Assessment of the quality of interaction in distance learning programmes utilizing the Internet or interactive television: perceptions of students and lecturers

Figures & data

Table 1.  Summary of number of student questionnaires received and participation in focus-group interviews

	VLE	ITV
	Family Medicine Programme (n = 154)	Nutrition Programme (n = 45)	Nursing Programme (n = 19)
Questionnaires received	117	38	5
Focus-group interviews students	16	6	4

Table 2.  Student profile

Variable	VLE % (n = 117)	ITV % (n = 43)
Location of students in South Africa^a
Eastern Cape Province	13	5
Gauteng Province	13	35
Kwa-Zulu Natal Province	8	9
Western Cape Province	21	33
Other South African Provinces	13	4
Not in South Africa	33	14
Family responsibilities of students
Living with partner^a	85	60
Living with children	57	42
Living with extended family^a	11	26
Level of health care where student works^a
Primary care	46	41
District hospital	38	12
Secondary/tertiary hospital	16	46
Health sector in which student works
Private sector	27	34
Public sector	46	49
Mix private/public sectors	26	17
Age of students:^a
20–29 yrs	14	43
30–39 yrs	60	31
40–49 yrs	21	17
>50 yrs	5	10
Percentage of students speaking English as their first language	43	29
Percentage of male students (versus female)^a	81	5
Percentage in urban environment (versus rural)	65	76

Note: ^a p < 0.05.

Table 3.   Student–lecturer and student–student interaction

	Student–lecturer		Student–student
Attribute	VLE% (n = 117)	ITV% (n = 43)	VLE% (n = 117)	ITV% (n = 43)
Strength of relationship^a,b
Close–friendly	34	14	46	31
Polite–cordial	46	77	38	21
Distant–non-existent	20	9	16	48
Importance of interaction to achieving learning outcomes^b
Essential–important	87	98	75	49
Little or no importance	13	2	25	51
Frequency of interaction^b
At least once a week	35	14	62	14
At least once a month	31	48	18	31
Rarely–never	34	38	20	55
% of time interacting^b
Huge–large	7	7	13	8
Reasonable	23	10	38	10
Small–none	70	83	49	82
Speed of response
Very fast–prompt	86	91	77	83
Slow–very slow	14	9	23	17
Interaction helped resolve problems^a
Always–often	57	72
Occasionally–never	43	28
Interaction enhanced learning^a
Always–often	56	68
Occasionally–never	44	32
Student–student interaction without lecturer^b
Always–often			66	36
Occasionally			34	64
How much did interaction motivate you to complete module^b
Always–often	47	46	43	20
Occasionally–never	53	54	57	80
How much did interaction provide you with useful feedback
Always	37	38	10	8
Often	31	28	18	10
Occasionally	24	28	41	28
Never	8	8	30	55
How much did interaction allow a dialogue or exchange of views^b
Always–often	49	53	59	24
Occasionally–never	51	47	41	76

^a p < 0.05 for student–lecturer interaction, ^b p < 0.05 for student–student interaction.

Figure 1. Rubric for assessing interactivity score. Source: Roblyer & Ekhami (2000). Note: Total score for VLE = 12.3 and for ITV = 10.0. Low interactivity score = 1–7, moderate interactivity score = 8–14, high interactivity score = 15–20. # = p < 0.05.

Table 4.  Mode of interaction for coursework, administration and social

	Coursework^a		Administrative^a		Social^a
	VLE (n = 117)%	ITV (n = 43)%	VLE (n = 117)%	ITV (n = 43)%	VLE (n = 117)%	ITV (n = 43)%
BB	79	17	13	12	52	10
Post	2	2	3	0	1	3
PM	10	7	34	10	23	5
ITV	3	24	1	0	1	21
Tel.	1	14	33	46	7	38
Chat	4	0	0	5	10	3
Email	1	36	11	27	5	21
Fax	1	0	6	0	1	0

Note: ^a p < 0.05.

Table 5.  Barriers to interaction

	Language used in module		Ability to use technology		Cost of using the technology
	VLE (n = 117)%	ITV (n = 43)%	VLE (n = 117)%	ITV (n = 43)%	VLE (n = 117)%	ITV (n = 43)%
Problem	3	5	5	14	15	21
Small–no problem	97	95	95	86	85	79
	Adequate training in use of technology		Lack of immediacy and spontaneity		Time available to communicate
	VLE (n = 117)%	ITV (n = 43)%	VLE (n = 117)%	ITV (n = 43)%	VLE (n = 117)%	ITV (n = 43)%
Problem	7	11	19	18	20	7
Small–no problem	93	89	81	82	80	93

Table 6.  Instructional design and interaction

	VLE% (n = 117)	ITV% (n = 43)
Workload
About right	61	63
Too much	38	33
Hours studying per week:
<5 hours	12	9
5–10 hours	62	47
>10 hours	26	44
% time online/studio^a	42	20
Balance studying alone/interaction with others^a
Too much	15	22
About right	73	52
Too little	12	26
Feeling isolated
Most of the time	1	12
Quite often	13	17
A little	38	37
Never	48	34
Too fast pace to complete tasks	24	35
Not flexible enough for personal circumstances	32	24
Convenient times	85	83
Ratio students/lecturers OK^a	95	84

Note: ^a p < 0.05.

Table

• A virtual learning environment (VLE) is more supportive of student–student interaction than ITV.

• Lecturers need training in facilitating interaction through technology and this appears to be a particular challenge in ITV, which naturally leans towards a more lecturer-dominated didactic type of communication.

• Instructional design often needs revision in terms of its pace and flexibility.

• Social interaction was not rated highly by the students but was more a positive feature of VLE than ITV.

• Adding VLE to programmes that initially utilize ITV may enhance the quality of interaction.

• The additional cost of using both technologies is perceived equally by the students.

Roblyer M, Ekhami L. How interactive are YOUR distance courses? a rubric for assessing interaction in distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 2000, Available online at: http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/roblyer32.html

 Google Scholar