Author, Subjects, Keywords

Cited Author

 
 
   » By Author or Editor
 » Browse Author by Alphabet
 » By Journal
 » By Subjects
 » Malaysian Journals
 » By Type
 » By Year
 » By Latest Additions
 
 
   » By Author
 » Top 20 Authors
 » Top 20 Article
 » Top Journal Cited
 » Top Article Cited
 » Journal Citation Statistics
 » Usage Since Sept 2007


 
 
 

Login | Create Account

Interactions in e-learning in undergraduate courses

Fahad N. Alfahad, (2010) Interactions in e-learning in undergraduate courses. Asean Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 2 (1). pp. 3-11. ISSN ISSN :1985-5826

[img]
Preview
PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
57Kb

Official URL: http://pkukmweb.ukm.my/jtlhe/Default.aspx

Affiliations

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the common characteristics of the use of interaction (UI) from cases in Saudi Arabia. This study investigates the interactions between students, instructors, interface, and the content in distance education courses. The study was conducted in the College of Applied Studies and Community Service at King Saud University. The survey was distributed to 505 female college students selected randomly from a pool of 1,500 female students who were attending five basic courses in different areas. The measurements of interaction included frequency and interval. An exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the common components in this context. The result revealed that UI is composed of three main factors, namely human-to-human interactions, human-to-non-human interactions, and access duration. The results of this study show the use of interactions, which reflects the students’ actual use. This study also helps give administrators and instructors a better understanding of the pattern of interaction from the student perspective. It could be implied that students perceived the interaction in three distinct contexts by means of out-of-class communication, channel to learning experiences, and time spent.

Item Type:Journal
Keywords:interactions between students, ubstructors, interface, Saudi Arabia
Subjects:L Education
ID Code:9840

Alavi, M., Wheeler, B.C. & Valacich, J. S. 1995. Using IT to reengineer business education: An exploratory investigation of collaborative tel. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 293-312.

Al Fahad, N. F. 2008. Surveying instructor and learner attitudes towards courses in the College of Applied Studies and Community Service in Saudi Arabia IASK Proceeding TL 2008 – Teaching & Learning, 26-28 May, 2008. Aveiro, Portugal.

Arbangh, J. B. 2000. How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in internet based MBA Courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 90-26 .

Bork, A. 2002. Interactive learning – interactive learning : Twenty years later. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 2(4): 605-611.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A.L. & Cocking, R. R., eds. 1999. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Washington D. C: National Academy Press.

Chaun, P. Y. K. 1996. An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2): 185-204.

Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S. C. 1996. Implementing the seven principles: technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin. http://www.aahebulletin.com/public/archive/sevenprinciples.asp. (5 august 2006)

Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychrometrics, 16, 397-334.

Fulford, C. & Zhang, S. 1993. Perception of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education". American Journal of Distance Education, 7 (3), 8-21.

Gao, T, and Lehman, J. D. 2003. The effects of different levels of interaction on the achievement and motivational perceptions of college students in a web-based learning environment. J. of Interactive Learning Research 14(4): 367-386.

Gatignon,H. 2003. Statistical Analysis of Management Data. Kluwer Academic Publisher (44-66)

Glenn, L. M., Jones, C. G. & Hoyt, J. E. 2003. The effect of interaction levels on student performance: A comparative analysis of web-mediated versus traditional delivery. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(3): 285-299.

Gunawardena, C. N. 1995. Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. 1(2): 147-166.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W. C. 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed . Upper Saddle River, New Jersy: Prentice-Hall.

Hillman, D. C. A., 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.

Jonassen, D. H. 1992. Evaluating constructivistic learning. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (137-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

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): 153-162.

Keegan, D. 1996. Foundations of distance education. New York: Routledge.

Klesins, J., Homan, S. & Thompson, T. 1997. Distance education compared to traditional instruction: The Students' view. International Journal of instructional Media. 24 (3), 207-220.

Leidner, D. E. & Jarvenpaa, S. L. 1995. The use of information technology to enhance management of school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19(3): 265-291.

Lipman, M. 1991. Thinking in education. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Moore, M. G. 1989. Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education.

3(2): 1-6. 11

Mortera–Gutierrez, F. 2002. Instructor interaction in distance education environments, Journal of Interactive Learning Research 13(3): 191-209.

Northrup, P. 2001. A framework for designing interactivity into web-based instruction. Educational Technology, 41(2): 31-39.

Opitz, C. 2002. Online course accessibility: A call for responsibility and necessity. Educational Technology Review, 10(1): 81-105.

Pena-Shaff, J., Martin, W. & Gay, G. 2001. An epistemological framework for analyzing student interactions in computer mediated communication environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1): 41-68.

Sia, C. L., Tan, B.C.Y., & Wei, K.K., (2002). Group polarization and computer – mediated Communication: Effect of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity.

Information System Research, 13 (1): 70-90.

Sims, R. 1999. Interactivity on stage: Strategies for learner-designer communication. Australian J. of Educational Technology, 15(3): 257-272.

Smith, C. K., 1996. May, Convenience vs. connection; computer students' views on distance learning. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Instutional Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397725).

Vrasidas, C. & McIsaac, M. S. 1999. Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3):22-36.

Warkentin, M. E., Sayeed, Li. & Hightower, R. 1997. Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study for a web-based conference system, Decision Sciences, 28(4):975-996.

Zhang. C. & Fulford, S. 1994. Are interaction time and psychological interactivity the same thing in the distance learning television classroom? Educational Technology, 34 (6), 58-64.

Zirkin, B. & Sumler, D. 1995. Interactive or non – interactive? That is the question! An annotated bibiography. Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 95-112.

Corresponding Author : alfahadfn@yahoo.com

Repository Staff Only: item control page
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Copyright 2007 MyAIS Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya – All Rights Reserved. Malaysian Abstracting and Indexing System is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.