Interaction Increasing Factors: Research on E-learning Content Design

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 9, 25 - 40, 09.04.2021

Hülya Soydaş Çakır , Erhan Akyazı

https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.786457

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Interaction is one of the key elements for learning and it also has a significant role in increasing efficiency in e-learning programs. Several studies indicate that high level of learner and content interaction provided by e-learning programs brings learner satisfaction and achievement. During the learning process, content interaction provides an effective means to reach learning goals. Successful content design and adequate content interaction items are essential to sustain attention, provide motivation, achieve high levels of satisfaction of learning and provide significant increase in learning performance. In this study, perception and expectation of 236 e-learners are examined to observe the outcomes of content design in learning. The items required for content interaction are classified under three main topics as Attention-Motivation, Satisfaction and Learning Performance. The research model is based on how efficient design of these items helps to increase learner and content interaction. The increase of interaction will result in learner achievement. Therefore, the efficiency of the e-learning process will correlate with higher levels of learner-content interaction. Adequate and efficient content design contributes to effective learning.

Keywords

Interaction, information technologies, e-learning, content design

References

• Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M, Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E. & Tamim, R. (2010, July). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. The Evolution from Distance Education to Distributed Learning 2010 Research Symposium, Bloomington, Indiana, July 20-23.
• Allen, M. W. (2003). Michael Allen’s guide to e-learning: Building interactive, fun and effective learning programs for any company. New Jersey, USA: John Willey & Sons, Inc.
• Allen, M. W. (2008). Best practices in online course development. In Handbook for workplace learning proffessionals (pp. 251-270). In E. Biech (Ed.), The American Society for Training & Development (ASTD), Maryland: United Book Press.
• Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning, In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 3-31), Canada: Athabasca University.
• Al-Rawahi, N. M., & Al-Balushi, S. M. (2015). The effect of reflective science journal writing on students' self-regulated learning strategies. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(3), 367-379. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2015.250a
• Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, USA: Longman.
• Andrews, R. & Haythornthwaite, C. (2007). The SAGE handbook of e-learning research. Wiltshire: Cromwell Press Ltd.
• Blackboard Inc. (2011) Blackboard exemplary course program rubric. Retrieved from https://www.evansville.edu/centerforlearning/downloads/Course-Development-Process/Blackboard-Exemplary-Course-Rubric.pdf
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Book 1 Cognitive domain. New York, USA: Longman.
• Bonk, C. J. & Zhang, K. (2008). Empowering online learning. San Francisco, USA: Wiley & Sons Inc.
• Chickering, A. & Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: technology as lever, AAHE Bulletin, October, 3-6.
• Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning, Fourth Edition, New Jersey: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Chua, C. & Montalbo, J. (2014). Assessing students’ satisfaction on the use of virtual learning environment (VLE): An input to a campus-wide e-learning design and implementation. Information and Knowledge Management, 3(4), 108-116.
• Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 217-226.
• Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Second edition. Boston, USA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Driscoll, M. & Carliner, S. (2005). Advanced web-based training strategies: Unlocking instructionally sound online learning. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Erlich, Z. (2009). Integrating new technologies to promote distance learning. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (pp. 1228-1243), Second edition, Hershey, USA: IGI Global.
• Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and the theory of instruction. Fourth edition. New York, USA: Hlot, Rinehart and Winston.
• Gagne, R. M., Briggs L. J. & Wager W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design. 4th Edition. Orlando, USA: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
• Hannafin, M. J. & Hooper, S, (1989). An integrated framework for cbi screen design and layout. Computers in Human Behaviour, 5(3), 155-165.
• Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J. & Gunawerdena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
• Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of e-learning interactions: A grounded approach, International Journal on E-Learning, 1(1), 19-27.
• Holmberg, B. (1995). The evolution of the character and practice of distance education, Open Learning, 10(2), 47-53.
• Ice, P., Akyol, Z., Swan, K. & Richardson, J. C. (2010). The relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry framework and online student retention. In S. Gülseçen & Z. A. Reis (Eds.), Third International Conference on Innovations in Learning for the Future 2010: e-Learning (pp. 256-266). İstanbul: T.C. İstanbul Kültür University Publication, No: 125.
• Jaques, D. & Salmon, G. (2007). Learning in groups: A handbook for face-to-face and online environments. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
• Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Supporting communities of learners with technology: A vision for integrating technology in learning in schools. Educational Technology, 35(4), 60-63.
• Jones, S. (2003). Encyclopedia of new media: An essential reference to communication and technology. New York: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C. & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning acheivement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153-162.
• Keller J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.
• Keller J.M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York, USA: Springer.
• Khan, B. H. (2005). Managing e-learning strategies: design, delivery, implementation and evaluation. Hershey: Information Science Publishing.
• Lewis, R. & Whitlock, Q. A. (2003). How to plan and manage an e-learning programmme. Cornwall, UK: MPG Books Limited.
• Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I. & Kelly, K. (2009). New media: A critical introduction. Second edition, Oxon: Routledge.
• Luo, N., Zhang, M. & Qi, D. (2017). Effects of different interactions on students' sense of community in e-learning environment. Computers & Education, 115, 153-160.
• Naidu, S. (2006). E-learning a guide of principles, procedures and practices. 2nd revised edition, Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA). New Delhi: Aishi Creative Workshop
• Novitzki, J. E. (2009). Necessities for effective asynchronous learning. In P. Rogers, G. Berg, J. Boettcher, C. Howard, L. Justice & K. Schenk (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (pp.1468-1474), Second edition, Hershey, USA: IGI Global.
• Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.
• Premlatha, K. R. & Geetha, T. V. (2015) Learning content design and learner adaptation for adaptive e-learning environment: a survey. Artificial Intelligence Review, 44, 443-465.
• Rafaeli, S. & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4).
• Rayens, W. & Ellis, A. (2018). Creating a student-centered learning environment online. Journal of Statistics Education, 26(2), 92-102.
• Roblyer, M. D. & Wiencke, W. R. (2004). Exploring the interaction equation: Validating a rubric to assess and encourage interaction in distance courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 25-37.
• Shank, P. (2003). Interaction with instructional content in e-learning programs or courses. The Elearning Guild, Survey Series / October 2003. Retrieved from https://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/1/survey-oct03.pdf
• Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London, UK: Kogan Page Limited.
• Schone, B. J. (2007). Engaging interactions for eLearning. ElearningPulse. Retrieved from https://faculty.mercer.edu/codone_s/tco425/2012/EngagingInteractionsForELearning
• Sharp, J. H. & Huett, J. B. (2006). Importance of learner-learner interaction in distance education. Information Systems Education Journal, 4(46), 3-10.
• Simpson, R. J. & Galbo, J. J. (1986). Interaction and learning: Theorizing on the art of teaching. Interchange, 17(4), 37-51.
• Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen Y. & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical actors influencing learner satisfaction, Computers&Education, 50, 1183-1202.
• Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interactivity: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses, Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.
• Swan, K., Shen, J. & Hiltz, S. R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45-62.
• Thurmond, V.A. & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1), 9-33,
• Tu, C. H. & Yen, C. J. (2007). A study of multi-dimensional online social presence. In R.V.Nata (Ed.), Progress in Education, 14, 41-68. New York, USA: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
• Urdan, T. A. & Weggen, C. C. (2000). corporate e-learning: exploring a new frontier, equity research, WR Hambrecht + Co., March.
• Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: from agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71, 19-26.
• Weiser, O., Blau, I. & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2018). How do medium naturalness, teaching-learning interactions and students’ personality traits affect participation in synchronous e-learning? The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 40-51.
• Wilson, J. (2007). An examination of the relationships of interaction, learner styles and course content on student satisfaction and out comes in online learning. Dissertation Doctor of Education, Faculty of Education, University of Southern Queensland. Wilson, J. & Albion, P. (2009). Interaction, learner styles and content in online courses: Implications for teacher preparation. In I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen, D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2009-Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 571-578.