The effects of online syllabus interactivity on students' perception of the course and instructor

Internet and Higher Education

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 41-52

  Grigorovici, Dan ^a   Nam, Siho ^a   Russill, Chris ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Hyperlinks; Interactivity; Online educational material; Online syllabus

Indexed keywords

ELECTRONIC MAIL; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; ONLINE SYSTEMS; TELECOMMUNICATION LINKS; WEBSITES;

MAGAZINE SURVEYS; ONLINE MATERIALS; ONLINE SYLLABUS; VOICE-TELEPHONY;

EDUCATION;

EID: 2942606253     PISSN: 10967516     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00163-X     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Barker P. Designing interactive learning. de Jong T., Sarti L. Design and production of multimedia and simulation-based learning material. 1994;Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
2. Becker A.H., Calhoon S.K. What introductory students attend to on a course syllabus. Teaching of Psychology. 26(1):1999;6-11.
3. Behnke R.R., Miller P. Information in class syllabus may build student interest: user-friendly document promotes involvement. Journalism Educator. 44(3):1989;45-47.
4. Bezjian-Avery A., Calder B., Iacobucci D. New media interactive advertising vs. traditional advertising. Journal of Advertising Research. 38(4):1998;23-32.
5. Brody E.W. Communication tomorrow: new audiences, new technologies, new media. 1990;Praeger, New York.
6. Brown J.S. Growing up digital: how the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change. 2000;11-20. March/April.
7. Chen M. A methodology for characterizing computer-based learning environments. Instructional Science. 23:1995;183-220.
8. Downes E.J., McMillan S.J. Defining interactivity: a qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media and Society. 2(2):2000;157-179.
9. Durlak J.T. A typology for interactive media. Communication Yearbook. 10:1987;743-757.
10. Eveland W.P., Dunwoody S. Examining information processing on the World Wide Web using think aloud protocols. Media Psychology. 2:2000;219-244.
11. Goertz L. Wie interaktiv sind Medien? Auf dem Weg zu einer Definition von Interaktivität. How interactive are media? Towards a definition of interactivity Rundfunk und Fernsehen. 43:1995;477-493.
12. Ha L., James E.L. Interactivity reexamined: a baseline analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. 42(4):1998;457-474.
13. Heeter C. Implications of new interactive technologies for conceptualizing communication. Salvaggio J.L., Bryant J. Media use in the information age: emerging patterns of adoption and consumer use. 1989;217-235 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
14. Jones S.G. Information, Internet, and community: notes toward an understanding of community in the information age. Jones S.G. Cybersociety 2.0: revisiting computer-mediated communication and community. 1998;1-34.
15. Mahood C., Kalyanaraman S., Sundar S.S. The effects of erotica and dehumanizing pornography in an online interactive environment. Paper presented to the Communication Theory & Methodology division at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (AEJMC), August, Phoenix, AZ:2000.
16. Phillips R. The developer's handbook to interactive multimedia. 1997;Kogan Page, London.
17. Rafaeli S. Interactivity: from new media to communication. Hawkins R., Weimann J., Pingree S. Advancing communication science: merging mass and interpersonal processes. 1988;124-181 Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
18. Rafaeli S., Sudweeks F. Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 2(4):1997;. Retrieved January 20, 2003, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol2/issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html.
19. Rhodes D.M., Azbell J.W. Designing interactive video instruction professionally. Training and Development Journal. 39(12):1985;31-33.
20. Sims R.C. Engagement, control and the learner: a theoretical appraisal of interactivity. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 1996 conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Adelaide, Australia, December 2-4:1996;. Retrieved January 20, 2003, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide96/papers/40.html.
21. Smith M.F., Razzouk N.Y. Improving classroom communication: the case of the course syllabus. Journal of Education for Business. 68(4):1993;215-221.
22. Steuer J. Virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. Biocca F., Levy M.R. Communication in the age of virtual reality. 1995;33-56 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
23. Sundar S.S. Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: a study of picture, audio and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 77(3):2000;480-499.
24. Sundar S.S., Hesser K.M., Kalyanaraman S., Brown J. The effect of website interactivity on political persuasion. Paper presented to the Sociology and Social Psychology section at the 21st General Assembly and Scientific Conference of the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), Glasgow, UK, July 26-30, 1998:1998.
25. Sundar S.S., Kalyanaraman S., Brown J. Explicating Web site interactivity: impression formation effects in political campaign sites. Communication Research. 30(1):2003;30-59.
26. Tapscott D. Growing up digital. 1998;McGraw-Hill, New York.
27. Vorderer P. Interactive entertainment and beyond. Zillmann D., Vorderer P. Media entertainment: the psychology of its appeal. 2000;21-36 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
28. Williams F., Rice R.E., Rogers E.M. Research methods and the new media. 1988;Free Press, New York.
29. Zillman D., Vorderer P. Media entertainment: the psychology of its appeal. 2000;Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.