Interaction, Satisfaction, and Perceived Progress in Online Language Courses
PROCEEDINGS
Chin-Hsi Lin, Binbin Zheng, Yining Zhang, Michigan State University, United States
AACE Award
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA
Abstract
Interactions are the central emphasis in language learning. An increasing number of K-12 students take courses online, leading some critics to comment that reduced opportunities for interaction may affect learning outcomes. This study examined the relationship between interactions and learning outcomes among 466 high-school students who were taking online language courses in a Midwestern virtual school. Regression analysis was employed to look into how three broad types of interactions, learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-content (Moore, 1989), affected students’ perceived progress and satisfaction. After controlling for demographic information, motivation, and learning strategies, the results of multiple regression showed that learner-instructor and learner-content interactions had significantly positive effects on satisfaction, whereas learner-learner interaction did not affect satisfaction. Learner-content interaction was the only factor that affected perceived progress
Citation
Lin, C.H., Zheng, B. & Zhang, Y. (2015). Interaction, Satisfaction, and Perceived Progress in Online Language Courses. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 393-399). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 19, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/150022/.
© 2015 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map- Alison, M., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356.
- Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M.G. Moore& W.G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 129-144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Arbaugh, J.B. (2000). How classroom environment and student engagement affect learning in Internet-based MBA courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 9-26. Doi:10.1177/108056990006300402
- Barbour, M.K., & Reeves, T.C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers& Education, 52(2), 402-416. Doi:10.1016/J.compedu.2008.09.009
- Barker, K., & Wendel, T. (2001). E-learning: Studying Canada’s virtual secondary schools. Kelowna, BC: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education.
- Barnard-Brak, L., Lan, W.Y., & Paton, V.O. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1), 61-80.
- Battalio, J. (2007). Interaction online: A reevaluation. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4), 339-352.
- Berge, Z.L., & Clark, T.A. (2005). Virtual schools: Planning for success. New York: Teachers College Press. Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamim, R.M., Surkes, M.A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289. Doi: 10.2307/40469094
- Cavanaugh, C., & Blomeyer, R.L. (2007). What works in K-12 online learning. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
- Chang, S.-H., & Smith, R.A. (2008). Effectiveness of personal interaction in a learner-centered paradigm distance education class based on student satisfaction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 407-426.
- Chejlyk, S. (2006). The effects of online course format and three components of student perceived interactions on overall course satisfaction. (Doctoral dissertation), Capella University, Ann Arbor. Available from ProQuest (UMI No. 3213421)
- Eastin, M.S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/J.10836101.2000.tb00110.x/full
- Eom, S.B., Wen, H.J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215235.
- Gunawardena, C.N., & Zittle, F.J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer ‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. Doi:10.1080/08923649709526970
- Hillman, D.C.A., Willis, D.J., & Gunawardena, C.N. (1994). Learner ‐interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42. Doi:10.1080/08923649409526853
- Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC horizon report: 2014 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
- Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B.B. (1995). Constructivism and computer ‐mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.
- 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. Doi:10.1080/14703290252934603
- Kaseman, L., & Kaseman, S. (2000). How will virtual schools effect homeschooling? Home Education Magazine, (NovemberDecember), 16-19.
- Keeler, L.C. (2006). Student satisfaction and types of interaction in distance education courses. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest (UMI No. 3233345)
- Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
- Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A.E., Schroder, K.E.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.
- Lantolf, J.P. (2006). Introducting sociocultural theory. In J.P. Lantolf & S.L. Thorne (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development (pp. 1-26). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Long, M.H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
- 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. Doi:10.1177/1052562904271199
- Moore, M.G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
- Moore, M.G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. New York: Wadsworth.
- Noels, K.A., Pelletier, L.G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R.J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50, 57-85.
- Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.
- Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813.
- Queen, B., & Lewis, L. (2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2009-10. First look. Nces 2012-008. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
- Roblyer, M.D., & Wiencke, W.R. (2003). Design and use of a rubric to assess and encourage interactive qualities in distance courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 77-98. Doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1702_2
- Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
- Sherry, A.C., Fulford, C.P., & Zhang, S. (1998). Assessing distance learners' satisfaction with instruction: A quantitative and a qualitative measure. American Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 4-28.
- 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.
- Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78-102.
- Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Annual review of policy and practice. Retrieved September 20, 2013, from http://kpk12.com/cms/wpWagner, E.D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.
- Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Ardent Media. Content/uploads/KeepingPace2012.pdf content/uploads/EEG_KP2013-lr.pdf
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References