Accelerat ing t he world's research.

The impact of transactional distance

dialogic interactions on student
learning outcomes in online and
blended en...
Devi Afriani

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

ONLINE VS. BLENDED LEARNING: DIFFERENCES IN INST RUCT IONAL OUT COMES AND ST UDENT …
Genoa Occhipint i

T he invest igat ion of learner-assessment int eract ion in learning management syst ems
Adem Özgür, Halil Yurdugül

Building Innovat ive Online Korean and Japanese Courses: A Pilot on Technology- Enhanced Curriculum…
Sarah Jourdain, Kayode C. V. Adebowale, Julian Chen
 Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student

learning outcomes in online and blended environments
Kayode C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue*, Tian-Lih Teng 1
The Department of Technology and Society, The College of Engineering and Applied Studies (CEAS), Stony Brook University, SUNY, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study measured how student interactions (as captured by Transactional Distance dialogue (Moore,
Received 12 February 2014 1993)) in online and blended learning environments impacted student learning outcomes, as measured
Received in revised form by student satisfaction and student grades. Dialogue was measured as student interactions with other
10 April 2014
students (studentestudent interaction), the technologies used (studentetechnology interaction), the
Accepted 23 June 2014
instructors (studenteteacher interaction), and the course contents (studentecontent interaction). In
Available online 6 July 2014
addition, moderating effects of media and modality of interactions and individual differences on student
learning outcomes were also measured. Data was obtained from 342 online and blended students be-
Keywords:
Transactional distance tween 2010 and 2013. Findings indicate that studentecontent interaction had a larger effect on student
Online and blended learning learning outcomes than other forms of dialogue. Implications for educational policies that require
Dialogue teacher-presence (studenteteacher) and studentestudent interactions in distance learning environ-
Nonverbal and verbal communication ments are also discussed.
Computer-mediated communication © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Theories of learning show that interactions between, and among students and teachers, play a role in determining student learning
outcomes. However, studies that are based on these theories often fail to account for the mechanisms by which these interactions are
influenced by the media of interaction; and miss the opportunity to identify and isolate the myriads of interactions that distinguishes a
traditional face-to-face (F2F) learning environment from an Online Learning Environment (OLE). Studies that do, often limit their analysis to
interactions between students and teachers as in a traditional face-to-face learning environment (TF2FLE); even though social ecologists
clearly depict OLEs and TF2FLEs as two distinct learning environments. Moreover, attitudes of individuals are known to be shaped by the
way they perceive the object of interaction. Inadvertently, the environment an individual is situated influences the type of behaviour
exhibited or portrayed; and specifically the attitude expressed by that individual. Social psychologists refer to this attitudinal change as
perceived distance. Distance learning theories, most notably, Transactional Distance Theory (Moore, 1993) have been posited to explain the
mechanisms by which perceived distance operates in OLEs, but none have adequately identified the constructs to measure the factors
involved, much less predict a causal pathway for the mechanism of occurrence.
Regular, frequent, and direct face-to-face contact with instructors have always been the hall mark of traditional educational settings
(Bacow, Bowen, Gutherie, Lack, & Long, 2012). However, the rapid penetration of educational technologies (Radford, 2011) (such as
Learning Management Systems (LMS), streaming lecture videos, and web conferencing software) that provide similar, though mediated,
educational transactions in traditional and virtual classrooms, is challenging this core assumption (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001;
Sener & Shattuck, 2006). It is crucial now, more than ever, to understand the mediated humanetechnology interactions, “the percep-
tual illusion of non-mediation that media users experience” (Lombard & Ditton, 1997), and how the learner's sense of educator's presence,
and their dialogic relationship (Munro, 1998) impacts students' affective and cognitive learning outcomes (Anderson & Walberg, 1974;
Walberg, 1974). In light of the proliferation of these educational technologies, more research studies are needed (Black, Ferdig, &
DiPietro, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2010; Barbour & Reeves, 2009) to address the low retention, ; Aragon and Johnson,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 6314030615; fax: þ1 6316322704.

E-mail addresses: kayode.adebowale@stonybrook.edu, kayodecv.ekwunifeorakwue@gmail.com (K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue), ted.teng@stonybrook.edu (T.-L. Teng).
1
Tel.: þ1 6316328962; fax: þ1 6316322704.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.011
0360-1315/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427 415

2008; Gibson, Ice, & Mitchell, 2012; Rhee-Weise, 2013 high attrition, and high failure rates of online students compared to face-to-face
(F2F) settings (Allen & Seaman, 2009, 2013; Bernard & Amundsen, 1989; Bernard, Abrami et al., 2004; Cyrs, 1997; Dille & Mezack, 1991;
Jordan, 2013; King, 2002).
Contemporary distance education is often difficult to define by the mode of educational delivery via information and communication
technology (ICT), or the physical separation between learners and instructors, due to the rapid evolutions in education technologies. Re-
searchers, institutions of higher education, and policy makers often struggle to find an operational definition for online learning envi-
ronments. To avoid such conceptual confusions, Allen and Seaman (2010) (Table 1) developed a framework for categorizing courses based on
modes of educational delivery.

1.1. Theoretical framework

1.1.1. Transactional distance theory

Moore (1993) termed perceived distance that arises as a result of attitudinal changes to an object of interaction as transactional distance
(TD); and defined it as a psychological and communications space (in which there exists “potential misunderstanding between the inputs of
instructor and those of the learner”) created by the separation of learners and instructors.2 This space of potential misunderstandings
produces special patterns of learner and teacher behaviours called universe of teacherelearner relationships that affect teaching and
learning. From the perspective of TD, distance education is operationalized as a pedagogical concept that describes this universe of
teacherelearner relationships that exists when learners and instructors are separated by space and/or by time (Moore, 1993, p. 22). TD as a
continuous variable, is a function of three clusters of constructs that determine the degree of transactional distance namely: structure (S),
dialogue (D), and learner autonomy (LA). Transactional Distance increases when there is more structure, less dialogue, or greater learner
autonomy (Moore, 1989; Moore & Kearsley, 1996, 2005).
Some studies expose the gap with previous research on TD. Hauser, Paul, and Bradley (2012) pointed to the inability to generate a
consensus around valid and reliable objective measures of S, D, LA, and TD. The lack of construct validity and consistent measurements is
also a problem with research studies on TD (Gorsky & Caspi, 2005). This gap, which Moore recognized as the “infilling of the theoretical
spaces” (Moore, 1990, p. 14), is due in part, to the lack of clarity on the interrelationships among structure, dialogue, and autonomy, and
whether these constructs are clusters, variables, or dimensions of TD (Garrison, 2000). Hence, the need for a visual model, such as Saba and
Twitchell (1988) system dynamics model, for understanding the structural relationships between these constructs. In this study, we only
focus on the construct dialogue since it is the least controversial, and because of its overlap with other perceived distance theories such as
transactional presence (Shin, 2002; Shin, 2003), and [online] social presence (3Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Gunawardena, 1995;
Mehrabian, 1969; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Tu & McIsaac, 2002).

1.2. Positing hypotheses of dialogue based on TD theory and other theories of perceived distance

Moore operationalized dialogue as positive interactions between learners and teachers, and between other party or parties [i.e.,
stakeholders involved with the course or educational program], towards the direction of improving student understanding. Moore states the
criteria for a dialogue with positive interactions as “purposeful, constructive, and valued by each party;” thus a synergistic relationship
between the parties involved. Though Moore emphasized the need to understand the interactions of different factors, especially the be-
haviours of teachers and learners, he did not provide clear interpretations on how the research field can measure this qualitative construct,
thus inviting criticisms on the validity and reliability of the different measurements been used to quantify dialogue, either based on TD
(Garrison, 2000; Gorsky & Caspi, 2005) or other theories. Nevertheless, a robust theory should be open to various ways of measuring the
same construct that ultimately yields the same answer (Weick, 1989).
Though Moore clearly defined dialogue as positive interactions between parties, such as learner and instructor (LeI) and learnerelearner
(LeL) interactions, some studies have argued for the inclusion of other types of interactions that influence OLEs such as: studenteinstitution
interaction (Shin, 2002); learnerecontent interaction (Garrison et al., 2001; Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 1999); and success
measures (Menchaca & Bekele, 2008). There is consensus in the field of distance education on the role of dialogue, measured by LeI
interaction (Hannon et al., 2002; Shea, Swan, Fredericksen, & Pickett, 2002; Swan, Shea, Fredericksen, Pickett, & Pelz, 2000) in increasing
student affective outcomes such as student satisfaction and perceived learning, but not on student grades. However, studies on stu-
dentecontent (or LeC) interaction, and studentestudent (or LeL) interaction have yet to find any substantial effect; and some of the findings
are often haphazard, inconclusive, and lack construct validity. In this study, we focus on only four forms of interactions as a measurement of
dialoguedLearnereInstructor (LeI), LearnereContent (LeC), LearnereLearner (LeL), and4 LearnereTechnology (LeT) interactions or
computer self-efficacy (Stratchota, 2003). These four forms of dialogue are operationalized as follows:

LeI interaction: dialogue between the learner and instructor towards increasing the learner's understanding.
LeL interaction: dialogue between students or learners towards increasing student understanding.
LeC interaction: dialogue between the learner and the course contents, that is, access and interaction with the contents of the course,
towards increasing student understanding.
LeT interaction: learner's experience, skill level, and ability at interacting with the technology used in the course towards increasing the
learner's understanding.

2
In this study we prefer the term instructors and learners as substitutes for teachers and students respectively, to make salient that these labels do not suffice to describe
today's transactions in online learning environments.
3
Social presence was one of the three elements (cognitive and social presence being the other two elements) of a Community of Inquiry model that was postulated to
contribute to presence.
4
LeT interaction was adopted from Cassidy and Eachus (2002) instrument for measuring computer self-efficacy.
416 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427

Table 1
Operational definitions of course classifications based on mode of content delivery.

Type of course Typical description Proportion of content

delivered online
Traditional Face-to-Face (TF2F) No online technology is used and content delivery is via writing or orally. 0%
Web Facilitated A traditional F2F course supplemented by/augmented with a web-based technology 1e29%
such as a Course Management System (CMS), or an assignment- or syllabus-related web pages.
Blended/Hybrid A hybrid of online and traditional F2F delivery; with more online meetings than F2F meetings. 30e79%
Online Most or all of the course and its content is delivered online, with none/negligible F2F meetings. 80þ%

Allen and Seaman (2010, p. 5) based on a survey of 2500 Colleges and Universities.

1.3. Forms of dialogue and student learning outcomes

1.3.1. Dialogue and LeI interaction

Moore may have emphasized perceived distance between Learners (L) and Instructors (I) because of his view of the teacher as the
authority figure in any given LearnereInstructor (LeI) transaction; that is, a teacher-centered instruction, whereby “the sense-making is
accomplished by the teacher and transmitted to students through lecture, textbooks, and confirmatory activities in which each step is
specified by the teacher” (Granger et al., 2012). In the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model (Garrison et al., 2000), teacher presence is an
important element required for learners in distance learning environments; and it is often cited in some educational institutions' and state
education agencies' policies. In terms of TD, Burgess (2006), in a survey study of 237 undergraduate students in 18 online courses found a
direct relationship of learner autonomy and perception of learnereinstructor dialogue with student satisfaction. However, few studies (such
as Darling-Hammond, 1999; Fredericksen, Pickett, Pelz, & Swan, 2001; Jerald, 2010) show a strong correlation between LeI interaction and
student achievement. Other research findings, though inconclusive, are based on LeI interaction and perceived learning or perceived
satisfaction (Hannon et al., 2002; Jiang & Ting, 2000; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Shea, Fredericksen et al., 2001, 2002; Swan, 2001). Despite
the inconclusive findings of a direct association between LeI interaction and SLOs (Richardson & Swan, 2003), many state education policies,
both at K-12 and post-secondary levels, still mandate teacher's physical presence and teacherestudent interaction as crucial components of
any distance learning program.

1.3.2. Dialogue and LeL interaction

With the advent of more interactive communications media, Moore (1993) includes another form of dialogue that occurs between
learners termed as inter-learner dialogue (which we reterm as LearnereLearner (LeL) dialogue or LeL) interaction construct (Stratchota,
2003). Moore posits that highly interactive teleconference provides the potential for “individual self-directed implementation, and more
self-evaluation,” including peer support and peer knowledge-generation (Moore, 1993, p. 37). LeL dialogue provides opportunities for
learners to share in knowledge-creation, which Moore termed “collective intelligence,” referring to Kowitz and Smith (1987) assertion of
shared learning as the most advanced form of instructional process. LeL dialogue also includes learners within and among groups and
virtual groups (Moore, 1993, p. 33). This opens up another issue of perceived distance that develops when learners (and instructors) are in
virtual groups, or even in virtual- or global virtual teams (Sobel-Lojeski, 2005; Sobel-Lojeski & Richard, 2008). For this reason, we believe the
field of distance learning would benefit from the virtual team research field.
As ICT continues to evolve, so has the platform for communicating and interacting with many learners; thus creating an online com-
munity of learners with diverse means for socializing. This has created more opportunities for research on social presence. Garrison et al.,
(2000) developed a conceptual framework termed Communities of Inquiry (CoI) for studying CMC in higher education. CoI was defined “as a
group of individuals who collaboratively engage in purposeful discourse to construct personal meaning and confirm mutual understanding
through the development of three interdependent ‘presence’ elements: social, cognitive, and teaching” (Oztok & Brett, 2011). In the CoI
model, social presence, which is categorized into expression of emotion, open communication, and group cohesion, is defined as the ability
of participants to project themselves socially and emotionally as real people through the media of communication (Garrison et al., 2000, p.
89). Tu and McIsaac (2002), in support of this school of thought, operationalized social presence as “the degree of feeling, perception, and
reaction of being connected by CMC to another intellectual entity through electronic media; ” and suggested that it consists of four di-
mensions: social context, online community, interactivity, and privacy (Tu, McIsaac, Sujo-Montes, & Armfield, 2012).
LeL interaction is important for the growth and development of social skills among learners, and may bridge perceived distance and
increase social presence (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). In distance learning environments, however, there is no conclusive
evidence showing a correlation between LeL interaction and SLOs. Some studies show a relationship between LeL interaction and perceived
learner satisfaction or perceived learning (Fredericksen et al., 2001; Jung et al., 2002; Murhead, 2000; Shea et al., 2001, 2002; Swan, 2001;
Wu & Hiltz, 2004), but not cognitive outcomes.

1.3.3. Dialogue and LeC interaction

Moore did not elaborate on the interaction between the learner and the course content; but he stated that the nature, quality, and extent
of dialogue is dependent upon factors that includes educational philosophy of course designer(s), the course design, subject-matter of the
course, and content. Few studies have looked at the impact of LeC interaction on SLOs. Beaudin (1999), in a survey of 135 instructors of
online courses, listed some strategies for keeping learners engaged with content discussions. Other studies suggest that learners can interact
with content without interacting with instructors or learners, and still have similar levels of SLOs (Anderson, 2003; Duffy & del Valle, 2005;
Sener, 2001).
An essential component of a course is its contents. All distance learning courses must have some form of content with which learners
must interact, but not all courses have an instructor (e.g. asynchronous independent learning courses) with whom learners interact. As a
result, learners would have to spend more time on the course content to increase their understanding. Therefore, we propose that inter-
action with content may be as important as LeI interaction (Conrad, 2002), and more important than LeL interaction. In addition, since
 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427 417

course content is a function of the course design, according to Moore, the level of LeC interaction may be influenced by the subject matter,
and the type of course design used in the course (Garrison et al., 2001; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Rourke et al., 1999; Shirathuddin,
Hassan, & Landoni, 2003; Sims, Dobbs, & Hand, 2002).

1.3.4. Dialogue and LeT interaction

Moore did not explicitly mention LeT interaction as a component of dialogic interaction. However, studies, especially in the field of
virtual teams, have shown that computer self-efficacy has a positive effect on satisfaction (Martin, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). In the field of
distance learning, research findings on the effect of LeT interaction on SLOs are either inconclusive, negligible, or found to interact with
specific learner factors (Roblyer, 2003). Strachota (2003) found that the contribution of LeT interaction to student satisfaction, based on a
regression analysis, was negligible (.9%). Maki and Maki (2003) in a study that compared web-based and lecture-based versions of intro-
ductory psychology courses, found that measures of cognitive abilities is a better predictor of student success than self-reported preferences
for technology-mediated courses. DeTure (2004) in a study of community college distance education students enrolled in six general ed-
ucation courses found that computer self-efficacy did not predict student success.
Other studies found that LeT interaction is not the sole determinant of SLOs, but that certain learner factors interacted with LeT
interaction to influence SLOs. For example, Dupin-Bryant (2004) in a study of pre-entry variables that determined online course completion,
found that prior computer training and prior education experience may be an important distinguishing criteria. Waschull (2005) found no
correlation between technology experience and course performance, but a correlation with self-discipline. In a meta-analysis of the distance
education literature between 1985 and 2002, Bernard et al. (2004) suggested that pedagogy and media must work in tandem to promote
student learning and satisfaction. Finally, Menlove and Lignugaris-Kraft (2004) found that support measures improved student confidence
in using technology both during and after the duration of the course.

1.3.5. Dialogue and individual differences

Moore emphasized the need to understand the interactions of different factors in measuring dialogue, such as behaviours of teachers and
learners, teacher personality and training, student personality and learning style, L/I ratio, frequency of communication, and most notably,
the media of communication. This was further corroborated by social presence theory; traced back to Mehrabian's (1967, 1969) construct
“immediacy,” based on the richness of the communication media to convey social cues (Oztok & Brett, 2011), and first coined by Short et al.
(1976) to explain how electronically mediated communication media exhibited varying degrees of media richness based on people's at-
titudes towards, and perceptions of, the media (Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967; Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968; Mehrabian & Williams, 1969;
Mehrabian, 1981). This impact of individual differences was also widely held by distance learning researchers during the pre-internet
era, who termed it learner or student characteristics; defined as those attributes of successful students that allow them to deal with the
complexity of a virtual learning environment (VLE) (Roblyer, Davis, Mills, Marshall, & Pape, 2008).
Today, distance learning researchers, agree that student characteristics are not enough (Hartley & Bendixen, 2001), but that learning or
course environment characteristics, as initially coined by Smith and Dillon (1999) and operationalized as online learning delivery systems
and course designs, influence the degree of interactions and SLOs (Chyung, 2001; Roblyer & Weincke, 2004). Gunawardena (1995) also
argued that the quality of the media cannot be the sole deterministic factor of social presence; individual differences interact with media
quality to influence the perception of social presence (Gunawardena, Lowe, & Anderson, 1997; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997), operationalized
as “the degree to which a person is perceived as a ‘real person’ in mediated communication” (Gunawardena, 1995, p. 151). In addition, the
level of disconnectedness (Bocchi, Eastman, & Swift, 2004; Santovec, 2004) and social factors (Frankola, 2001) are indicative of the learning
environment characteristic. Identifying the myriads of individual differences and their interactions with the delivery system or type of
media is impracticable. This study focused on few student characteristics that may interact with dialogue to influence SLOs.

1.3.6. Dialogue and media richness

Technologies express different degrees of media richness (Deft & Lengel, 1986; Riopelle et al., 2003); hence different degrees of “virtualness”
(Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Griffith, Sawyer, & Neale, 2003), which inadvertently impacts the degree of perceived distance. For example, the media
richness of videoconferencing is relatively higher than e-mail (Martin et al., 2004; Powell, Piccoli, & Ives, 2004). According to Moore, LeI dialogue
can be increased by manipulating the communications media; the greater the media richness for dialogue, the lower the TD between the learner
and the instructor. Therefore, programs that use highly interactive electronic conference media are likely to bridge TD more effectively than
programs using recorded media, because they allow for more intensive, personalized, and dynamic dialogue. Moore hypothesized that tele-
conferencing, when implemented by progressive teachers, may reduce distance due to the potential for instructors to contact learners.
Several studies found some support for Moore's thesis. Bischoff, Bisconer, Kooker, and Woods (1996) corroborated the correlations of 1/D
∞ TD, and that scores for D were higher in courses with E-mail interaction. Likewise, Saba and Shearer (1994) found similar correlations,
including a correlation between S ∞ 1/D. Bunker, Gayol, Nti, and Reidell (1996) found that correlation S ∞ 1/D depended on the types of
instructional structure. Chen and Willits (1998a, 1998b) found partial support for 1/D ∞ TD (depending on the form of interaction). Some of
these studies, however, were limited in the way dialogue and SLOs were operationalized and measured; and effect on SLOs were often based
on perceived SLO.

2. Hypotheses

Since dialogic interactions are towards increased student understanding, this should result in increased student learning outcomes. Therefore,
student understanding as measured by student satisfaction and final grades should be higher in courses with higher dialogue.
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Increased dialogue will produce improved student learning outcomes (as measured by perceived student satisfaction
and actual final course grades).
Hypothesis 2 (H2). The form of dialogue that occurs will influence the degree of improvement in student learning outcomes that is
observed, in the following way: LI > LL > LC > LT.
418 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427

In positing hypotheses for individual differences that may influence dialogue, we include only those learner factors that have been posited to
influence perceived distance. We posit that the effect will have the same direction irrespective of the media, that is, online or blended, synchronous
or asynchronous, lecture capture, video/web conference, and text-based.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Individual differences will moderate the relationship between dialogue and outcomes, as predicted in Table 2.
Due to their extent of media richness, and potential for reducing TD and increasing social presence, courses with interactive media (that is,
synchronous courses, and courses with web conferencing and lecture capture) would show higher overall dialogue compared to courses without
interactive conferences (that is, asynchronous and text-based courses). Blended courses will have higher overall dialogue compared to online
courses.
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Differences in modality of content delivery and media richness will moderate the relationship between dialogue and
outcomes.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample

Data for this analysis were obtained from (N ¼ 342) graduate, undergraduate, certificate, nondegree, and alumni participants enrolled
in part time or full time synchronous or asynchronous, online or blended courses offered between 2010 and 2013. The courses originated
from three main programs: The School of Professional Development (SPD), Technology and Society (comprised of Technological Systems
Management (TSM) and Global Operations Management (GOM)); and Electrical Engineering (EE). TSM and EE are both undergraduate
programs. The sample (N ¼ 342) was 57.9% male and 41.8% female. African Americans constituted 7.6% of the sample, Asian American
24.3%, Caucasian/White 46.5%, Latino/Hispanic 9.1%, Chinese 4.4%, and Asian-Indian 2.6%. Other ethnicities comprised 3.0% of the sample,
and 2.6% of the participants did not report their ethnicity. Undergraduates comprised 72.5% (248) of the sample, graduates 26.3% (90), and
other .3% (1) of the sample. The average age was 26.5 years (range ¼ 18e61, SD ¼ 9.05). Participants from SPD comprised 15.8% of the
sample, Technology and Society 43.3%, EE 3.5%, Nursing .6%, Professional Education Program (PEP) 3.2%, College of Business .9%, Math .3%,
and others 32.5%.

3.2. Measures and instruments

3.2.1. Student satisfaction

Though measures of student satisfaction are fully developed in distance learning research studies, they are often limited to online
learning environments and do not include the blended learning environments. Moreover, these instruments do not directly measure
the dialogic interactions of Transactional Distance, as a function of student satisfaction. One study that seem to overcome these lim-
itations was Strachota (2003) student satisfaction survey instrument, which was labelled General Satisfaction (GSAT) in this study. This
survey instrument was a useful starting point, and seem to capture a perspective of the dialogic interactions outlined in Moore's TD
theory; that is, learnereinstructor (LeI), learnerelearner (LeL), and learnerecontent (LeC) interactions. Learneretechnology (LeT)
interaction, though as a measure of computer self-efficacy developed by Cassidy and Eachus (2002), was also included in this survey
instrument.
General Satisfaction (GSAT) (a ¼ .90) (Strachota, 2003) is a six-item construct measuring student satisfaction in both online and blended
learning environments. GSAT was defined as the student's overall needs being met. The items are: 1. I am very satisfied with this online
course 2. I would like to take another online course 3. This online course did not meet my learning needs 4. I would recommend this course
to others 5. I learned as much in this online course as compared to a face-to-face course 6. I feel online courses are as effective as face-to-face
courses. In this current study (N ¼ 301, 41 missing cases), initial Cronbach's alpha coefficient was .740. With item 3 dropped because of low
correlation ( .140, which is below the .3 threshold) with the total score, the final a was .894 (N ¼ 303) based on the remaining five GSAT
items.

Table 2
Individual differences and the hypothesized effect on dialogue.

Learner/factors Levels of variable Expected effect on dialogue

Age 18e61 years Null
Gender Male Null
Female Positive
Culture High Context Cultures (HCC) Positive for asynchronous and text-based courses
Low Context Cultures (LCC) Positive for synchronous and videoconference-based courses
Past Online Course Experience 0e21 courses Increasingly positive for greater past online course experiences

The hypothesized directions are based on findings from various research fields. Learners in this survey sample ranged in age from 18 years to 61 years old. Age was posited to
have a null effect. Studies of gender in virtual teams (VTs) show differences in communication patterns between males and females using computer-mediated communication
(CMC). Females have higher dialogue than males using CMC, and we posit the same effect in distance learning courses. Culture was measured by nationality, and ethnicity.
Hofstede (1980, 2001, 2011) proposed five dimensions of cultural values, one of which is individualismecollectivism dimension. Though studies question the individual-level
reliability of these dimensions (Yoo, Donthu, & Lenartowicz, 2011) there is consensus on its validity at the national-level. Individualistic cultures (e.g. American culture) show
loose ties between individuals compared to collectivist cultures (e.g. Chinese culture). Individualistic cultures, according to Hall (1976) theory of low context- and high
context-cultures, portray the attributes of low context cultures (LCC), and collectivist cultures exhibit attributes of high context cultures (HCC). Individualistic cultures show
their intentions through explicit verbal communication and direct style spoken messages. Collective cultures, on the other hand, are more implicit and nonverbal (Nishimura,
Nevgi, & Tella, 2008). Therefore, we posit that learners from LCC will show higher mean dialogue compared to learners in HCC whom will show more dialogue in nonverbal
communication settings, that is, text-based and asynchronous courses compared to synchronous and videoconference-based courses.
Finally, learners with past online course experience will have higher mean dialogue compared to students with no or few online course experience.
 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427 419

Table 3
Dialogue and satisfaction scales with final a and items.

Scale Valid N Final items Final Cronbach's alpha

LeI interaction 299 LI1, LI2, LI4, LI5, LI6 .859
LeC interaction 298 LC1 to LC6 .866
LeL interaction 220 LL1 to LL4 .837
LeT interaction 302 LT1 to LT9 .887
GSAT 303 GSAT1, GSAT2, GSAT4, GSAT5, GSAT6 .894

3.2.2. Grade
Grade was measured as the final summative assessment score received in the course. Though most were self-reported, in some cases
student grades were assessed from the course management system after an informed consent was granted. Grades ranged from A to F
(lowest grade).

3.2.3. Dialogue
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to structure the measurement model for dialogue using items of each factor (LeI, LeC, LeL,
and LeT) from Strachota (2003), with Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient above .89 (N ¼ 849), which is above .70 for a reliable instrument
(Cronbach, 1951; Gliem & Gliem, 2003; Santos, 1999; Nunnaly, 1978; Wallen & Fraenkel, 1993). Each item had high factor loadings above .54
on the related interaction construct/factor. Factor loadings should be greater than .32 (Comrey & Lee, 1992). For this study, using average
sample size of N ¼ 342, the reliability and validity of the measures for dialogue and satisfaction were further assessed. The four-point (1e4)
Likert scale was modified to the traditional five-point (1e5) Likert scale, and some items were reversely scored with anchor points ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In spite of this improvement, it is important to note that a seven or nine point scale is
advocated by many psychometricians (Krosnick, 1999). There were 29 items from all four scales that were combined to measure dialogue:
LeC (7 items), LeI (6 items), LeT (9 items), and LeL (7 items). The Cronbach's alpha (a) measures of reliability for LeC interaction was .866,
for LeI interaction, a ¼ .686; but with item LI3 dropped because of the low correlation ( .133, which is below the .3 threshold) with the total
score, the final a ¼ .859 based on the remaining five LeI items, that is, LI1, LI2, LI4, LI5, LI6. For LeL interaction, a ¼ .837, and for LeT
interaction a ¼ .887. The scales and corresponding items with their final Cronbach alpha coefficients is shown below in Table 3a.

3.2.4. Assessing normality

Given the underlying nature of the constructs being measured, it was expected that the distribution of scores from the dialogue and
satisfaction scales would be skewed if more students reported “strongly agree or agree” on the scale, which would result in a negatively
skewed measure. For example, negative skewness for environments in which the student respondents are generally satisfied were observed
for the general satisfaction scale (Walker & Fraser, 2005). Likewise, positive skewness was expected if most of the responses were “strongly
disagree or disagree.” In the field of social sciences, there is no consensus on recommendations for dealing with skewed data. However,
some researchers recommend that scores from skewed data be statistically transformed (Pallant, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
Standard multiple regression was performed between GSAT, as the dependent variable, and LI, LC, LL, and LT as the independent vari-
ables. A second standard multiple regression was also performed with student final course grades serving as the dependent variable.
Analysis was performed using IBM SPSS REGRESSION and EXPLORE for evaluation of assumptions. As shown in Table 3b, results of eval-
uation of assumptions led to transformation of the variables to reduce skewness, kurtosis, the number of outliers, and improve the
normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity of residuals. Reflect and logarithmic transformation was used on the measure of LI, LC, LT, and
GSAT. A square root transformation was used on the measure of LL and student grades.

4. Results

4.1. Discussion

Whereas student interactions with the course contents, that is, LeC interactions, are often overlooked (compared to LeI and LeL
interactions) in studies and policies related to online and blended learning environments. Moreover too much emphasis and criticisms
are often placed on comparing face-to-face learning environments to distant learning environments (Swan, 2003); and the teacher often
regarded as the “sole” source for knowledge acquisition. Theories of distance learning (Moore's TD theory and other theories of
perceived distance are no exception) have further espoused the notion of studenteteacher or learnereinstructor interactions as the focal

Table 3b
Statistical transformations of scales showing final skewness and kurtosis.

Scale Statistical transformation Skewness Kurtosis

LeI interaction Reflect and logarithm .208 .548
LeC interaction Reflect and logarithm .235 .099
LeL interaction Reflect and Sqrt .087 .278
LeT interaction Reflect and logarithm .119 1.022
GSAT Reflect and logarithm .072 .779
Grades Reflect and Sqrt .653 .410

With the exception of final grades and LeL Interaction scale, all other scales were transformed using reflect and logarithm approach. Kurtosis seemed
to be a limitation and may have affected the variance of the data analyzed. The KolmogoroveSmirnov statistic was below .05 in all transformations.
The approach used provided the best possible alternative to achieving a normal distribution.
420 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427

Table 4
Standard multiple regression of dialogic interaction variables (LI, LC, LL, LT) on General Satisfaction (GSAT).

Variables GSAT (ref. log) (DV) LeI (ref. log) LeC (ref. log) LeL (ref. Sq. root) LeT (ref. log) B b sr2(unique)
*
LeI (Ref. log) .61 .171 .157 .01
LeC (Ref. log) .70 .70 .450** .378 .06
LeL (Ref. Sq. root) .62 .55 .63 .158** .235 .03
LeT (Ref. log) .44 .28 .29 .24 .278** .227 .05
Intercept ¼ .184
Means .26 .23 .27 1.43 .20 R2 ¼ .606
Standard deviation .18 .16 .15 .27 .15
Adjusted R2 ¼ .598
R ¼ .778

*p < .05. **p < .001. R was significantly different from zero, F(4, 194) ¼ 74.61, p < .001, with R2 at .61 and 95% confidence limits from .526 to .693. LC, LI, LL, and LT in combination
contributed .46 in shared variability, and 61% (60% adjusted) of the variability in GSAT. LeC interaction was the most important form of dialogue, as indicated by sr2 ¼ .06 and
b ¼ .38. Therefore, the hypothesized effect was not supported. The order of the magnitude of contribution to the variance in GSAT was LeI < LeL < LeT < LeC. The overall
regression model is: GSAT ¼ .18 þ .16LeI þ 0.38LeC þ 0.23LeL þ 0.23LeT þ εi.

point of distance learning environments. It was hypothesized that LeI interaction would have the greatest contribution to student
learning outcomes, that is student satisfaction and final grades, than other forms of dialogue, namely LeL, LeC, and LeT interactions,
respectively.
Results supported the hypothesized contribution of dialogue to increased student satisfaction, but not to final course grades (Table 5).
The adjusted R2 value of .60 indicated that sixty percent of the variability in General Satisfaction (GSAT) was predicted by the level of LI, LC,
LL, and LT forms of dialogue. The other forty percent may be predicted by structure and student autonomy, following within the context of
TD theory. Contrary to the hypothesized hierarchy of contribution, LeC and LeT were more important in predicting GSAT than LeI and LeL
(Table 4). The contribution of LearnereContent (LeC) interaction (38 percent) to GSAT, which was almost twice the contributions of other
forms of dialogue, sheds some light on the nature of the interactions going on in distance learning environments. First, it may be that
because LeC interaction is often not measured in studies, its variance is apportioned to LeI and LeL interactions. If this was the case, then
one would have expected the contribution by LeI to be negligible, but instead it contributed about 16 percent to the variance in GSAT. This
shows that each of these interactions is unique and distinct; with each capturing its own variance in GSAT. Studies may have ignored the
contribution of LeC interaction to student learning outcomes.
It was hypothesized that age will influence the level of dialogue, which in turn will impact GSAT. Results, as shown in Table 6 did not
support this hypothesis. In fact, age has a neutral influence on all forms of dialogic interactions, and does not contribute to online
student satisfaction. In light of this finding, albeit with the limitation of higher education student population and limited sample size,
studies should focus on the influence of age on LeC interaction that would contribute to higher student learning outcomes, beyond
GSAT. Other individual differences that were hypothesized to influence the mean dialogue were gender, past online course experience,
and culture.
First, in terms of gender, in line with findings from the virtual team literature, females were predicted to engage in higher dialogue than
males (Martin et al., 2004). Results (Tables 7.1 and 7.2) supported the prediction of gender differences in dialogic interactions. There was a
statistically significant difference between male and female students on the combined dependent variable, that is, dialogue: F (4, 178) ¼ .79,
p < .01; Wilks' Lambda ¼ .91; partial eta squared ¼ .09. This difference was on the interaction with technology, that is, learneretechnology
interaction, F (1, 181) ¼ 9.12, p ¼ .003, partial eta squared ¼ .05. An inspection of the mean scores, as shown in Table 7.3, indicated that
females reported slightly higher levels of learnerecontent interaction (M ¼ 29.11, SD ¼ 3.81) than males (M ¼ 27.76, SD ¼ 5.12); but slightly
lower levels of learneretechnology interaction (M ¼ 37.18, SD ¼ 5.92) than males (M ¼ 39.54, SD ¼ 4.63). This finding, again, indicated the
importance of LeC dialogic interaction in influencing student learning outcomes, compared to other forms of dialogue. In fact, LeT inter-
action mean scores was the highest for both genders (Tables 7.3 and 7.4).
Second, studies have suggested that students with prior online course experience would adapt better to distance learning environments.
As a result, for example, students are required to take part in online course orientations before enrolling in online courses. Hence, it was
hypothesized that students with past online course experience would have higher mean dialogue scores. Results, as shown in Tables 7.5 and
7.6, indicated that dialogic interactions were not significantly affected by prior online course experience, F (12, 117) ¼ 1.45, p ¼ .152.

Table 5
Standard multiple regression of dialogic interaction variables (LI, LC, LL, LT) on final student grades.

Variables Student grades (reflect Sq. root) (DV) LeI (log) LeC (log) LeL (Sq.root) LeT (log) B b sr2 (unique)
LeI (log) .24 .562 .197 .019
LeC (log) .22 .70 .509 .164 .011
LeL (Sq.root) .09 .55 .63 .216 .123 .009
LeT (log) .06 .28 .29 .24 .033 .010 .0001
Intercept ¼ 1.489
Means 1.45 .23 .27 1.43 .20 R2 ¼ .072
Standard Deviation .46 .16 .15 .27 .15
Adjusted R2 ¼ .051
R ¼ .269

p < .05. R was not significantly different from zero, F (4, 172) ¼ 3.36, p < .05, with R2 at .072 and 95% confidence limits from .0002 to .1442. The adjusted R2 value of .05
indicates that only 5% of the variability in final student grade was predicted by dialogue, and b for all four forms of dialogue did not differ significantly from zero; and their
combination did not significantly contribute in shared variability to grade, sr2 ¼ .0006. Therefore, the hypothesized effect was not supported. Grade s
b0 þ b1LeI þ b2LeC þ b3LeL þ b4LeT þ εi.
 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427 421

Table 6
Hierarchical multiple regression of age and dialogic interaction variables (LI, LC, LL, LT) on GSAT.

Variables GSAT (RefLog) (DV) LeI (Reflog) LeC (Reflog) LeL (RefSqrt) LeT (Reflog) Age B SE B b sr2 (incremental)
LeI (Reflog) .61 .091*** .146 .010***
.159
LeC (Reflog) .70 .70 .108** .366 .054**
.436
LeL (Sqrt) .62 .55 .63 .052* .250 .034*
.168
LeT (Reflog) .44 .28 .29 .24 .076** .237 .049**
.291
Age -.07 -.16 -.14 .08 -.15 .001 .001 .050
-.002
Intercept .168 .064
Means .26 .23 .27 1.43 .20 26.50 R2 ¼ .608
Standard Deviation .18 .16 .15 .27 .15 9.05
Adjusted R2 ¼ .592
R ¼ .780

*p < .05. **p < .001. ***p < .10. R was not significantly different from zero at the end of step 1. After step 2 with all IVs in the equation, R2 ¼ .61 with 95% confidence limits from
.50 to .71, Finc (5, 118) ¼ 36.64, p < .001. Adjusted R2 value of .59 indicated that almost 60% of the variability in GSAT was still predicted by dialogue, even when the effects of age
were statistically controlled for. Addition of age to the equation did not improve R2.

Table 7.1
MANOVA of composite DVs (LI, LC, LL, and LT) as a function of gender (selected output from IBM SPSS MANOVA).

Test name Value Exact F Hypothesis DF Error DF Sig. of F

Pillais .087 4.264 4.00 178.00 .003
Wilks' .913 4.264 4.00 178.00 .003
Hotellings .096 4.264 4.00 178.00 .003
Roy's .096 4.264 4.00 178.00 .003

Note: F statistics are exact. With the use of Wilks' criterion, there was a statistically significant difference between male and female students on the combined dependent
variable, that is, dialogue: F (4, 178) ¼ .79, p < .01; Wilks' Lambda ¼ .91; partial eta squared ¼ .09.

Table 7.2
Tests of between-subjects effects.

DV Type III SS Df Mean Sq. F. Sig. Partial eta squared

LeI 10.405 1 10.405 .723 .396 .004
LeC 80.777 1 80.777 3.787 .053 .020
LeT 247.046 1 247.046 9.122 .003* .048
LeL 7.741 1 7.741 .778 .379 .004

*p < .013. When the results for LeI, LeC, LeL, and LeT interactions were considered separately, the only difference to reach statistical significance, using a Bonferroni adjusted
alpha level of .013, was LeT interaction: F (1, 181) ¼ 9.12, p ¼ .003, partial eta squared ¼ .05. Therefore, the only significant difference between males and females was on their
interaction with technology, that is, learneretechnology interaction.

Table 7.3
Means and standard deviations by gender.

Male Female

M (SD) M (SD)
Learnereinstructor interaction 20.48 (3.87) 20.96 (3.68)
Learnerecontent interaction 27.76 (5.12) 29.11 (3.81)
Learneretechnology interaction 39.54 (4.63) 37.18 (5.92)
Learnerelearner interaction 15.35 (3.33) 15.52 (3.15)

The overall finding supports the prediction that female students in distance learning environments have a higher
mean dialogic interactions, compared to male students. Overall, students reported the highest mean dialogue for LeT
(M ¼ 38.56, SD ¼ 5.32).

Table 7.4
Descriptive statistics of past online course experience (binned).

Group Number of courses Frequency Percent Valid percent

1 0e1 course 52 15.2 43.0
2 2 courses 27 7.9 22.3
3 3e4 courses 23 6.7 19.0
4 5e21courses 19 5.6 15.7
Total 121 35.4 100.0

Given the few cases (N ¼ 121) that provided information on this variable, it was collapsed into four groups using Visual Bander, as shown in Table 7.4.
422 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427

Table 7.5
MANOVA of composite DVs (LI, LC, LL, and LT) as a function of number of prior online courses (selected output from IBM SPSS MANOVA).

Test name Value Exact F Hypothesis DF Error DF Sig. of F

Pillais .330 1.420 12.000 138.000 .164
Wilks' .692 1.454 12.000 116.705 .152
Hotellings .415 1.475 12.000 128.000 .142
Roy's .320 3.679 4.000 46.000 .011

Note: F statistics are exact.

Table 7.6
Tests of between-subjects effects.

DV Type III SS Df Mean Sq. F. Sig. Partial eta squared

LeI 19.061 3 6.354 .511 .677 .032
LeC 57.227 3 19.076 1.274 .294 .075
LeT 86.588 3 28.863 .981 .410 .059
LeL 43.561 3 14.520 1.653 .190 .095

With the use of Wilks' criterion, dialogue was not significantly affected by prior online course experience, F (12, 117) ¼ 1.45, p ¼ .152; Wilks' Lambda ¼ .69; partial eta
squared ¼ .12.

Table 7.7
Means and standard deviations by past online course experience.

Past online course experience (binned) Mean Std. deviation

Learnereinstructor interaction 1 20.6667 3.15009
2 20.8750 5.02671
3 21.3750 4.10357
4 22.3750 2.13391
Learnerecontent interaction 1 28.4074 3.81555
2 28.7500 4.92080
3 28.0000 4.17475
4 31.2500 2.18763
Learneretechnology interaction 1 39.1481 4.60521
2 38.6250 6.73875
3 39.1250 5.46253
4 35.5000 6.59004
Learnerelearner interaction 1 15.8148 3.10133
2 15.0000 2.82843
3 13.8750 2.74838
4 17.0000 2.77746

Group 1: 0e1 course; Group 2: 2 courses; Group 3: 3e4 courses; Group 4: 5e21courses. With the exception of LeT interaction, students with 5e21 prior online course
experience had the highest overall mean scores for all forms of dialogue. The overall finding supports the prediction that students' prior experiences with online courses
influences their dialogue positively.

However, with the exception of LeT interaction, students with 5e21 prior online course experiences had the highest overall mean scores for
all forms of dialogue (Tables 7.7 and 7.8).
Third, cultural differences were hypothesized to influence dialogue. Students were grouped into HCC and LCC groups based on their
ethnicities. Since LCC groups were expected to be more expressive than HCC groups, it was hypothesized that LCC groups would have higher
mean scores for dialogue occurring in synchronous environments; while HCC groups would have higher mean scores for dialogue occurring
in asynchronous environments since their patterns of communication tend to lead to avoidance of mediated communications (Yen & Tu,
2011). Results (Tables 7.9 and 7.10), indicated that dialogue was not significantly affected by belonging to either HCC or LCC groups, even
after controlling for the effects of synchronicity. However, highest scores were observed for LeC interactions (Table 7.11); and in all forms of

Table 7.8
High Context Culture (HCC) and Low context culture (LCC) groupings based on student ethnicity.

Ethnicity HCC (1) or LCC (2) Frequency

African American LCC 26
Asian HCC 83
Caucasian/White LCC 159
Latino/Hispanic HCC 31
Chinese HCC 15
Asian-Indian HCC 9
Middle Eastern HCC 2
More than one ea 2
Other ea 6
Total 333
a
Other and more than one were not classified. Also, there were nine missing cases.
 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427 423

Table 7.9
Multivariate analysis of covariance of composite DVs (LI, LC, LL, and LT), as a function of cultural dimensions and synchronicity (selected output from IBM SPSS MANOVA).

Effect Test name Value Exact F Hypothesis DF Error DF Sig. of F

Synchronicity Pillais .027 1.137b 4.000 167.000 .341
Wilks' .973 1.137b 4.000 167.000 .341
Hotellings .027 1.137b 4.000 167.000 .341
Roy's .027 1.137b 4.000 167.000 .341
Cultural dimensions Pillais .024 1.022b 4.000 167.000 .397
Wilks' .976 1.022b 4.000 167.000 .397
Hotellings .024 1.022b 4.000 167.000 .397
Roy's .024 1.022b 4.000 167.000 .397

Note: F statistics are exact. With the use of Wilks' criterion, dialogue was not significantly affected by synchronicity (F (4, 167) ¼ 1.14, p ¼ .341; Wilks' Lambda ¼ .97; partial eta
squared ¼ .03) or by cultural differences (F (4, 167) ¼ 1.02, p ¼ .397; Wilks' Lambda ¼ .98; partial eta squared ¼ .02).

Table 7.10
Tests of between-subjects effects (synchronicity and cultural dimensions).

IV DV Type III SS Df Mean square F. Sig. Partial eta squared

Synchronicity LeI .005 1 .005 .179 .673 .001
LeC .026 1 .026 1.298 .256 .008
LeT .022 1 .022 .304 .582 .002
LeL .041 1 .041 1.896 .170 .011
Cultural Dimensions LeI .024 1 .024 .890 .347 .005
LeC .033 1 .033 1.658 .200 .010
LeT .004 1 .004 .059 .808 .000
LeL .020 1 .020 .934 .335 .005
Error LI 4.533 170 .027
LC 3.422 170 .020
LL 12.260 170 .072
LT 3.652 170 .021

*p < .05. After adjusting for sychronicity, there was no significant difference between HCC and LCC groups on individual dependent variables (LeI, LeC, LeL, and LeT in-
teractions). Post hoc (Least Significant Difference) analyses of the univariate outcomes (adjusted for synchronicity) showed no significant difference between HCC and LCC
groups.

Table 7.11
Means and standard errors by cultural dimension.

Cultural dimension Mean Std. error

Learnereinstructor interaction 1 .254 .018
2 .230 .017
Learnerecontent interaction 1 .285 .016
2 .257 .015
Learneretechnology interaction 1 1.430 .030
2 1.440 .028
Learnerelearner interaction 1 .222 .016
2 .201 .015

1 ¼ High Context Culture (HCC); 2 ¼ Low Context Culture (LCC). For each form of dialogue, HCC groups scored higher than LCC groups. These findings did not
support the hypothesis that dialogue depends on cultural differences, when synchronicity of the course is controlled for. HCC groups scored higher than LCC
groups, which also did not support the hypothesis that LCC groups would have higher mean dialogue in synchronous courses, and HCC groups in asyn-
chronous courses.

dialogue, HCC groups had higher scores compared to LCC groups. This finding was contrary to the hypothesis posited and should be explored
further with larger sample sizes (Tables 8.1 and 8.2).
Finally, it was expected that high media richness (that is, synchronicity, lecture capture, and web conferencing) would help bridge
geographic and temporal distance and lead to greater LeI interaction and higher overall dialogue in blended environments compared to
online environments (Hannum, 2009). Results indicated that online and blended students did not differ in their dialogic interactions, but
reported higher LeT and LeC interactions (Table 8.3) compared to LeI and LeL dialogic interactions. Also, the combined dialogue was
significantly affected by the presence of lecture capture, but not by synchronicity or its interaction with lecture capture, that is, lecture

Table 8.1
MANOVA of composite DVs (LI, LC, LL, and LT) as a function of online and blended modes of content delivery (selected output from IBM SPSS MANOVA).

Test name Value Exact F Hypothesis DF Error DF Sig. of F

Pillais .017 .791 4.00 178.00 .532
Wilks' .983 .791 4.00 178.00 .532
Hotellings .018 .791 4.00 178.00 .532
Roy's .018 .791 4.00 178.00 .532

Note: F statistics are exact. With the use of Wilks' criterion, as shown in Table 8.1, there was no statistically significant difference between online and blended students on the
combined dependent variable, that is, dialogue: F (4, 178) ¼ .79, p > .05 (p ¼ .532); Wilks' Lambda ¼ .98; partial eta squared ¼ .02.
424 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427

Table 8.2
Tests of between-subjects effects.

DV Type III SS Df Mean Sq. F. Sig. Partial eta squared

LeI 7.483 1 7.483 .520 .472 .003
LeC 50.164 1 50.164 2.333 .128 .013
LeT 4.479 1 4.479 .158 .692 .001
LeL 6.591 1 6.591 .662 .417 .004

When the results for the dependent variables (LeI, LeC, LeL, and LeT interactions) were considered separately, there was no statistically significant difference at alpha level of
.05.

Table 8.3
Means and standard deviations by online and blended modes of content delivery.

Online (n ¼ 139) Blended/Hybrid (n ¼ 44)

M (SD) M (SD)
Learnereinstructor interaction 20.79 (3.74) 20.32 (3.95)
Learnerecontent interaction 28.61 (4.60) 27.39 (4.75)
Learneretechnology interaction 38.47 (5.52) 38.84 (4.69)
Learnerelearner interaction 15.63 (3.20) 15.18 (3.01)

Based on the mean scores above, online learners reported slightly higher levels of learner-content interaction (M ¼ 28.61, SD ¼ 4.60)
than hybrid learners (M ¼ 27.39, SD ¼ 4.75); all other dialogic interactions were approximately the same mean for both groups.

capture X synchronicity (Table 8.4). This indicates that lecture capture is a crucial media for increasing dialogue in distance learning
environments. Moreover, access to lecture capture is a form of access to course contents, which again highlights the importance of LeC
interaction in increasing SLOs. This may be why when the impact of each main effect on individual dependent variables (LeI, LeC, LeL, and
LeT interactions) were considered separately, a unique contribution to predicting differences between courses with and without lecture
capture was made by LeC interaction (Table 8.5). This finding indicated that students may be relying on lecture capture to fill the void
created by low LeI interactions, and may also use lecture capture as a substitute for LeI interaction.

Table 8.4
Multivariate analysis of variance of composite DVs (LI, LC, LL, and LT), as a function of synchronicity, lecture capture, and synchronicity by lecture capture interaction (selected
output from IBM SPSS MANOVA).

Effect Test name Value Exact F Hypothesis DF Error DF Sig. of F

Synchronicity Pillais .008 .338 4.00 162.00 .852
Wilks' .992 .338 4.00 162.00 .852
Hotellings .008 .338 4.00 162.00 .852
Roy's .008 .338 4.00 162.00 .852
Lecture Capture Pillais .067 2.885 4.000 162.00 .024
Wilks' .933 2.885 4.000 162.00 .024
Hotellings .071 2.885 4.000 162.00 .024
Roy's .071 2.885 4.000 162.00 .024
Synchronicity by Lecture Capture Pillais .000 e .000 .000 e
Wilks' 1.000 e .000 163.500 e
Hotellings .000 e .000 2.000 e
Roy's .000 .000 4.000 161.000 1.000

Note: F statistics are exact. Total N was 168 (134 asynchronous, 34 synchronous, 36 no lecture capture, and 132 lecture capture). With the use of Wilks' criterion, the combined
DVs were not significantly affected by synchronicity, but was significantly affected by lecture capture, F (4, 162) ¼ 2.89, p < .05; Wilks' Lambda ¼ .93; partial eta squared ¼ .07,
which is higher than a moderate effect, according to the generally accepted criteria (Cohen, 1988). The combined DVs were also not significantly affected by the interaction
between synchronicity and lecture capture.

Table 8.5
Tests of synchronicity, lecture capture, and their interaction.

IV DV Type III SS df Mean square F. Sig. Partial eta squared

Synchronicity LeI .955 1 .955 .070 .792 .000
LeC 10.529 1 10.529 .510 .476 .003
LeT 14.393 1 14.393 .527 .469 .003
LeL 2.018 1 2.018 .201 .654 .001
Lecture capture LeI 74.283 1 74.283 5.420* .021 .032
LeC 105.612 1 105.612 5.120* .025 .030
LeT 26.060 1 26.060 .955 .330 .006
LeL .245 1 .245 .024 .876 .000
Synchronicity by lecture capture LeI .000 0 .000
LeC .000 0 .000
LeT .000 0 .000
LeL .000 0 .000

*p < .05. When the impact of each main effect on individual dependent variables (LeI, LeC, LeL, and LeT interactions) were considered separately, a unique contribution to
predicting differences between courses with and without lecture capture was made by LeC interaction, F (1, 168) ¼ 5.12, p < .05; partial eta squared ¼ .03; and LeI interaction,
F (1, 168) ¼ 5.42, p < .05; partial eta squared ¼ .03.
 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427 425

5. Conclusion

The findings in this study, though limited by the total survey error perspective (Dillman, 1991; Fowler, 2009; Groves, 2005; Lavrakas,
1993; Visser, Krosnick, & Lavrakas, 2000) show that students may interact with course contents more frequently than they interact with
their instructors and other learners. This raises the question of the role instructors should play in promoting greater dialogue with students,
and among students, especially to reduce feelings of isolation and detachment that may contribute to perceived distance. In addition, the
low LeL and LeI interactions, compared to LeC interaction, in both online and blended environments raises concerns on the need for more
social cues to promote learning outcomes. In online and blended courses with few face-to-face meetings, the use of archived lecture capture
or video lectures may alleviate some of the perceived distance by making up for the low LeI and LeL dialogue that may exist in the course.
More importantly, the finding that dialogue does not contribute to student final grades, leaves more questions than answers on the role of
instructors, and how learners actually learn in distance learning environments. More studies are needed to identify and understand how
different predictors contribute to student cognitive success in online learning environments (OLEs).

6. Implications

Whereas, LeL and LeI interactions are more emphasized than LeC and LeT interactions in online and blended learning policies,
especially since studies show strong correlations between LeI interaction and student achievements in both TF2FLE and OLEs (Darling-
Hammond, 1999; Jerald, 2010). However, the findings of this study indicate the existence of a gap in the research field to properly iden-
tify how various dialogic interactions contribute to student learning outcomes; and the need to equip distance learning policy- and decision-
makers with adequate empirically-based evidence in light of the fact that particular emphasis is often placed on LeI interactions as a core
requirement. For example, New York State (NYS) mandates teacher (“physical”) presence and “substantive” LeI interaction as a requirement
in higher education and high school credit-bearing online and blended courses respectively.
Secondly, it is important to note that while LeT interaction may not produce the same effect in magnitude as LeC interaction, this study's
findings clearly show differences in LeT interaction between male and female students, synchronous and asynchronous courses, HCC and
LCC, and between students with different levels of online course experiences.
Finally, interaction with content is the core of distance learning, which is why learnerecontent interaction may be contributing to its
exponential growth and the proliferation of open education movements. In the pre-internet era, correspondence study thrived because
course contents could be sent to learners. In the internet era, access to content is still the means by which learners thrive albeit via ICT
because learners can interact directly with the course content even in the absence of LeI and LeL interactions. Modalities of distance
learning that leverage LeC interaction, and allow seamless experiences with technologies that transcends the absence of LeI and LeL in-
teractions will continue to thrive and proliferate. This field needs to move away from just measuring perceived learning and perceived
satisfaction to measuring actual and real cognitive and affective outcomes. Courses need to become open and accessible for researchers to
study the myriads of behaviours and interactions in online and blended learning environments.

Acknowledgements

The authors of the article wish to thank the following for their support.
Stony Brook University Department of Technology and Society (DTS) and the instructors and staff.
Stony Brook University Teaching, Learning þ Technology (TLT).
Stony Brook University School of Professional Development (SPD) and the Instructors and staff.
Stony Brook University Electrical Engineering Program.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary material related to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.011.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2009). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Newburyport, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States, 2010. Newburyport, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Anderson, T. (October 2003). Getting the mix right again: an updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
4(2).
Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1974). Learning environments. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Evaluating educational performance: A sourcebook of methods, instruments and examples
(pp. 81e98). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2),
1e17.
Aragon, S. R., & Johnson, E. S. (2008). Factors influencing completion and noncompletion of community college online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(3),
146e158.
Bacow, L. S., Bowen, G. L., Gutherie, K. M., Lack, K. A., & Long, M. P. (2012). Barriers to adoption of online learning systems in U.S. higher education. New York, NY: Ithaka SþR.
Barbour, K. M., & Reeves, C. T. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52, 402e416.
Beaudin, B. P. (1999). Keeping online asynchronous discussions on topic. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 41e53.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group and Organization Management, 27(1), 14e49.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of
the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379e439.
Bernard, R. M., & Amundsen, C. L. (1989). Antecedents to dropout in distance education: does one model fit all? Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 25e46.
Bernard, R. M., Brauer, A., Abrami, P. C., & Surkes, M. (2004). The development of a questionnaire for predicting online learning achievement. Distance Education, 25(1),
31e47.
Bischoff, W. R., Bisconer, S. W., Kooker, B. M., & Woods, L. C. (1996). Transactional distance and interactive television in the distance education of health professionals. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 10(3), 4e19.
426 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427

Black, E. W., Ferdig, R. E., & DiPietro, M. (2008). An overview of evaluative instrumentation for virtual high schools. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 24e45.
Bocchi, J., Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2004). Retaining the online learner: profile of students in an online MBA program and implications for teaching them. Journal of
Education for Business, 79(4), 245e253.
Bunker, E., Gayol, Y., Nti, N., & Reidell, P. (1996). A study of transactional distance in an international audio conferencing course. In Proceedings of seventh international
conference of the society for information technology and teacher education (pp. 40e44). Phoenix, Arizona.
Burgess, J. V. (2006). Transactional distance theory and student satisfaction with web-based distance learning courses. Doctoral Dissertation. The University of West Florida.
Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience
with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133e153.
Chen, Y. J., & Willits, F. K. (1998a). Dimensions of educational transactions in a videoconferencing learning environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 1e21.
Chen, Y. J., & Willits, F. K. (1998b). A path analysis of the concepts in Moore's theory of transactional distance in a videoconferencing learning environment. Journal of Distance
Education, 13(2), 51e65.
Chyung, S. (2001). Systematic and systemic approaches to reducing attrition rates in online higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 36e49.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conrad, D. (2002). Engagement, excitement, anxiety and fear: learners' experiences of starting an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 205e226.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297e334.
Cyrs, T. E. (1997). Competence in teaching at a distance. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1997, 15e18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tl.7102.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Deft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554e571.
DeTure, M. (2004). Cognitive style and self-efficacy: predicting student success in online distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 21e38.
Dupin-Bryant, P. A. (2004). Pre-entry variables related to retention in online distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 18, 199e206.
Dille, B., & Mezack, M. (1991). Identifying predictors of high risk among community college telecourse students. American Journal of Distance Education, 5(1), 24e35.
Dillman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 225e249.
Duffy, T., & del Valle, R. (2005). LTTS: a course management system for online inquiry learning. In Presentation at the 21st annual conference on distance teaching & learning,
Madison, WI.
Frankola, K. (2001). Why online learners drop out. Workforce, 80(10), 53.
Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2001). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses: Principles and examples from the SUNY Learning
Network.
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Garrison, D. R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: a shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 1(1), 1e16.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3),
133e148.
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(2e3), 87e105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Ed-
ucation, 15(1), 7e23.
Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., & Mitchell, R. (2012). An inquiry into relationships between demographic factors and teaching, social, and cognitive presence. Internet Learning, 1(1),
6e17.
Gliem, A. J., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In Midwest research to practice
conference in adult, continuing, and community education.
Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005). A critical analysis of transactional distance theory. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 1e11.
Granger, E. M., Bevis, T. H., Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., & Tate, R. L. (2012). The efficacy of student-centered instruction in supporting science learning. Science,
338, 105e108.
Griffith, T. L., Sawyer, J. E., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology.
MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 265e287.
Groves, R. M. (2005). Survey errors and survey costs. New York: Wiley.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational
Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147e166.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social con-
struction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397e431.
Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance
Education, 11(3), 8e26.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Hannon, P. A., Umble, K. E., Alexander, L., Francisco, D., Steckler, A., Tudor, G., et al. (2002). Gagne and Laurillard's models of instruction applied to distance education: a
theoretically driven evaluation of an online curriculum in public health. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(2).
Hannum, W. (2009). Moving distance education research forward. Distance Education, 30(1), 171e173.
Hartley, K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2001). Educational research in the internet age: examining the role of individual characteristics. Educational Researcher, 30(9), 22e26.
Hauser, R., Paul, R., & Bradley, J. (2012). Computer self-efficacy, anxiety, and learning in online versus face to face medium. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11,
141e154.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014.
Jiang, M., & Ting, E. (2000). A study of factors influencing students' perceived learning in a web-based course environment. International Journal of Educational Telecom-
munications, 6(4), 317e338.
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). pp. 153e162.
King, F. B. (2002). A virtual student. Not an ordinary Joe. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 157e166.
Kowitz, G. T., & Smith, L. C. (1987). Three forms of instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 15(4), 419e429.
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537e567.
Lavrakas, P. J. (1993). Telephone survey methods: Sampling, selection, and supervision (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2).
Maki, R. H., & Maki, W. S. (2003). Prediction of learning and satisfaction in web-based and lecture courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 197e219.
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, T. M. (2004). Virtual teams: what do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 805e835.
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 359e372.
Mehrabian, A. (1981). Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S. R. (1967). Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31(3), 248e252.
Mehrabian, A., & Williams, M. (1969). Nonverbal concomitants of perceived and intended persuasiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(1), 37e58.
Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231e252.
Menlove, R., & Lignugaris-Kraft, B. (2004). Preparing rural distance education preservice special educators to succeed. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23(2), 18e26.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1e6.
Moore, M. (1990). Recent contributions to the theory of distance education. Open Learning, 5(3), 10e15.
Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22e38). London, New York: Routledge.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996, 2005). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.
 K.C.V. Ekwunife-Orakwue, T.-L. Teng / Computers & Education 78 (2014) 414e427 427

Munro, J. S. (1998). Presence at a distance: The educatorelearner relationship in distance education (Research Monographs 16). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University).
Muirhead, B. (2000). Enhancing social interaction in computer-mediated distance education. Educational Technology & Society, 3(4) [Online].
Nishimura, S., Nevgi, A., & Tella, S. (2008). Communication style and cultural features in high/low context communication cultures: a case study of Finland, Japan and India. In
A. Kallioniemi (Ed.), Renovating and developing didactics. Proceedings of a subject-didactic symposium in Helsinki on Feb. 2, 2008. Pat 2 (pp. 783e796). University of Helsinki.
Department of Applied Sciences of Education. Research Report 299.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oztok, M., & Brett, C. (2011). Social presence and online learning: a review of the research. Journal of Distance Education, 25(3), 1e10.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (version 12) (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
Powell, A., Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 6e36.
Radford, A. W. (2011). Learning at a distance: Undergraduate enrollment in distance education courses and degree programs (Statistics in Brief No. NCES 2012-154). Washington
DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Rhee-Weise, M. (2013). Why do students enroll in (but don't) complete MOOCs?. Retrieved from http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/04/why-do-students-enroll-in-but-dont-
complete-mooc-courses/.
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), 68e88.
Riopelle, K., Gluesing, J. C., Alcordo, T. C., Baba, M., Britt, D., McKether, W., et al. (2003). Context, task, and the evolution of technology use in global virtual teams. In
C. B. Gibson, & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 239e264). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roblyer, M. D., & Weincke, W. R. (2004). Exploring the interaction equation: validating a rubric to assess and encourage interaction in distance courses. Journal of Asyn-
chronous Learning Networks, 8(4), 25e37.
Roblyer, M. D., Davis, L., Mills, S. C., Marshall, J., & Pape, L. (2008). Toward practical procedures for predicting and promoting success in virtual school students. American
Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 90e109.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2),
50e71.
Saba, F., & Twitchell, D. (1988). Research in distance education: A system modeling approach. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 9e24.
Saba, F., & Shearer, R. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 36e59.
Santos, R. J. (1999). Cronbach's alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of Extension, 37(2). Retrieved on 06.04.10 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.
php.
Santovec, M. (2004). Virtual learning communities lead to 80 percent retention at WGL. Distance Education Report, 8(8), 4.
Sener, J. (2001). Bringing ALN into the mainstream: NVCC case studies. In J. Bourne, & J. Moore (Eds.), Learning effectiveness, faculty satisfaction, and cost effectiveness: Vol. 2. On-
line education (pp. 7e29). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for OnLine Education.
Sener, J., & Shattuck, K. (2006). Research literature and standards sets support for quality matters review standards. Retrieved from http://www.qualitymatters.org/Documents/
Matrix%20of%20Research%20Standards%20FY0506.pdf.
Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2001). Measures of learning effectiveness in the SUNY learning network. In J. Bourne, & J. Moore (Eds.), Learning
effectiveness, faculty satisfaction, and cost effectiveness: Vol. 2. On-line education (pp. 31e54). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for OnLine Education.
Shea, P., Swan, K., Fredericksen, E., & Pickett, A. (2002). Student satisfaction and reported learning in the SUNY learning network. In J. Bourne, & J. Moore (Eds.), Elements of
quality online education (pp. 145e156). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for OnLine Education.
Shin, N. (2002). Beyond Interaction: the relational construct of transactional presence. Open Learning, 17(2), 122e137.
Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 69e86.
Shiratuddin, N., Hassan, S., & Landoni, M. (2003). A usability study for promoting eContent in higher education. Educational Technology & Society, 6(4), 112e124.
Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135e148.
Smith, P. L., & Dillon, C. L. (1999). Comparing distance learning and classroom learning: conceptual considerations. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 6e23.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
Sobel-Lojeski, K. (2005). Virtual distance: A proposed model for the study of virtual work. Dissertation for the Stevens Institute of Technology.
Sobel-Lojeski, K., & Richard, R. (2008). Uniting the virtual workforce: Transforming leadership and innovation in the globally integrated workforce. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Strachota, E. (2003). Student satisfaction in online courses: An analysis of the impact of learner-content, learner-instructor, learner-learner and learner-technology interaction.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. AnnArbor, Michigan: UMI Publishing.
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22, 306e331.
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: what the research tells us. In J. Bourne, & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp. 13e45).
Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
Swan, K., Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2000). Course design factors influencing the success of online learning. Paper presented at the WebNet 2000
World Conference on the World Wide Web and Internet, San Antonio. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. S. (2002). An examination of social presence to increase interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 131e150.
Tu, C. H., McIsaac, M., Sujo-Montes, L., & Armfield, S. (2012). Is there a mobile social presence. Educational Media. International, 49(4), 1e15.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and
review of online learning studies. Washington, D.C.
Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2000). Survey research. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Walberg, H. J. (1974). Evaluating educational performance. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Evaluating educational performance: A sourcebook of methods, instruments, and examples (pp.
1e9). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
Wallen, N. E., & Fraenkel, J. R. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: the distance
education learning environments survey (DELES). Living Environments Research, 8, 289e308.
Waschull, S. (2005). Predicting success in online psychology courses: self-discipline and motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 190e192.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516e531.
Wiener, M., & Mehrabian, A. (1968). Language within language: Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Wu, D., & Hiltz, S. (2004). Predicting learning from asynchronous online discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 139e152.
Yen, C. J., & Tu, C. H. (2011). A multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis of the scores for online social presence: do they measure the same thing across cultures. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 44(2), 219e242.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal
of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3e4), 193e210.