Interactive communication and academic achievement as indicators of the quality of the e-learning program
Main Article Content
Abstract
Considering the worldwide digital transformation witnessed by the education sector, especially after the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, this study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of an e-learning program based on the Moodle platform in developing interactive communication and increasing the level of academic achievement, as these two variables are key indicators of the quality of e-educational programs. The program was administrated to a sample of students of the Methods of Teaching Legality Sciences course, where a quasi-experimental methodology was followed that compares an experimental group that received education through the electronic program, and a control group followed the traditional method of learning. The results of this study showed the effectiveness of the suggested electronic program, based on the Moodle system, in developing interactive communication in e-learning and increasing the level of academic achievement among students.
One of the main achievements provided by this study is to emphasize that electronic interaction does not have an extra value, but it is an essential element of high-quality educational design, experimental data have proven that programs that were characterized by a high degree of interaction (whether the learner's interaction with the teacher, his colleagues or the content) clearly contributed to improving academic learning outcomes, and enhancing the sense of belonging and presence within the learning environment.
This study provides a practical framework for measuring the effectiveness of electronic programs by tracking the dynamics of interaction within the Learning environment, analyzing the relationship between communication patterns (student-teacher, student-content, student-student) and actual educational outcomes. It also contributes to suggesting an evaluative model based on evidence-based educational practices, which can be adopted by higher education institutions to ensure the quality of design and implementation of their electronic courses.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
How to Cite
Share
References
Al-Azab, Iman Mohammed (2003). E-Learning – Introduction to Non-Traditional Training, Cairo: Arab Administrative Development Organization.
Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86.
Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa'deh, R., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E- learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86.
Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133–148.
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.14
Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Does the community of inquiry framework predict outcomes in online MBA courses? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(2).
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance compare education with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-Hill Education.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
Bolliger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-learning, 3(1), 61–67.
Cavus, N., & Zabadi, T. (2014). A comparison of open source learning management systems (LMS): Moodle and Claroline. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 521-526.
Chen, K. C., et al. (2010). The effects of perceived learning and satisfaction in a blended learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 231–243.
Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016). The determinants of students' perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in online university education. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 14(2), 185–215.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105.
Hassan, Mohammed Abdullah. (2019). Building a scale for e-learning interaction in the light of some theoretical models. Educational Journal, Sohag University, 57, 243–271.
Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78–82.
ISTE Standards for Educators. (2021). International Society for Technology in Education.
Kang, M., & M, T. (2013). Factors of learner–instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 292–301.
Kumar, S., & Daniel, B. K. (2016).Integration of learning management systems in education: A review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 1–18.
Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. (2014). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 16–39.
Laurillard, D. (2013). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge.
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222.
Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52–65.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
Means, B., et al. (2014). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis. U.S. Department of Education.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education.
Miller, E. B. (1996): "The Internet Resource Directory For K-12 Teachers and Librarians", 95/96 Edition. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. ISBN-1-3-366-5630, ED 389 330
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.
QAA (The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education). (2021). Guidance: Building a positive learning experience for all students. Retrieved from: https://www.qaa.ac.uk
Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604–612.
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.
Sharif, Ruqayya Muhammad. (2020). Developing a scale to measure interaction in e-learning environments and its impact on academic achievement. Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 14(2), 55–84.
Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student–instructor and student–student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in Web-based Online Learning Environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102–120.
Sun, J. C.-Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204.
Sun, P. C., et al. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331.
Zhang, W., Wang, Y., Yang, L., & Wang, C. (2020). Suspending classes without stopping learning: China's education emergency management policy in the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(3), 55.
Zhao, Y., et al. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.