussion
Results Related to the First Question: What is the reality of the role of teachers
and coordinators in the development of gifted students’ leadership abilities in Al-
Ahsa high schools from their perspective?
To determine the reality of the role of teachers and coordinators of gifted students
in developing leadership abilities at high schools from the perspective of teachers,
coordinators, and students in Al-Ahsa, means and standard deviations of the four
dimensions of the questionnaire have been calculated. Table 6 shows the results
of this question.
Table 6. The Reality of the Role of Teachers and Coordinators of Gifted Students in
developing Leadership Abilities at high schools from the Perspective of Teachers
Dimension
Teachers & coordinator Students
Means
Std.
Deviation
Means
Std.
Deviation
Technical leadership abilities 4.15 0.619 3.87 0.731
Human leadership abilities 4.45 0.571 4.13 0.697

11
Conceptual leadership abilities 4.44 0.454 4.15 0.747
Competitive leadership abilities 4.38 0.528 4.09 0.776
Total 4.34 0.480 4.04 0.701
Table 6 shows that all means values of approval by teachers and coordinators
regarding this question were high with a total average of means (4.34). This
means that they strongly agree about their role in developing the leadership
abilities of gifted students. In addition, the total average calculated for the
responses of the gifted students was (4.04) which indicates that they agree with
the reality of the role of teachers and coordinators in developing their leadership
abilities. This result is consistent with the result of the study by Al-Bushiri and Al-
Harsh (2020), as well as with the result of the study by Hussein (2017), which
showed the agreement of the study sample on the teacher's positive impact on
developing their leadership abilities.
Table 6 also shows that the total score of means of teachers and coordinators of
gifted students' responses to the four dimensions of the instrument was (4.15) to
the first dimension, i.e. “Agree”, (4.45) to the second, i.e. “Strongly agree”, (4.44)
to the third, i.e. “Strongly agree” and (4.38) to the fourth, i.e. “Strongly agree”. On
the other hand, the mean scores for gifted students were (3.87), i.e. “Agree” for
the first dimension (technical leadership abilities); (4.13) for the second dimension
(human leadership abilities) i.e. “Agree”; (4.15) for the third dimension
(conceptual leadership abilities), i.e. “Agree”; and (4.09) for the fourth dimension
(competitive leadership abilities), i.e. “Agree”. Means of gifted students’
responses opinions obtained were Agree.
The results of this question are partially similar to the results of the study by
Buftean and Alkhawaldah (2016) regarding female physical education teachers
who have a significant role to play in enhancing female students' leadership
abilities from the students' perspective. In addition, the results also are compatible
with the findings of Al-Yami (2013) which found a significant role of a teacher in
leadership personality development among female primary students from the
teachers' perspective.
The previous results revealed that both teachers and coordinators of gifted
students, as well as the students themselves agree on the level of the first and
fourth dimensions. However, students have given more value to the third
dimension, including conceptual leadership abilities, than to the second
dimension, namely human leadership abilities. However, the responses of
teachers and coordinators were the opposite. This can be attributed to the
differing views between students and their teachers regarding the skills that must
be developed to promote leadership abilities. It has been concluded by Lee et al.
(2021) that gifted students have proposed the development of programmes and
activities that would stimulate their problem-solving, logical, and critical thinking
for leadership development. Therefore, this is consistent with the students’ view
in the current study giving higher value to the conceptual abilities that focus on
thinking processes. In addition, these results are also aligned with the ETEC
(2020), that teachers have noted the importance of developing non-cognitive

12
abilities for communication and aligning with conflict management and group
association to develop the leadership abilities of gifted students. This perspective
is also consistent with the teachers and coordinators in the current study who
have given higher value to human skills that focus on personal and social aspects.
These results generally agree with several studies such as those of Dai and Li
(2020) and Gierczyk and Pfeiffer (2021) on the role of teachers and the educational
environment as effective exogenous factors of talent development in different
fields.
Results Related to the Second Question: Are there statistically significant
differences at the level of significance (α=0.05) in the reality of the role of teachers
and coordinators in developing the leadership abilities of gifted students from
teachers and coordinators' perspectives based on teachers’ gender (male - female),
and job title (teacher - coordinator)?
7.2 First: Differences based on Gender
The independent sample T-test was used in the analysis to determine whether
there were statistically significant differences in the responses among participants
due to the gender variable as well as clarifying the significance of the differences.
Results are shown in Table 7:
Table 7. Results of Independent Sample T-test Differences according to Teachers’
Gender
Dimension Gender N Means
Std.
Deviation
T-Test
Value
Sig.
Technical
leadership
abilities
M 40 4.25 0.568
2.072 0.043*
F 13 3.85 0.696
Human
leadership
abilities
M 40 4.53 0.523
1.651 0.105
F 13 4.23 0.671
Conceptual
leadership
abilities
M 40 4.49 0.461
1.466 0.149
F 13 4.28 0.408
Competitive
leadership
abilities
M 40 4.48 0.477
2.375 0.021*
F 13 4.09 0.589
Total
M 40 4.42 0.458
2.238 0.030*
F 13 4.09 0.476

13
Table 7 illustrates that there are statistically significant differences at the level of
significance (0.05) and less in the responses of study sample members based on
gender in the reality of the role of teachers and coordinators of gifted students in
developing the leadership abilities in favour of males (4.42). This is clearly shown
in the first dimension (technical leadership abilities) and the fourth dimension
(competitive leadership abilities), where no statistically significant differences
among the sample members were seen in the second dimension (human
leadership abilities), or the third dimension (conceptual leadership abilities). After
reviewing gifted students’ programme plans in Al-Ahsa as well as information
obtained from insiders in these programmes, it was concluded that these results
could be attributed to some school initiatives to develop gifted students’
leadership abilities. On the other hand, the development of leadership abilities of
female high school gifted students was included in mentoring programmes
directed to the development of a range of different skills in classes of female gifted
students only. This could positively have affected the level of male teachers and
coordinators' roles in leadership development compared to those of females.
This conclusion may indicate that teachers and coordinators of gifted male
students practise field leadership more than female teachers do. Moreover, they
are aware that practising leadership in the field is important, and that competition
among male schools is often accompanied by district-level media publicity. Thus,
it leads male teachers to enhance the competitive leadership abilities of gifted
students in these schools. Male teachers and coordinators exercise more
leadership for gifted students in this field compared to female teachers. This is
common in the Arab culture, where men have more authority and leadership
opportunities than women do. This was reflected in educational practices within
the school, and this was confirmed by many studies, for examples, that of Al-
Badarin and Al-Qasimah (2013). It is recommended that the leadership roles of
female teachers should be strengthened and reflected in their leadership practices.
These experiences should then subsequently be transferred to female students.
7.3 Second: Differences based on Job Title
The independent sample T-test was used in the analysis to determine whether
there were statistically significant differences in the responses among participants
based on job titles as illustrated in Table 8:
Table 8. Results of Independent Sample T-test Differences based on Job Titles
Dimension Job title N Means
Std.
Deviation
T-Value Sig.
Technical
leadership
abilities
Teacher 28 4.23 0.469
0.974 0.335
Coordinator 25 4.07 0.754
Human
leadership
abilities
Teacher 28 4.38 0.583
-1.020 0.313

14
Conceptual
leadership
abilities
Teacher 28 4.47 0.459
0.503 0.617
Competitiv
e
leadership
abilities
Teacher 28 4.38 0.481
-0.038 0.970
Total
Teacher 28 4.35 0.428
0.202 0.841
The results in Table 8 show that there are no statistically significant differences at
the level of significance (0.05) and less in the responses of the participants based
on the job title variable on the reality of the role of gifted students’ teachers and
coordinators in developing leadership abilities. Although there are differences in
their roles, they overlap in aspects such as the introduction and preparation of
enriching programmes (General Administration for Gifted Students, 2016). This
may explain why there are not statistical differences between teachers and
coordinators in the development of leadership abilities among the study sample
participants.
8. Implications and Limitations
Considering the results, the importance is emphasised of enhancing the role of
teachers and coordinators of gifted students as influential exogenous factors that
support leadership ability development through professional development and
specialized leadership training. It is also recommended that leadership
development programmes should be designed, especially for students in high
schools where these programmes are crucial for building the capacity of students
who are destined to lead the future of the country. More attention should be given
to female gifted students to ensure that their leadership abilities are developed at
a higher level. Research in leadership abilities is significantly crucial for the impact
it makes on talent development. Differences between these abilities are attributed
to differences in talent and age groups.
It should also be noted that this study was conducted on gifted high school
students in Al-Ahsa and their teachers and coordinators, where these
programmes have specific tasks for teachers and coordinators. It is worth noting
that this sample is under the management of the General Administration for
Gifted Students. Thus, this sample has its own circumstances that may or may not
apply to other gifted students or their teachers and coordinators at other grades
and in other regions, making the results of the current study limited to this
sample's circumstances.
9. Closing Remark
Students' leadership abilities are extremely important, whether for their future life
or for their contribution to accelerating the growth trajectory in their home

15
countries. The philosophy of this study stemmed from the fact that today's
students are the leaders of tomorrow. Their energies and leadership traits must be
prioritised and refined through our deep belief in the necessity of training
students and refining their talents, as well as training them in leadership at school
to encourage and motivate them and their colleagues towards achieving the
desired goals. This necessitates important and major roles for the teachers in
charge of their education, which is represented by defining the appropriate
leadership roles for each student and the tasks related to each role as well as
training the nominated students on leadership tasks under the supervision of the
designated person. It also requires the gifted students’ interest in the tasks
assigned to them as well as their commitment to enhance their skills by practising
these both in and beyond the school. The study suggests further studies concerned
with the roles that students' parents can play in enhancing the leadership
capabilities of their children.
Ethical Statement
The researchers confirm that they have obtained scientific research ethics
approval and have complied with its standards in this study. The idea for and
objectives of the study were presented to the sample before conducting the study,
and confidentiality and anonymity have been assured.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge financial support received from King Faisal University,
Saudi Arabia (Grant Number GRANT 561). The authors are grateful to all subjects
who committed to participating in this research project.
10. References
Al-Bishri, D., & Al-Harsh, J. (2020). Leadership traits and their relationship to social
adaptation among gifted students in Riyadh. Journal of the Faculty of Education,
36(3), 265-284. https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-984229
Aljumaili, H., & Zu'bi, M. (2018). The role of educational counseling in developing the leadership
personality of intermediate school students in Anbar Governorate [Master’s thesis,
Faculty of Educational Sciences, Al Al-Bayt University].
https://web2.aabu.edu.jo/thesis_site/thes_dtl.jsp?thes_no=484
Elshohry, A. E. B. K. B. A. (2019). The relationship between leadership skills and creative
problem solving for gifted students in the intermediate stage in the city of Tabuk
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 20(3), 1-
32. https://doi.org/10.21608/jsre.2019.33420
Al-Yami, M. (2013). The role of school in developing leadership personality of the primary
school student from the perspective of Islamic education, an exploratory study
from female teachers' perspective in the City of Najran. [Master’s thesis, Faculty
of Social Sciences, Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University].
https://lib.imamu.edu.sa/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/?ps=yj7RlfiMV5/MAIN/X/5/0
Badarin, R., & Qawasmeh, F. (2013) The role of women in leading change: An empirical
study on working women's organizations in Jordan. Al-Balqa for Research and
Studies, 16(1), 23-52.
https://albalqajournal.ammanu.edu.jo/Ar/article.aspx?id=52
Buftean, Y., & Alkhawaldah, T. (2016). The role of physical education teachers in enhancing
leadership abilities of middle school female students in the State of Kuwait. [Master’s

16
thesis, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Al Al-Bayt University].
https://web2.aabu.edu.jo/thesis_site/thes_dtl.jsp?thes_no=5542
Choi, D., & Kaufman, J. C. (2021). Where does creativity come from? What is creativity?
Where is creativity going in giftedness? In R.J. Sternberg, & D. Ambrose (Eds.),
Conceptions of giftedness and talent (pp. 65–81). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56869-6
Dai, D. Y. (2017). Envisioning a new foundation for gifted education: Evolving complexity
theory (ECT) of talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 172–
182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217701837
Dai, D. Y. (2019). New directions in talent development research: A developmental
systems perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 2019(168), 177–197. https://doi-
org.squ.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/cad.20322
Dai, D. Y. (2022). Ten changes that will render gifted education transformational. In R. J.
Sternberg, D. Ambrose & S. Karami (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of transformational
giftedness for education (pp. 107-130). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91618-3
Dai, D. Y., & Li, S. X. (2020). Behind an accelerated scientific research career: Dynamic
interplay of endogenous and exogenous forces in talent development. Education
Sciences 10(9), 220. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090220
Department of Planning and Development. (2021, Jan 12). The operational plan of the General
Administration of Education in Al-Ahsa Governorate for the academic year 2020-2021
Gifted Students Department. General Administration of Education at Al-Ahsa
Governorate. https://moe.gov.sa/ar/pages/default.aspx
Desmet, O. A. (2022). Promoting transformational giftedness through service learning. In
R. J. Sternberg, D. Ambrose, & S. Karami (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of
transformational giftedness for education (pp. 131-142). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91618-3_7
Education and Training Evaluation Authority. (2020). Standards of gifted student’ teachers.
Education and Training Evaluation Authority.
https://www.etec.gov.sa/en/Pages/default.aspx
Farwanah, A., & Alhelo, M. (2014). Effectiveness of a training program for developing leadership
abilities for high school students. [Master’s thesis, Islamic University].
https://library.iugaza.edu.ps/book_details.aspx?edition_no=125087
Gagne, F. (2021a). Differentiating giftedness from talent: The DMGT perspective on talent
development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003088790
Gagne, F. (2021b). Implementing the DMGT’s constructs of giftedness and talent: What,
why, and how? In S.R. Smith (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness and talent development in
the Asia-Pacific (pp. 71-99). Springer International Handbooks of Education.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3041-4_3
Gierczyk, M., & Pfeiffer, S. I. (2021). The impact of school environment on talent
development: A retrospective view of gifted British and Polish college students.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(4), 567–592.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X211034909
Gulf Arab States Educational Research Centre (GASERC). (2020). Gifted students care: A
survey study of the most prominent global trends and experiences in the member states of
the Arab Bureau of Education for the Gulf States. GASERC.
https://uia.org/s/or/en/1100050014
Hébert, T. P. (2019). A longitudinal case study of exceptional leadership talent. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 63(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218800068

17
Henderson, L., & Jarvis, J. M. (2016). The gifted dimension of the Australian professional
standards for teachers: Implications for professional learning. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 41(8), 60–83. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n8.4
Hussein, H. (2017). Teacher of gifted: His preparation and training in light of international
standards for teachers of gifted students. King Saud University Press.
Swanson, J. D., Brock, L., Van Sickle, M., Gutshall, C. A., Russell, L., & Anderson, L.
(2020). A basis for talent development: The integrated curriculum model and
evidence-based strategies. Roeper Review, 42(3), 165-
178. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02783193.2020.1765920
Lee, S., Kim, Y. K., & Boo, E. (2021). Leadership development of gifted adolescents from a
Korean multicultural lens. In S.R. Smith (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness and talent
development in the Asia-Pacific. Springer International Handbooks of Education.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3041-4_61
Little, C. A., & Kearney, K. L. (2021). Leadership development for high-ability secondary
students. In F. Dixon, & S. Moon (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education
(2nd ed.) (pp. 483-507). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238829
Meyer, M. S., & Rinn, A. N. (2021). Developing leadership talent in adolescents and
emerging adults: A systematic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(3), 287–313.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211007556
Ministry of Education. (2016, Jun 12). Procedural manual for general education schools (3rd ed.).
Ministry of Education. General Administration for Gifted Students. Gifted Classes
Guide. https://moe.gov.sa/ar/pages/default.aspx
Misk. Leaders 2030 Program. (2022 Nov 25). Misk leaders 2030.
https://misk.org.sa/leaders2030/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/09/Misk-
Cohort-4-Brochure-EN_VF.pdf
Olszewski, K. P., Subotnik, R., & Worrell, F. (Eds.). (2018). Talent development as a framework
for gifted education: Implications for best practices and applications in schools. Prufrock
Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.1923112
Olszewski, K. P., Subotnik, R. F., Davis, L.C., & Worrell, F.C. (2019). Benchmarking
psychosocial skills important for talent development. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 2019(168), 161–176.
https://doi.org.squ.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/cad.20318
Paik, S. J., Choe, S. M. M., Otto, W. J., & Rahman, Z. (2018). Learning about the lives and
early experiences of notable Asian American women: Productive giftedness,
childhood traits, and supportive conditions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted
41(2), 160-192. https://doi-org.squ.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0162353218763927
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2022). Transformational giftedness: Using SEM pedagogy to
create future leaders and change agents dedicated to service, social responsibility,
and using their talents to improve the planet. In R.J. Sternberg, D. Ambrose & S.
Karami (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of transformational giftedness for education
(pp.313-333). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91618-
3_16
Rinn, A. N., Mun, R. U., & Hodges, J. (2020 May 25). 2018-2019 State of the states in gifted
education. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State
Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://www.nagc.org/2018-2019-state-
states-gifted-education
Rogers, K. B. (2009). Leadership giftedness: Is it innate or can it be developed? In
Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. pp. 353-380).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_31
Sheikh Jalil, H. (2017). The reality of leadership abilities among graduates of leadership and
management programs in higher education institutions and ways to develop them:

18
Academy of Management and Politics for Graduate Studies as a model. [Doctoral
dissertation, Management and Politics for Graduate Studies, Al-Aqsa University].
http://scholar.alaqsa.edu.ps/id/eprint/2353
Sisk, D. (2013). Developing leadership capacity in gifted students for the present and the
future. In D. Ambrose, B. Sriraman & T. Cross (Eds.), The Roeper School: A model
for holistic development of high ability (pp. 224-258). Sense Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1220894
Sternberg, R. (2022). Cultivating leadership in young people through a focus on higher
level thinking: The ACCEL model. In B.J. Vantassel (Ed.), Talent development in
gifted education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 57-72). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509612
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski, K. P., & Worrell, F. C. (2022). Channeling gifted abilities into
transformative creative productivity. In R.J. Sternberg, D. Ambrose & S. Karami
(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of transformational giftedness for education (pp. 373-385).
Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91618-3_19
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski, K. P., & Worrell, F. C. (Eds.). (2019). The psychology of high
performance: Developing human potential into domain-specific talent. American
Psychological Association Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1chs626
Sulaiman, H. (2015). Educational leadership. Dar Osama for Publishing and Distribution:
Amman.
Supriyanto, A. S., Ekowati, V. M., Machfudz, M., & Rosyidah, A. N. (2020). The use of
information technology as a mediator on the effect of transformational leadership
and creativity towards student achievement. Talent Development and Excellence,
12(1), 1765-1775. http://iratde.com/index.php/jtde

19
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 19-32, March 2023
Received Sep 20, 2022; Revised Feb 28, 2023; Accepted Mar 12, 2023
International Students' Satisfaction with Online
Learning during the COVID-19 at a South
Korean University
Yong-Jik Lee
Woosuk University, Wanju Gun, South Korea
Robert O. Davis*
Chonnam National University, Gwangju, South Korea
Lili Wan
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, South Korea
Abstract. Previous research has emphasised the importance of online
learning during COVID-19 for local students. However, previous
research has not fully explored how international students in higher
education perceive online learning. To fill the gap in the literature, this
research specifically focuses on international students' satisfaction level
with online learning during COVID-19 at a South Korean university. In
the present study, international student satisfaction with online learning
was assessed utilising a research instrument previously employed by
Almusharraf and Khahro (2020). A total of 44 undergraduate and 215
graduate students participated in the survey via convenience sampling,
and structural equation modeling was used to analyse the data. The study
results indicated that gender played a significant role in satisfaction with
online learning, that previous online learning experience did not predict
satisfaction, that undergraduate and graduate students were satisfied
with online learning, but that only graduate students perceived school
support as important. In addition, the results showed that international
students were satisfied with their online learning regarding instructors'
online teaching methods and school support. Finally, the implications of
providing effective online education for international students are
discussed.
Keywords: COVID-19; higher education; international students; online
learning; satisfaction levels; synchronous and asynchronous online
learning
*
Corresponding author: Robert R. Davis. red1020@gmail.com

20
1. Introduction
COVID-19 has caused many higher education institutions worldwide to alter the
face-to-face (F2F) course design setting. Mandates enforced by local governments
and institutions of higher learning require faculty to conduct online education,
regardless of students' and teachers' level of expertise in technological
competencies and preparedness (Adnan & Anwar, 2020; Chung & Dass, 2020).
Although online instruction is a well-accepted pedagogical method, teachers and
instructors still lack competency in implementing online learning platforms from
K-12 to university levels (Sintema, 2020). Considering this circumstance, it is
essential to understand students' satisfaction levels with the online learning
process (Tang et al., 2021).
Recent studies have identified critical challenges that affect students' online
learning experience due to the pandemic. These challenges include low-quality
online instructional delivery, lack of professional training, and technical issues
(Gonzalez et al., 2020; Gopal et al., 2021). Other reported issues were the
adaptability skills of instructors to customise their lectures for online learning,
monitor students' progress, and failure to design authentic online assessments
(Baber, 2021; Jeong, 2019).
It has been suggested that students' online learning satisfaction is heavily
influenced by effective online teaching and learning strategies (Kwon et al., 2010;
Lee et al., 2021). Within this setting, learners are required to engage in using
specific online platforms independently or collaboratively. Although many
studies have explored local students' online learning satisfaction (Gocotano et al.,
2021; Rachman, 2022), previous research has failed to explore diverse student
populations in higher education, especially international students during COVID-
19 (Demuyakor, 2020; Komolafe et al., 2020; Novikov, 2020; Stewart & Lowenthal,
2021).
To fill the gap in the existing literature, this research explores international
students' satisfaction levels with online learning experiences at a South Korean
university during the pandemic. This research aims to answer the following
question based on the literature review:
Research question: To what extent are international students at a Korean
university satisfied with online teaching and learning approaches utilised during
COVID-19?
2. Literature Review
2.1. University students' online learning during COVID-19
Recent studies have indicated that different factors can impact university
students' online learning experiences when courses are transitioned from face-to-
face to online because the online format introduces new variables absent in
traditional delivery formats (Gocotano et al., 2021). Several factors can make
online learning challenging for university students when classes are forced online
(Rachman, 2022). This argument is not only an issue for students, but during
synchronous sessions educators have also had connectivity problems that disrupt
the flow of the class (Chung & Dass, 2020; Muganga et al., 2021; Demuyako, 2020;

21
Yusuf & Jihan, 2020). Data from Chung and Dass (2020) revealed that over half of
the university students surveyed would opt out of online learning if they had a
choice because of issues with connectivity and working with the technology.
Other factors influencing learner satisfaction have been the quality of instructors,
course design, feedback, and institutional support (Gopal et al., 2021;
Maheshwari, 2021; Muthuprasad et al., 2021). For instance, Maheshwari (2021)
aimed to understand the factors that impact students' intentions to study online.
The results suggested that institutional support and users' enjoyment influenced
online learning intentions. The authors also concluded that various aspects, such
as flexibility, convenience, and accessibility, played a role in university students'
online course satisfaction.
Several studies have reported that COVID-19 could negatively impact university
students' online learning experiences. These studies concluded that when the
institutions and faculty had not prepared for online teaching, students could show
negative online learning experiences. Especially in the early breakout of COVID
in 2020, faculty found it challenging to properly prepare their online instruction
so that it promoted students' satisfaction with courses (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020;
Chung & Dass, 2020; Rahiem, 2020).
2.2. Factors that influence students' online learning experiences
Previous studies have summarised three factors that influence students' online
learning experiences: gender differences, prior learning experience, and
university students' grade levels (Almusharraf & Khahro, 2020; Chung & Dass,
2020; Shen et al., 2013). González-Gómez et al. (2012) found that female students
are more satisfied than male students with online learning. Furthermore, female
students assign more importance to the planning of online learning and being able
to contact the instructor in various ways. The author argued that these results
could indicate that female students are better prepared, organised, participative,
and committed to learning. Chung and Dass (2020) also support these results by
concluding that female students are more ready for online learning, are more
satisfied with it, and have better online learning experiences than male students.
Regarding students' previous online learning experience (Elshami et al., 2021;
Hixon et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2013), studies have found that having prior
experience with online learning could lead to students' higher satisfaction. For
example, Hixon et al. (2016) suggested that students' previous online learning
experience could influence their online learning satisfaction and lead to higher
expectations of clearly defined online course objectives. Conversely, students with
no prior online experience showed lower online learning expectations. Thus,
effectively constructed online courses could increase students' satisfaction more
than those without previous online learning experiences. In addition, Shen et al.
(2013) suggest that students' prior online learning experiences could significantly
predict online learning self-efficacy. Specifically, students who participated in
more online classes in the past were more likely to communicate and collaborate
effectively in an online space with other students on academic tasks than students
who had previously taken fewer online courses. Ashong and Commander (2012)

22
argued that the positive perceptions of students' online learning experience could
be linked to the students' higher levels of success in previous online courses. This
finding could also show that students' positive experiences in their previous
online courses could have led them to enroll in subsequent online courses and
contributed to their positive perceptions.
Regarding the students' grade levels in the online learning experience, Fedynich
et al. (2015) indicated that graduate students are generally more satisfied with
online courses. Specifically, graduate students mentioned the importance of the
instructor's role because it affected their online learning satisfaction. It was found
that the instructor was responsible for facilitating graduate students' desire to
learn and providing clear instruction opportunities to interact with other
classmates. In another study, Chen et al. (2021) aimed to understand the
university students' experience with technology in distance learning. The results
showed changes in online learning satisfaction scores across grade levels as
students progressed each year. This satisfaction trend is due to maturity and the
number of years of study, further supported by graduate learners' higher online
learning satisfaction scores.
2.3. International students' online learning experiences during COVID-19
Recent studies have focused on international students' online learning during
COVID-19 (Demuyakor, 2020; Komolafe et al., 2020; Novikov, 2020; Stewart &
Lowenthal, 2021). Some of the challenges were summarised as 1) ineffective
communication in an online learning space, 2) a distraction and lack of motivation
for online learning, and 3) feelings of isolation and loneliness. For instance,
Komolafe et al. (2020), who examined international students engaging in online
classes during COVID-19, showed showed that communication during online
teaching was less effective than in-class teaching. Similarly, online teaching was
perceived to be less effective than in-class teaching due to the lack of an element
of social interaction. In another study, Stewart and Lowenthal (2021) examined 15
international students forced to participate in distance education courses during
COVID-19. Study findings showed that university students' negative online
learning experiences, such as isolation and loneliness, emerged from qualitative
findings. In conclusion, recent studies during the pandemic reported that
international students in higher education could be vulnerable when given online
education (Demuyakor, 2020; Komolafe et al., 2020; Novikov, 2020; Stewart &
Lowenthal, 2021).
3. Research Method
3.1. Research Context
The current study was conducted at a private university located in the southwest
region of South Korea. Owing to COVID-19, the university mandated using online
synchronous classes via Zoom during the designated class times. This study
specifically focused on Chinese international students because they are the
majority of the international student group in the university. The sample
consisted of 80 Chinese undergraduate students and 250 Chinese graduate
students, but due to attrition, opting out, and incomplete surveys, 44

23
undergraduate and 215 graduate students were used. Of the final participants,
103 identified as male and 156 as female.
3.2. Data collection and data analysis
Data were collected during the spring semester of 2021. Informed consent forms
were collected before the end-of-semester survey in the middle of June. The
survey for the current study measured student satisfaction with online learning
and was previously implemented by Almusharraf and Khahro (2020). The survey
was translated from English to Chinese. The survey implemented a 5-point Likert
scale to measure the responders' satisfaction, with scores ranging from (1)
strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Study participants were recruited via
convenience sampling at the university. The survey was divided into four
sections: student demographics, students' satisfaction level with the online
learning environment, satisfaction with school support, and perceptions of the
most effective online learning methods and platforms.
4. Study results
4.1. Survey results
The demographics results showed that, of the 259 respondents who participated
in the survey, 103 (39.8%) were male, and the majority (215) were graduate
students (83%). In addition, 103 (39.8%) respondents had online learning
experience before, most of whom were between 20 and 40 years old (88.8%).
As latent variables (satisfaction with online learning, and school support) were
included in the research model, structural equation modeling was used to test the
results. Compared with covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-
SEM), Partial Least Squares Structure equation modeling (PLS-SEM) has a
minimal request for sample size and distribution assumptions. This study divided
groups and compared group differences, which resulted in some groups having
small sample sizes; thus, PLS-SEM was used for this analysis.
Reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity were examined to evaluate the
measurement model. Table 1 shows that the measures met all reliability and
concurrent validity requirements. Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability
assessed reliability. Cronbach's alpha values and composite reliabilities (CR) of
the two constructs were between 0.924 and 0.976, surpassing the acceptable
threshold of 0.70. Convergent validity was assessed using each construct's
average variance extracted (AVE) values. The AVE values of the two constructs
were 0.817 and 0.767, exceeding the acceptable threshold of 0.5, which indicated
that the constructs explained more than 50% of the variance of their items (Hair et
al., 2016). As the online learning method is a single-item construct, Cronbach's
alpha, CR , and AVE values were not applicable. Finally, the Fornell and Larcker
(1981) criterion and Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) were examined to assess
the discriminant validity. The square roots of a construct's AVE values were
higher than its highest correlation with any other construct, which met the Fornell
and Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2016). The HTMT values
ranged from 0.588 to 0.855, below the threshold of 0.90 (Henseler et al. 2015; Hair

24
et al. 2016). Thus, the discriminate validity was validated for all constructs of the
model.
Table 1: Reliability and convergent validity of measurement model
Constructs Items Loadings T statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
CR AVE
Satisfaction
with online
learning
SOL1 0.917 49.016
0.972 0.976 0.817
SOL2 0.843 16.580
SOL3 0.924 53.597
SOL4 0.913 64.775
SOL5 0.898 32.854
SOL6 0.915 66.696
SOL7 0.877 37.901
SOL8 0.914 44.375
SOL9 0.931 58.426
Satisfaction
with school
support
SSS1 0.874 37.928
0.924 0.943 0.767
SSS2 0.877 32.074
SSS3 0.880 44.702
SSS4 0.904 46.235
SSS5 0.842 24.165
Online
learning
methods
OLM1 1.000 - - - -
- : single item construct
Table 2: Fornell-Larcker Criterion
Online learning
methods
Satisfaction
with online
learning
Satisfaction
with school
support
Online learning methods -
Satisfaction with online
learning
0.587 0.904
Satisfaction with school
support
0.574 0.818 0.876
*Diagonal elements are the square roots of Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
- : single item construct
Table 3: Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)
Online learning
methods
Satisfaction with
online learning
Satisfaction with
school support
Online learning
methods
Satisfaction with
online learning
0.589
Satisfaction with
school support
0.588 0.855
Before assessing the structural model, multicollinearity was examined. However,
the variance inflation factor (VIF) value between Satisfaction of online learning
and Satisfaction of school support was 3.019, lower than the threshold 10, so
multicollinearity was not a critical issue.

25
First, in a structure model with the full sample (n=259), both satisfaction with
online learning and school support positively affected online learning methods.
In Table 3, online learning satisfaction was a more effective antecedent to online
learning methods (β=0.354, p=0.017), and satisfaction with school support
approached significance (β=0.285, p=0.053). The R square of the structure model
was 0.372, which suggested both satisfaction with online learning and satisfaction
with school support together, explaining 37.2% of the variance for online learning
methods in the full sample.
* P < 0.10, ** P < 0.05, *** P < 0.01
Figure 1: Full sample results
Table 4: Full sample results
Relationships Path coefficients T statistics P Values
Satisfaction of online learning ->
Online learning methods
0.354 2.393 0.017
Satisfaction of school support ->
Online learning methods
0.285 1.942 0.053
To compare differences between male and female students, a structure model was
run with different gender groups. As shown in Figure 1 and Table 4, only male
students' satisfaction with school support significantly affected the online
learning method (β=0.451, p=0.028). However, for female students, only
satisfaction with online learning significantly affected online learning methods
(β=0.594, p=0.001). Satisfaction with school support is an important determinant
of online learning for male students; however, satisfaction with online learning
environments is more important for female students.
A structure model was run with different experience groups to compare students
who had a previous online learning experience and those with no online learning
experience. The results showed that satisfaction was significant both for students
who had online learning experience (β=0.608, p=0.023) and students who did not
have online learning experience (β=0.568, p<0.001).
In order to compare differences between undergraduate and graduate students, a
structure model was run as separate groups. For undergraduate students, only
satisfaction with online learning mattered (β=0.650, p=0.009); however, for
graduate students, both satisfaction with online learning (β=0.317, p=0.044) and
Satisfaction of online
learning
Satisfaction of school
support
Online learning
methods
0.354**
0.285*

26
school support mattered (β=0.343, p=0.024). School support was not important for
undergraduate students in the online learning environment.
Male
(n=103)
Female
(n=151)
Having experience
(n=103)
No experience
(n=149)
Undergraduate students
(n=44)
Graduate students
(n=215)
* P < 0.10, ** P < 0.05, *** P < 0.01
Figure 2: Grouped results
Subgroup sample size n is counted after eliminating missing values in the variable
of gender and experience.
Satisfaction
of online
learning
Satisfaction
of school
support
Online
learning
methods
0.255
0.451*
*
Satisfaction
of online
learning
Satisfaction
of school
support
Online
learning
methods
0.015
0.594***
Satisfaction
of online
learning
Satisfaction
of school
support
Online
learning
methods
0.608*
*
0.076
Satisfaction
of online
learning
Satisfaction
of school
support
Online
learning
methods
0.568***
0.057
Satisfaction
of online
learning
Satisfaction
of school
support
Online
learning
methods
0.651***
-0.084
Satisfaction
of online
learning
Satisfaction
of school
support
Online
learning
methods
0.317*
*
0.343*
*

27
Table 5: Grouped results
Male Female
Path
coefficients
T
statistics
P
Values
Path
coefficients
T
statistics
P
Values
Satisfaction
with online
learning
0.255 1.181 0.238 0.594 3.474 0.001
Satisfaction
with school
support
0.451 2.197 0.028 0.015 0.087 0.931
Having experience No experience
Satisfaction
with online
learning
0.608 2.274 0.023 0.568 4.217 0.000
Satisfaction
with school
support
0.076 0.317 0.751 0.057 0.422 0.673
Undergraduate students Graduate students
Satisfaction
with online
learning
0.651 2.615 0.009 0.317 2.016 0.044
Satisfaction
with school
support
-0.084 0.324 0.746 0.343 2.259 0.024
5. Discussion
This research explored how online teaching and learning components influenced
international university students' satisfaction. Previous research on students in
the online environment mostly focused on local students. This research aimed to
assess if those previously defined factors for online satisfaction remained
consistent with international students. This research used structural equation
modeling to explore international students' satisfaction with online learning.
RQ1: To what extent are international students satisfied with online teaching and
learning approaches utilised during COVID-19?
5.1. Gender Differences
In relation to gender, males and females scored significantly differently on
satisfaction with online learning. Female students were significantly more
satisfied with the online learning methods (β=0.594, p=0.001) than males;
however, males were significantly more satisfied with the school support for
online learning than females. Previous research supports these findings
concerning females and online learning methods, that is, that females are typically
significantly more satisfied with online learning components than males. For
example, a large-scale study by González-Gómez et al. (2012) found that females
significantly valued course aspects such as clarity of the content, teaching
methods, teaching tools, and teachers more than males. Likewise, Shen et al.
(2013) indicated that females more than males significantly valued online learning
methods. The authors suggest females "may be more active, seek more help, or
function better than male students (p.16)." Unfortunately, neither of the studies
evaluated how either gender perceived school support. Still, these findings offer

28
empirical evidence that interaction and course design is more important for
female students than male students.
However, it is not clear why male students were significantly more satisfied with
school support. A recent study by Almusharraf and Khahro (2020) indicated that
students were satisfied with school support, but the authors did not compare
female and male perceptions. Future research needs to examine why males might
be more satisfied with the support structures provided for online learning.
Although this research and previous research have found that students are
satisfied with online learning, an earlier coronavirus research study by Chung and
Dass (2020) supported the heightened satisfaction of females compared to males
but found that more than half of the female and male students preferred not to
continue online courses if provided a choice. This result suggests that satisfaction
cannot be perceived as a continuation within the online context. The concept of
satisfaction might be perceived differently when external factors such as online
delivery mandates are eased during post-pandemic education.
5.2 Previous Online Learning Experience
The results from this research indicate that students with previous online
experience and students without online experience were significantly satisfied
with the online learning experience. These results find some support from
previous research, but the literature is mixed on how much experience contributes
to satisfaction. For example, Elshami et al. (2021) surveyed medical students
learning online and discovered no significant differences between students with
previous online learning experience and those with no previous online learning
experience. However, other research studies have found that having experience
with online learning could lead to higher satisfaction. For example, Hixon et al.
(2016) suggested that students' prior online learning experience could influence
their online learning satisfaction and lead to higher expectations of clearly defined
online course objectives. Conversely, students with no prior experience showed
little difference in online learning expectations. In other words, effectively
constructed online courses had higher satisfaction rates with students with
previous online learning experience than those without online experience.
In addition to comparing previous experience against no experience, Shen et al.
(2013) suggest that more experience can significantly predict online learning self-
efficacy. Students who participated in more online classes were more likely to
communicate and collaborate effectively in an online space with other students
on academic tasks than those who had previously taken fewer online courses.
However, it must be noted that previous counting experience is an objective
measure, but the experience can be subjective based on the design and
expectations of the course. Further research needs to be conducted to assess
experience when factoring in variables such as instructional design and the
purpose of the course. The students in this research study had access to pre-
distributed class materials via a learning management system (L.M.S.), separate
meetings after the synchronised course, and they utilised WeChat to
communicate. The significant satisfaction ratings might result from a course

29
design that properly supported the students with previous experience but mainly
provided guidance for those experiencing online learning for the first time.
Further research needs to be conducted on course design to understand why
previous experience was not a significant factor compared with no experience.
5.3. Undergraduate and Graduate Students
The results indicated that undergraduate and graduate students were satisfied
with online learning, but only the graduate students significantly rated school
support as important. Previous research to assess the satisfaction of perceived
satisfaction between undergraduate and graduate students supports the findings
of satisfaction with online learning (Shen et al., 2013; Cole et al., 2014). A three-
year study of undergraduate and graduate students by Cole et al. (2014) indicated
that satisfaction was increased if the students were conversant with the delivery.
Still, dissatisfaction could occur if students did not have the opportunity to
communicate with one another. The synchronised design and the use of WeChat
might have been contributing factors to the satisfaction experienced by both
groups.
However, only graduate students rated school support as significant. Researchers
need to analyse further the literature on the interaction between graduate students
and school support. For example, Fedynich et al. (2015) indicated that graduate
students were satisfied with school support at 63.05% but noted that it was the
second lowest evaluation of satisfaction behind opportunities to interact at 61%.
Further explanations or discussions regarding the evaluation of school support
were not provided. This area within the online learning literature should be
addressed as online classes become more prominent in higher education.
6. Conclusions
This research focuses on international students' experience with online learning
during COVID-19 at a South Korean university. The study results indicated that
gender significantly impacted satisfaction with online learning, but previous
online learning experiences did not predict online learning satisfaction. Both
undergraduate and graduate students were satisfied with online learning, but
only graduate students perceived school support as important. In addition, the
results showed that international students were satisfied with their online
learning regarding instructors' online teaching methods and school support.
Although the findings of this study are valuable for understanding international
students' online learning experiences during COVID-19, the data were provided
in a specific context. Therefore, the results from this study could be different in
the case of a different institution with a different international student population.
Thus, future studies need to look more closely at whether there is a consideration
of students' diversity in characteristics of personality, learning abilities, and
technology accessibility. These dimensions are critical factors in effectively
designing productive online learning environments.

30
7. References
Adnan, M., & Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students'
perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2(1), 45–51.
http://www.doi.org/10.33902/JPSP. 2020261309
Aguilera-Hermida, A. P. (2020). College students' use and acceptance of emergency online
learning due to Covid-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1,
100011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011
Almusharraf, N., & Khahro, S. (2020). Students satisfaction with online learning
experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in learning, 15(21), 246–267.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i21.15647
Ashong, C. Y., & Commander, N. E. (2012). Ethnicity, gender, and perceptions of online
learning in higher education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,
8(2). https://jolt.merlot.org/vol8no2/ashong_0612.htm
Baber, H. (2021). Modelling the acceptance of e-learning during the pandemic of COVID-
19-A study of South Korea. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(2),
100503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100503
Chen, C., Landa, S., Padilla, A., & Yur-Austin, J. (2021). Learners' experience and needs in
online environments: adopting agility in teaching. Journal of Research in Innovative
Teaching & Learning, 14(1). 18–31. https://doi.org/4 10.1108/JRIT-11-2020-0073
Chung, E., Subramaniam, G., & Dass, L. C. (2020). Online learning readiness among
university students in Malaysia amidst COVID-19. Asian Journal of University
Education, 16(2), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i2.10294
Cole, M. T., Shelley, D. J., & Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online instruction, e-learning, and student
satisfaction: A three year study. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 15(6). 1-21. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1748
Demuyakor, J. (2020). Coronavirus (COVID-19) and online learning in higher institutions
of education: A survey of the perceptions of Ghanaian international students in
China. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 10(3), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/8286
Elshami, W., Taha, M. H., Abuzaid, M., Saravanan, C., Al Kawas, S., & Abdalla, M. E.
(2021). Satisfaction with online learning in the new normal: perspective of
students and faculty at medical and health sciences colleges. Medical Education
Online, 26(1), 1920090. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2021.1920090
Fedynich, L., Bradley, K. S., & Bradley, J. (2015). Graduate students' perceptions of online
earning. Research in Higher Education Journal, 27, 1-13.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1056187.pdf
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/10.1177/002224378101800104
Gocotano, T. E., Jerodiaz, M. A. L., Banggay, J. C. P., Nasibog, H. B. R., & Go, M. B. (2021).
Higher education students' challenges on flexible online learning
implementation in the rural areas: A philippine case. International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(7), 262-290.
Gonzalez, T., De La Rubia, M. A., Hincz, K. P., Comas-Lopez, M., Subirats, L., Fort, S., &
Sacha, G. M. (2020). Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students' performance
in higher education. PloS One, 15(10), 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239490

31
González-Gómez, F., Guardiola, J., Rodríguez, Ó. M., & Alonso, M. Á. M. (2012). Gender
differences in e-learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 283-290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.017
Gopal, R., Singh, V., & Aggarwal, A. (2021). Impact of online classes on the satisfaction
and performance of students during the pandemic period of COVID-19. Education
and Information Technologies, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10523-1
Hachey, A. C., Wladis, C. W., & Conway, K. M. (2014). Do prior online course outcomes
provide more information than G.P.A. alone in predicting subsequent online
course grades and retention? An observational study at an urban community
college. Computers & Education, 72, 59-67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.012
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hixon, E., Barczyk, C., Ralston-Berg, P., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2016). The Impact of Previous
Online Course Experience R.N. Students' Perceptions of Quality. Online Learning,
20(1), 25-40. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1096379
Jeong, K. O. (2019). Online collaborative language learning for enhancing learner
motivation and classroom engagement. International Journal of Contents, 15(4), 89-
96. https://doi.org/10.5392/IJoC.2019.15.4.089
Komolafe, B. F., Fakayode, O. T., Osidipe, A., Zhang, F., & Qian, X. (2020). Evaluation of
online pedagogy among higher education international students in China during
the COVID-19 outbreak. Creative Education, 11(11), 2262-2279.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2020.1111166
Kwon, K., Han, D., Bang, E. J., & Armstrong, S. (2010). Feelings of isolation and coping
mechanism in online learning environments: A case study of Asian international
students. International Journal of Learning, 17(2). 343-355.
https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v17i02/46899
Lee, K., Fanguy, M., Lu, X. S., & Bligh, B. (2021). Student learning during COVID-19: It
was not as bad as we feared. Distance Education, 42(1), 164-172.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1869529
Maheshwari, G. (2021). Factors affecting students' intentions to undertake online learning:
An empirical study in Vietnam. Education and Information Technologies, 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10465-8
Muganga, A., Leah, N. K. ., Namanyane, T. ., & Shaoan, M. R. . (2021). The Impact of online
learning on international students' studies amid the Covid-19 pandemic during
the 2020 spring semester: A case study of southwest university. Asian Journal of
Education and E-Learning, 9(1). 16-35. https://doi.org/10.24203/ajeel.v9i1.6508
Muthuprasad, T., Aiswarya, S., Aditya, K. S., & Jha, G. K. (2021). Students' perception and
preference for online education in India during COVID-19 pandemic. Social
Sciences & Humanities Open, 3(1), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100101
Novikov, P. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 emergency transition to online learning onto the
international students' perceptions of the educational process at Russian
universities. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11(3), 270-302.
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/217752/

32
Rachman, D. (2022). The application of mobile-enhanced collaborative learning models on
oral presentation competence in rural area during Covid-19
pandemic. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(3),
71-87. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.3.5
Rahiem, M. D. (2020). The emergency remote learning experience of university' students
in Indonesia amidst the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching,
and Educational Research, 19(6), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.6.1
Shen, D., Cho, M. H., Tsai, C. L., & Marra, R. (2013). Unpacking online learning
experiences: Online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. The Internet
and Higher Education, 19, 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.04.001
Sintema, E. J. (2020). Effect of COVID-19 on the performance of grade 12 students:
Implications for STEM education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 16(7), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/7893
Stewart, W. H., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2021). Distance education under duress: a case study
of exchange students' experience with online learning during the COVID-19
pandemic in the Republic of Korea. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1891996
Tang, Y. M., Chen, P. C., Law, K. M., Wu, C. H., Lau, Y. Y., Guan, J., ... & Ho, G. T. (2021).
Comparative analysis of student's live online learning readiness during the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in the higher education sector. Computers &
Education, 168, 104211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104211
Tu, H. (2018). International graduate students' challenges and learning experiences in
online classes. Journal of International Students, 2(2), 1721-1735.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1468074
Zhang, Z., & Kenny, R. (2010). Learning in an online distance education course:
Experiences of three international students. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 17-36.
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/775/1501

IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 3 March 2023

IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 3 March 2023

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 3 March 2023

Similar to IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 3 March 2023 (20)

More from ijlterorg

More from ijlterorg (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 3 March 2023