Main Article Content

  • Adhi Susilo
    Universitas Terbuka
  • Deddy Ahmad Suhardi
    Universitas Terbuka


Download data is not yet available.


Artikel ini menyajikan hasil studi selama tiga semester mengenai kepuasan mahasiswa dengan instruksi daring di Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia. Makalah ini membahas bagaimana kinerja tutor mempengaruhi persepsi mahasiswa dalam belajar secara daring. Penelitian ini mempelajari lebih jauh dari penelitian sebelumnya tentang kepuasan mahasiswa dengan e-learning. Peneliti melakukan serangkaian survei selama tiga semester. Empat puluh satu siswa berpartisipasi dalam studi ini. Secara keseluruhan, siswa menilai instruktur online sebagai cukup memuaskan. Tingkat kepuasan mahasiswa agribisnis dengan tutor online di UT terutama puas (63%). Lebih dari sembilan belas persen memiliki tingkat yang sangat puas. Berdasarkan analisis komponen utama, penelitian ini mengungkapkan enam struktur dari tingkat kepuasan dengan tutor online; (1) perantara diskusi (62,20%), (2) strategi tutorial (79,18%), (3) umpan balik pada pendapat siswa (84,69%), (4) tetap pada jadwal (89,12%), (5) membuat ringkasan (92,24%), dan (6) menyediakan bahan pembelajaran yang menarik (94,64%).

This article presents the results of a three-semester study of undergraduate students’ level of satisfaction with online instruction at Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia. The paper discusses how tutor performance affect student’s perception of online learning.The study expands on earlier research into student satisfaction with e-learning. Researcher conducted a series of surveys over three academic semester. Forty-one students participated in the study. Responses were consistent throughout, although there were some differences noted in the level of student satisfaction with their experience. Overall, students rated their online instructor as moderately satisfactory.The satisfaction level of agribusiness students with online tutor at UTwas mainly satisfied (63%). More than nineteen percent had very satisfied level.Based on principal component analysis, this study revealed six structures of satisfaction level with online tutor; (1) moderating discussion (62,20%), (2) tutorial strategy (79,18%), (3) feedback on student's opinion (84,69%), (4) keep on schedule (89,12%), (5) making summary (92,24%), and (6) providing attractive learning material (94,64%).


analisis komponen utama
instruksi daring
kepuasan mahasiswa
online instruction
principal component analysis
student satisfaction


Abel, R. (2005). Implementing best practices in online learning. Educause Quarterly, 28(3), 75-77.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved August 5, 2016, from

Bolliger, D. U., & Erichsen, E. A. (2013). Student Satisfaction with Blended and Online Courses Based on Personality Type/Niveau de satisfaction des étudiants dans les cours hybrides et en ligne basé sur le type de personnalité. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(1), 1.

Bolliger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 61.

Carder, L. (2001). Case-based, problem-based learning Information literacy for the real world. Research Strategies, 18(3), 181-190. doi: 10.1016/S0734-3310(02)00087-3

Cole, M. T., Shelley, D. J., & Swartz, L. B. (2013). Academic integrity and student satisfaction in an online environment. In S. Wang & H. H. Yang (Eds.), Cases on Online Learning Communities and Beyond: Investigations and Applications. Hershey PA: IGI Global.

Das, M., Mpofu, D., Dunn, E., & Lanphear, J. H. (1998). Self and tutor evaluations in problem-based learning tutorials: is there a relationship? Medical education, 32(4), 411-418. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00217.x

De Grave, W. S., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1999). Profiles of effective tutors in problem‐based learning: scaffolding student learning. Medical education, 33(12), 901-906. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00492.x

Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarski, A. (2005). Factors Affecting Student Attitudes Toward Flexible Online Learning in Management Education. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 331-338. doi: 10.3200/JOER.98.6.331-338

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the Bumpy Road to Student-Centered Instruction. College Teaching, 44(2), 43-47. doi: 10.1080/87567555.1996.9933425

Haith-Cooper, M. (2000). Problem-based learning within health professional education. What is the role of the lecturer? A review of the literature. Nurse Education Today, 20(4), 267-272. doi: 10.1054/nedt.1999.0397

Hitchcock, M. A., & Mylona, Z.-H. E. (2000). Teaching Faculty To Conduct Problem-Based Learning. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 12(1), 52-57. doi: 10.1207/S15328015TLM1201_8

Hixenbaugh, P., Thomas, L., & Barfield, S. (2006). Personal Tutoring in Higher Education.

Johnson, T. (2016). Online learning quality (A. Susilo, Trans.) Workshop of Online Learning.

Kleinman, S. (2005). Strategies for Encouraging Active Learning, Interaction, and Academic Integrity in Online Courses. Communication Teacher, 19(1), 13-18. doi: 10.1080/1740462042000339212

Kranzow, J. (2013). Faculty Leadership in Online Education: Structuring Courses to Impact Student Satisfaction and Persistence. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 131.

Maudsley, G. (2002). Making sense of trying not to teach: an interview study of tutors' ideas of problem-based learning. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 77(2), 162-172. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200202000-00017

Palmer, S. R., & Holt, D. M. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 101. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00294.x

Pinto, M. B., & Anderson, W. (2013). A little knowledge goes a long way: Student expectation and satisfaction with hybrid learning. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 10, 65-76.

Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.

Russell, T. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina State University, Chapel Hill, N.C.

Sahin, I. (2007). Predicting Student Satisfaction In Distance Education And Learning Environments. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 113-119.

Sener, J., & Humbert, J. (2003). Student satisfaction with online learning: An expanding universe. Retrieved August 15, 2016, from

Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 100-120.

Sinclaire, J. K. (2011). Student satisfaction with online learning: Lessons from organizational behavior. Research in Higher Education Journal, 11, 1-20.

Strachota, E. M. (2003). Student satisfaction in online courses: An analysis of the impactof learner-content, learner-instructor, learner-learner and learner-teacher interaction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(8), 2746 Key: citeulike: 1029163.

Susilo, A. (2014a). Emerging technologies acceptance in online tutorials: Tutors’ and students’ behavior intentions in higher education. Open Praxis, 6(3), 257-274.

Susilo, A. (2014b). Exploring Facebook (FB) as an online tutorial complement in distance education. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 4(4), 60-75.

Susilo, A. (2016). Importance-satisfaction analysis of face to face tutorial : A case studi at Universitas Terbuka. Paper presented at the Educational Technology World Conference 2016, Bali, Indonesia.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331. doi: 10.1080/0158791010220208

Tang, J., & Harrison, C. (2011). Investigating university tutor perceptions of assessment feedback: three types of tutor beliefs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 583-604. doi: 10.1080/02602931003632340

Wang, Y.-S. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information & Management, 41(1), 75-86. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00028-4

Zhang, W. Y., Perris, K., & Yeung, L. (2005). Online tutorial support in open and distance learning: students’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 789-804. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2004.00492.x

Article Sidebar

Published Sep 15, 2015
How to Cite
SUSILO, Adhi; SUHARDI, Deddy Ahmad. STUDENT’S PERCEPTION ON TUTOR PERFORMANCE: A THREE SEMESTER STUDY. Jurnal Pendidikan Terbuka Dan Jarak Jauh, [S.l.], v. 16, n. 2, p. 99-111, sep. 2015. ISSN 2442-2266. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 07 apr. 2020.