Main Article Content
This study was conducted to investigate the effect of learner characteristics on online interaction, the relationship between online interaction and learner satisfaction, and variances in online interaction across different courses. Three types of online interaction were studied: learner-instructor interaction, learner-learner interaction, and learner-content interaction. To achieve the goals of this study, a survey was sent out to students enrolled in three online consumer finance courses at a large research university. Findings reveal that females rated the instructor-student interaction higher than males. Student-content interaction correlated the most with learner satisfaction. Learner-instructor and learner-learner interaction varied significantly among the three courses, while no statistical difference was found in learner-content interaction across the courses. This study provides insights for instructors, instructional designers, and administrators to implement and improve their design of different types of interaction in online courses to enhance learner satisfaction and the quality of online courses.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The author declares that the submitted to Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (Je-LKS) is original and that is has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
The author agrees that SIe-L (Italian Society of e-Learning) has the right to publish the material sent for inclusion in the journal Je-LKS.
The author agree that articles may be published in digital format (on the Internet or on any digital support and media) and in printed format, including future re-editions, in any language and in any license including proprietary licenses, creative commons license or open access license. SIe-L may also use parts of the work to advertise and promote the publication.
The author declares s/he has all the necessary rights to authorize the editor and SIe-L to publish the work.
The author assures that the publication of the work in no way infringes the rights of third parties, nor violates any penal norms and absolves SIe-L from all damages and costs which may result from publication.
The author declares further s/he has received written permission without limits of time, territory, or language from the rights holders for the free use of all images and parts of works still covered by copyright, without any cost or expenses to SIe-L.
For all the information please check the Ethical Code of Je-LKS, available at http://www.je-lks.org/index.php/ethical-code
- Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950.
- Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online Report Card: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
- Beaudoin, M., Kurtz, G., & Eden, S. (2009). Experiences and opinions of e-learners: What works, what are the challenges, and what competencies ensure successful online learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5(1), 275-289.
- Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2012). Student perceptions of satisfaction and anxiety in an online doctoral program. Distance Education, 33(1), 81-98.
- Bordelon, K. (2015, April). Perceptions of achievement and satisfaction as related to interactions in online courses. In Global Learn (pp. 232-239). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
- Bruggeman, B., Garone, A., Struyven, K., Pynoo, B., & Tondeur, J. (2022). Exploring university teachers’ online education during COVID-19: Tensions between enthusiasm and stress. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100095.
- Cole, M. T., Shelley, D. J., & Swartz, L. B. (2014). Online instruction, e-learning, and student satisfaction: A three year study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6).
- Gabrielle, D. M. (2001). Distance learning: An examination of perceived effectiveness and student satisfaction in higher education. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 183-188). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
- Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105.
- Gosmire, D., Morrison, M., & Van Osdel, J. (2009). Perceptions of interactions in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 609-617.
- Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 3.
- Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction, and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153-162.
- Ke, F., & Kwak, D. (2013). Online learning across ethnicity and age: A study on learning interaction participation, perception, and learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 61, 43-51.
- Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 16-39.
- Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35-50.
- Kuo, Y. C., & Belland, B. R. (2016). An exploratory study of adult learners’ perceptions of online learning: Minority students in continuing education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 661-680.
- Kurucay, M., & Inan, F. A. (2017). Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers & Education, 115, 20-37.
- Li, D. (2022). The shift to online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic: Benefits, challenges, and required Improvements from the students’ perspective. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 20(1), 1-18.
- Maitra, R., & Jain, S. (2023). Judging the resilience of online learning for hospitality courses during COVID-19. In Crisis Management, Destination Recovery and Sustainability (pp. 137-149). Routledge.
- Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29(4), 531-563.
- Martin, F., Xie, K., & Bolliger, D. U. (2022). Engaging learners in the emergency transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(sup1), S1-S13.
- Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. doi:10.1080/08923648909526659
- Ni, A. Y. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching research methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199-215.
- Parker, R. E. (2013). Interaction Considerations. In Redesigning Courses for Online Delivery: Design, Interaction, Media & Evaluation (pp. 45-80). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
- Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.
- Shea, P., Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2022). Building bridges to advance the community of inquiry framework for online learning. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 148-161.
- Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in Web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2).
- Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59-70.
- Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.
- Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.
- Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. The Sloan Consortium, 1-6.
- Strachota, E. M. (2003). Student satisfaction in online courses: An analysis of the impact of learner-content, learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-technology interaction (pp. 1-244). The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
- Tang, T., Abuhmaid, A. M., Olaimat, M., Oudat, D. M., Aldhaeebi, M., & Bamanger, E. (2023). Efficiency of flipped classroom with online-based teaching under COVID-19. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 1077-1088.
- Tzeng, J. W., Lee, C. A., Huang, N. F., Huang, H. H., & Lai, C. F. (2022). MOOC evaluation system based on deep learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 23(1), 21-40.
- Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1997(71), 19-26.
- Wanstreet, C. E. (2006). Interaction in online learning environments: A review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(4), 399.
- Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance Education, 38(1), 123-135.
- Zhou, L., Wu, S., Zhou, M., & Li, F. (2020). ‘School’s out, but class’ on’, The largest online education in the world today: Taking China’s practical exploration during the COVID-19 epidemic prevention and control as an example. But Class’ On’, The Largest Online Education in the World Today: Taking China’s Practical Exploration During The COVID-19 Epidemic Prevention and Control As an Example (March 15, 2020).