An interactive online course: A collaborative design model

  • Mahnaz Moallem


The purpose of this paper is to describe the evaluation results of using an interactive design model for the development of an online course. Specifically, it examines: (a) how an interactive design model was used to develop collaborative and cooperative learning activities; (b) how activities were structured to promote the level and quality of communications among students, as peers, and between students and the instructors; and (c) how students responded to such interactive design model. The paper also provides information about the delivery process and describes what happened when this interactive model was fully implemented and used.


Chat Room Interactive Online Team Activity Individual Assignment Collaborative Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Argyle, M., Lalljee, M., & Cook, M. (1968). The effects of visibility of interaction in a dyad.Human Relations, 21, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrows, H.S., & Tamblyn, R.M. (1980).Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. NY: Springer Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  3. Berge, Z.L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendation from the field.Educational Technology, 35, 22–30.Google Scholar
  4. Berge, Z.L. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary Webbased learning.Educational Technology, 39(1), 5–11.Google Scholar
  5. Blacklow, R.S., & Engel, J.D. (1991). The University of Delaware/Jefferson Medical College Medical Scholars Program: An approach to educating physicians for academic leadership and practice,Del. Med. J., 63: 303–307.Google Scholar
  6. Boshier, R., Mohapi, M., Moulton, G., Quayyum, A., Sadownik, L., & Wilson, M. (1997). Best and worst dressed Web courses: Strutting into the 21st century in comfort and style.Distance Education, 18, 327–349.Google Scholar
  7. Boud, D. (Ed.) (1985).Problem-based learning for the professions. Sydney, HERDSA.Google Scholar
  8. Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (Eds.) (1991).The Challenge of Problem Based Learning. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1986). A proposed integration among organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design.Management Science, 32, 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engel, C.E. (1997). Not just a method but a way of learning. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds.)The challenge of problem based learning (2nd edition). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  12. Felder, R. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college of science education.Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286–290.Google Scholar
  13. Felder, R., & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education.Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.Google Scholar
  14. Foshay, R., & Bergeron, C. (2000). Web-based education: A reality check.Tech Trends, 44, 16–19.Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert, L., & Moore, D.R. (1998). Building interactivity into Web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction.Educational Technology, 38(3), 29–35.Google Scholar
  16. Greeno, J.G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong question.Educational Researcher, 20(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hackman, J.R., & Morris, C.G. (1975). Group task, group interaction process and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 47–100). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hannafin, M.L., Land, S.M., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and model: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. III) (pp. 115–141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Harasim, L. (1989). On-line education: A new domain. In R. Mason, & A. Kaye (Edds.),Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distance Education (pp. 50–62). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hiltz, S.R. (1994).The virtual classroom. Learning without limits via computer network. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  21. Hiltz, S.R. (1997).Impacts of college-level courses via asynchronous learning networks: Some preliminary results. Available on line: [ /philly.htm.].Google Scholar
  22. Imel, S., & Tisdell, E.J. (1996). The relationship between theories about groups and adult learning groups. In S. Imel (Ed.),Learning in groups: Exploring fundamental principles, new uses, and emerging opportunities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. no. 71 (pp. 15–24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1991).Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 465).Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1998).Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  25. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and model: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. III) (pp. 215–241). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Jonassen, D., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kearsly, G. (1995).The nature and value of interaction in distance learning. Retrieved 2003 from http://wwww Scholar
  28. Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction.Acta Psychologyica, 26, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knowles, M.S. (1975).Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York: Association Press.Google Scholar
  30. Knowles, M.S. (1990). Fostering competence in self-directed learning. In R.M. Smith (Ed.),Learning to learn across the life span (pp. 123–136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. LaRose, R. & Whitten, P. (1999).Websection: Building Web courses with instructional immediacy. Retrieved December 1, 1999 from e.htmGoogle Scholar
  32. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).Situated learning and legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Martin, B.L., & Reigeluth, C. (1999). Affective education and the affective domain: Implications for instructional design theories and models. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and model: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. III) (pp.485–511).Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. McGrath, J.E. (1984).Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  35. McGrath, J.E. (1990). Time matters in groups. In Galegher, R.E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.),Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 23–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. McGrath, J.E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups.Small Group Research, 22, 147–174.Google Scholar
  37. McGrath, J.E. (1992, November).Group, technologies, tasks, and time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
  38. McGrath, J.E., & Hollingshead, A.B. (1993). Putting the “group” back in group support systems: Some theoretical issues about dynamic processes in groups with technological enhancements. In L.M. Jessup & J.S. Valacich (Eds.),Group support systems: New perspectives (pp. 78–96). NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. McNabb, J. (1994). Telecourse effectiveness: Findings in the current literature.Tech Trends, 39(4), 39–40.Google Scholar
  40. Moore, M.G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory.The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1–6.Google Scholar
  41. Moore, M.G. (1992). Three types of interaction.The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.Google Scholar
  42. Moore, M.G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.),Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1995).Distance education: A systems view. NY: Wadsworth Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  44. Mortera-Gutierrez, F., & Murphy, K. (2000).Instructor interactions in distance education environment. Paper presented at the Annual Distance Education Conference (7th, Austin, TX, January 25–28, 2000).Google Scholar
  45. Muirhead, B. (1999).Attitudes toward interactivity in a graduate distance education program: A qualitative analysis, Parkland, FL: Dissertation. Com.Google Scholar
  46. Muirhead, B. (2000). Interactivity in a graduate distance education school.Educational Technology & Society, 3(1) 2000.Google Scholar
  47. Muirhead, B. (2001). Enhancing social interaction in computer-mediated distance education.Ed at a Distance Journal,15(4), Apr 2001. Retrieved 2003 from
  48. Nelson, L.M. (1999). Collaborative problem solving. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and model: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. III) (pp. 241–265). Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  49. Parker, A. (1999). Interaction in distance education: The critical conversation.Educational Technology Review, 12, (Autumn-Winter), 13–17.Google Scholar
  50. Perkins, D.N. (1993). Person plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed cognitions (pp. 88–110). NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Peterson, M. (1996). A team-based approach to problem-based learning: An evaluation of structured team problem solving.Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 7(3), 129–153.Google Scholar
  52. Rau, W., & Heyl, B.S. (1990). Humanizing the college classroom: Collaborative learning and social organization among students.Teaching Sociology, 18, 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reigeluth, C.M. (1999).Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  54. Rubin, R.B., Rubin, A.M., & Jordan, F.F. (1997). Effects of instruction on communication apprehension and communication competence.Communication Education, 46, 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tutter, D.R., & Stephenson, G.M. (1975). The role of visual communication in synchronizing conversation.European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 29–37.Google Scholar
  56. Saba, F., & Shearer, R.L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education.The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D.N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning.Review of Research in Education, 23. Retrieved 2003 from http://construct≈gsalomon/indsoc.htmGoogle Scholar
  58. Shaw, A. (1996). Social constructionism and the inner city. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.),Constructionism in practice: Designing thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  59. Shepperd, J.A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning.International Journal of Educational Telecommunication, 1(4), 337–365.Google Scholar
  61. Slavin, R.E. (1995).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  62. Spitzer, D.R. (2001). Don’t forget the high-touch with the high-tech in distance learning.Educational Technology, 41(2), 51–55.Google Scholar
  63. Straus, S.G., & McGrath, J.E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions.Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (Eds.),Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Zirkin, B., & Sumler, D. (1995). Interactive or non-interactive? That is the question! An annotated bibliography.Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 95–112.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahnaz Moallem
    • 1
  1. 1.Watson School of Education at the University of North Carolina at WilmingtonWilmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations