Running Head: FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE

LEARNING

Factors Affecting Learners with Disabilities-Instructor

Interaction in Online Learning
Abdulrahman Alamri and Tandra Tyler-Wood
University of North Texas

Author Note
Abdulrahman Alamri, Department of Learning Technologies, University of North Texas;
Tandra Tyler-Wood, Department of Learning Technologies, University of North Texas.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Abdulrahman Alamri,
1155 Union Circle, #311277. Denton, TX, 76203-5017, USA. E-mail:
abdulrahmanalamri@my.unt.edu

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

Abstract
There is little research available documenting the success of students with various types of
disabilities in online classroom environments. This study investigates which factors associated
with learners with disabilities impact student outcomes in an online learner environment. Forty
learners with disabilities participating in online higher education coursework were asked to
respond to an electronic survey of 20 questions. Results indicated that there were two factors
related to interaction among learners with disabilities and their instructors that impacted
students perceived learning achievement and class satisfaction. Respondents also indicated that
social interaction factors, such as social presence, were correlated with less perceived learning
achievement and satisfaction. This study has potential value because it found factors related to
learnerinstructor control that may predict students with disabilities perceived learning
achievement and satisfaction.
Keywords: learner with disability-instructor interaction, online learning

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

Students with Disabilities Enrolled in Online Programs

There has been little research identifying the correlations between specific types of
disabilities and success or struggle in an online setting. We aimed through this research to
investigate online interactions between students with disabilities and their instructors in higher
education coursework. Today, there are online learning opportunities for students from grades K
through higher education available in all 50 states in the United States. Students with disabilities
are included as parts of an educational system, involving approximately two million students,
who have attended school online (Watson, Murin, Vashawn, Gemini, & Rapp, 2011). Students in
elementary, middle, and high school can also participate in courses with a blended curriculum.
For example, students can simultaneously take science, history, and art online, as well as
language, arts, and math at their brick-and-mortar school, or they can take algebra online while
attending regular brick-and-mortar schools for the rest of their course load. Alternatively,
students can also complete all of their courses online (Coy, 2014).
Allday and Allday (2011) indicated that of the total of 345,422 student participants in
public virtual high school courses between 2003-04 and 2009-10, 31,778 (9.2%) had an
individualized education program. In the state of Pennsylvania, 2,697 students in K-12 enrolled
in virtual schools in 2008-2009 were identified as students in need of special education services,
out 21,957 students enrolled in cyber schools (Carnahan & Fulton, 2013). Horn and Nevill
(2006) found that 11.3% of undergraduate students identified themselves as having a disability.
Students reported their disabilities as follows: 3.8% visual, 5.0% hearing, 0.4% speech, 25.4%
orthopedic, 7.5% specific learning disability, 11% attention deficit disorder, 21.9% mental
illness/depression, 17.3% health impairments/problems, and 7.8% other (p. 134).

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

In the United States, about 89% of colleges and universities offer online courses, and of
those institutions, about 58% offer degree programs that are completely online. As required by
accrediting bodies, online student services are an important component of these distance
programs (Barr, 2014).
According to Levy (2014), only about 17% of young adults with learning
disabilities received accommodations and support in postsecondary education, compared to 94%
in high school. Unfortunately, there is little information or research specifying factors that
impact students with specific disabilities and whether those students thrive or struggle in an
online setting.
AccessibilitySection 508
Edmonds (2004) noted that students with disabilities who enroll in online courses
continue to experience barriers and challenges to participation as a result of higher education
institutions neglecting the needs of students with disabilities in an effort to increase overall
online learning enrollment.
Currently, there are many laws, standards, and guidelines for making online courses
accessible to students with disabilities. For instance, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act
prohibits discrimination based on disability that would prevent participation in the programs,
services, or even activities of a public entity. Section 508, better known as the Tech Act
(Hashey & Stahl, 2014), includes instances of specific guidelines on how to make Web sites
accessible as recommended by the World Wide Web Consortium (Case & Davidson, 2011).
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1998, setting minimum guidelines for
accessibility standards in electronic technology, and information technology. Though the
guidelines are, of course, mandated in face-to-face class situation, they are also applicable for

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

distance education (Roberts, Crittenden, & Crittenden, 2011). These laws were developed to
ensure that electronic information is made accessible for individuals with and without disabilities
alike (Roberts, Crittenden, & Crittenden, 2011). Section 508 requires that any software and
devices provide a functional alternative for product use for each of the sensory capabilities of
hearing, vision, and speech, as well as an alternative to fine motor control and simultaneous
actions (Hashey & Stahl, 2014).
Students with disabilities are enrolled in online courses, just as students without
disabilities. Including appropriate and accessible means of communication and collaboration at
the beginning of course design allows for conventional participation by all learners in the course
(Jaeger & Xie, 2009). The Voluntary Product Accessibility Template was created to help
instructors meet the anticipated requirements contained within Section 508 and to share specific
product accessibility information with instructors, educators, and others looking to acquire
accessible materials (Hashey & Stahl, 2014). The design of courses in an online environment
must be completed in an accessible way so as to meet the needs of students with disabilities. The
student with the disability is expected to participate in course activities, and it is the
responsibility of universities to make certain that activities are compliant with Section 508 and
that course requirements are designed to fit the needs of students with disabilities.
Many students with disabilities require assistive technology to help them work effectively
in an online environment. Examples of assistive devices would include technologies designed to
enlarge on-screen text and/or larger monitors. To maximize their learning potential, some
students may need to use speech recognition software packages that learn to recognize the users
voice over time. Also, ergonomic or oversized keyboards, special mouse technologies, and

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

screen readers were commonly needed assistive technologies cited by students with disabilities
according to Roberts, Crittenden, & Crittenden, (2011).
It is important to compare two often-confused termsaccessibility and usabilityin
order to consider their relevance when creating useful Web content for all students, especially for
students with disabilities. Hollins and Foley (2013), citing Henry (2003), make the following
distinctions:

Usability is a term that refers to the characteristics of a Web site that make it
effective, efficient, and satisfying to the user. Usability problems impact all Web
users regardless of ability. Examples of Web usability include the quick load time
of a Web page and the consistency of styles and color throughout a Web site.

Accessibility is a term that refers to the characteristics of a Web site that allow
individuals with disabilities to access information and services. Problems with
accessibility place individuals with disabilities at a disadvantage relative to
individuals without disabilities. An example of a Web accessibility issue is a Web
page with images that do not have alternative (ALT) text that describes the
content of an image for a user who cannot see the image (p. 610).

Instructors should understand the difference between accessibility and usability. Whereas
accessibility, in general, means the baseline in terms of the ability of a learner with a disability to
use materials and content within the same amount of time and with the same amount of effort as
students without a disability (Case & Davidson, 2011), all students deserve adequate usability.
Online Interaction
The concept of interaction has been recognized as important in education historically.
John Dewey (1938) asserted that the goal of education is to develop reflective, creative,

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

responsible thought. Dewey also believed that an optimal educational practice requires two key
processes: interaction and the continuity of interaction (Heindel, 2014).
Interaction has been discussed as a central indispensable feature of the educational
experience and as essential communication that shapes the acquisition of knowledge in
meaningful ways; it challenges learners to move toward achieving their goals (Chao, Hwu, &
Chang, 2011). Interaction is defined as reciprocal events that require at least two objects and
two actions (Swan, 2003, p. 4).
Dialogue in the online environment may have several settings, the extent and nature of
which are determined by the educational philosophy of the individual or group responsible for
the design of the course, by the personalities of the teacher and learner, by the subject matter of
the course, and by environmental factors (Moore, 1991). High-quality online learning must
include interaction, including but not limited to the following: (a) a way to communicate, (b) a
mechanism to share documents, and (c) some means to discover other members of the
community (Fichter, 2005). For online courses, this interaction can take place through the use of
both synchronous tools (videoconferencing, audio stream, online chat sessions) and
asynchronous tools (e-mail, discussion boards). Savenye (2005) found that there are several
online interactive tools, as well as strategies, that can easily be used to facilitate interactive
debates, computer-based simulations, role-playing activities, case studies, group projects,
Internet-based research, experiments, problem-solving scenarios, peer reviews of classwork,
online reflective journals or blogs, electronic field trips, guests lecturers, reports, presentations,
and discussions. Interaction plays an important role as a factor that impacts student learning and
motivation to learn in online courses (Akarasriworn & Heng-Yu, 2013).

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

Social Presence
Social presence is one of the most significant elements that play a role in improving
instructional effectiveness and building a sense of online community (Shea & Bidjerano, 2013).
It has been defined as the degree to which participants in computer-mediated communication
feel effectively connected to one another (Mayne & Qiang, 2011, p. 111). Social presence can
be described as the strength of the emotional connection and of the social relationships among
the learners of a class or between instructor and learners in the environment of the learning
community. This presence has three components: identification with a learning community as
evidenced by group identity and collaboration, open communication in a trusting environment
leading to creation of a positive learning climate and risk-free expression, and the development
of interpersonal relationships making possible self-projection and expression of emotions
(Rubin, 2013). The original components of effective expression can be framed as the
development of interpersonal relationships; the amount of effect expressed in a group discussion
forum may be viewed as the set of actions that individuals take to develop relationships. Social
presence is considered a complicated process where a positive contributor acquiring a sense of
social presence stems from the process of feeling connection to, and socialization with, a
particular group. Instructors in the online environment may face some challenges in creating a
sense of effective communication because of the missing physical attributes of facial
expressions, body language, and eye contact (Plante & Asselin, 2014). The instructor, therefore,
has a role to play in impacting the degree of social presence through the way they design their
assignments (such as using group activities), as well as by means of teaching activities (such as
creating informal discussion areas) and through various other teaching behaviors (Rubin, 2013).
Rourke and Kanuka (2009) concluded that there is a positive correlation between social presence

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

and students satisfaction with online learning. Rourke and Kanuka (2009) also found that
collaborative learning activities play an important role in the development of social presence.
Interaction Types
The most common categories of interaction types experienced in any learning
environment are learner-learner, learner-instructor, and learner-content interactions (Moore &
Kearsley, 2011). This classification stems from the field of communications (York &
Richardson, 2012). As the learning forum has moved from face-to-face classes to online courses,
the completeness of the three-dimensional construct has begun to come into question as the most
comprehensive way to view interaction. Scholars have begun to revisit the original theory and to
study additional dimensions of interaction. They have introduced learner-to-interface interaction
as an additional dimension to the construct.
Akarasriworn and Heng-Yu (2013) also indicated that there are four types of interaction
in online learning: learner-interface interaction, learner-content interaction, learner-instructor
interaction, and learner-learner interaction. Explanations of these four types of interactions
follow.

Learner-interface interaction is the process of manipulating tools in order to

accomplish a task. This interaction has among its features provisions that allow
learners to have access to the instruction and to participate in other course
activities (Martin, Parker, & Deale, 2012). In other words, the interface is where
learners use their senses to register the information in sensory storage. In online
learning, the interface with the computer makes it possible for the learner to
access the content and to interact with others (Ally, 2004). Learner-to-content
online interaction is the interaction between the individual learner and the course

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

10

materials; it facilitates personal knowledge construction by the learner. This term

refers to the time spent with course content such as textbooks, Web pages,
PowerPoint presentations, and discussion forums, among others (Akarasriworn &
Heng-Yu, 2013). Swan (2003) has indicated that the term interaction with content
refers to the learners interaction with the skills, knowledge, and attitudes being
studied. In general, this has to do with the learners interaction with the course
materials and is therefore primarily concerned with course design factors.
Magnuson (2005) has listed the considerations that can be used to guide the
instructor when developing discussion board forums: (a) the topic, (b) the
instructors and learners roles, (c) the methodology, and (d) the question prompt
used to introduce the forum.

Learner-to-learner online interaction is the communication among learners in

group settings. Soo and Bonk (1998) also suggested an additional dimension of
interaction called the learner-self interaction. Wolcott (1996) has indicated that
distance learners may suffer from the loneliness or isolation of online learning
when they are distance learners. Wolcott (1996) also said they lack one or more
of the following: connections with a peer or group, the stimulation of an academic
environment, and access to learning resources.

Learner-to-instructor online interaction is the communication between the learners

and the instructor who has prepared the course materials. In online learning, this
interaction can take place in synchronous form, with instructorto-student
interactions occurring in real time (video stream, audio stream, chat), and in
asynchronous form, with interactions occurring at different times and using

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

11

different methods (discussion board, e-mail, forum). This interaction can take
many forms, such as guidance, support, evaluation, and encouragement (Canter,
Voytecki, & Rodrguez, 2007). Another approach to online educationblended
learningcombines online learning opportunities with more traditional face-toface settings. Blended learning programs include (a) online delivery, (b) some
degree of student control over the time, place, path, or pace of content and
instruction, and (c) supervised brick-and-mortar locations where at least some of
the learning occurs (Stalker & Horn, 2012).
Why Online Learning Offers New Learning Opportunities
for Students with Disabilities
Important challenges in traditional learning lead to a high dropout rate in the public
schools (Cavanaugh, Repetto, Wayer, & Spitler, 2013), in some cases, owing to the fact that
students have different characteristics related to slower learning rates and the need for extended
time to achieve mastery and differentiated learning strategies, or may constitute a forgotten
group because of ignorance and fear in society (Grabinger, 2009). Not only have a number of
students with disabilities enrolled in online learning (Allday & Allday, 2011) but also there is
evidence suggesting students with disabilities increasingly choose to participate in online courses
at higher rates than do other student populations (Cavanaugh, et al.; Coy, Marino, & Serianni,
2014; Hashey & Stahl, 2014; Phillips, Terras, Swinney, & Schneweis, 2012). Further, there are
high completion rates among students with disabilities (Repetto, Cavanaugh, Wayer, & Feng,
2010). For example, at the Open University in the United Kingdom (UK), students who were
blind, deaf, or with restricted manual skills, along with students with restricted mobility,
achieved a completion rate and a percentage of good grades that were not significantly different

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

12

from students without disabilities (Richardson, 2010). One of the benefits of the online learning
opportunity is that virtual schools allow students to choose the best type of environment for them
as individuals through flexible pacing. They can work at their preferred time (Allday & Allday,
2011; Case & Davidson, 2011; Coy, 2014). Further, online courses in higher education offer
those students the opportunity to complete their study and earn certificate, bachelor, and graduate
degrees; this is attributed to the flexibility that allows students to be successful. In fact, one study
reported that 42% of students (N = 221) completed some undergraduate college, with 9%
indicated having completed a bachelor's degree, and 8% having completed a masters degree in
an online learning environment (Roberts et al., 2011).
Allday and Allday (2011) indicated there is no significant difference between students with
disabilities and those without disabilities in terms of learning and achieving in online courses, in
contrast to the situation found in the traditional classroom. Students with disabilities
accomplished their courses at a similar pace and in the same amount of timewhen online
courses were designed to meet their needsas compared with students without disabilities in
online learning (Allday & Allday, 2011). Students with mobility or transportation difficulties,
weakened immune systems, or other challenges that make attending a traditional face-to-face
course difficult appreciate the possibility of working from home. Also, some students benefit
from working on coursework more frequently for shorter periods of time at each sitting (Case &
Davidson, 2011). Fichten et al. (2009) indicated that the benefits of online learning included
availability of online course notes, availability of information anywhere and anytime, and the
availability of online course materials other than course notes. Students also noted online
learning allows them to work at their own pace, to study from home, and to easily communicate
with peers and professors. Further, leveraging online learning constructs such as Web 2.0 social

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

13

networking applications, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, YouTube, RSS, multimedia, and others
provide additional flexible learning resources for students to use every day (Grabinger, 2009).
The virtual school allows students to take their courses with flexibility beyond that offered in
traditional schools in terms of taking breaks as needed, having as many activities as needed, and
being able to determine the time required for them to study given material (Allday & Allday,
2011).
Wright, Zyto, Karger, & Newman (2013) have demonstrated that online reading and
innovative online communication tools are useful for improving interaction between students and
instructors. Although in a traditional classroom setting, Deaf or Hard-of Hearing (D/HH) or
English Language Learner, students may seem to shy away from asking questions or
participating in discussions because they feel somewhat unsure of their ability to pose a clear
question in front of their peers or they may take longer to answer a question because they have to
translate between English and their native language, Web-based collaborative annotation tools
can facilitate communication among such students and their instructors through online reading
and innovative online communication tools such as Nota Bene (NB), which means note well.
The NB tool is similar to social media networks, such as Facebook or Twitter, which is
immensely popular with college students and is a good choice when designing and implementing
an online course (Wright et al., 2013). NB was tested in two biology courses with 89
participating students and in an upper-level Cancer Biology course with 26 participating
students. Student participation in graded reading assignments ranged from 79% to 93%. A
typical reading assignment from the upper-level course generated 105 student comments, 68% of
which led to responses, and a typical assignment from the mid-level course generated 183
comments, 44.8% of which generated further discussion (Wright et al., 2013).

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

14

Francis (2012) conducted a study of students with disabilities (N = 42) in postsecondary

courses. The results indicated that the students liked the flexibility and pace of online courses,
particularly because they allowed them enough time to review their academic content and key
concepts at their own pace. A good portion of the interviewed participants did not disclose their
disability to their online instructor for specific reasons, such as not knowing that they had to do
so or not thinking it was necessary to disclose that information. In the online course, participants
also used mobile media regularly in order to access academic material and liked the fact that this
technology was convenient in terms of giving them quick access to course information. In
addition, participants reported having high self-efficacy in terms of their own beliefs and
expectations about their ability to successfully complete the course, and they were most often
able to meet their own grade and learning expectations in the online course.
Learner with Disability-Instructor Interaction
Katsiyannis, Zhang, Landmar, and Reber (2009) reported that many faculty members of
postsecondary level education institutions simply may not receive enough formal training in
effective practices for disability legislative and accessibility, they may not possess the
knowledge to positively interact with and support students with disabilities. Long, Marchetti, and
Fasse (2011) indicated that a new program at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf
(NTID), one of the nine The Rochester Institute of Technology RIT colleges, has undertaken an
initiative to teach approximately 1,500 D/HH students. Although the D/HH students can use a
support service to participate in class discussions with their hearing peers, they are particularly
limited by facing communication-related challenges such as the processing time required for the
interpreter to convey the message. In addition, lack of knowledge of interpretation protocols is a
common concern as instructors often call on a hearing student for an answer before the

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

15

interpreter has finished signing the original question. Assistive technology, such as the text-based
format of online courses and the written communication that is used in asynchronous discussion
forums, allows D/HH students to communicate directly with their hearing peers and instructors
easily and may provide them with greater access to information than they have in a face-to-face
lecture-based class. The use of asynchronous anywhere, anytime strategies for engaging
students is a key part of the course design (Long, Marchetti, & Fasse, 2011, p. 3), showing the
relationship of interaction in online courses to student perceptions of course satisfaction,
learning, and ease of communication. Overall, Long, Marchetti, & Fasse, (2011) found that
students in the most interactive courses communicated with the instructor and other students
more than I do in most courses. (p. 14). Students were better able to communicate and express
their own ideas because of the online interactions in this course (p. 14). The results of this
study showed that there are significant benefits for D/HH students enrolled in online courses
together with hearing students in terms of academic achievement through online discussion, and
gain higher grades and report greater learning than students in comparable F2F courses.
Consequently, there is an essential need for more humancomputer interaction with learners with
disabilities as a component of a whole system in order to form better relationships, rather than
just selecting and clicking single choices. Institutions and universities need to design and develop
more training programs in the areas of disability awareness, virtual environments, and classroom
accommodations for students with disabilities to help educate and train current and potential
instructors who use online environments, as well as in how to create strategies to help motivate
those students in the margins. to use the online class system for appropriate interaction and the
varied activities for learning opportunities that are provided within that system.

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

16

Research Questions
As students with disabilities represent an important component among the students in
higher education, the purpose of this research was to investigate students with disabilities
perceptions of the interaction with their instructors in a higher education online environment. We
hoped to determine if there is a relationship between learners perception of the interactions with
the instructor, age, semesters of experience with online courses, job, weekly time spent for one
course, and number of postsecondary hours the student attempted.
Methods and Procedures
Participants
The participants in this study were students with disabilities in higher education at a large
Midwestern university were contacted through the universitys Office of Disability
Accommodation (https://disability.unt.edu/). Students with disabilities were sent a link to access
information on the research project through their personal emails. Before beginning the survey,
participants were advised that the participants names were not required, that demographic
information would be kept confidential, and that participation was voluntary. In total, there were
40 students with disabilities (26.67% of potential respondents) who participated in this research
out of a total of 150 students with disabilities in online courses who were potential respondents.
Regarding the participants gender, females were the majority (n = 25, 62.5%), while males were
the minority (n = 14, 35.0%). The age of the largest group of participants was between 21-29
years (50.00%) and a smaller number were between 18-20 years (25%). Regarding the semesters
of experience with online courses, the largest number had 12 online semesters (n = 17,
42.50%), followed by 23 semesters (n = 11, 27.50%). Some students had experience exceeding
seven online semesters (n = 7, 17.50%). Among the students with disabilities who had jobs, the

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

17

greatest number were part time (n = 17, 42.50%), while some had no job (n = 16, 40%), and
others were employed full time (40 or more hours per week) (n = 7, 17.50%). Regarding the
weekly time spent for one course, the greatest number of students spent between 35 hours, then
13 hours. Also, some students indicated they spent seven hours or more as a result of the nature
of their disability or because they were doctoral students. Regarding the disability type(s), the
greatest number were students with attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADD/ADHD), numbering 10 students (25.00%). Other disabilities represented were
D/HH (n = 10, 25.00%) and students with learning disabilities (n = 4, 10.00%). Students with a
mobility disability, psychiatric disability, and other health issues numbered three participants for
each type. Students with cognitive/traumatic brain injury numbered 2 (5.00%) and there was one
student with visual impairment. Four students (10%) who participated indicated other as their
disability. The terms used by students about their disabilities ranged from Aspergers syndrome,
learning disability and Aspergers, deaf and mobility, and anxiety, to ADHD and dyslexia. One
student wrote, I have ADD and ADHD, accompanied by a learning disability called Dyslexia.
Regarding the students status, the majority were undergraduate students (n = 27, 67.50%), and
11 students were at the graduate level (27.50%). Three students identified themselves as doctoral
students. Table 1 presents the demographic information about the participants.
Table 1
Demographic Information
Characteristics

Categories

Number and percentages

Gender

Male
Female
Total

14 (35.0%)
25 (62.5%)
39 (97.5%)

Age

18-20
21-29

10 (25.00%)
20 (50.00%)

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

30-39
40-49
50 or above
Total

4 (10.00%)
3 (7.50%)
3 (7.50%)
40 (100%)

Semesters of experience
with online courses

1-2
2-3
3-4
5-6
7 or more
Total

17 (42.50%)
11 (27.5%)
3 (7.50%)
2 (5.00%)
7 (17.50%)
40 (100%)

Job

Full Time
Part Time
None
Total

7 (17.50%)
17 (42.50%)
16 (40.00%)
40 (100%)

Weekly time for one course Less than 1 hour

13 hours
35 hours
57 hours
More than 7 hours
Total

4 (10.00%)
11 (27.50%)
14 (35.00%)
2 (5.00%)
9 (22.50%)
40 (100%)

Disability types

ADD/ADHD
Psychiatric disability
Learning disability
Other health
Visual
Deaf/hard of earing
Cognitive/traumatic
brain injury
Mobility disability
Others
Total

10 (25.00%)
3 (7.50%)
4 (10.00%)
3 (7.50%)
1 (2.50%)
10 (25.00%)
2 (5.00%)

Undergraduate
Graduate
Others
Total

27 (67.50%)
11 (27.50%)
2 (5.00%)
40 (100%)

Status

Instrumentation

3 (7.50%)
4 (10.00%)
40 (100.00%)

18

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

19

The instrument used in this study was developed by Kang and Im (2013). The survey
used a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), to 5 (strongly agree), with
disagree, unsure and agree between. The survey consisted of 20 items, as well as seven items
about demographics (gender, age, semesters of experience in online courses, job, weekly time for
one course, disability type(s), and student status).
Results
A common axis factoring analysis, Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with an oblique
rotation (direct oblimin), was selected as the method of extracting factors related to learner
instructor interaction. An oblique rotation was used because it was expected that the factors
would be correlated. To determine the number of factors to extract, scree plots and eigenvalues
(eigenvalue >- 1.0) were examined (Kang & Im, 2013). Table 2 shows the factors that were
adapted in our study: Factor 1 is social and teaching preferences, and Factor 2 is facilitating and
supporting individual communication. The eigenvalue of the factors led to not retaining items 14,
17, and 29. We removed the items that were uncorrelated with the two factors. The reliability
statistic based on Cronbach's alpha of all items (n = 20 items) was .941, which is excellent based
on George and Mallery (2003) according to the following rules of thumb: _ > .9 Excellent, _
> .8 Good, _ > .7 Acceptable, _ > .6 Questionable, _ > .5 Poor, and _ < .5
Unacceptable (p. 231). Regarding the internal reliability for each subscale (based on factors),
the social and teaching presences factor (n = 15 items) was .931, which is excellent. The internal
reliability for the facilitating and supporting individual communication factor (n = 5) was .841,
which is good.
Results of the study also indicated that students with disabilities in online courses have
positive attitudes about interaction with their instructors (strongly agree and agree), including all

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

20

questions on this instrument, except the item I shared my specific personal information such as
private interests with the instructor. Students had negative attitudes toward this item, which is
under the category of social presence. The study revealed only two factors, which are social and
teaching presences (Factor 1) and facilitating and supporting individual communication (Factor
2) that were inconsistent with the instrument used by Kang and Im (2013). This may be due to
the great difference between sample sizes. Also, there is a positive correlation between age, and
both semesters of experience with online courses and status. There was a negative correlation
between age and job. Regarding correlations between the two factors, there is a significant
positive correlation between social and teaching presences (Factor 1) and facilitating and
supporting individual communication (Factor 2).
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of learner with disabilityinstructor interaction
in an online environment.

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics

Factor 1: Social and

teaching presences

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Skewness
Statistic

Kurtosis

Std.
Error

Statistic

Std.
Error

40

52.6250

11.17389

-1.395

.374

2.156

.733

40

18.7750

3.68286

-1.300

.374

2.317

.733

40

2.23

1.143

1.158

.374

.811

.733

Factor 2: Facilitating
and supporting
individual
communication
Age

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

Semesters of experience

21

40

2.25

1.515

.949

.374

-.610

.733

40

2.22

.733

-.384

.374

-1.014

.733

40

3.03

1.291

.328

.374

-.895

.733

Disability

40

3.88

2.355

.219

.374

-1.312

.733

Status

40

1.38

.586

1.323

.374

.864

.733

Valid N (listwise)

40

with online courses

Job
Weekly time for one
course

In order to understand the learners perceptions of the interaction between learner and
instructor, descriptive statistics were analyzed. The analysis involved a set of descriptive
coefficients to aid in summarizing a particular set of data that may be a representation of either
the sample or the overall population. For the given research study, mean, standard deviation,
skewness, and kurtosis were acquired for the purpose of obtaining a valid result regarding the
targeted factors. It can also be observed from Table 2 that there is a large difference between the
mean and standard deviation between the social and teaching presences factor and the facilitating
and supporting individual communication factor.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
In this study, we used exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which is used when there is
little supporting evidence for the factor structure or in a case in which the research goal is to
identify the number of common factors and the pattern of factor loadings. EFA is a statistical
method used to uncover the underlying structure of a relatively large set of variables (Norris &
Lecavalier, 2010, p. 8). As a result of EFA, two factors were suggested (refer to Tables 3 and 4).
Factor 1 is social and teaching presence, which was made up of 15 items. Factor 2, facilitating
and supporting individual communication, consisted of only five items. The variance explained
by the social presence and teaching presences factor was 36.50%, and the eigenvalue of this

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

factor was 7.30. The variance explained by facilitating and supporting the individual
communication factor was 16.80%, and the eigenvalue of this factor was 3.36.

Table 3
Factor pattern matrix rotated to the direct oblimin criterion

Social and
teaching
presence
0.142

Facilitating
and supporting
individual
communication
0.503

H!
0.356025

-0.002

0.728

0.527686

0.529

0.312

0.569559

0.431

0.289

0.414949

0.404

0.184

0.287764

0.471

0.045

0.248958

0.735

0.123

0.661041

0.421

0.199

0.314632

0.639

0.063

0.45873

0.257

0.570

0.561773

-0.113

0.909

0.719279

0.320

0.597

0.681211

0.913

0.006

0.840449

I think my instructor perceived my existence.

0.769

0.077

0.666391

My instructor was always helpful when I needed help.

1.040

-0.248

0.842016

I think my instructor interacted with me in the online

0.684

-0.116

0.388632

Variable
I can participate in the class more actively because of
instructors positive reaction (e.g., praise) to my
participation.
The instructor shared information about the class such
as the syllabus and the class schedule, and it
helped my learning in the class.
The instructor showed a positive reaction such as praise
when I actively participated in online learning
activities.
The instructor encouraged me to actively participate in
the online learning activities when I had a passive
attitude towards the class activities.
I shared my specific personal information such as
private interests with the instructor.
My instructor and I introduced ourselves to each other
at the beginning of the class.
I can easily ask questions and get answers regarding
learning content (e.g., instructional materials)
from my instructor.
I freely discussed with the instructor learning activities
such as assignments, discussions, and exams.
I can understand the focus of unclear content based on
the responses of the instructor to my questions.
I can frankly tell my thoughts to the instructor when
his/her explanation of what the course wants is
different from my interpretation.
Questions and answers with the instructor concerning
learning content (e.g., instructional materials)
helped me perform better on learning activities.
I can understand the content of the class based on the
consistent questions and answers about learning
content (e.g., instructional materials) provided by
the instructor.
I think my instructor is interested in my learning.

22

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

23

class.
Additional or advanced learning materials consistently
0.554
0.310
0.61272
provided by the instructor helped me deepen and
expand my learning.
The instructor consistently provided additional or
0.616
-0.018
0.367158
advanced learning materials to me when needed.
I can have good understanding of the courses learning
0.558
0.293
0.587856
materials based on the instructors consistent
facilitation and support.
The instructor provided appropriate feedback to my
0.791
-0.082
0.556717
learning outcomes such as assignments,
discussion threads and exam results.
Note. Communality coefficients are now computed differently. To compute the H ! for a variable, each pattern
coefficient is multiplied by its corresponding structure coefficient and then summed across the rows.

From the factor pattern matrix provided in Table 3, it can be observed that there are 20
overall variables provided that are aimed at understanding the perception of the learners
regarding the level of satisfaction being delivered by their learning instructors. Corresponding to
every variable, the value of social and teaching presences, and facilitating and supporting
individual communication factors, and H ! has been provided in order to ascertain the extent to
which each variable is interrelated with the learners perceptions. All the variables were
constructed based on meeting the aims and objectives of the entire research study in order to
reveal a valid and reliable outcome (Wasserman, 2004).

Table 4
Factor structure matrix rotated to oblimin criterion

Variable
I can participate in the class more actively because of instructors
positive reaction (e.g., praise) to my participation.
The instructor shared information about the class such as the
syllabus and the class schedule, and it helped my learning in
the class.
The instructor showed a positive reaction such as praise when I
actively participated in online learning activities.

Social and
teaching
presence
0.435

Facilitating
and supporting
individual
communication
0.585

H!
0.356

0.421

0.726

0.528

0.711

0.620

0.570

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

24

The instructor encouraged me to actively participate in the online

learning activities when I had a passive attitude towards the
class activities.
I shared my specific personal information such as private interests
with the instructor.
My instructor and I introduced ourselves to each other at the
beginning of the class.
I can easily ask questions and get answers regarding learning content
(e.g., instructional materials) from my instructor.
I freely discussed with the instructor learning activities such as
assignments, discussions, and exams.
I can understand the focus of unclear content based on the responses
of the instructor to my questions.
I can frankly tell my thoughts to the instructor when his/her
explanation of what the course wants is different from my
interpretation.
Questions and answers with the instructor concerning learning
content (e.g., instructional materials) helped me perform better
on learning activities.
I can understand the content of the class based on the consistent
questions and answers about learning content (e.g.,
instructional materials) provided by the instructor.
I think my instructor is interested in my learning.

0.600

0.541

0.415

0.521

0.420

0.288

0.498

0.320

0.249

0.807

0.552

0.661

0.537

0.445

0.315

0.675

0.435

0.459

0.589

0.720

0.562

0.416

0.843

0.719

0.668

0.783

0.681

0.917

0.538

0.840

I think my instructor perceived my existence.

0.814

0.525

0.666

My instructor was always helpful when I needed help.

0.895

0.358

0.842

I think my instructor interacted with me in the online class.

0.616

0.282

0.389

Additional or advanced learning materials consistently provided by

the instructor helped me deepen and expand my learning.
The instructor consistently provided additional or advanced learning
materials to me when needed.
I can have good understanding of the courses learning materials
based on the instructors consistent facilitation and support.
The instructor provided appropriate feedback to my learning
outcomes such as assignments, discussion threads and exam
results.

0.735

0.663

0.613

0.606

0.341

0.367

0.729

0.618

0.588

0.743

0.378

0.557

7.30

3.36

10.66

Trace

36.50
16.80
53.30
% of variance
Note. Coefficients greater than |.40| are italicized and retained for that factor. Percentage variance is postrotation
because there were 20 measured variables. Percentage of variance is trace divided by 20 times 100 (or trace times
20). Trace = extraction sums of squared loadings, % of variance accounted for in each component (trace/#items
*100). H ! (communality coefficient, each coefficient across) is squared and summed.

Similarly, the factor structure matrix in Table 4 provides a clear understanding about the
value of each variable that is denoted by Factor 1 (social and teaching presences), Factor 2
(supporting individual communication), and H Squared. The variables provided in Table 4 are
similar to the variables in Table 3 but the values are calculated based on the factor structure
matrix, which provides a different value for the respective variables. The major objective of

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

25

Table 4 is to identify the variance that would help in understanding the variance of the two
factors.. From Table 4, it can be ascertained that the variance of Factor 1 is 36.50, that of Factor
2 is 16.80, and the variance of H ! is 53.30 (Wasserman, 2004).

Table 5
Factor correlation matrix
Factor
1

Social and teaching

presences

Facilitating and supporting

individual communication

1.000

.582

.582
1.000
Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring; Rotation Method: Oblimin with
Kaiser Normalization.

Table 5 provides an outline of the correlation of Factors 1 and 2. The method used to
derive the correlation matrix is Principal Axis Factoring (PAF), which provided a valid and
reliable result regarding the correlation. The Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization method was
used as the method of rotation. For both methods, the factors social and teaching presences and
facilitating and supporting individual communication are positively correlated as their values are
greater than 0. By means of the correlation matrix, it can be ascertained that the learners
perception and instructors attitude towards the learner are highly correlated. The most
appropriate extraction method was selected based on the scenario of the research study that
would deliver the most accurate and appropriate results. Similarly, the rotation method was
applied in such a way as to produce a valid outcome and to aid in conducting the correlation in
order to yield a reliable outcome (Wasserman, 2004).

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

26

Table 6
Total variance explained
Initial Eigenvalues
Factor
Total
Social and
teaching presences 9.772
Facilitating and
supporting
individual
communication

1.686

Extraction Sums of
Squared Loadings
% of
Cumulative
Variance
%

Rotation Sums
of Squared
Loadings

% of Cumulative
Variance
%

Total

48.860

48.860

9.350

46.749

46.749

8.778

8.431

57.291

1.302

6.510

53.259

6.173

Total

Notes. Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. When factors are correlated, the sums of squared loadings
cannot be added to obtain a total variance. The third factor seems uncorrelated.

In Table 6, the value of total variance is presented using Principle Axis Factoring. The
matrix presented above provides an outline of three factors. The method of PAF was applied in
deriving the total variance as it is reliable and ensures the validity of the result so obtained. The
percentage of variance of social and teaching presences decreased from 48.860 to 46.749. On
the other hand, in the case of Factor 2, the percentage value of variance increased from 8.431 to
53.259. It can be further observed from Table 6 that Factor 1 and Factor 2 are not related to
each other. In such a case, the calculation of the extraction sum of squared loading cannot be
added in order to obtain the required percentage of variance and the cumulative percentage,
respectively. In addition to this, the third factor is not correlated so the final value of Rotation
Sums of Squared Loadings cannot be achieved in the above calculation (Wasserman, 2004).

Table 7
Correlations

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

Age
Age

Pearson
Correlation

Online

Online

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

Job

-.459**

.430**

.675**

.037

-.067

.000

.003

.006

.000

.821

.682

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

.633**

-.213

.311

.441**

.204

.052

.186

.050

.004

.206

.751

40

40

40

40

40

-.459**

-.213

-.223

-.381*

.264

.247

.003

.186

.167

.015

.100

.124

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

.430**

.311

-.223

.360*

-.145

-.171

.006

.050

.167

.022

.372

.290

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

.675**

.441**

-.381*

.360*

-.119

.016

.000

.004

.015

.022

.464

.920

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

Pearson
Correlation

.037

.204

.264

-.145

-.119

.734**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.821

.206

.100

.372

.464

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

-.067

.052

.247

-.171

.016

.734**

.682

.751

.124

.290

.920

.000

40

40

40

40

40

40

N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Factor 1

N
Factor 2

.000
40

Sig. (2-tailed)

Status

Status

40

Pearson
Correlation

Time

Time

Facilitating and
supporting
individual
communication

.633**

Sig. (2-tailed)
N

Job

Social and
teaching
presences

27

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.000

40

Notes. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 7 presents the correlation matrix for the components, including online course
experience, age, status, job, weekly time for one course, Factor 1 (facilitating and supporting the
individual communication), and Factor 2 (social and teaching presences). Based on the results,
we can state the following: Age and both semester of experience with online courses and status
have a statistically significant linear relationship (p < .001), meaning that these variables tend to

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

28

increase together. Also, there is a negative correlation between age and job. The results also
indicated that there is a correlation between semesters of experience with online courses and
status (p < .001), and a significant positive correlation between Factors 1 and 2.
Discussion and Conclusions
The purpose of this study has been to determine if there is a relationship between
learners perceptions of the interactions with the instructor, age, semesters of experience with
online courses, job, weekly time spent for one course, and status in an online environment.
Although there has been little research identifying which specific types of disabilities are
correlated with thriving or struggling in an online setting, we found through EFA that two
factors, the first of which is related to social and teaching presences (consisting of 15 items) and
the second relates to the facilitating and supporting individual communication (consisting of five
items). In general, this study indicates that students in online courses have positive attitudes
regarding interaction with their instructors (Strongly agree and Agree), including all questions of
this instrument except the item I shared my specific personal information such as private
interests with the instructor. Students had negative attitudes toward this item, which is under the
category of social presence. This result is inconsistent with that of Jung, Choi, Lim, and Leems
(2002) study, which indicated that the social interaction group outperformed the academic
interaction and collaboration interaction groups. These results show that social interaction
between learners and the instructor contributed to produce an increase in learning achievement.
Moreover, the findings of this study confirm that facilitation and directions provided by
instructors are certainly factors promoting online participation. Further, the study revealed only
two factors that were inconsistent with the instrument used by Kang and Im (2013). This may be
due to the great difference between sample sizes. Table 7 shows the correlation between nominal

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

29

variables. There is a positive correlation between the two factors: social and teaching presence,
and facilitating and supporting individual communication. Also, there is a positive correlation
between age, and both time spent online and status, and a negative correlation between age and
job.
Limitations
This study has some limitations. First, the study used a convenience sample of students
with disabilities in higher education in one institution who voluntarily responded to an electronic
survey on a Web site to receive a reward. The lack of random selection limits the generalizability
of the study. For instance, the participants who actually responded to the survey were small in
number (n = 40) and had different types of disabilities. Because of the low response rate, the data
presented should be viewed with some caution. However, the researchers conducting the study
believe that the current study is a beginning to gaining an understanding of the natural interaction
between learners with disabilities and their instructors in an online environment.

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

30

References
Akarasriworn, C., & Ku, H. Y. E. (2013). Graduate students knowledge construction and
attitudes toward online synchronous videoconferencing collaborative learning
environment. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1), 35.
Allday & Allday. (2011). Effects of pacing options on final grades of students with Disability in
virtual high school. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(4), 223-234.
Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning, in: T. Anderson & F.
Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 3-31). Athabasca, Canada:
Athabasca University),.
Barr, B. (2014). Identifying and addressing the mental health needs of online students in higher
education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 17(2).
Canter, L. L. S., Voytecki, K. S., & Rodrguez, D. (2007). Increasing online interaction in rural
special education teacher preparation programs. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 26(1), 23.
Carnahan, C., & Fulton, L. (2013). Virtually forgotten: Special education students in cyber
schools. Techtrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 57(4), 46-52.
Case, D., & Davidson, R. C. (2011). Accessible online learning. New Directions for Student
Services, 134, 47-58.
Cavanaugh, C., Repetto, J., Wayer, N., & Spitler, C. (2013). Online learning for students with
disabilities: A framework for success. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(1),
1-8.
Chao, C. Y., Hwu, S. L., & Chang, C. C. (2011). Supporting interaction among participants of
online learning using the knowledge sharing concept. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(4), 311-319.
Coy, K. (2014). Special educators roles as virtual teachers. Teaching Exceptional Children,
46(5), 110-116.
Coy, K., Marino, M., & Serianni, B. (2014). Using universal design for learning in synchronous
online instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29(1), 63-74.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.
Edmonds, C. D. (2004). Providing access to students with disabilities in online distance
education: Legal and technical concerns for higher education. American Journal of
Distance Education, 18(1), 51-62.

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

31

Fichten, C. S., Ferraro, V., Asuncion, J. V., Chwojka, C., Barile, M., Nguyen, M. N., &
Wolforth, J. (2009). Disabilities and e-learning problems and solutions: An exploratory
study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 241-256.
Fichter, D. (2005). The many forms of e-collaboration: Blogs, wikis, portals, groupware,
discussion boards, and instant messaging. Online, 29(4), 48-50.
Francis, C. D. P. (2012). Students with disabilities experience in higher education online
courses: An exploratory study of self-efficacy, use of assistive technologies and mobile
media (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern
California.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference.
11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Grabinger, S. (2009). A framework for supporting postsecondary learners with psychiatric
disabilities in online environments. Proceedings of the European Conference on ELearning, 236-243.
Hashey, A., & Stahl, S. (2014). Making online learning accessible for students with disabilities.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(5), 70-78.
Heindel, Allen J. (2014). A phenomenological study of the experiences of higher education
students with disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South
Florida, Tampa, FL.
Hollins, N., & Foley, A. R. (2013). The experiences of students with learning disabilities in a
higher education virtual campus. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 61(4), 607-624.
Horn, L., & Nevill, S. (2006). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education
institutions: 2003-04, with a special analysis of community college students. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006184_rev.pdf
Jaeger, P. T., & Xie, B. (2009). Developing online community accessibility guidelines for
persons with disabilities and older adults. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(1),
55-63.
Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on
learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations
in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153-162.
Kang, M., & Im, T. (2013). Factors of learnerinstructor interaction which predict perceived
learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 29(3), 292-301.

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

32

Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Landmar, L., & Reber, A. (2009). Postsecondary education for
individuals with disabilities: Legal and practice considerations. Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 20, 35-45.
Long, G. L., Marchetti, C., & Fasse, R. (2011). The importance of interaction for academic
success in online courses with hearing, deaf, and hard-of-hearing students. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 1-19.
Magnuson, C. (2005). Experiential learning and the discussion board: A strategy, a rubric, and
management techniques. Distance Learning, 2(2), 15.
Mayne, L. A., & Qiang, W. (2011). Creating and measuring social presence in online graduate
nursing courses. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(2), 110-114. doi:10.5480/15365026-32.2.110
Moore, M. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. American Journal of Distance
Education, 5(3), 1-6.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning.
(3rd ed., pp. 131-132). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Norris, M., & Lecavalier, L. (2010). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in
developmental disability psychological research. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 40(1), 8-20.
Office of Disability Accomodation, University of North Texas 2015
Phillips, A., Terras, K., Swinney, L., & Schneweis, C. (2012). Online disability
accommodations: Faculty experiences at one public university. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 25(4), 331-344.
Plante, K., & Asselin, M. E. (2014). Best practices for creating social presence and caring
behaviors online. Nursing education perspectives, 35(4), 219-223.
Repetto, J., Cavanaugh, C., Wayer, N., & Feng, L. (2010). Virtual high school: Improving
outcomes for students with disabilities. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11(2),
91-104.
Richardson, J. E. (2010). Course completion and attainment in disabled students taking courses
with the Open University UK. Open Learning, 25(2), 81-94.
Roberts, J. B., Crittenden, L. A., & Crittenden, J. C. (2011). Students with disabilities and online
learning: A cross-institutional study of perceived satisfaction with accessibility
compliance and services. Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 242-250.

FACTORS AFFECTING LEARNING INTERACTION IN ONLINE LEARNING

33

Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature
(Winner 2009 Best Research Article Award). International Journal of E-Learning &
Distance Education, 23(1), 19-48.
Savenye, W. C. (2005). Improving online courses: What is interaction and why use it? Distance
Learning, 2(6), 22-28.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2013). Understanding distinctions in learning in hybrid, and online
environments: An empirical investigation of the community of inquiry
framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 355-370.
Soo, K., & Bonk, C. (1998). Interaction: What does it mean in online distance education? Paper
presented at the World Conference on Educational Telecommunications, Freeburg
Germany. Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 428 724.
Stalker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Retrieved from
http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wpcontent/ uploads/2012/05/Classifying-K12blended-learning2.pdf
Wasserman, L. (2004). All of statistics: A concise course in statistical inference. London, UK:
Springer Science & Business Media
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashawn, L., Gemini, B., & Rapp, C. (2011). Keeping pace with K12
online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Mountain View, CA: The
Evergreen Group.
Wolcott, L. L. (1996). Distant, but not distanced: A learner-centered approach to distance
education. Techtrends, 41(4), 23-27
Wright, L. K., Zyto, S., Karger, D. R., & Newman, D. L. (2013). Online reading informs
classroom instruction and promotes collaborative learning. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 43(2).
York, C. S., & Richardson, J. C. (2012). Interpersonal interaction in online learning: experienced
online instructors' perceptions of influencing factors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 16(4), 83-98.