Purpose This study investigates student satisfaction with blended learning in Indian higher education, examining how demographic, academic and technological factors shape satisfaction and identifying which dimensions of the learners' satisfaction in blended learning scale (LSBLS) most strongly predict overall satisfaction. The study positions its findings as applicable to resource-constrained higher education contexts across Asia and the Global South. Design/methodology/approach A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted with 210 undergraduate and postgraduate students from three institutions in Uttar Dinajpur district, India. The self-developed LSBLS (26 items; five dimensions) was validated through exploratory factor analysis and demonstrated excellent reliability (α = 0.92). Four research questions guided the study, addressed through independent samples t-tests, one-way ANOVA and multiple linear regression supplemented with Cohen's d and η2 effect sizes. Findings Students reported moderate overall satisfaction. Access-layer variables – residence, Internet accessibility and device type – produced the most practically significant group differences, while demographic variables (gender, family type and course level) produced negligible effects. Regression analysis identified Interaction and Course Administration as the dominant satisfaction predictors, followed by Learning Outcomes, Technological Support and Assessment, supporting the proposed two-layer distinction between access-enabling and pedagogy-determining factors. Originality/value This study contributes the validated LSBLS instrument and a theoretically grounded two-layer satisfaction model extending TAM and the Community of Inquiry framework. The model proposes that access conditions enable participation while pedagogical quality – mediated by learner engagement – determines its ceiling, offering institutional decision-makers an empirically supported priority hierarchy applicable to open and distance learning contexts worldwide.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Das et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: