The impact of computer-mediated interaction on distance learning

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 52-70

  Godwin, Stephen J ^a,b   Thorpe, Mary S ^c   Richardson, John T E ^c  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b The Open University

^c Department of Educational Technology ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CURRICULA; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; STUDENTS;

ACADEMIC QUALITY; COMPUTER-MEDIATED INTERACTION;

DISTANCE EDUCATION;

EID: 38149104575     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00727.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore W. G. Anderson (Eds The handbook of distance education (pp. 129 144). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
2. Babbie, E. R. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed Belmont, CA : Wadsworth.
3. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication, elearning and interactivity: a review of the research. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 2, 161 179.
4. Berge, Z. L. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective elearning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 2, 181 190.
5. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed Buckingham, UK : The Open University Press.
6. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195 203.
7. Borsook, T. K. Higginbotham-Wheat, N. (1991). Interactivity: what is it and what can it do for computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 10, 11 17.
8. Cohen, J. (1973). Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 107 112.
9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
10. Entwistle, N., Tait, H. McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33 48.
11. ESRC (2002). Working towards e-quality in networked e-learning in higher education: a manifesto statement for debate. Report of U.K. Economic and Social Research Council seminar series. Retrieved November 29, 2005, from http://csalt.lancs.ac.uk/esrc/manifesto.pdf
12. Garrison, R. D. (1993). Quality and access in distance education: theoretical considerations. In D. Keegan (Ed Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 9 21). New York : Routledge.
13. Goodyear, P. (2002). Psychological foundations for networked learning. In C. Jones F. Steeples (Eds Perspectives and issues in networked learning in higher education (pp. 49 75). London : Springer.
14. John, D. P. Baggott La Velle, L. (2004). Devices and desires: subject subcultures, pedagogical identity and the challenge of information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13, 3, 307 327.
15. Kidder, L. H. (1981). Selltiz, Wrightsman and Cook's research methods in social relations (4th ed New York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
16. Kirkwood, A. Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: what do we know about students' attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30, 3, 257 274.
17. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching (2nd ed London : RoutledgeFalmer.
18. Lawless, C. J. Richardson, J. T. E. (2002). Approaches to studying and perceptions of academic quality in distance education. Higher Education, 44, 257 282.
19. Levine, T. R. Hullett, C. R. (2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 612 625.
20. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3, 2, 1 6.
21. Norman, D. A. (1994). Things that make us smart. Cambridge, MA : Perseus Books.
22. Northrup, P. T. (2002). Online learners' preferences for interaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 2, 219 226.
23. Parker, A. (1999). Interaction in distance education: the critical conversation. Education Technology Review, 12, 13 17.
24. Pierce, C. A., Block, R. A. Aguinis, H. (2004). Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 916 924.
25. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 129 150.
26. Richardson, J. T. E. (1996). Measures of effect size. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 12 22.
27. Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students' perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying in distance education. British Educational Research Journal, 31, 7 27.
28. Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: a forgotten art. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 157 180.
29. Sims, R., Dobbs, G. Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23, 2, 135 148.
30. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: the importance of interaction. Education, Communication and Information, 2, 1, 23 46.
31. Thorpe, M. Godwin, S. (2006). Interaction and e-learning: the student experience. Studies in Continuing Education, 28, 3, 203 221.
32. Trentin, G. (2002). From distance education to virtual communities of practice: the wide range of possibilities for using the Internet in continuous education and training. International Journal on e-Learning, 1, 1, January-March, 55 66.
33. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 2, 6 29.