Student Interaction with Content in Online and Hybrid Courses: Leading Horses to the Proverbial Water
PROCEEDINGS
Meg Murray, Jorge Perez, Debra Geist, Alison Hedrick, Kennesaw State University, United States
Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference, ISSN 1535-0703 Publisher: Informing Science Institute
Abstract
Permutations of traditional and online learning are rapidly advancing along a blended continuum, prompting conjecture that learning and e-learning will soon be indistinguishable. As variations of blended learning evolve, educators worldwide must develop better understanding of how effective interaction with course content impacts engagement and learning. This study compares patterns of access to instructional content in online and hybrid courses offered at a regional university in the United States. Frequency counts and access rates were examined for course content in four categories: core materials, direct support, indirect support, and ancillary materials. Observed results were echoed in responses to a survey of students, who reported selectively accessing course content based upon perceived likelihood of positive impact on performance. Implications for course design are myriad.
Citation
Murray, M., Perez, J., Geist, D. & Hedrick, A. (2013). Student Interaction with Content in Online and Hybrid Courses: Leading Horses to the Proverbial Water. In E. Cohen & E. Boyd (Eds.), Proceedings of Proceedings of the Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference 2013 (pp. 99-115). Informing Science Institute. Retrieved March 28, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/114688/.
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map- Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamin, R.M., Surkes, M.A., & Bethel, E.C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
- Brown, A., & Voltz, B. (2005). Elements of effective e-Learning design. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/217 Cohen, E.B. (2009). A philosophy of informing science. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 12, 1-15. Retrieved from http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol12/ISJv12p001-015Cohen399.pdf
- Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2011). A course is a course is a course: Factor invariance in student evaluation of online, blended and face-to-face learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 14, 236241.
- Hege, B.A. (2011). The online theology classroom: Strategies for engaging a community of distance learners in a hybrid model of online education. Teaching Theology and Religion, 14(1), 13-20.
- Hirumi, A. (2011). The design and sequencing of online and blended learning interactions: A framework for grounded design. The Canadian Learning Journal, 16(2), 21-25.
- Koszalka, T.A., & Ganesan, R. (2004). Designing online courses: A taxonomy to guide strategic use of features available in course management systems (CMS) in distance education. Distance Education, 25(2), 243-256.
- Legon, R., & Runyon, J. (2007). Research on the impact of the Quality Matters Course Review Process. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Distance Teaching& Learning. Madison, WI August 8-10, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/07_5284.pdf Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). The interaction equivalency theorem. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 94-104.
- Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
- Murray, M., Pérez, J., Geist, D., & Hedrick, A. (2012). Student interaction with online course content: Build it and they might come. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11, 125-140.
- O'Brien, C., Hartshorne, R., Beattie, J., & Jordan, L. (2011). A comparison of large lecture, fully online, and hybrid sections of introduction to special education. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(4), 1931.
- Overbaugh, R.C., & Nickel, C.E. (2011). A comparison of student satisfaction and value of academic community between blended and online sections of a university-level educational foundations course. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 164-174.
- Siragusa, L., Dixon, K.C., & Dixon, R. (2007). Designing quality e-learning environments in higher education. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. Available from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/siragusa.pdf Stewart, M., Stott, T., & Nuttall, A.M. (2011). Student engagement patterns over the duration of level 1 and level 3 geography modules: Influences on student attendance, performance and use of online resources. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 35(1), 47-65.
- Tabor, S.W. (2007). Narrowing the distance. Implementing a hybrid learning model for information security management. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 47-57.
- Xu, D., & Smith Jaggars, S. (2011, March). Online and hybrid course enrollment and performance. CCRC Working Paper No. 31. Murray, Pérez, Geist, & Hedrick Biographies
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References