Abstract

Background: Due to the crucial nature of education, extended disruptions to students' learning resources are impossible. Despite these challenges, individuals should be able to succeed academically. Most online educational institutions fail to provide high-quality education. The quality of learning is directly affected by content design and execution. Recognizing and overcoming hurdles and curating online content are crucial to effective learning. This level of online teaching has never been attempted in Nepal, making the study even more significant. Practical experience is highly valued in the management curriculum, hence its adaptability for online learning is crucial to the success of management education. This study explored Nepali management students' views on online education's structure and character. Methodology: This research was descriptive and cross-sectional as it aimed to capture the perceptions and preferences of management students at a single point of time, i.e., after the lockdown period was over. Implications for research: This research is crucial for management education institutes for two reasons. First, the unusual COVID-19 lockout left institutes little time to prepare their courses for online distribution. Second, this work will inform future research. Online education can benefit immensely from student feedback and ideas. The COVID-19 pandemic will not end the use of in-person lectures, which will enhance online learning. Due to uncertainties about reinfection length and likelihood, people may isolate themselves more. To effectively include online learning, educational institutions worldwide must be ready to adapt their teaching methods. This study may assist us choose an online platform's learning environment that encourages success and better understand students' online education preferences. Conclusions: Due to the new coronavirus, online learning has become the primary schooling method. More schools are going online to stay up with the curriculum. It may be premature to predict how teachers and students will handle online learning when they discover constraints and adjust to overcome them. Still, we've tried to capture teachers' and students' critical perspectives and readiness. This study found that most students liked online courses after Corona. Type of Paper: Research-based paper.

Keywords:

Pandemic, COVID-19, online classes.

References:

1) Anwar, M. A. (2020). Online Learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Student's perspectives. Journal of pedagogical, Sociology and Psychology, 45-51.

2) Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 9-26.

3) Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

4) Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall.

5) Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, New York: W.H. Freeman.

6) Bignoux, S., & Sund, K. J. (2018). Tutoring executives online: What drives perceived quality? Behavior & Information Technology, 37(7), 703-713.

7) Bourne, J. R., McMaster, E., Rieger, J., & Campbell, J. O. (1997). Paradigms for online learning: A case study in the design and implementation of an asynchronous learning network (ALAN) course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(2).

8) Brewer, S. M., & Erikson, D. F. (1997). A tale of two classrooms. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(2), 20-22.

9) Cereijo, M. P., Young, J., & Willhelm, R. W. (1999). Factors facilitating learner participation in synchrounous Web-based courses. Journal of computing in teacher education, 18(1), 32-39.

10) Chizmar, J. F., & Walbert, M. S. (1999). Web-based learning environments guided by principles of good teaching practice. The Journal of Economic Education, 30(3), 248-259.

11) Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.

12) Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

13) Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing systems. Electronic collaborators. Learner-centered technologie for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. 51-78.

14) Frankola, K. (2001). Why online learners drop out. WORKFORCE-COSTA MESA, 80(10), 52-61.

15) Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.

16) Golladay, R., Prybutok, V., & Huff, R. (2000). Critical success factors for the online learner. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 40(4), 69-71.

17) Gugliemino, I. M. (1977). Development of the self directed learning readiness scale. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation.

18) Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.

19) Hannafin, M. J. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 6-10.

20) Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999). Student's frustrations with a web-based distance education course. First Monday, 4(12).

21) Hartley, K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2001). Educational research in the internet age: Examining the role of individual characterstic. Educational Researcher, 30(9), 22-26.

22) Hill, J. R. (2002). Overcoming obstacles and creating connections: Community building in Web-based learning environment. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14(1), 67-86.

23) Huggett, C. (2014). The virtual training guidebook: How to design, deliver, and implement live online learning. American Society for Training and Development.

24) Johnson, R. D., Hornik, S., & Salas, E. (2008). An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(5), 356-369.

25) Jonnasen, R. D. (2002). Engaging and supporting problem solving in online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(1), 1-13.

26) Kim, K. J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students'Perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 335-344.

27) Laine , L. (2003). Is e-learning effecctive for IT training? T+D, 57(6), 55-60.

28) Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online Vs blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27-42.

29) McVay, M. (2001). How to be a successful distance learning student: learning on the Internet. New York: Prentice Hall.

30) Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1995). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont: CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

31) Muilenberg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (n.d.). Student barriers to Online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance education, 26(1), 29-48. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01587910500081269

32) Muthuprasad, T., & Jha, J. K. (2020). Students' Perception and Preference for Online Education in India during COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 38.

33) Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 309-319.

34) Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond learning no significance difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309-319.

35) Owston, R. D. (1997). The word wide web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 26(2), 27-33.

36) Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

37) Petrides, L. A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance ) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 69-77.

38) Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.

39) Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training . MIS Quarterly, 401-426.

40) Poole, D. M. (2000). Student perception in a discussion-oriented online courses: A case study. Journal of Research on computing in Education, 33(2), 162-177.

41) Rourke, J. R. (2001). Online learning: fad or fate? Principal leadership, 1(9), 8-14.

42) Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 5.

43) Thompson, D. (2014). A formula for perfect productivity: Work for 52 minutes, break for 17. The atlantic.

44) Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online courses: A case study. The Internet and higher education, 6(1), 77-90.