K-12 teachers’ perceptions of and their satisfaction with interaction type in blended learning environments

References

• Abdous, M., & Yen, C. J. (2010). A predictive study of learner satisfaction and outcomes in face-to-face, satellite broadcast, and live video-streaming learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 248–257. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.00510.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akkoyunlu, B., & Yilmaz-Soylu, M. (2008). Development of a scale on learners’ views on blended learning and its implementation process. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 26–32. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.12.00610.1016/j.iheduc.2007.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningconsortium.org/publications/survey/sizing_the_opportunity2003
   Google Scholar
• Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States, 2010. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/class_differences.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Allen, E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/Blending_In.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Alshwiah, A. S. (2009). The effects of a blended learning strategy in teaching vocabulary on premedical students’ achievement, satisfaction, and attitude toward English language. Retrieved from Education Resources Information Center (ED506107).
   Google Scholar
• 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: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (2012). Statistics for psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Askun, C. S. (2007). Relationships between students’ level of effort and course perceptions in a blended learning environment (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3253635).
   Google Scholar
• Bajt, S. K. (2009). Preferred distance learning modalities of millennial community college students (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3362723).
   Google Scholar
• Banks, A. C., & Faul, A. C. (2007). Reduction of face‐to‐face contact hours in foundation research courses: Impact on students’ knowledge gained and course satisfaction. Social Work Education, 26, 780–793. doi:10.1080/0261547060114050010.1080/02615470601140500
   Google Scholar
• Battalio, J. (2007). Interaction online: A reevaluation. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8, 339–352. Retrieved from http://www.infoagepub.com/qrde-guidelines.html
   Google Scholar
• Belanger, F., & Jordan, D. H. (2000). Evaluation and implementation of distance learning: Technologies, tools, and techniques. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
   Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48, 243–270. doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.83892010.1080/00461520.2013.838920
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, 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, 1243–1289. doi:10.3102/003465430933384410.3102/0034654309333844
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, R. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26, 87–122. doi:10.1007/s12528-013-9077-310.1007/s12528-013-9077-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bersin, J. (2004). The blended learning book: Best practices, proven methodologies, and lessons learned. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
   Google Scholar
• Biner, P. M., Summers, M., Dean, R. S., Bink, M. L., Anderson, J. L., & Gelder, B. C. (1997). Personality characteristics predicting continuing education student satisfaction with interactive telecourses. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 45, 22–32. doi:10.1080/07377366.1997.1040032610.1080/07377366.1997.10400326
   Google Scholar
• Bishop-Clark, C., Dietz-Uhler, B., & Fisher, A. (2007). The effects of personality type on web-based distance learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35, 491–506. doi:10.2190/DG67-4287-PR11-37K610.2190/DG67-4287-PR11-37K6
   Google Scholar
• Bliuc, A. M., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 231–244. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.08.00110.1016/j.iheduc.2007.08.001
   Google Scholar
• Blocher, J. M. (2005). Increasing learner interaction: using Jigsaw online. Educational Media International, 42, 269–278. doi:10.1080/0952398050016148610.1080/09523980500161486
   Google Scholar
• Bolliger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3, 61–67. Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/pubs/ijel/
   Google Scholar
• Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, C., Erice, M., Halfer, D., Jordan, K., Lebaugh, D., Opperman, C., Stephen, J. (2007). The impact of a blended learning approach on instructor and learner satisfaction with preceptor education. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 23, 164–170. doi:10.1097/01.NND.0000281424.58096.bb10.1097/01.NND.0000281415.97106.41
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E., & Schallert, D. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49, 417–423. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.0009510.1111/lang.1999.49.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong, P. C. (2006). Factors influencing online interactions and contributors to learning in a blended learning experience at Singapore Bible College (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database (UMI No. 3245973).
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• DeBourgh, G. (1999). Technology is the tool, teaching is the task: Student satisfaction in distance learning. In J. D. Price, J. Willis, D. A. Willis, M. Jost, & S. Boger-Mehall (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp. 131–137). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/j/SITE/v/1999/n/1/
   Google Scholar
• Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-√based learning. Computers & Education, 54, 350–359. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. Retrieved from https://www-07.ibm.com/services/pdf/blended_learning.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R. (2013). An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 90–100. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.00310.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edginton, A., & Holbrook, J. (2010). A blended learning approach to teaching basic pharmacokinetics and the significance of face-to-face interaction. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(5), 1–11. doi:10.5688/aj740592
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estelami, H. (2012). An exploratory study of the drivers of student satisfaction and learning experience in hybrid-online and purely online marketing courses. Marketing Education Review, 22, 143–155. Retrieved from http://www.marketingeducationreview.com/10.2753/MER1052-8008220204
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133–148. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_210.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
   Google Scholar
• Grace, D., Weaven, S., Bodey, K., Ross, M., & Weaven, K. (2012). Putting student evaluations into perspective: The Course Experience Quality and Satisfaction Model (CEQS). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38, 35–43. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.05.00110.1016/j.stueduc.2012.05.001
   Google Scholar
• Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems. In C. J. Bonk, C. R. Graham, & J. Cross (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning (pp. 3–21). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, C. R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2005). Benefits and challenges of blended learning environments. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (pp. 253–259). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.10.4018/978-1-59140-553-5
   Google Scholar
• Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and higher education, 18, 4–14. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.00310.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruber, T., Lowrie, A., Brodowsky, G. H., Reppel, A. E., Voss, R., & Chowdhury, I. N. (2012). Investigating the influence of professor characteristics on student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: A comparative study. Journal of Marketing Education, 34, 165–178. doi:10.1177/027347531245038510.1177/0273475312450385
   Google Scholar
• Gülbahar, Y., & Madran, R. O. (2009). Communication and collaboration, satisfaction, equity, and autonomy in blended learning environments: A case from Turkey. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl
   Google Scholar
• Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Drysdale, J. S. (2012). An analysis of high impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning. Distance Education, 33, 381–413. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.72316610.1080/01587919.2012.723166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., Drysdale, J. S., & Henrie, C. R. (2014). A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 20–34. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.00410.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havice, P. A., Davis, T. T., Foxx, K. W., & Havice, W. L. (2010). The impact of rich media presentations on a distributed learning environment: Engagement and satisfaction of undergraduate students. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11, 53–58. Retrieved from http://www.infoagepub.com/qrde-guidelines.html
   Google Scholar
• Hirumi, A. (2011). The design and sequencing of online and blended learning interactions: A framework for grounded design. Canadian Learning Journal, 16, 21–25.
   Google Scholar
• Hurd, S. (2005). Autonomy and the distance language learner. In B. Holmberg, M. Shelley, & C. White (Eds.), Distance education and languages: Evolution and change. New perspectives on language and education (pp. 1–19). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, W. Y., Hsu, J. L., Tretiakov, A., Chou, H. W., & Lee, C. Y. (2009). Intra-action, interaction and outeraction in blended learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 222–239. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 & Teaching International, 39, 153–162. doi:10.1080/14703290252934603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeler, L. C. (2006). Student satisfaction and types of interaction in distance education courses (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database (UMI No. 3233345).
   Google Scholar
• Keller, J. M. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction, 26, 1–7. doi:10.1002/pfi.4160260802
   Google Scholar
• Koseke, G. F., & Koseke, R. D. (1991). Student burnout as a mediator of the stress-outcome relationship. Research in Higher Education, 32, 415–431. doi:10.1007/BF0099218410.1007/BF00992184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14, 16–39. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. E. E., & Kuo, Y. T. (2014). A case study of integrating interwise: Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and satisfaction in synchronous online learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15, 161–181. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl
   Google Scholar
• Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., 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. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.00110.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, A. (2012). The implications for learners, teachers and institutions of using student satisfaction as a measure of success: a review of the literature. Education Journal, 138, 7–11. Retrieved from EBSCO (Accession No. 81029022).
   Google Scholar
• Leh, A. (2002). Action research on hybrid courses and their online communities. Education Media International, 39, 31–38. doi:10.1080/0952398021013120410.1080/09523980210131204
   Google Scholar
• Lo, C. C. (2010). Student learning and student satisfaction in an interactive classroom. Journal of General Education, 59, 238–263. doi:10.1353/jge.2010.002510.1353/jge.2010.0025
   Google Scholar
• Macdonald, J. (2006). Blended learning and online tutoring. Burlington, VT: Gower.
   Google Scholar
• Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Melrose, S. (2006). Facilitating help-seeking through student interactions in a WebCT online graduate study program. Nursing and Health Sciences, 8, 175–178. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2018.2006.00277.x10.1111/nhs.2006.8.issue-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010a). Empirical research on learners’ perceptions: Interaction equivalency theorem in blended learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 1. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org
   Google Scholar
• Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010b). The interaction equivalency theorem. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9, 94–104. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interactions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. doi:10.1080/08923648909526659
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Mosser, B. S. (2010). The impact of interpersonal interaction on Academic Engagement and Achievement in a college success strategies course with a blended learning instructional model (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3435048).
   Google Scholar
• Northrup, P., Lee, R., & Burgess, V. (2002). Learner perceptions of online interaction. In R. Lee, J. Burgess, & P. Northrup (Eds.), ED-MEDIA 2002: Vol. 2002. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1462–1467). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, D. M. (2003). Student perceptions of hybrid classes at a notebook university (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 305315023).
   Google Scholar
• Orhan, F. (2008). Redesigning a course for blended learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9, 54–66. Retrieved from https://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/
   Google Scholar
• Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4, 227–233. Retrieved from http://www.infoagepub.com/qrde-guidelines.html
   Google Scholar
• 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. Internet and Higher Education, 14, 164–174. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.12.00110.1016/j.iheduc.2010.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owston, R. D., Garrison, R., & Cook, K. (2006). Blended learning at Canadian universities: Issues and practices. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning (pp. 338–350). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
   Google Scholar
• Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 292–297. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.00410.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pike, G. R. (1993). The relationship between perceived learning and satisfaction with college: An alternative view. Research in Higher Education, 34, 23–40. doi:10.1007/BF0099186110.1007/BF00991861
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, W. W., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. A., & Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185–195. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prentice, D. (2000). The relationship between personality and university and program satisfaction of accounting students (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 9949395).
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, R. C. (2003). The quantity and quality of human interaction in a synchronous blended learning environment (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database (UMI No. 3091443).
   Google Scholar
• Reinhart, J., & Schneider, P. (2001). Student satisfaction, self-efficacy, and the perception of the two-way audio/video distance learning environment: A preliminary examination. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2, 357–365. Retrieved from http://www.infoagepub.com/qrde-guidelines.html
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez Robles, F. M. (2006). Learner characteristic, interaction and support service variables as predictors of satisfaction in Web-based distance education (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database (UMI No. 3224964).
   Google Scholar
• Sethy, S. S. (2008). Distance education in the age of globalization: An overwhelming desire towards blended learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9, 29–44. Retrieved from https://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/
   Google Scholar
• So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51, 318–336. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorpe, M., & Godwin, S. (2006). Interaction and e-learning: the student experience. Studies in Continuing Education, 28, 203–221. doi:10.1080/0158037060094733010.1080/01580370600947330
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, E. D. (2006). On designing interaction experiences for the next generation of blended learning. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 41–55). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, M. J. (2010). Online collaboration and offline interaction between students using asynchronous tools in blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 830–846. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/index
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willett, H. G. (2002). Not one or the other but both: Hybrid course delivery using WebCT. Electronic Library, 20, 412–419. doi:10.1108/02640470210447847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, N. A., Bland, W., & Christie, G. (2008). Improving student achievement and satisfaction by adopting a blended learning approach to inorganic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 43–50. doi:10.1039/B80129010.1039/b801290n
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.00510.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.005
   Google Scholar
• Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55, 155–164. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, A., & Norgard, C. (2006). Assessing the quality of online courses from the students’ perspective. Internet and Higher Education, 9, 107–115. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.00110.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.001
   Google Scholar