Abstract
In this study, the usability of a social constructivist online teacher preparation course was examined using a framework developed for asynchronous constructivist courses. In particular, students’ approaches to learning through interactivity were examined. Students from around the world participated in the course. Data from weekly feedback were analyzed using phenomenography, a qualitative research approach that examined data from the student perspective and the descriptions of the students’ experiences. The findings from the weekly feedback analysis identified three qualitatively distinct types of interactivity: group work, synchronous meetings, and interpersonal interactions in the learning management system. Variation existed in students’ approaches to learning in these three types of interaction. Considerations for course designers are discussed at the conclusion of the analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park: Babson Survey Research Group.
Altay, B. (2014). User-centered design through learner-centered instruction. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(2), 138–155.
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right: An updated theoretical rational for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).
Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University Press.
Barbour, M. K., Siko, J., Gross, E., & Waddell, K. (2013). Virtually unprepared: Examining the preparation of K-12 online teachers. In R. Hartshorne, T. L. Heafner, & T. M. Petty (Eds.), Teacher education programs and online learning tools: Innovations in teacher preparation (pp. 120–143). Hershey: IGI Global.
Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299–305.
Blunt, R. (2014, April 21). Interactivity vs interaction in elearning design [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140421194431-15606519-interactivity-vs-interaction-in-elearning-design.
Cennamo, K., & Kalk, D. (2005). Real world instructional design. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Davids, M. R., Chikte, U., Grimmer-Somers, K., & Halperin, M. L. (2014). Usability testing of a multimedia e-learning resource for electrolyte and acid-base disorders. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 367–381.
Davis, N., & Rose, R. (2007). Research committee issues brief: Professional development for virtual schooling and online learning. North American Council for Online Learning.
Dawley, L., Rice, K., & Hinck, G. (2010). Going virtual! 2010 the status of professional development and unique needs of K-12 online teachers. Boise, ID.
Faulkner, L. (2003). Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(3), 379–383.
Fisher, E. A., & Wright, V. H. (2010, March). Improving online course design through usability testing. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 228–245.
Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. The Journal of the Association for Learning Technology, 3(2), 5–34.
Grabinger, R. S., Dunlap, J. C., & Duffield, J. A. (1997). Rich environments for active learning in action: Problem-based learning. The Journal of the Association for Learning Technology, 5(2), 5–17.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2002). What makes learning networks effective? Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 56–58. doi:10.1145/505248.505273.
Koohang, A., & Du Plessis, J. (2004). Architecting usability properties in the e-learning instructional design process. International Journal on E-learning, 3(3), 38–44.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205.
Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Empirical research on learners’ perceptions: Interaction equivalency theorem in blended learning. European Journal of Open Distance and E-Learning, 2010(1), 1–9.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.
Moore-Adams, B. L., Jones, W. M., & Cohen, J. (2016). Learning to teach online: A systematic review of the literature on K-12 teacher preparation for teaching online. Distance Education, 37(3), 333–348.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: Academic Press.
Norman, D. A., & Spohrer, J. C. (1996). Learner-centered education. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 24–27.
Paily, M. U. (2013). Creating constructivist learning environment: Role of “web 2.0” technology. International Forum for Teaching Studies, 9(1), 39–51.
Piskurich, G. M. (2006). Rapid instructional design: Learning ID fast and right. John Wiley & Sons.
Robinson, H., Phillips, A. S., Sheffield, A., & Moore, M. (2015). A Rich Environment for Active Learning (REAL): A model for online instruction. In S. Keengwe & J. Agamba (Eds.), Models for improving and optimizing online and blended learning in higher education. Hershey: PA: IGI.
Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79–93.
Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Sandbergh, J. (1997). Are phenomenographic results reliable? Higher Education Research and Development, 16(2014), 203–212. doi:10.1080/0729436970160207.
Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1997(71), 19–26. doi:10.1002/tl.7103.
Watson, J., Pape, L., Murin, A., Gemin, B., & Vashaw, L. (2014). Keeping pace with K-12 digital learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group.
Wilson, M. E. (2004). Teaching, learning, and millennial students. New Directions for Student Services, 2004(106), 59–71.
Zaharias, P., Vasslopoulou, K., & Poulymenakou, A. (2002). Designing on-line learning courses: Implications for usability. Scientific Journal on Applied Information Technology, 1(1).
Zaharias, P. (2005). E-learning design quality: A holistic conceptual framework. In J. Boettcher, L. Justice, K. Schenk, P. L. Rogers, & G. A. Berg (Eds.), Howard, Caroline. Idea Group Inc: Encyclopedia of distance learning. New York.
Zaharias, P. (2009). Usability in the context of e-learning: A framework augmenting 'traditional' usability constructs with instructional design and motivation to learn. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 5(4), 37–59.
Zaharias, P., & Poylymenakou, A. (2009). Developing a usability evaluation method for e-learning applications: Beyond functional usability. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 25(1), 75–98.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Robinson, H.A., Sheffield, A., Phillips, A.S. et al. “Introduction to Teaching Online”: Usability Evaluation of Interactivity in an Online Social Constructivist Course. TechTrends 61, 533–540 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0187-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0187-z