Interrelation between Pedagogical Design and Learning Interaction Patterns in different Virtual Learning Environments

  • Maka Eradze
  • Mart Laanpere
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8524)


Different virtual learning environments offer different affordances and pedagogical design for learning interactions which results in difference learning  interaction patterns. With the emergence of a new era in VLE (virtual learning environments) a new set of affordances is needed to support the appropriate learning interactions.We argue that there is a strong interrelation between the pedagogical design and learning interaction patterns in a given VLE which is influenced by the affordances of that VLE.  In order to create a set of affordances that support learning interactions within the DLE, there is a need of analysis of already existing learning interaction affordances across different platforms.


Interaction Pattern Distance Education Social Presence Virtual Learning Environment Educational Data Mining 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., Archer, W.: Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 2(2-3), 87–105 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., Archer, W.: Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 15(1), 7–23 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, T.: Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In: Moore, M. (ed.) Handbook of Distance Education, pp. 129–144. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, T.: Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 4(2) (2003a)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Romiszowski, A.J.: Designing Instructional Systems: Decision Making in Course Planning and CurriculumDesign. Psychology Press (January 1, 1984)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wagner, E.D.: In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education 8(2), 6–26 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holmberg, B.: Theory and practice of distance education. Routledge, London (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moore, M.: Theory of transactional distance. In: Keegan, D. (ed.) Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, pp. 22–38. Routledge, London (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moore, M.G.: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education 3(2), 1–6 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sutton, L.A.: The Principle of Vicarious Interaction in Computer-Mediated Communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 7(3), 223–242 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garrison, D.R.: Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough. The American Journal of Distance Education 19(3), 133–148 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miyazoe, T., Anderson, T.: Empirical Research on Learners’ Perceptions: Interaction Equivalency Theorem in Blended Learning European Journal of Open. Distance and E-Learning, n1 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miyazoe, T., Anderson, T.: The interaction equivalency theorem. Journal of Interactive Online Learning (JIOL) 9(2), 94–104 (2010a)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tang, T., McCalla, G.: Smart recommendation for an evolving elearning system: architecture and experiment. International Journal on E-Learning 4(1), 105–129 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zaiane, O.: Web usage mining for a better web-based learning environment. In: Proceedings of Conference on Advanced Technology for Education, pp. 60–64 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muirhead, B.: Enhancing Social Interaction in Computer-Mediated Distance Education. Educational Technology & Society - ETS 3(4) (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dawson, S., Bakharia, A., Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E.: ‘Seeing’ networks: visualising and evaluating student learning networks – report. Education 3(2), 1–6 (2011), (retrieved January 31, 2013)
  18. 18.
    Conole, G.: Describing learning activities: tools and resources to guide practice. In: Beetham, H., Sharpe, R. (eds.) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age, pp. 81–91 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R.: Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In: Gibson, C. (ed.) Distance Learners in Higher Education, pp. 97–112. Atwood Publishing, Madison (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Picciano, A.G.: Beyond Student Perceptions: Issues of Interaction, Presence, and Performance in an Online Course (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Swan, K.: Relationships Between Interactions and Learning In Online Environments,
  22. 22.
    Karen Swan, K.: Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education 22(2), 306–331 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., Archer, W.: Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education 14(3), 51–70 (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., Archer, W.:  Assessing Teaching presence in a Computer Conference Environment. JALN 5(2) (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Suthers, D.D., Rosen, D.: A Unified Framework for Multi-level Analysis of Distributed Learning. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, Banff, Alberta, pp. 64–74. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dick, W., Carey, L., Carey, J.O.: The systematic design of instruction, 6th edn. Allyn and Bacon, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mayer, R.H.: Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In: Reigeluth, C.M. (ed.) A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, vol. II, pp. 141–159. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Merrill, M.D.: Component display theory. In: Reigeluth, C.M. (ed.) Instructional–Design Theories and Models: An Overview? of Their Current Status, pp. 279–333. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maka Eradze
    • 1
  • Mart Laanpere
    • 1
  1. 1.Tallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations