Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 23, Issue 2–3, pp 82–103 | Cite as

Interaction in distance education and online learning: using evidence and theory to improve practice

  • Philip C. AbramiEmail author
  • Robert M. Bernard
  • Eva M. Bures
  • Eugene Borokhovski
  • Rana M. Tamim


In a recent meta-analysis of distance and online learning, Bernard et al. (2009) quantitatively verified the importance of three types of interaction: among students, between the instructor and students, and between students and course content. In this paper we explore these findings further, discuss methodological issues in research and suggest how these results may foster instructional improvement. We highlight several evidence-based approaches that may be useful in the next generation of distance and online learning. These include principles and applications stemming from the theories of self-regulation and multimedia learning, research-based motivational principles and collaborative learning principles. We also discuss the pedagogical challenges inherent in distance and online learning that need to be considered in instructional design and software development.


Distance education Online learning Self-regulation Multimedia learning Motivation Collaboration Instructional design Cooperative learning Metacognition 


  1. Abrami, P. C. (2010). On the nature of support in computer supported collaborative learning using gstudy. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 835–839. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrami, P. C., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., De Simone, C., d’Apollonia, S., & Howden, J. (1995). Classroom connections: Understanding and using cooperative learning. Toronto, ON: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  3. Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., Pillay, V., Aslan, O., Bures, E., & Bentley, C. (2008). Encouraging self-regulated learning through electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal on Learning and Technology, 34(3), 93–117.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Mabry, E., Burrell, N., & Mattrey, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, T. (2003). 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.Google Scholar
  6. Bates, A. (1990). Interactivity as a criterion for media selection in distance education. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Asian association of open universities, Jakarta, Indonesia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED329245)Google Scholar
  7. Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153. doi: 10.1080/01587910600789498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beldarrain, Y. (2008). Integrating interaction in distance learning: A comparative analysis of five design frameworks. In C. Bonk et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare and higher education 2008 (pp. 1471–1477). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
  9. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Tamim, R., Surkes, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. doi: 10.3102/0034654309333844v1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., & Borokhovski, E. (2004a). A methodological morass? How we can improve the quality of quantitative research in distance education. Distance Education, 25(2), 175–198. doi: 10.1080/0158791042000262094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004b). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 3(74), 379–439. doi: 10.3102/00346543074003379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brookfield, S. (1995). Developing critical thinkers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Burns, T. C., & Ungerleider, C. S. (2003). Information and communication technologies in elementary and secondary education: State of the art review. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 3(4), 27–54.Google Scholar
  14. Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–6.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, R. E. (2000). Evaluating distance education: Strategies and cautions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(1), 3–16.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cook, D. A. (2009). The failure of e-learning research to inform educational practice and what we can do about it. Medical Teacher, 31(2), 158–162. doi: 10.1080/01421590802691393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cook, D. A., Levinson, A. J., Garside, S., Dupras, D., Erwin, P. J., & Montori, V. M. (2008). Internet-based learning in the health professions: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300(10), 1181–1196. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.10.1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daniel, J., & Marquis, C. (1979). Interaction and independence: Getting the mixture right. Teaching at a Distance, 15, 25–44.Google Scholar
  21. Daniel, J., & Marquis, C. (1988). Interaction and independence: Getting the mix right. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 339–359). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumfield, P., Krajick, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 43–76. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1301_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8–21. doi: 10.1080/08923649309526830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1990). A new framework and perspective. In D. R. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: From issues to practice (pp. 123–133). Malabar, FL: Krieger.Google Scholar
  25. Hickey, D., & McCaslin, M. (2001). A Comparative, socio-cultural analysis of context and motivation. In S. Volet & S. Järvalä (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advancements and methodological implications (pp. 33–55). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jahng, N., Krug, D., & Zhang, Z. (2007). Student achievement in online education compared to face-to-face education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from
  27. Jaspers, F. (1991). Interactivity or instruction? A reaction to Merrill. Educational Technology, 31(3), 21–24.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 368(5), 365–379. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09339057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Juler, P. (1990). Promoting interaction, maintaining independence: Swallowing the mixture. Open Learning, 5(2), 24–33. doi: 10.1080/0268051900050205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall/Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 823–832.Google Scholar
  32. Laurillard, D. (1997). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521. doi: 10.3102/00346543071003449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lou, Y., Bernard, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate distance education: A theory-based meta-analysis of empirical literature. Educational Technology Research and Development, 5(2), 141–176. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-8252-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Machtmes, K., & Asher, J. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 27–46. doi: 10.1080/08923640009527043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  38. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer, E., Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., Aslan, O., & Deault, L. (2010). Improving literacy and metacognition with electronic portfolios: Teaching and learning with ePEARL. Computers & Education, 55(1), 84–91. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 576–600. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Muirhead, B. (2001a). Enhancing social interaction in computer-mediated distance education. USDLA Journal, 15(4). Retrieved from
  43. Muirhead, B. (2001b). Interactivity research studies. Educational Technology & Society, 4(3). Retrieved from
  44. Nipper, S. (1989). Third generation distance learning and computer conferencing. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education (pp. 63–73). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  45. Paivio, A. (1969). Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review, 76(3), 241–263. doi: 10.1037/h0027272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  47. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Perry, N. E. (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 715–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Abrami, P. C., Wade, A., et al. (2009). Technology’s effect on achievement in higher education: A stage I meta-analysis of classroom applications. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 95–109. doi: 10.1007/s12528-009-9021-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  52. Sims, R. (1999). Interactivity on stage: Strategies for learner-designer communication. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 257–272. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from Scholar
  53. Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 623–664. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223–242. Retrieved from Scholar
  56. U.S Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. D.C: Washington.Google Scholar
  57. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6–29. doi: 10.1080/08923649409526852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–40. doi: 10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Webb, N. M. (2008). Learning in small groups. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st Century education: A reference handbook (pp. 203–211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  60. Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2006). The development of students’ helping behavior and learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 361–428. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2104_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  62. Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York: Holt-Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  63. Wozney, L., Venkatesh, V., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 173–207.Google Scholar
  64. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  65. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. doi: 10.3102/0002831207312909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zimmerman, B. J., & Tsikalas, K. E. (2005). Can computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) be used as self-regulatory tools to enhance learning? Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 267–271. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4004_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip C. Abrami
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert M. Bernard
    • 1
  • Eva M. Bures
    • 2
  • Eugene Borokhovski
    • 1
  • Rana M. Tamim
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Learning and PerformanceConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Bishop’s UniversityLennoxvilleCanada
  3. 3.Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-UniversityDubaiUAE

Personalised recommendations