Informal interactions and their implications for online courses

Computers and Education

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 149-168

  Contreras Castillo, Juan ^a,b   Favela, Jesús ^a   Pérez Fragoso, Carmen ^c   Santamaría del Angel, Eduardo ^c  

^a CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y DE EDUCACIÓN SUPERIOR DE ENSENADA   (Mexico)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE COLIMA   (Mexico)

^c UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE BAJA CALIFORNIA   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Computer supported collaboration; Computer mediated communication; Distributed learning; Informal interactions; Learning communities

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK; DATA PRIVACY; DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS; LEARNING SYSTEMS; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL TESTS; STUDENTS;

COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION; DISTRIBUTED LEARNING; INFORMAL INTERACTIONS; ONLINE COURSES;

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION;

EID: 0345356277     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00069-1     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Barnes F.M., Lowery B.R. Sustaining two-way interaction and communication in distance learning. Technology Horizons in Education Journal. 25(8):1998;65-67.
2. Blanchard, W. (1989). Telecourse effectiveness: a research-review update. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 320 554.
3. Belanger F., Jordan D.H. Evaluation and implementation of distance learning: technologies, tools and techniques. 2000;Idea Group Publishing, London.
4. Contreras Castillo J.J., Pérez Fragoso C., Favela Vara J. Informal interaction in online learning and teaching. Montgomerie C., Viteli J. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. 2001;324-329 AACE, Norfolk, VA.
5. Czerwinski M., Cutrell E., Horvitz E. Instant messaging and interruption: influence of task type on performance. Paris C., Ozkan N., Howard S., Lu S. OZCHI 2000 Conference Proceedings. 2000;356-361.
6. Eastmond D. Alone but together: adult distance study through computer conferencing. 1995;Hampton Press, Creskill, NJ.
7. Frentiu M., Pop H.F. A study of dependence of software attributes using data analysis technique. Studia University Babes-Bolyai. 47(2):2002;53-66.
8. Froissart P. La formation asisté par Internet. Reseau pedagogique et reseau technique. MEI (Mediation et information). 11:2000;113-129.
9. Fulford C., Zhang S. Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education. 7(3):1993;8-21.
10. Gunawardena C.N., Zittte F.J. Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education. 13(3):1997;8-26.
11. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Nuevos caminos en el aprendizaje: nuevas formas de evaluar, Cuadernos de educación a distancia 3, Guadalajara, Mexico: Universidad de Guadalajara.
12. Hackman M.Z., Walker K.B. Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student Iearning and satisfaction. Communication Education. 39:1990;196-206.
13. Harasim L., Hiltz R., Teles L., Turoff M. Learning networks: a field guide to teaching and learning online. 1995;The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
14. Hara N., Kling R. Students' frustrations with a web-based distance education course. First Monday. 4(12):1999;. Available: http:// firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/hara/index.html.
15. Hassenplug C., Hamish D. The nature and importance of interaction in distance education credit classes at technical institutes. Community College Journal of Reseach and Practice. 22(6):1998;591-605.
16. Hillman D.C., Willis D.J., Gunawardena C.N. Learner-interface interaction in distance education: an extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education. 8(2):1994;30-42.
17. Hiltz R. The Virtual Classroom: learning without limits via computer networks. 1994;Ablex Publishing Co, Norwood, NJ.
18. Kraut R., Fish R., Root R., Chalfonte B. Informal communication in organizations: Form, function and technology. Oskamp S., Spacapan S. People reactions to technology in factories, offices and aerospace. The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psycology. 1990;145-199 Sage Publications, Newbury, Park, CA.
19. Lamport M.A. Student-faculty informal interaction and the effect on college student outcomes: a review of the literature. Adolescence. 28(112):1993;971-990.
20. Miltiadou, M., & Mclsaac, M. (2000). Problems and practical solutions of Web-based courses: lessons learned from three educational institutions. Paper presented at the 11th lntemationat Conference of the Society for Information and Technology & Teacher Education, San Diego, California.
21. Moore M.G. Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education. 3(2):1989;1-6.
22. Morán, A., Favela, J., Martinez, A., & Decouchant, D. (2001). Document presence notification services for collaborative writing. In 7th International Workshop on Groupware. CRIWG'2001, (pp. 125-133). Dermstadt, Germany: IEEE Computer Press.
23. Mowrer D. A content analysis of student/instructor communication via computer conferencing. Higher Education. 32:1996;217-241.
24. Navarro, C. X., Faveta, J., & Contreras, J. (2002). Apoyo a actividades educativas por medio de dispositivos mOviles. In II Congreso Intemacional de Educación Abierta y a Distancia (CEAD 2002). (pp. 63-70). Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico.
25. Pascarelta E.T., Terenzini P.T., Hibel H. Student faculty interactionat settings and their relationships to predict academic performance. Journal of Higher Education. 49:1978;450-463.
26. Sharma S. Applied multivariate techniques. 1996;Wiley, New York.
27. Sherry L. The nature and purpose of online discourse: a brief synthesis of current research as related to the web project. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. 6(1):2000;19-51.
28. Spady W.G. Dropouts from higher education: an interdisciplinary review and synthesis. Interchange. 1:1970;64-85.
29. Stolowy H., Tenenhaus M. International accounting education in Western Europe. The European Accounting Review. 7(1):1998;289-314. Available: http://campus.hec.fr/profslstolowy/perso/ArticleslSyllaE .pdf.
30. Tu C.H. The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal of E-Learning, corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education. AACE. 2(1):2002;34-45.
31. Wegerif R. The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2(1):1998;34-49. Available: http:// www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/vol2_issuel /wegerif.htm.
32. Whittaker, S., Frohlich, D., & Daly-Jones, W. (1994). Informal workplace communication: How is it like and how might we support it? In Proceeding of the CHI '94 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: (pp. 131-137) ACM Press, New York, NY.
33. Whittaker S. Rethinking video as a technology for interpersonal communication. International Journal of Human Computer Studies. 42:1995;501-529.
34. Whittaker S., Swanson G., Kucan J., Sidner C. Telenotes: managing lightweight interactions in the desktop. Transactions on Computer Human Interaction. 4:1997;137-168.