Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An interactive online course: A collaborative design model

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argyle, M., Lalljee, M., & Cook, M. (1968). The effects of visibility of interaction in a dyad.Human Relations, 21, 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H.S., & Tamblyn, R.M. (1980).Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. NY: Springer Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berge, Z.L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendation from the field.Educational Technology, 35, 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berge, Z.L. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary Webbased learning.Educational Technology, 39(1), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Boud, D. (Ed.) (1985).Problem-based learning for the professions. Sydney, HERDSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (Eds.) (1991).The Challenge of Problem Based Learning. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R.L., & Lengel, R.H. (1986). A proposed integration among organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design.Management Science, 32, 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Felder, R., & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education.Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foshay, R., & Bergeron, C. (2000). Web-based education: A reality check.Tech Trends, 44, 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Greeno, J.G. (1997). Response: On claims that answer the wrong question.Educational Researcher, 20(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hiltz, S.R. (1994).The virtual classroom. Learning without limits via computer network. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz, S.R. (1997).Impacts of college-level courses via asynchronous learning networks: Some preliminary results. Available on line: [http://eies.njit.edu/hiltz/workingpapers/philly /philly.htm.].

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1998).Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearsly, G. (1995).The nature and value of interaction in distance learning. Retrieved 2003 from http://wwww .gwu.edu/-etl/interact.html

  • Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction.Acta Psychologyica, 26, 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, M.S. (1975).Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York: Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • LaRose, R. & Whitten, P. (1999).Websection: Building Web courses with instructional immediacy. Retrieved December 1, 1999 from http://www.telecommunication.msn.edu/faculty/larose/websectionlit e.htm

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).Situated learning and legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McGrath, J.E. (1984).Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McGrath, J.E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups.Small Group Research, 22, 147–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J.E. (1992, November).Group, technologies, tasks, and time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Toronto, Ontario.

  • 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 

  • McNabb, J. (1994). Telecourse effectiveness: Findings in the current literature.Tech Trends, 39(4), 39–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M.G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory.The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M.G. (1992). Three types of interaction.The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1995).Distance education: A systems view. NY: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Muirhead, B. (1999).Attitudes toward interactivity in a graduate distance education program: A qualitative analysis, Parkland, FL: Dissertation. Com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muirhead, B. (2000). Interactivity in a graduate distance education school.Educational Technology & Society, 3(1) 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muirhead, B. (2001). Enhancing social interaction in computer-mediated distance education.Ed at a Distance Journal,15(4), Apr 2001. Retrieved 2003 fromhttp://usdla.org/ED_magazine/illuminactive/APR01_Issue/article02.html

  • 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 

  • Parker, A. (1999). Interaction in distance education: The critical conversation.Educational Technology Review, 12, (Autumn-Winter), 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Rau, W., & Heyl, B.S. (1990). Humanizing the college classroom: Collaborative learning and social organization among students.Teaching Sociology, 18, 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C.M. (1999).Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, R.B., Rubin, A.M., & Jordan, F.F. (1997). Effects of instruction on communication apprehension and communication competence.Communication Education, 46, 104–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Perkins, D.N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning.Review of Research in Education, 23. Retrieved 2003 from http://construct .haifa.ac.il/≈gsalomon/indsoc.htm

  • 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 

  • Shepperd, J.A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning.International Journal of Educational Telecommunication, 1(4), 337–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R.E. (1995).Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Watson School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, USA

    Mahnaz Moallem (Associate Professor of Instructional Technology)

Authors
  1. Mahnaz Moallem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moallem, M. An interactive online course: A collaborative design model. ETR&D 51, 85–103 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504545

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504545

Keywords

Search

Navigation