Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Açık ve Uzaktan Öğrenme için Bir Etkileşim Çerçevesi: Öğrenme Çıktıları, Motivasyon, Memnuniyet, Algı

Year 2019, Volume: 10 Issue: 36, 7 - 26, 15.02.2019

Alper Tolga Kumtepe , Eda Atasoy Özlem Kaya Serap Uğur , Gökhan Deniz Dinçer , Erdem Erdoğdu Cengiz Hakan Aydın

https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2019.1.001.x

Abstract

Etkileşim terimi, yüzyüze eğitim ortamlarının yanı sıra günümüzde çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarının tasarımında sıklıkla duyulmaktadır. Çevrimiçi araçlar farklı etkileşim türlerini barındırmaktadır. Etkileşim üzerine kuramsal çerçeveyi özetlemek, öğrenme ortamları tasarlanırken hangi etkileşim türü için hangi çevrimiçi araçların kullanılması gerektiği bu makalenin amaçlarından biridir. Ayrıca çalışmada, etkileşim ile öğrenme çıktılarının ilişkisi, etkileşim ile öğrenen güdülenmesi, memnuniyet ve algı ilişkileri üzerine durulmaktadır. Kuramsal anlamda yeterince bilinen etkileşimin uygulama boyutu, uzaktan eğitim bağlamında tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

Etkileşim E-Öğrenme Açık Ve Uzaktan Öğrenme Öğrenme Çıktıları

References

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E.M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, (Special Issue: Improving Interaction in Distance Education Through Research), 23 (2-3), 82-103. doi:10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x
  • Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction.
  • International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 126–141.
  • Anderson, T., & Garrison, D.R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education. (p. 97-112). Madison, WI.: Atwood Publishing.
  • Beard, L. A., & Harper, C. (2002). Student perceptions of online versus on campus instruction. Education, 122, 658-663.
  • Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. a., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. a.,& Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. doi:10.3102/0034654309333844
  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.
  • Booher, R. K., & Seiler, J. W. (1982). Speech communication anxiety: An impediment to academic achievement in the university classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction 18(1), 23-27.
  • Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman.
  • Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems : a technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 265–279.
  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Macmillan Publishers. Dooley, K. E., Lindner, J. R., & Dooley, L. M. (2002). Facilitating interactions for e-Learning.
  • Dunlap, B. J. C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D. I. (2007). Supporting students’ cognitive processing in online courses: Designing for Deep and Meaningful Student-to-Content Interactions, TechTrends, 51(4), 20-31.
  • Erdoğdu, E. (2016). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme kapsamında etkileşimli ekitaplar: etkileşim, teknoloji, üretim boyutu ve örnekleri. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3).
  • Ertmer, P. a., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online courses: the role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 157–186. doi:10.1007/s12528-011-9047-6
  • Fuller, R. (2011). Distinctive distance learning education design: Models for differentiated instruction. IGI Global.
  • Fuller, R. G., Kuhne, G. W., & Frey, B. A. (2011). Distinctive distance education design: models for differentiated instruction. Information Science Reference. Retrieved from http://lib.freescienceengineering.org/
  • Gabillon, Z. (2005). L2 learners’ beliefs: An overview. Journal of Language and Learning, 3(2), 233-260.
  • Gagne, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects useful categories of human performance,
  • American Psychologist, 39(4), 377–385.
  • Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1988). Principles of instructional design (3rd. ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Garrison, D.R.. and Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough. The American Journal of Distance Education. 19(3),133-148.
  • Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29-35.
  • Govindasamy, T. (2002). Successful implementation of e-Learning; Pedagogical considerations, Internet and Higher Education, 4, 287-299.
  • Harmer, J. (2004). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner‐interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
  • Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing and sequencing planned e-learning interactions, The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141-160.
  • Hirumi, A. (2006). Analysing and designing e-learning interactions. Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice, 46-71.
  • Hirumi, A., & Bermudez, A. (1996). Interactivity, distance education, and instructional systems design converge on the information superhighway. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(1), 1- 16.
  • Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and practice of distance education. New York: Routledge.
  • Horn, D. (1994). Distance education: Is interactivity compromised? Performance Improvement, 33(9), 12- 15.
  • Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction, and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–163.
  • Keeler, L. C. (2006). Student satisfaction and types of interaction in distance education courses.
  • Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(9). (UMI No. 3233345).
  • Ke, F., Kwak, D. (2013). Online learning across ethnicity and age: A study on learning interaction participation, perception, and learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 61, 43-51.
  • Kuo, Y. C. (2014). Accelerated online learning: Perceptions of interaction and learning outcomes among African American students, The American Journal of Distance Education, 28(4), 241-252.
  • Mahle, M. (2007). Interactivity in distance education. Distance Learning, 4(1), 47-51.
  • Markwood, R., & Johnstone, S. (1994). New Pathways to a degree: Technology opens the college. Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder, CO.
  • Martin, F., Parker, M. A., & Deale, D. F. (2012). Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual classrooms. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 228–261.
  • Mason, R. (1994). Using communications media in open and flexible learning. London: Kogan Page.
  • Mishra, S., & Juwah, C. (2006). Interactions in online discussions: A pedagogical perspective. Interactions in online education: implications for theory and practice, 157-170.
  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1– 7. doi:10.1080/08923648909526659.
  • Moore, M. G., & Anderson, W. G. (2003). Handbook of Distance Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Moore, M. G., Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  • Murray, M., Pérez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2013). Student interaction with content in online and
  • hybrid courses: Leading horses to the proverbial water. Informing Science, 16(1), 99–115.
  • Parker, A. (1999). Interaction in distance education: The critical conversation. AACE Journal, 1 (12), 13- 17.
  • Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rose, E. (1999). Deconstructing interactivity in educational computing. Educational Technology, 39(1), 43- 49.
  • Schwier, R., & Misanchuk, E. (1993). Interactive Multimedia Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  • Sewart, D. (1982). Individualizing support services. In Learning at a Distance: A World Perspective, edited by J. S. Daniel, M. A. Stroud, and J. R. Thompson. Edmonton: ICCE/Athabasca University.
  • Shale, D., & Garrison. D. R., (1990). Introduction to Education at a Distance. edited by D. R. Garrison and D. Shale. Malabar: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.
  • Shank, P. (2003). Interaction with Instructional Content in e-Learning Programs or Courses, The E- Learning Guild. Retrieved 10 Oct. 2015 from http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/1/survey- oct03.pdf.
  • Shearer, R. (2013). Theory to practice in Instructional Design. Handbook of distance education, 251-267. Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art?
  • Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157-180.
  • Sims, R. (2000). An interactive conundrum: Constructs of interactivity and learning theory. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 45-57.   Smith, C. K., (1996, May). Convenience vs. connection: Commuter students' views on distance learning. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 725)
  • Stouppe, J. R. (1998). Measuring interactivity, Performance Improvement, 37(9), 19-23.
  • Su, B., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka R. J., Liu, X. And Lee, S. (2005). The Importance of Interaction in Web-Based Education: A Program-level Case Study of Online MBA Courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning.     Vol:4,             No:1.                      Retrieved     from                               15.09.2015      from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/4.1.1.pdf
  • Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22, 306-331.
  • Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K. (2004a). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1), 9-26.
  • Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K. (2004b). Towards an Understanding of Interactions in Distance Education. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics (OJNI). Vol. 8, No. 2. [Online]. Available at http://ojni.org/8_2/interactions.htm
  • Uden,  L.,  &  Campion,  R.  (2000).  Integrating  modality  theory  in  educational  multimedia  design.
  • ASCILITE. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/coffs00/papers/lorna_uden.pdf
  • Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339- 362.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Yacci, M. (2000). Interactivity demystified: A structural definition. Educational Technology. 40(4), 5-16 Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance
  • Education, 8(2), 6 – 29.
  • Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1997(71), 19-26.
  • Yüzer, V. ( 2013). Uzaktan öğrenmede etkileşimlilik: Ortaya çıkışı kullanılan teknolojiler ve bilgiakışı.
  • Ankara: Kültür Ajans Yayınları.
  • Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses.
  • The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 152-165.

An Interaction Framework for Open and Distance Learning: Learning Outcomes, Motivation, Satisfaction, and Perception

Year 2019, Volume: 10 Issue: 36, 7 - 26, 15.02.2019

Alper Tolga Kumtepe , Eda Atasoy Özlem Kaya Serap Uğur , Gökhan Deniz Dinçer , Erdem Erdoğdu Cengiz Hakan Aydın

https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2019.1.001.x

Abstract

Interaction is often heard in the design of online learning environments as well as centuries of educational environments. Online tools have different types of interaction. It is one of the aims of this article to summarize the theoretical framework for interaction, which online tools should be used for which type of interaction while designing learning environments. In addition, the study focuses on the relationship between interaction and learning outcomes, interaction and learning motivation, satisfaction and perception. The practical dimension of the well-known interaction in the theoretical sense is discussed in the context of distance education.

Keywords

Interaction E-Learning Open and Distance Learning Learning Outcomes

References

  • Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E.M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, (Special Issue: Improving Interaction in Distance Education Through Research), 23 (2-3), 82-103. doi:10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x
  • Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction.
  • International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 126–141.
  • Anderson, T., & Garrison, D.R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education. (p. 97-112). Madison, WI.: Atwood Publishing.
  • Beard, L. A., & Harper, C. (2002). Student perceptions of online versus on campus instruction. Education, 122, 658-663.
  • Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. a., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. a.,& Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. doi:10.3102/0034654309333844
  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.
  • Booher, R. K., & Seiler, J. W. (1982). Speech communication anxiety: An impediment to academic achievement in the university classroom. Journal of Classroom Interaction 18(1), 23-27.
  • Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman.
  • Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems : a technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 265–279.
  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Macmillan Publishers. Dooley, K. E., Lindner, J. R., & Dooley, L. M. (2002). Facilitating interactions for e-Learning.
  • Dunlap, B. J. C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D. I. (2007). Supporting students’ cognitive processing in online courses: Designing for Deep and Meaningful Student-to-Content Interactions, TechTrends, 51(4), 20-31.
  • Erdoğdu, E. (2016). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme kapsamında etkileşimli ekitaplar: etkileşim, teknoloji, üretim boyutu ve örnekleri. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3).
  • Ertmer, P. a., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online courses: the role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 157–186. doi:10.1007/s12528-011-9047-6
  • Fuller, R. (2011). Distinctive distance learning education design: Models for differentiated instruction. IGI Global.
  • Fuller, R. G., Kuhne, G. W., & Frey, B. A. (2011). Distinctive distance education design: models for differentiated instruction. Information Science Reference. Retrieved from http://lib.freescienceengineering.org/
  • Gabillon, Z. (2005). L2 learners’ beliefs: An overview. Journal of Language and Learning, 3(2), 233-260.
  • Gagne, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects useful categories of human performance,
  • American Psychologist, 39(4), 377–385.
  • Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1988). Principles of instructional design (3rd. ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Garrison, D.R.. and Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough. The American Journal of Distance Education. 19(3),133-148.
  • Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29-35.
  • Govindasamy, T. (2002). Successful implementation of e-Learning; Pedagogical considerations, Internet and Higher Education, 4, 287-299.
  • Harmer, J. (2004). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner‐interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
  • Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing and sequencing planned e-learning interactions, The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141-160.
  • Hirumi, A. (2006). Analysing and designing e-learning interactions. Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice, 46-71.
  • Hirumi, A., & Bermudez, A. (1996). Interactivity, distance education, and instructional systems design converge on the information superhighway. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(1), 1- 16.
  • Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and practice of distance education. New York: Routledge.
  • Horn, D. (1994). Distance education: Is interactivity compromised? Performance Improvement, 33(9), 12- 15.
  • Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction, and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–163.
  • Keeler, L. C. (2006). Student satisfaction and types of interaction in distance education courses.
  • Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(9). (UMI No. 3233345).
  • Ke, F., Kwak, D. (2013). Online learning across ethnicity and age: A study on learning interaction participation, perception, and learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 61, 43-51.
  • Kuo, Y. C. (2014). Accelerated online learning: Perceptions of interaction and learning outcomes among African American students, The American Journal of Distance Education, 28(4), 241-252.
  • Mahle, M. (2007). Interactivity in distance education. Distance Learning, 4(1), 47-51.
  • Markwood, R., & Johnstone, S. (1994). New Pathways to a degree: Technology opens the college. Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder, CO.
  • Martin, F., Parker, M. A., & Deale, D. F. (2012). Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual classrooms. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 228–261.
  • Mason, R. (1994). Using communications media in open and flexible learning. London: Kogan Page.
  • Mishra, S., & Juwah, C. (2006). Interactions in online discussions: A pedagogical perspective. Interactions in online education: implications for theory and practice, 157-170.
  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1– 7. doi:10.1080/08923648909526659.
  • Moore, M. G., & Anderson, W. G. (2003). Handbook of Distance Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Moore, M. G., Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  • Murray, M., Pérez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2013). Student interaction with content in online and
  • hybrid courses: Leading horses to the proverbial water. Informing Science, 16(1), 99–115.
  • Parker, A. (1999). Interaction in distance education: The critical conversation. AACE Journal, 1 (12), 13- 17.
  • Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Rose, E. (1999). Deconstructing interactivity in educational computing. Educational Technology, 39(1), 43- 49.
  • Schwier, R., & Misanchuk, E. (1993). Interactive Multimedia Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
  • Sewart, D. (1982). Individualizing support services. In Learning at a Distance: A World Perspective, edited by J. S. Daniel, M. A. Stroud, and J. R. Thompson. Edmonton: ICCE/Athabasca University.
  • Shale, D., & Garrison. D. R., (1990). Introduction to Education at a Distance. edited by D. R. Garrison and D. Shale. Malabar: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.
  • Shank, P. (2003). Interaction with Instructional Content in e-Learning Programs or Courses, The E- Learning Guild. Retrieved 10 Oct. 2015 from http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/1/survey- oct03.pdf.
  • Shearer, R. (2013). Theory to practice in Instructional Design. Handbook of distance education, 251-267. Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art?
  • Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157-180.
  • Sims, R. (2000). An interactive conundrum: Constructs of interactivity and learning theory. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 45-57.   Smith, C. K., (1996, May). Convenience vs. connection: Commuter students' views on distance learning. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 725)
  • Stouppe, J. R. (1998). Measuring interactivity, Performance Improvement, 37(9), 19-23.
  • Su, B., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka R. J., Liu, X. And Lee, S. (2005). The Importance of Interaction in Web-Based Education: A Program-level Case Study of Online MBA Courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning.     Vol:4,             No:1.                      Retrieved     from                               15.09.2015      from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/4.1.1.pdf
  • Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22, 306-331.
  • Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K. (2004a). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1), 9-26.
  • Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K. (2004b). Towards an Understanding of Interactions in Distance Education. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics (OJNI). Vol. 8, No. 2. [Online]. Available at http://ojni.org/8_2/interactions.htm
  • Uden,  L.,  &  Campion,  R.  (2000).  Integrating  modality  theory  in  educational  multimedia  design.
  • ASCILITE. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/coffs00/papers/lorna_uden.pdf
  • Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339- 362.
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Yacci, M. (2000). Interactivity demystified: A structural definition. Educational Technology. 40(4), 5-16 Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance
  • Education, 8(2), 6 – 29.
  • Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1997(71), 19-26.
  • Yüzer, V. ( 2013). Uzaktan öğrenmede etkileşimlilik: Ortaya çıkışı kullanılan teknolojiler ve bilgiakışı.
  • Ankara: Kültür Ajans Yayınları.
  • Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses.
  • The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 152-165.
There are 71 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Alper Tolga Kumtepe

Eda Atasoy This is me

Özlem Kaya This is me

Serap Uğur

Gökhan Deniz Dinçer

Erdem Erdoğdu This is me

Cengiz Hakan Aydın

Publication Date February 15, 2019
Submission Date December 15, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 10 Issue: 36

Cite

APA Kumtepe, A. T., Atasoy, E., Kaya, Ö., Uğur, S., et al. (2019). An Interaction Framework for Open and Distance Learning: Learning Outcomes, Motivation, Satisfaction, and Perception. AJIT-E: Academic Journal of Information Technology, 10(36), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2019.1.001.x
 Download Cover Image

  21487 22762  21488   21489   21490

Creative Commons License
Articles in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.