Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Review of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Distance education requires an instructional design approach that can lead to educational transformation. This is characterised by advanced flexibility, learner autonomy and extensive use of digital technologies to enhance learning outcomes. The main feature of such methodology is the physical distance between teaching staff, peers and educational institutions. Various technological tools are used to bridge this distance and improve communication and interaction. This article attempts to review the literature in the field, with the aim of highlighting strategies for enhancing communication and interaction in online learning environments. After discussing the theoretical framework for online communication and interaction, the authors outline the factors involved in creating well-structured, interactive and dynamic online courses and programmes for higher education students. The article explores the multi-dimensional aspects of communication in online learning environments and the differing forms of interaction involved. Using qualitative methods, the authors’ aim is to produce a framework to help tutors and instructional designers develop more effective online courses in higher education. In addition, this article may be of value to researchers and scholar-practitioners interested in communication issues, to online learning designers, and to institutional managers recruiting teaching staff for online educational courses.

Résumé

Communication et interaction en ligne dans l’enseignement supérieur à distance : une étude cadre des bonnes pratiques – L’enseignement à distance nécessite une forme de conception pédagogique susceptible d’induire une transformation de l’enseignement. Elle est marquée par une grande flexibilité, l’autonomie de l’apprenant et un vaste recours aux technologies numériques qui améliorent les résultats d’apprentissage. La caractéristique principale de ce type de méthodologie réside dans la distance physique entre enseignants, pairs et institutions éducatives. Divers outils technologiques sont utilisés pour réduire cette distance et améliorer la communication et l’interaction. Les auteurs de cet article tentent un recensement de la documentation dans le domaine en vue d’en dégager les stratégies permettant d’améliorer la communication et l’interaction en ligne dans les environnements virtuels d’apprentissage. Après une analyse du cadre théorique pour la communication et l’interaction en ligne, ils présentent les facteurs contribuant à la création de cours et de programmes en ligne bien structurés, interactifs et dynamiques destinés aux étudiants. Ils explorent les aspects multidimensionnels de la communication dans les environnements virtuels d’apprentissage ainsi que les formes diverses d’interaction. Enfin, ils s’aident de méthodes qualitatives pour concevoir un cadre censé aider tuteurs et concepteurs pédagogiques à élaborer des cours d’enseignement supérieur en ligne plus efficaces. Cet article peut également être utile aux chercheurs et praticiens spécialistes intéressés par les question de communication, aux concepteurs de formations en ligne et aux gestionnaires des établissements recrutant des enseignants pour les cours en ligne.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Open University was established in the United Kingdom fifty years ago (OU 2019), on 23 April 1969, by Royal Charter: “The objects of the University shall be the advancement and dissemination of learning and knowledge by teaching and research by a diversity of means such as broadcasting and technological devices appropriate to higher education, by correspondence tuition, residential courses and seminars and in other relevant ways, and shall be to provide education of University and professional standards for its students and to promote the educational well-being of the community generally” (OU 2005 [1969], section 3., p. iv).

  2. This is discussed in more detail later in the article. In a nutshell, Moore’s theory addresses (but is not confined to) the challenges of student–tutor communication across physical and psychological distance.

  3. Symbolic interactionism refers to a sociological theory that develops from practical considerations and alludes to people's particular utilisation of dialect to make images and normal implications, for deduction and correspondence with others (Blumer 1986). Constructivism refers to the assumption that all knowledge has a constructed and constructing character (Twomey Fosnot 2005). Ethnomethodology refers to the study of methods people use for understanding and producing the social order in which they live (Heritage 2013).

  4. Instrumentalism refers to a methodological view that ideas are useful instruments, and that the value of an idea is based on how effective it is in explaining and predicting phenomena (Hillen and Aprea 2015).

  5. The critical school of Frankfurt is a school of social theory and critical philosophy according to which social theory was inadequate for explaining the turbulent political factionalism and reactionary politics occurring in ostensibly liberal capitalist societies in the 20th century (Wheatland 2009).

  6. A learning management system (LMS) is a software application that most institutions use for the provision of online programmes and resources (McGuinness and Vlachopoulos 2019).

  7. In colloquial English, a buddy is a close friend. A study buddy is a fellow student with whom some of the coursework is addressed collaboratively.

  8. A threaded discussion is a feature used by internet forums in which the feature aids the user by visually grouping messages with their replies.

  9. Bloom’s taxonomy is a classification of learning outcomes and objectives devised by an American committee of college and university examiners chaired by Benjamin Bloom (Bloom et al. 1956). Their classification uses three categories: cognitive (knowledge-based), affective (emotion-based) and sensory (action-based) objectives.

References

  • 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(2–3), 82–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghaee, N., Jobe, W. B., Karunaratne, T., Smedberg, Å., Hansson, H., & Tedre, M. (2016). Interaction gaps in PhD education and ICT as a way forward: Results from a study in Sweden. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Azawei, A., Parslow, P., & Lundqvist, K. (2016). Barriers and opportunities of e-learning implementation in Iraq: A case of public universities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Dheleai, Y. M., & Tasir, Z. (2016). Facebook to facilitate instructor roles in course-related online interaction: A pilot study. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, 89(2), 343–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. (2003a). 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: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T. (2003b). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, N., & Paulus, T. (2010). Using a social networking site for experiential learning: Appropriating, lurking, modeling and community building. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 188–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. Journal of Educators Online. https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2010.1.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balaji, M. S., & Chakrabarti, D. (2010). Student interactions in online discussion forum: Empirical research from “media richness theory” perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baturay, M. H., & Bay, O. F. (2010). The effects of problem-based learning on the classroom community perceptions and achievement of web-based education students. Computers & Education, 55(1), 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belcher, A., Hall, B. M., Kelley, K., & Pressey, K. L. (2015). An analysis of faculty promotion of critical thinking and peer interaction within threaded discussions. Online Learning Journal. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Are contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education? Distance Education, 33(3), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A., Brown, C., Fine, B., Luterbach, K., Sugar, W., & Vinciguerra, D. C. (2009). Instructional uses of podcasting in online learning environments: A cooperative inquiry study. Journal of Educational Systems Technology, 37(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty, M., & Nafukho, F. M. (2015). Strategies for virtual learning environments: Focusing on teaching presence and teaching immediacy. Internet Learning, 4(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.18278/il.4.1.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, V. (2016). Review and discussion: E-learning for academia and industry. International Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 476–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7. Retrieved 30 May 2019 from http://www.lonestar.edu/multimedia/sevenprinciples.pdf.

  • Cho, M. H., & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, C. H., & Pi, S. M. (2015). The effectiveness of facebook groups for e-learning. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(7), 477–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dance, F. (1970). The “concept” of communication. Journal of Communication, 20(2), 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dance, F. E. X., & Larson, C. E. (Eds.). (1976). The functions of human communication: A theoretical approach. New York: Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darabi, A., Liang, X., Suryavanshi, R., & Yurekli, H. (2013). Effectiveness of online discussion strategies: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 228–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demir Kaymak, Z., & Horzum, M. B. (2013). Relationship between online learning readiness and structure and interaction of online learning students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(3), 1792–1797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denholm, J. A., Protopsaltis, A., & de Freitas, S. (2013). The value of team-based mixed-reality (TBMR) games in higher education. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 3(1), 18–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eom, S., Wen, H., & 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), 215–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, T., & Kellogg, W. (2000). Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 59–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online courses: The role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2–3), Art. 157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9047-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esterhuyse, M., Scholtz, B., & Venter, D. (2016). Intention to use and satisfaction of e-learning for training in the corporate context. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 11, 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahara, M. F., & Castro, A. L. (2015). Teaching strategies to promote immediacy in online graduate courses. Open Praxis, 7(4), 363–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. (2010). Peer interaction: The experience of distance students at university level. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 574–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fidalgo, P., & Thormann, J. (2012). A social network analysis comparison of an experienced and a novice instructor in online teaching. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 1, 1–15. Retrieved 30 May 2019 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ979607.pdf.

  • Frisen, N., & Kuskis, A. (2013). Modes of interaction. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 351–371). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galvis, Á. H. (2018). Supporting decision-making processes on blended learning in higher education: Literature and good practices review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, Art. 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0106-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, H. R., & Wanstreet, C. E. (2011). Connection to the academic community: Perceptions of students in online education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(1), 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, H. R., Breslin, M., & Wanstreet, C. E. (2013). Online professional and academic learning communities: Faculty perspectives. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(3), 123–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajhosseini, M., Zandi, S., Hosseini Shabanan, S., & Madani, Y. (2016). Critical thinking and social interaction in active learning: A conceptual analysis of class discussion from Iranian students’ perspective. Cogent Education, 3(1), Art. 1175051. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2016.1175051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, M. (2012). Interaction at a distance: An approach for redesigning for distance education. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 6(5), 806–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (2013). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillen, S., & Aprea, C. (2015). Instrumentalism in education—Where is Bildung left?. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirumi, A. (2011). The design and sequencing of online and blended learning interactions: A framework for grounded design. The Canadian Learning Journal, 16(2), 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, B. (1995). Theory and practice of distance education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyos, J. E. P. (2018). Error correction and repair moves in synchronous learning activities. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, Art. 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0105-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huss, J. A., Sela, O., & Eastep, S. (2015). A case study of online instructors and their quest for greater interactivity in their courses: Overcoming the distance in distance education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 72–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, A. T., Flint, J., Jaecks, P., & Cap, C. H. (2017). A proficient and versatile online student-teacher collaboration platform for large classroom lectures. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, Art. 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0067-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jong, B.-S., Lai, C.-H., Hsia, Y.-T., & Lin, T.-W. (2013). Effects of anonymity in group discussion on peer interaction and learning achievement. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(3), 292–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyner, F. (2012). Increasing student interaction and the development of critical thinking in asynchronous threaded discussions. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(1), 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, I. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web-based instruction in the context of distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 525–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., & Jefferis, H. (2014). Social presence in online learning communities: The role of personal profiles. Research in Learning Technology. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.19710.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F., & Kwak, D. (2013). Online learning across ethnicity and age: A study on learning interaction participation, perception, and learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 61, 43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. Y. (2012). A study on learners’ perceptional typology and relationships among the learner’s types, characteristics, and academic achievement in a blended e-Education environment. Computers & Education, 59, 304–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klašnja-Milićević, A., Vesin, B., Ivanović, M., Budimac, Z., & Jain, L. C. (2017). Introduction to E-learning systems. In A. Klašnja-Milićević, B. Vesin, M. Ivanović, Z. Budimac, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), E-learning systems: Intelligent techniques for personalization (pp. 3–17). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, M. H., Barbour, M., & Hill, J. R. (2010). Strategies for instructors on how to improve online groupwork. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(2), 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kožuh, I., Jeremić, Z., Sarjaš, A., Bele, J., Devedžić, V., & Debevc, M. (2015). Social presence and interaction in learning environments: The effect on student success. Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 223–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. 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 Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuyath, S. J., Mickelson, R. A., Saydam, C., & Winter, S. J. (2013). The effects of instant messaging on distance learning outcomes. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 3(2), 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwok, D., & Yang, S. (2017). Evaluating the intention to use ICT collaborative tools in a social constructivist environment. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, Art. 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0070-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyei-Blankson, L., Ntuli, E., & Donnelly, H. (2016). Establishing the importance of interaction and presence to student learning in online environments. World Journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lala, R., Jeuring, J., Van Dortmont, J., & Van Geest, M. (2017). Scenarios in virtual learning environments for one-to-one communication skills training. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, Art. 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0054-1. Retrieved 28 May 2019 from https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-017-0054-1.

  • Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2005). Theories of human communication. Belmont: Thompson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madland, C., & Richards, G. (2016). Enhancing student-student online interaction: Exploring the study buddy peer review activity. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makri, A., & Vlachopoulos, D. (2018a). Investigating the criteria of choosing a learning management system for online courses. Paper presented at the 10th annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN), held in Palma de Mallorca 2–4 July 2018.

  • Makri, A., & Vlachopoulos, D. (2018b). Conducting a scoping review of collaborative learning in online settings. Paper presented at the 11th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI), held in Seville 12–14 November 2018.

  • Makri, A., & Vlachopoulos, D. (2018c). Study protocol for a scoping review of collaborative learning in online environments. Paper presented at the 12th annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED), held in Valencia 5–7 March 2018.

  • Martin, F., Parker, M. A., & Deale, D. F. (2012). Examining interactivity in synchronous virtual classrooms. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 228–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F., & Parker, M. A. (2014). Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why, who, and how? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 192–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • McInnerney, J. M., & Roberts, T. S. (2004). Online learning: social interaction and the creation of a sense of community. Educational Technology and Society, 7(3), 73–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, N., & Vlachopoulos, D. (2019). Student experiences of using online material to support success in A-level economics. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(3), 80–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. (2015). Associations between learner interaction and achievement in an online course: A longitudinal study 1. NACTA Journal, 59(3), 197–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2011). The interaction equivalency theorem: Research potential and its application to teaching. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning, held in Madison, WI 3–5 August 2011. Retrieved 30 May 2019 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9610/e6f633d5615ddd7dabec07378ec67a297acd.pdf.

  • Moallem, M. (2015). The impact of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools on learner self-regulation, social presence, immediacy, intimacy and satisfaction in collaborative online learning. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 3(3), 55–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montero-Fleta, B., & Pérez-Sabater, C. (2014). Guiding in tertiary education: A case study on social networking and e-learning platforms. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 410–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. G. (2013). Handbook of distance education. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (Eds.). (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. (2014). Effects of online interaction and instructor presence on students’ satisfaction and success with online undergraduate public relations courses. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 69(3), 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muirhead, B., & Juwah, C. (2004). Interactivity in computer-mediated college and university education: A recent review of the literature. Insights for Teachers and Students, 11, 12–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, M. C., Pérez, J., Geist, D. B., & Hedrick, A. (2012). Student interaction with online course content: Build it and they might come. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 11(1), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murugaiah, P., & Thang, S. M. (2010). Development of interactive and reflective learning among Malaysian online distant learners: An ESL instructor’s experience. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 3(1), 5–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hair, D., Friedrich, G. W., & Dixon, L. D. (2007). Strategic communication in business and the professions. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • OU (The Open University). (2005 [1969]). The Open University: Charter and statutes, as amended by the Privy Council to December 2005. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from http://www.open.ac.uk/about/main/sites/www.open.ac.uk.about.main/files/files/ecms/web-content/Charter.pdf.

  • OU. (2019). 50: A movement of millions, a mission of one. Fiftieth anniversary brochure. Mileton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved 24 June 2019 from http://www3.open.ac.uk/documents/1/vs19080444243116.pdf.

  • Padavano, D., & Gould, M. (2005). Student satisfaction with faculty-student interaction. Paper presented at the 11th Sloan-C international conference on asynchronous learning networks, held in Orlando, FL 17–19 November 2005.

  • Paul, J. A., & Cochran, J. D. (2013). Key interactions for online programs between faculty, students, technologies, and educational institutions: A holistic framework. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1), 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pham, T., Thalathoti, V., & Dakich, E. (2014). Frequency and pattern of learner-instructor interaction in an online English language learning environment in Vietnam. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6), 686–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragusa, A. T. (2017). Technologically-mediated communication: Student expectations and experiences in a FOMO society. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, Art. 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0077-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigo Alsina, M. (2001). Teorías de la comunicación. Ámbitos, métodos y perspectivas [Communication theory: Areas, methods and perspectives]. Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

  • Rodriguez, B. C. P., & Armellini, A. (2015). Expanding the interaction equivalency theorem. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saeed, M. A., Ghazali, K., & Aljaberi, M. A. (2018). A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, Art. 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0084-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Said, M.N.H.M., Tahir, L., & Ali, M. F. (2016). Online collaborative learning interactions in a tertiary ICT education course. International Information Institute (Tokyo). Information, 19(7A). Retrieved 30 May 2019 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309263346_Online_collaborative_learning_interactions_in_a_tertiary_ICT_education_course.

  • Samuels-Peretz, D. (2014). Ghosts, stars, and learning online: Analysis of interaction patterns in student online discussions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santoveña, S. M. (2011). Communication processes in virtual learning environments and their impact on online lifelong learning. RUSC, Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 8(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwier, R. A., & Seaton, J. X. (2013). A comparison of participation patterns in selected formal, non-formal, and informal online learning environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. https://doi.org/10.21432/t2g01q.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selvaggi, T. (2015). An exploratory study of levels of interaction occurring with graduate students in an online literacy course. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 30(2). Retrieved 30 May 2019 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1101019.pdf.

  • Serdyukov, P., & Sistek-Chandler, C. (2015). Communication, collaboration and relationships in the online college class: Instructors’ Perceptions. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 8(1), 116–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackelford, J. L., & Maxwell, M. (2012). Contribution of learner-instructor interaction to sense of community in graduate online education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 248–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, L., & McNary, S. W. (2011). Understanding students’ online interaction: Analysis of discussion board postings. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10(1), Art. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su, B., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R. J., Liu, X., & Lee, S. H. (2005). The importance of interaction in web-based education: A program-level case study of online MBA courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(1), Art. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, J. C.-Y., & Wu, Y.-T. (2016). Analysis of learning achievement and teacher–student interactions in flipped and conventional classrooms. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(1), 79–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, E. A., Nicholson, A. C., Boese, T. A., Cram, E., Stineman, A. M., & Tew, K. (2011). Comparison of selected teaching strategies incorporating simulation and student outcomes. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 7(3), 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thormann, J., & Zimmerman, I. (Eds.). (2012). The complete step-by-step guide to designing and teaching online courses. New York: Teachers College Press at Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thormann, J., Gable, S., Fidalgo, P. S., & Blakeslee, G. (2013). Interaction, critical thinking, and social network analysis (SNA) in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 294–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thormann, J., & Fidalgo, P. (2014). Guidelines for online course moderation and community building from a student’s perspective. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 374–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurmond, V. A. (2003). Examination of interaction variables as predictors of students’ satisfaction and willingness to enroll in future web-based courses. Doctoral dissertation. University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS.

  • Ting, S. R., & Gonzalez, L. M. (2013). Quality of Interactions in face-to-face and hybrid career development courses: An exploration of students’ perceptions. Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 316–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tubbs, S., & Moss, S. (Eds.). (2006). Human communication: Principles and contexts. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twomey Fosnot, C. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verderber, K., & Verderber, R. (2004). Interact: Interpersonal communication concepts, skills and contexts. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2017). The effect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, Art. 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0062-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, B. K. (2007). Bridging the distance: How social interaction, presence, social presence, and sense of community influence student learning experiences in an online virtual environment. Dissertation. Greensboro, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina.

  • Watson, S., & Sutton, J. M. (2012). An examination of the effectiveness of case method teaching online: Does the technology matter? Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 802–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, L. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 17(1), 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatland, T. (2009). The frankfurt school in exile. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K., Cameron, B., Morgan, K., & Wade, C. (2012). Facilitation of online group projects: Insights from experienced faculty members. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. held in Madison, WI 8–10 August 2012.

  • Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(3), 247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, R. H., & Baker, J. D. (2004). Interaction and immediacy in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v5i2.186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, S., Kelsey, D., & Lancaster, A. (2011). Predicted outcome value of e-mail communication: Factors that foster professional relational development between students and teachers. Communication Education, 60(4), 371–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharis, N. Z. (2011). Fostering students’ participation in online environments: Focus on interaction, communication and problem solving. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 6(2), 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was sponsored by Laureate International Universities, through the “David Wilson Award for Excellence in Teaching and Learning”, won by Dr Dimitrios Vlachopoulos (2015–2017). Laureate International Universities has no financial or non-financial interest in this publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Dimitrios Vlachopoulos

  2. European University Cyprus, Engomi, Cyprus

    Agoritsa Makri

Authors
  1. Dimitrios Vlachopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Agoritsa Makri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitrios Vlachopoulos.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vlachopoulos, D., Makri, A. Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. Int Rev Educ 65, 605–632 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09792-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09792-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation