Interaction in the online curriculum

Authors
mostafa ghaderi
kambiz poushaneh
alireza assareh
Abstract
Introduction: Interaction is not limited to face-to-face relationships between the teacher and students in the classroom, but also occurs between the teacher and students through technology in an online environment. And it is one of the most important components of any learning experience. The idea of learning without interaction is meaningless, and this element plays a fundamental role in the effectiveness and success of today's blended learning systems. In past studies, the effect of interaction on online learning has been less discussed, and there is scattered empirical research that shows how online interactions should be used to improve meaningful and effective learning. Therefore, the purpose of the current research is to identify the types of interaction in the online learning environment and what effects the interaction will have and how it can be effective in the online curriculum. The questions of the current research include the following:

What are the indicators of online interaction? What are the effects of interaction in the online learning environment? And what factors contribute to the effectiveness of interaction in the online curriculum?

Method: The paradigm of the current research is qualitative, and among the different qualitative research approaches, research synthesis was used to present the types of interaction, effects and effectiveness factors of interaction in the online curriculum, which is a special form of review research. Research synthesis is used to describe the approaches of combining, aggregating, integrating and synthesizing primary research. The inclusion criteria for experimental research include valid Persian and English articles from 2005 to 2021, and the exclusion criteria include invalid articles before 2005. The target population of this research is literature in the field of learning, online curriculum and texts related to e-learning, and the sample size for related literature is to the extent that the researcher can reach the answers to the research questions based on the input and output criteria in the research synthesis method. 41 studies were selected for the final synthesis.

Discussion and conclusion: The data analysis shows that there are multiple interactions between the learner, the instructor, the content, the technology, and the support. All of these interactions are connected by a web of relationships and are all part of a larger system and are considered central to a successful learning experience by actively engaging students in online learning. Changes in each of these elements affect other elements and levels of interaction. The effects of interaction include processing ideas and consciously answering questions and problems, creating deep and well-reasoned discussions, scientific focus, creating a sense of belonging, providing an impersonal experience, creating goals, shared values and a sense of trust, less time pressure, reducing isolation and fear. , broad participation of learners, closing the communication gap, the possibility of creating new knowledge, providing a continuous learning experience and motivation for continuous improvement, strengthening critical thinking, better academic performance, participation in active learning and the effectiveness of interaction is achieved by factors such as immediate feedback, simultaneity or frequency of interaction, non-personal interaction, the nature of discussion questions, reducing factors for the response level of learners, learning community, characteristics of learners, teachers' facilitation.

After analyzing the data for validation by using the fuzzy Delphi method, questions with the number of indicators were prepared and given to 32 experts in two rounds. To express the importance of each index, linguistic variables were used based on the Likert scale and converted into triangular fuzzy numbers. Then, the fuzzy average of the scores was obtained and converted into a definite number. Based on this, the difference between the average of the first and second rounds of fuzzy Delphi is less than 0.1, which shows the consensus of experts about the criteria and indicators of interaction. The framework of this study can help policy makers, planners and practitioners in the field of education to use the types of interaction presented in this review in the online curriculum. Also, use interaction effectiveness factors to improve and enhance learning and the potential abilities of diverse learners. It is recommended that for an effective learning, the context for multiple interactions is provided and the learning results obtained from the interaction, the relationship between the learners' understanding of interactive performance and the frequency of their use of multiple interactions are examined.


Keywords
Online learning
Research synthesis
interaction types
interaction effects
interaction effectiveness factors
Ajdarifam N, Farajollahi M, Sarmadi M, Mahboobi T. Designing and Validating a Mobile learning-based curriculum with Emphasis on the Acer Model in Higher Education. Journal of higher education curriculum studies. 2020 Aug 22;11(21):251-90. [In Persian]

Alhih M, Ossiannilsson E, Berigel M. Levels of interaction provided by online distance education models. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2017 Apr 18;13(6):2733-48.
‪‬
Aliabadi K, Khazaei A. Distance Education in the Digital Era and Connectivism Theory. Journal of Educational Studies. 2016 Apr 10;8:43-53. [In Persian]

Al-Kadri HM, Al Moamary M, Al Knawy B. Framework for curriculum delivery during COVID-19 pandemic in a health sciences university. Annals of Thoracic Medicine. 2020 Oct;15(4):185.
Al-Rahmi WM, Zeki AM. A model of using social media for collaborative learning to enhance learners’ performance on learning. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences. 2017 Oct 1;29(4):526-35.

Azer SA. Interactions between students and tutor in problem‐based learning: The significance of deep learning. The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences. 2009 May;25(5):240-9.

Balaji MS, Chakrabarti D. Student interactions in online discussion forum: Empirical research from'media richness theory'perspective. Journal of interactive online learning. 2010 Mar 1;9(1).

Bernard RM, Abrami PC, Borokhovski E, Wade CA, Tamim RM, Surkes MA, Bethel EC. A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational research. 2009 Sep;79(3):1243-89.

Bhamani S, Makhdoom AZ, Bharuchi V, Ali N, Kaleem S, Ahmed D. Home learning in times of COVID: Experiences of parents. Journal of education and educational development. 2020 Jun 30;7(1):9-26.

Bolliger DU. Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. InInternational Journal on E-learning 2004 (Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 61-67). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Byrd JC. Understanding the Online Doctoral Learning Experience: Factors That Contribute to Students' Sense of Community. Journal of Educators Online. 2016 Jul;13(2):102-35.

Casimiro LT. Cognitive engagement in online intercultural interactions: Beyond analytics. International journal of information and education technology. 2016 Jun 1;6(6):441.

Cheng CH, Lin Y. Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. European journal of operational research. 2002 Oct 1;142(1):174-86.

Chigeza P, Halbert K. Navigating e-learning and blended learning for pre-service teachers: Redesigning for engagement, access and efficiency. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online). 2014 Jan;39(11):133-46.

Cho T. The impact of types of interaction on student satisfaction in online courses. InEdMedia+ Innovate Learning 2009 Jun 22 (pp. 611-620). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Cho MH, Kim BJ. Students' self-regulation for interaction with others in online learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education. 2013 Apr 1;17:69-75.

Chou C, Peng H, Chang CY. The technical framework of interactive functions for course-management systems: Students’ perceptions, uses, and evaluations. Computers & Education. 2010 Nov 1;55(3):1004-17.

Demir Kaymak Z, Horzum MB. Relationship between online learning readiness and structure and interaction of online learning students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. 2013;13(3):1792-7.

Dewey, J. Experience and education. New York: Collier Macmillan Publishers. 1938.

Downes S. Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks.2012.

Falahi M; khalifeh Gh; , Qhasemi Sameni M. The Collaborative Learning in the e-Learning Environments, Bi-quarterly Journal of Educational Studies NAMA. 2017 Sep; 5(1): 31-39. [In Persian]

Farajollahi M, Dehbashi Sharif F. The growth of distance education in Iran and the world. [In Persian]

Ghonoodi A, Salimi L. The study of elements of curriculum in smart schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011 Jan 1;28:68-71.

González-González I, Jiménez-Zarco AI. Using learning methodologies and resources in the development of critical thinking competency: An exploratory study in a virtual learning environment. Computers in human behavior. 2015 Oct 1;51:1359-66.

He W. Examining students’ online interaction in a live video streaming environment using data mining and text mining. Computers in Human Behavior. 2013 Jan 1;29(1):90-102.

Heo H, Lim KY, Kim Y. Exploratory study on the patterns of online interaction and knowledge co-construction in project-based learning. Computers & Education. 2010 Nov 1;55(3):1383-92.

Hussin WN, Harun J, Shukor NA. Online interaction in social learning environment towards critical thinking skill: A framework. Journal of Technology and Science Education. 2019;9(1):4-12.

Ishmael K, Heiser R, Payne J. Pandemic Planning for Distance Learning: Scenarios and Considerations for PreK-12 Education Leaders. New America. 2020 May 26.

Islam S, Jahan N. Digitalization and education system: a survey. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS). 2018 Jan;16(1):70-3.

Jafari sani ‪H; Saeidi Rizvani M; Zarei Tochini M ;Pakmehr h. Key features of an e-learning based curriculum in higher education. Iranian Higher Education Quarterly Journal. 2013 Aug; 5(2), 163-187.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ [In Persian]‬

Jumaat NF, Tasir Z. Students’ types of online interaction through Facebook discussion. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013 Nov 6;97:353-60.

Jung I. Connectivism and networked learning. Open and distance education theory revisited: Implications for the digital era. 2019:47-55.

Kang M, Im T. Factors of learner–instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2013 Jun;29(3):292-301.

Ke F. Online interaction arrangements on quality of online interactions performed by diverse learners across disciplines. The Internet and Higher Education. 2013 Jan 1;16:14-22.

Kent C, Laslo E, Rafaeli S. Interactivity in online discussions and learning outcomes. Computers & Education. 2016 Jun 1;97:116-28.

Kim Y. The framework of cloud e-learning system for strengthening ICT competence of teachers in Nicaragua. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology. 2018 Feb;8(1):62-7.

Kimber K, Wyatt-Smith C. Secondary students' online use and creation of knowledge: Refocusing priorities for quality assessment and learning. Australasian journal of educational technology. 2010 Jul 16;26.(5)

Kumar P, Saxena C, Baber H. Learner-content interaction in e-learning-the moderating role of perceived harm of COVID-19 in assessing the satisfaction of learners. Smart Learning Environments. 2021 Dec;8(1):1-5.

Kuo YC, Walker AE, Schroder KE, Belland BR. Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The internet and higher education. 2014 Jan 1;20:35-50.

Li Y, Zhang X, Dai DY, Hu W. Curriculum innovation in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: the thinking-based instruction theory and its application. Frontiers in psychology. 2021 Apr 12;12:601607.

Long GL, Marchetti C, Fasse R. The importance of interaction for academic success in online courses with hearing, deaf, and hard-of-hearing students. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2011 Oct;12(6):1-9.
Machekhina ON. Digitalization of education as a trend of its modernization and reforming. Revista Espacios. 2017 Aug 31;38. (40)

Malekipour A. Effectiveness of e-curriculum in social networks during the Covid-19 pandemic: parents’, teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences. 2020 Dec 1;11(4):207-14.

Martin F, Bolliger DU. Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online learning. 2018 Mar;22(1):205-22.

Mather M, Sarkans A. Student perceptions of online and face-to-face learning. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction. 2018 Nov 23;10(2):61-76.

Mazaheri PD, Mousapour PD, Nateghi PD. The Role of Family in Competency-Based Primary School Curriculum from the Perspective of Education Fundamental Reform Documents. Quarterly Journal of Family and Research. 2017 Jun 10;14(1):7-32. [In Persian]

McIsaac M, Gunawardena C. Distance education. Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Melmed, A.(1995). The costs and effectiveness of educational technology: Proceedings of a workshop. DRU-1205-CTI, RAND, Santa Monica, CA.

Meeuwisse, M., Severiens, S. E., & Born, M. P. (2010). Learning environment, interaction, sense of belonging and study success in ethnically diverse student groups. Research in Higher Education, 51, 528-545.

Mirsepassi N, Toloie Eshlaghy A, Memarzadeh G, Peidaie M. Designing a of Human Resource Excellence Model in Iranian Public Sectors using the Fuzzy Delphi Technique. Future study Management. 2010 Dec 22;21(87):1-22. [In Persian]

Mohammadhasani N, Fardanesh H. Analysis Of Andragogy And Designing A Model For Adult Education In Technology-Based Environments. Journal of Curriculum Technology. 2016 Mar 20;1(1):35-47. [In Persian]

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

Musavi P, Yousefi Zenur R, Hasan Pur A. Identification of organizational information security risks using the fuzzy Delphi method in the banking industry. Information Technology Management. 2015;7(1):163-84. [In Persian]

Mutalib MA, Halim ND, Yahaya N. Meta-analysis on interaction in online learning. InConference Proceedings Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 2016.

Najafi H. Methodological and Philosophical Foundations of Distance Education and its Theories. Higher Education Letter. 2013 Nov 1;6(22):107-27. [In Persian]

Nawaz A, Khan MZ. Issues of technical support for e-learning systems in higher education institutions. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science. 2012 Mar 1;4(2):38.

Ni AY. Comparing the effectiveness of classroom and online learning: Teaching research methods. Journal of public affairs education. 2013 Jun 1;19(2):199-215.

Park JH, Schallert DL, Sanders AJ, Williams KM, Seo E, Yu LT, Vogler JS, Song K, Williamson ZH, Knox MC. Does it matter if the teacher is there?: A teacher's contribution to emerging patterns of interactions in online classroom discussions. Computers & Education. 2015 Mar 1;82:315-28.

Prammanee N. Understanding participation in online courses: A case study of online interaction. Northern Illinois University; 2005.

Rabiei M, Mohebi Amin S, Haji-Khawajelu SR. Internal quality assessment of the curriculum of virtual learning courses in Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Horizons of Medical Education Development. 2010;4(1): 29-36.‎ [In Persian]

Rapanta C, Botturi L, Goodyear P, Guàrdia L, Koole M. Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital science and education. 2020 Oct;2:923-45.

Rhode J. Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. The international review of research in open and distributed learning. 2009 Feb 25;10.(1)

Salmi L. Student Experiences on Interaction in an Online Learning Environment as Part of a Blended Learning Implementation: What Is Essential?. International Association for Development of The Information Society. 2013 Jul.

Sarapin SH, Morris PL. Faculty and Facebook friending: Instructor–student online social communication from the professor's perspective. The Internet and Higher Education. 2015 Oct 1;27:14-23.

Schick-Makaroff K, MacDonald M, Plummer M, Burgess J, Neander W. What synthesis methodology should I use? A review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS public health. 2016;3(1):172.

Schneiderheinze DD. Model for e-learning curriculum: differences from traditional classroom curriculum models. Online Journal for Workforce Education and Development. 2005;1(3):4.

Shaihidi F, Zarif Sanaee N. Interaction in E-learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences. 2013 Sep 30;4(3):49-50: 48-55. [In Persian]

Song L, McNary SW. Understanding Students' Online Interaction: Analysis of Discussion Board Postings. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 2011 Mar 1;10(1).

Vrasidas C, McIsaac MS. Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American journal of distance education. 1999 Jan 1;13(3):22-36.

Vygotsky LS, Cole M. Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press; 1978.

Wagner ED. In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education. 1994 Jan 1;8(2):6-29.

Wei HC, Peng H, Chou C. Can more interactivity improve learning achievement in an online course? Effects of college students' perception and actual use of a course-management system on their learning achievement. Computers & Education. 2015 Apr 1;83:10-21.

Zydney JM, Denoyelles A, Seo KK. Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education. 2012 Jan 1;58(1):77-87.