An instrument development: Interactivity survey (IS)

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 163-174

  Kahveci, Murat ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Instructional interactivity; Instrument validity; Learning; Reliability; Survey development

Indexed keywords

EID: 44949221577     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Anderson, T. (2002). An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction, Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/ paper63/paper63.htm.
2. Anglin, G. J., & Morrison, G. R. (2003). Evaluation and research in distance education: Implications for research, Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
3. Berge, Z. L. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary web-based learning. Educational Technology, 39(1), 5-11.
4. Bork, A. (1981). Learning with computers, Bedford, MA: Digital Press.
5. Bork, A. (1982). Interactive learning. In R. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in the school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
6. Burke, R. L. (1982). Cai source book, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7. Chim, J., Lau, R. W. H., Leong, H. V., & Si, A. (2003). Cyberwalk: A web-based distributed virtual walkthrough environment. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 5(4), 503-515.
8. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
9. Fahy, P. J. (2003). Indicators of support in online interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Retrieved June 7, 2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/129/209.
10. Fleming, N. (2001). Teaching and learning styles, New Zealand: Microfilm Digital Print and Copy Centre.
11. th Ed.), New York: NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.
12. Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.
13. Gagné, R. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects. American Psychologist, 39(4), 377-385.
14. th Ed.), Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.
15. Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design, New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
16. Garrison, D. R. (1993). Quality and theory in distance education: Theoretical considerations. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education. New York, NY: Routledge.
17. Ha, L., & James, E. L. (1998). Interactivity reexamined: A baseline analysis of early business web sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(Fall), 457-474.
18. Herring, R. (1987). Looking at interaction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Society for Performance and Instruction, San Antonio, TX.
19. Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of e-learning interactions: A grounded approach. International Journal of E-Learning, 1, 19-27.
20. Jonassen, D. (1988). Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Jonassen, D. H. (1985). Interactive lesson designs: A taxonomy. Educational Technology, 26(6), 7-16.
22. Juwah, C. (2003). Using peer assessment to develop skills and capabilities. Journal of the United States Distance Learning Association, 17(1), Retrieved June 7, 2007, from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/ JAN03_Issue/article04.html.
23. Kahveci, M. (2006). Instructional interactivity endeavour and spiral dynamics. Bogazici University Journal of Education, 20(1), 11-24.
24. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Keller, J. M. (1987a). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction, 26(8), 1-7.
26. Keller, J. M. (1987b). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance and Instruction, November/December, 1-8.
27. Keller, J. M., & Kopp, T. W. (1987). Application of the arcs model of motivational design. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Earlbaum Associates.
28. Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (1987). Use of the arcs model in courseware design. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for computer courseware, New York, NY: Earlbaum Associates.
29. Kirsh, D. (1997). Interactivity and multimedia interfaces. Instructional Science, 25(2), 79-96.
30. Muirhead, B., & Juwah, C. (2004). Interactivity in the computer-mediated college and university education: A recent review of literature. Educational Technology & Society, 7(1), 12-20.
31. Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer, New York, NY: Basic Books.
32. Rose, E. (1999). Deconstructing interactivity in educational computing. Educational Technology, 39(1), 43-49.
33. Schwier, R. A., & Misanchuk, E. R. (1993). Interactive multimedia instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
34. Simpson, R. J., & Galbo, J. J. (1986). Interaction and learning: Theorizing on the art of teaching. Interchange, 17(4), 37-51.
35. Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Computers in Human Behaviour, 13(2), 157-171.
36. Sims, R. (2000). An interactive conundrum: Constructs of interactivity and learning theory. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 45-57.
37. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
38. Tobin, K. (1993). Constructivism: A paradigm for the practice of science education. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of social constructivism in science education (pp. 1-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Wagner, E. D. (1989). Interaction: An attribute of good instruction or a characteristic of instructional technology? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National University Continuing Education Association, Salt Lake City, UT.
40. Wagner, E. D. (1990). Interaction in distance education: Relating practice to theory to improve practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National University Continuing Education Association, New Orleans, LA.
41. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-26.
42. Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning (Vol. 71), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.