Pedagogy-based solutions for making effective interactions in e-learning environments: reflections on Hirumi’s three levels of interaction

References

• Abbasi Kasani, H., Shams Mourkani, G., Seraji, F., & Rezaeizadeh, M. (2021). Evaluation in e-learning: What, why, how. DSME, 8(1), 80–91. URL: http://dsme.hums.ac.ir/article-1-276-en.html
   Google Scholar
• Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2), 82–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agudo-Peregrina, A. F., Hernandez-Garcia, A., & Iglesias-Pradas, S. (2012). Predicting academic performance with learning analytics in virtual learning environments: A comparative study of three interaction classifications. 2012 International Symposium on Computers in Education, SIIE 2012. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6403184
   Google Scholar
• Alikhani, P., RezaeiZadeh, M., & Vahidi-Asl, M. (2018). The analysis of “Fetch! Lunch Rush” as an augmented reality multi-player game in cooperative learning. The Journal of New Thoughts on Education, 13(4), 39–62.
   Google Scholar
• Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. Theory and Practice of Online Learning, 2, 15–44. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/330a/4c4486de39800f8603b2e38d32c4dbdc245f.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, P. (2005). The meaning of pedagogy. In Joe L. Kincheloe (ed.), Classroom Teaching: An Introduction (pp. 53–70). Peter Lang Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Awidi, I. T., Paynter, M., & Vujosevic, T. (2019). Facebook group in the learning design of a higher education course: An analysis of factors influencing positive learning experience for students. Computers & Education, 129, 106–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barari, N., Khorasani, A., Rezaeizadeh, M., & Alami, F. (2019). Feedback’s educational standards in E-Learning environments, based on Bloom-Anderson taxonomy. Journal of Educational Sciences, 26(1), 155–174.
   Google Scholar
• Barari, N., Moeini, A., Rezaei Zadeh, M., & Abbas Kasani, H. (2017). Future teacher; change in roles and tasks in the digital environments based on the connectivism theory. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ), 11(2), 161–170.
   Google Scholar
• Barari, N., Rezaeizadeh, M., Khorasani, A., & Alami, F. (2019). Achievement high level goals in E-learning with comprehensive feedback; (standards and criteria). Technology of Education Journal (TEJ), 14(1), 85–96.
   Google Scholar
• Barari, N., RezaeiZadeh, M., Khorasani, A., & Alami, F. (2020). Designing and validating educational standards for E-teaching in virtual learning environments (VLEs), based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(9), 1640–1652. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1739078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartle, E. (2015). Personalised learning: An overview. The Institute for Teaching and learning Innovation. Queensland University. https://itali.uq.edu.au/filething/get/1865/Personalised_learning_overview_Final_16_Mar_15.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Berge, Z. (2002). Berge2002_Active interactive reflective learning. http://www.acousticslab.org/dots_sample/module4/Berge2002_ActiveInteractiveReflectiveLearning.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Billings, D. M., Connors, H. R., & Skiba, D. J. (2001). Benchmarking best practices in. Advances in Nursing Science, 23(3), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200103000-00005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2018). Digital technologies for promoting “student voice” and co-creating learning experience in an academic course. Instructional Science, 46(2), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9436-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyle, D. K., & Wambach, K. A. (2001). Interaction in graduate nursing web-based instruction. Journal of Professional Nursing, 17(3), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1053/jpnu.2001.23376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, Y. M. (2013). Exploring the roles of interaction and flow in explaining nurses’ elearning acceptance. Nurse Education Today, 33(1), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.02.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, J., Xu, J., Tang, T., & Chen, R. (2017). WebIntera-classroom: An interaction-aware virtual learning environment for augmenting learning interactions. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(6), 792–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1188829
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Davari, F., Vahidi-Asl, M., Alikhani, P., & RezaeiZadeh, M. (2020). Measuring the impact of virtual reality on a serious game for improving oral presentation skill. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ), 14(4), 891–900.
   Google Scholar
• Din, N., Haron, S., Ahmad, H., & Rashid, R. M. (2015). Technology supported cities and effective online interaction for learning. Procedia – Social & Behavioral Sciences, 170, 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.030
   Google Scholar
• Dzakiria, H. (2012). Illuminating the Importance of Learning Interaction to Open Distance Learning (ODL) Success: A Qualitative Perspectives of Adult Learners in Perlis, Malaysia. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 2. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ992489
   Google Scholar
• Franco, J., & Provencher, B. A. (2019). Using a multitouch book to enhance the student experience in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(3), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukuzawa, S., & Boyd, C. (2016). Student engagement in a large classroom: Using technology to generate a hybridized problem-based learning experience in a large First Year undergraduate class. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2016.1.7
   Google Scholar
• 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. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.
   Google Scholar
• Hinchliffe, G. (2000). Education or pedagogy? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.00208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschbuhl, J. J. (2007). Designing, developing, and implementing an interactive learning system. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03033422
   Google Scholar
• Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of eLearning interactions: A grounded approach. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(1), 19–27. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/8390/
   Google Scholar
• Hung, S. T. A. (2019). Creating digital stories. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(2), 26–37. https://drive.google.com/file/d/17hpl8cP7toTfRjPIK2McL-EzKxy6hLY4/view
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Insung, J., Seonghee, C., & Cheolil, L. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 3297, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800021012139
   Google Scholar
• Jafari Far, Z., Khorasani, A., & Rezaei Zadeh, M. (2016). Identifying and ranking learners’ challenges in virtual human resources education and improvement (case study: Shahid Beheshti University). Technology of Education, 11(2), 104–185.
   Google Scholar
• Jang, Y. (2015). Convenience matters: A qualitative study on the impact of use of social media and collaboration technologies on learning experience and performance in higher education. Education for Information, 31(1–2), 73–98. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-150948
   Google Scholar
• Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Loughin, T. M., Kovanović, V., & Hatala, M. (2015). Learning at distance: Effects of interaction traces on academic achievement. Computers and Education, 87, 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ke, F., Xie, K., & Xie, Y. (2016). Game-based learning engagement: A theory- and data-driven exploration. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1183–1201. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapp, N. F. (2018). Increasing interaction in a flipped online classroom through video conferencing. Tech Trends, 62(6), 618–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0336-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolb David, A. (1984). Experiential learning. Eglewood Cliffs. Pretce Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, D. (2013). Pedagogic Research and Scholarship within the STEM Disciplines. In M. Grove, & T. Overton (Eds.), Getting Started in Pedagogic Research within the STEM Disciplines (pp. 5–9). University of Birmingham STEM Education Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Luo, N., Zhang, M., & Qi, D. (2017). Effects of different interactions on students’ sense of community in e-learning environment. Computers and Education, 115, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahzoon Haghighi, P., & Rezai Zade, M. (2017). Identifying and analyzing the feedback obstacles of entrepreneurship teachers (study of case: Entrepreneurship Faculty of Tehran University). Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 10(1), 161–180.
   Google Scholar
• McMillion, T., & King, C. S. T. (2017). Communication and security issues in online education: Student self-disclosure in course introductions. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 15, 1–25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317984435_Communication_and_security_issues_in_online_education_Student_self-disclosure_in_course_introductions
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehall, S. (2020). Purposeful interpersonal interaction in online learning: What is it and how is it measured? Online Learning Journal, 24(1), 182–204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i1.2002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michailidis, N., Kapravelos, E., & Tsiatsos, T. (2019). Examining the effect of interaction analysis on supporting students’ motivation and learning strategies in online blog-based secondary education programming courses. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(4), 665–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1678487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohammadi, A. (2016). Recognizing and modeling facilitator characteristics on reflective learning in habitual entrepreneurs. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 8(4), 669–687.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
   Google Scholar
• Msonde, S. E., & Van Aalst, J. (2017). Designing for interaction, thinking and academic achievement in a Tanzanian undergraduate chemistry course. Educational Technology Research & Development, 65(5), 1389–1413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9531-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muirhead, B. (2002). Effective online assessment strategies for today’s colleges & universities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 5(4), 1–7. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ulUkqQW_6KvFnnCrl5AUFese_O8aFKil/view
   Google Scholar
• Pham, T., Thalathoti, V., & Dakich, E. (2014). Frequency and pattern of student-instructor interaction in an online English language learning environment in Vietnam. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6), 686–698. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84921288506&partnerID=40&md5=c552225c3e6240f15eef0fc596940c85
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purarjomandlangrudi, A., Chen, D., & Nguyen, A. (2016). Investigating the drivers of student interaction and engagement in online courses: A study of state-of-the-art. Informatics in Education, 15(2), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2016.14
   Google Scholar
• Rezaei-Zadeh, M. (2014). An analysis of core entrepreneurial competencies, their interdependencies and their cultivating approaches in virtual education using a collective intelligence methodology. https://researchrepository.ul.ie/articles/thesis/An_analysis_of_core_entrepreneurial_competencies_their_interdependencies_and_their_cultivating_approaches_in_virtual_education_using_a_collective_intelligence_methodology/19820059
   Google Scholar
• Rezaei-Zadeh, M., O’Reilly, J., Cleary, B., & Murphy, E. (2011). A review of the bases and solutions to deficiency in the effective use of technology in the creation of lifelong learning in higher education. eLearning & Software for Education.
   Google Scholar
• Rezaei-Zadeh, M., O’Reilly, J., Hogan, M., Cleary, B., & Murphy, E. (2013). Designing a specific tool for measuring students’ and tutors’ mutual expectations from each other in an E-Learning platform. ICELW 2013 conference proceeding New York, USA, (pp. 1–6).
   Google Scholar
• Thurmond, V. A. (2003). Examination of interaction variables as predictors of students’ satisfaction and willingness to enrol in future web-based courses while controlling for student characteristics. Universal-Publishers. http://books.google.com.br/books?id=thZVQuvlKloC
   Google Scholar
• Thurmond, V., & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 1(1). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.101.9189&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=17
   Google Scholar
• Tsay, C. H. H., Kofinas, A., & Luo, J. (2018). Enhancing student learning experience with technology-mediated gamification: An empirical study. Computers and Education, 121, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uijl, S., Filius, R., & Ten Cate, O. (2017). Student interaction in small private online courses. Medical Science Educator, 27(2), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0380-x
   Google Scholar
• Vakilian, F., Rezaeizadeh, M., & Abolghasemi, M. (2018). Identifying the effectiveness of using computer games in promoting reverse elementary class learning. First Conference on Human Growth, Development and Health, Tehran, Iran.
   Google Scholar
• Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2019). Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. International Review of Education, 65(4), 605–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09792-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6–29.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Z., Chen, L., & Anderson, T. (2014). A framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts. International Review of Research in Open & Distributed Learning, 15(2), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, S. (2013). Principal sabbatical report: Practical ways that schools can personalise learning for their students–powerful learner pit stops. Waiau Pa School Board of Trustees Viitattu, 10.
   Google Scholar
• Woo, Y., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.005
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring student to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar