Effectiveness of Learner-to-Learner Interaction in e-learning: An instructors’ perspective [1776] Home : Annual Conference 2017

Effectiveness of Learner-to-Learner Interaction in e-learning: An instructors’ perspective [1776]

Public Group Active 5 years ago

Wed, Sep 6 2017, 10:40am – 12:00pm

Authors: Fotios Misopoulos, Maria Argyropoulou, Dionisia Tzavara, Vicky Manthou, and Rachel Argyropoulou

Room: McAusland Rm (1)

Theme: Learning Spaces

Type: 20-minute session

Description

Perceived student satisfaction of the learning experience and academic performance are two concepts that historically have attracted the attention of academics and universities. The technological advances in recent years allowed for the facilitation of new approaches to student learning, and since, have become driving factors of ensuing student satisfaction, which in turn influences in a positive manner the learner’s overall performance. In online educational settings or deliveries including online components, the dimensions of interaction, as described in Moore’s (1989) seminal work, play a crucial role in the overall effectiveness of the learning experience. While a number of researchers investigating student satisfaction and performance have agreed that learner-instructor and learner-content interactions are significant factors for increased student satisfaction, the learner-learner interaction has received contradictory results, either positive (Wickersham and McGee, 2008; Topal, 2016), neutral (Kuo et al. 2014), or negative (Bray et al. 2008).

The present work aims at providing some further insights into the effectiveness of the learner-learner interaction by reviewing the current literature on the topic and providing details of the experiences of the authors in fully online and/or blended mode learning, utilising the Blackboard e-learning system. It is imperative to specify that the techniques and pedagogy of this learner-to-learner interaction can be utilised in any online learning platform that embodies a discussion board facility. Such technologies incorporate a variety of tools serving as enablers and facilitators of non-traditional teaching and learning methods and offer interaction among students through discussion groups. This interaction fosters social presence and ‘strengthens their relationship with the group’ (Bouhnik and Marcus 2006). The authors will provide a thorough review of the literature regarding student satisfaction and performance. Following the theoretical part relevant to the topic, the authors plan to present preliminary results of their study based on interviews with online instructors concerning their perceptions of the effectiveness of learner-to-learner interaction using the online collaboration tool (discussion board) of the Blackboard platform. We are hoping that the presentation will trigger a fruitful discussion with the audience. Those attending will gain an understanding of how the interaction element can be designed, how it can be assessed, and what are the advantages to the students.

References:

Bouhnik, D. & Marcus, T. (2006) Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(3), pp. 299-305.

Bray E., Aoki, K., Dlugosh, L. (2008) Predictors of Learning Satisfaction in Japanese Online Distance Learners. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), pp. 1-24.

Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., Belland, B., Schroder, K. (2013) Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. Internet and Higher Education, 20, pp. 35–50.

Moore, M.G. (1989) Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), pp. 1–6.

Topal, A. D. (2016) Examination of University Students’ Level of Satisfaction and Readiness for E-Courses and the Relationship Between Them. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 15(1), pp. 7-23.

Wickersham, L. and McGee, P. (2008) Perceptions of Satisfaction and Deeper Learning in an Online Course. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(1), pp. 73–83.

Go Back

Thanks to: