interaction and virtual learning

Interaction and virtual learningAmanda Hay,1* Myra Hodgkinson,1 James W. Peltier2 and William A. Drago2

1 Nottingham Business School, UK 2 College of Business and Economics, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, USA

� The meteoric growth in on-line education has focused attention on virtual learning communities.

� Critics suggest that the on-line learner suffers isolation resulting from diminished inter-action with others and thus question the quality of the on-line educational experience.

� A case study is presented of an American MBA programme at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater that compares interactions in on-line and traditional learningcommunities.

� Evidence is presented which suggests that on-line students score higher on measures ofinteraction than traditional students. Furthermore, interaction is important in predict-ing effectiveness of courses regardless of mode of delivery.This suggests that interactioncan occur in on-line courses and is important in designing such offerings.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, June–July 2004

(see Hay et al. in this issue of Strategic Changefor further elaboration).

However, the quality of on-line programmeshas been questioned. Is higher educationsimply providing a ‘convenience store’ ap-proach to offering courses and programmeswhere flexibility and convenience are put inthe forefront and quality is left behind? Studiesof the effectiveness of these courses and programmes remain limited, despite the enor-mous growth of on-line learning, and critics of on-line education remain sceptical. Manycontend that the quality of learning in the electronic classroom cannot match the qualityof traditional classroom learning. Some haveargued the absence of face-to-face interactionseriously hinders on-line learning and thusprovides a diminished learning experience.

The study presented here has two majoraims. First, to compare the overall effective-ness of on-line and traditional courses to deter-mine if there are important quality differences.Second, given concerns in respect of inter-action in on-line classrooms, to better

Strat. Change 13: 193–204 (2004)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jsc.679 Strategic Change

* Correspondence to: Amanda Hay, Nottingham BusinessSchool, The Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street,Nottingham, NG1 4BU.E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

Innovations in information technology andtelecommunications have pushed organiza-tions from many different sectors of theeconomy into strategic changes to remaincompetitive and exploit new opportunities.These same innovations are also pushing institutions of higher education into makingimportant strategic changes. This is especiallytrue in business schools that find themselvesin the role of boundary spanner between uni-versities and the fast changing business world(Prince, 1999; Prince and Beaver, 2004). Oneimportant change that has occurred is the pro-liferation of on-line courses and programmesbeing offered. This phenomenon has beengoing on for at least the past five years and hasbeen well documented in numerous articles

194 Amanda Hay et al.

understand the role student interaction playsin traditional and on-line courses. This im-proved understanding may help explain pos-sible differences in quality between thesemodes of delivery. It is hoped that the resultsof this study provide greater insight into thedevelopment and delivery of quality on-linecourses and programmes. Further, the resultsmay also provide insights into the importanceof interaction in other ‘virtual’ settings wherelearning must take place through the use ofinformation technology. Examples mightinclude on-line corporate training pro-grammes, managing virtual communities andeffectively transferring technology and inno-vations within large organizations and acrossorganizational boundaries.

Assessing the effectiveness of on-line programmes

MBA programmes around the world have beenearly adopters of on-line education. The highgrowth in on-line courses and programmescan be attributed to a number of factors.Theseinclude an increasing number of working andnon-traditional students (Allen, 1997), the flex-ibility of asynchronous learning environments(Shea et al., 2001; Sullivan, 2001), the elimi-nation of travel time getting to and from theclassroom (Aron, 1999; Carpenter, 1998), and

MBA programmes aroundthe world have been early

adopters of on-lineeducation

the need to develop effective communicationand organization skills through informationtechnology (Benbunan-Fich et al., 2001;Phillips, 1998). Whilst these advantages of on-line delivery on face value seem appeal-ing, research surrounding the effectiveness of this delivery is underdeveloped (Peltier et al., 2003). There is thus a pressing need

to examine the effectiveness of on-line programmes.

Accurate assessments of differencesbetween on-line and traditional programmesand courses are scarce. To date, these assess-ments tend to be directed at evaluating theoverall effectiveness of on-line courses andtend to be based on anecdotal evidence orgrades obtained by students. As noted byEastman and Swift (2001), conceptual andempirical research is needed to find ways toenhance the on-line educational experience.

Research dealing with the use of studentevaluations for determining teaching effec-tiveness has been extensive (Cashin, 1995).One important finding from this research isthat most researchers claim that student eval-uations of teaching effectiveness have somevalidity. According to Marsh (1987), studentevaluations of teaching effectiveness are ‘quitereliable, reasonably valid, relatively uncont-aminated by many variables often seen assources of potential bias, and are seen asuseful by students, faculty and administra-tors’ (p. 369). Furthermore, research directedat determining the link between studentratings from standard questionnaires andactual learning suggest a strong and positivecorrelation (Cohen, 1981; Feldman, 1989).

A second result of past research on teachingeffectiveness is that it is a multidimensionalconstruct. The number of dimensions foundand reported by past researchers has rangedfrom six (Centra, 1993; Braskamp and Ory,1994) to nine (Marsh and Dunkin, 1992) oreven 20 (Feldman, 1976). In a recent studydirected specifically at on-line educational programmes, Peltier et al. (2003) found sixdimensions that were all significantly corre-lated with global teaching effectiveness measures. These included course content,instructor support and mentoring, coursestructure, student-to-student interaction,instructor-to-student interaction and informa-tion delivery technology. Those dimensionsfocused on student interaction in the courseare the primary focus of this study and will beexplored later. A need to further examine on-line interaction is particularly salient given


concerns raised in respect of interaction invirtual learning communities.

The importance of student interaction

The need to get students involved and partic-ipating in the classroom has been recognizedby many researchers and writers in educationresearch (Webster and Hackley, 1997; Lowmanand Mathie, 1993; Dillon and Gunawardena,1995). Indeed, interaction has been proposedas one of the key parts of any learning experience (Vygotsky, 1978). However, somesuggest that on-line education adverselyaffects interaction, therefore lowering thequality of the educational experience (Abrahamson, 1998; Rahm and Reed, 1997;Sonner, 1999). Others have suggested thatwhere on-line delivery may be beneficial forsome students it may also limit certain stu-dents that prefer face-to-face communicationsand other characteristics of traditional instruc-tion that enable them to excel in the regularclassroom (McGrath, 1997–98). Moreover,studies detail dissatisfaction with on-linecourses resulting from feelings of isolation andlack of interaction with students and instruc-tors (Arbaugh, 2002; Blunt, 2001; Mintu-Wimsatt, 2001). Such observations raiseworrying concerns for the quality of on-lineeducation but as yet remain relatively unex-plored. Below we discuss two importantinteractions that take place in the traditionalclassroom setting, student–student interactionand instructor–student interaction, and thenexplore their role in the on-line classroom.

Students’ interaction in the classroom cantake a number of forms, as depicted in Figure 1.

Student-to-student interaction

A number of authors have suggested thatstudent-to-student interaction, whether for-mally structured or spontaneous, can enrichlearning outcomes (Collier, 1983; Johnson andJohnson, 1990; Topping, 1996). Through inter-action students gain better understanding ofthe knowledge and become more committed

to further learning. The following outcomesare likely in effective student-to-student learning interactions.

� Elaboration of content. Students hear dif-ferent interpretations from their peers thatbroaden and sometimes change their think-ing and perspective.This also allows them to.

� Derive standards for judging better andworse interpretations. Students form theability to make judgments concerning thequality of what their peers are communi-cating to them.

� Metacognitive awareness of how onearrives at a given position. Studentsbecome aware of the various learning stylesof other students and also of their preferredstyle of learning (Biggs, 1999).

Group work and class discussions are oftenused to facilitate instructor-directed student-to-student interaction. Students may alsochoose to interact on their own without theguiding hand of the instructor. In either case,in the traditional classroom, setting the inter-action tends to be face-to-face with the students interacting within the same physicalspace. While other forms of communicatingmay be used in interactions outside the class-room, often these communications are simplyfor setting a time for a face-to-face meeting.

Interaction and virtual learning 195


Student Faculty

Student

2.

3.

4.

1.

Figure 1. Model showing interaction between studentsand faculty: 1. student-to-student interaction; 2. student-to-faculty and faculty-to-student interaction; 3.student-to-student interaction directed by faculty; 4.student-to-faculty interaction.


According to Borbely (1994), interaction isalso important in distance education. Eventhough students are not within the same physical space it is important to build a virtualenvironment where some interaction can takeplace.Team projects and group discussions aresuggested mechanisms for promoting student-to-student interaction in on-line courses(Eastman and Swift, 2001). While many have

Interaction is importantin distance education

claimed that on-line discussions are noreplacement for traditional, face-to-face dis-cussions, others have suggested that on-linediscussions have their advantages. On-line students may feel freer to speak out and maybe more likely to develop a feeling of trustwith other students (Figallo, 1998; Sullivan,2001). Furthermore, on-line discussions mayalso yield higher quality discussions as stu-dents can prepare answers with fewer timerestrictions, offering more thoughtfulresponses (Strauss, 1996). The fact that otherstudents can see their responses may alsomotivate students to work a little harder toproduce quality responses (Harasim, 1990).

Instructor-to-student interaction

Obtaining ‘buy-in’ to the learning process fromthe student often requires interaction betweenthe student and the instructor.This interactiontakes the form of answering questions, pro-viding feedback and joining in discussions ontopics. For traditional courses, the interactioncan take place during the class itself or can occur outside of class. While other formsof communication are used, face-to-faceexchanges probably represent the majority. Inan on-line environment, instructor-to-studentinteraction may be even more important. On-line students may feel isolated since they donot have the traditional classroom in which tointeract with the instructor. According to

Volery (2001), the instructor must overcomethis feeling of isolation by offering variousforms of office hours and other means ofcontact with students.The instructor can inter-act with students through the courseroom soft-ware in discussions or for providing feedback.Email, on-line chat rooms and occasionally thetelephone are also used for exchanges or inter-actions. Few face-to-face exchanges occur.Students generally want and need access to theinstructor, many times in a one-on-one envi-ronment, to ask questions and voice concerns.Most traditional course instructors providenumerous opportunities to students duringclass time to ask questions or voice their opin-ions. Further, most instructors provide officehours for students to stop by and chat, discussproblems and concerns. Also instructors normally allow students to make contact overthe telephone or through email messages.

Research questions

There are two major research questionsaddressed in this study. First, are there majordifferences in quality between on-line and tra-ditional courses? In our review of the literaturewe identified benefits and disadvantages to on-line courses and programmes. As on-linecourses and programmes continue to developwe believe the disadvantages will be reducedthrough learning and selection. Learning takesplace by instructors, students and administra-tors. Students learn the nuances of course-room software and faculty expectations ofstudents in these courses. Faculty also becomemore comfortable with the technologicalrequirements of the delivery system andbecome more knowledgeable in terms ofmeeting students’ needs. They also learn howto maximize the strengths of this mode ofinstruction and minimize the weaknesses.Administrators also become more accustomedto the needs of students and faculty in offer-ing on-line courses. In terms of selection, asstudents and faculty learn more about on-linecourses and programmes, a better selectionprocess occurs in that those students thatwant on-line courses and will benefit from


them choose those courses and those thatthrive in the traditional classroom choose thatmode of delivery. Faculty as well determineswhether they can teach more effectively on-line or in a traditional classroom (if given achoice), so that through time instructorsmigrate to the appropriate mode of delivery.As this learning and selection takes place, andwe believe it already has to a certain extent,quality differences between traditional and on-line courses will lessen.

The second set of research questions focusspecifically on interactions in the on-line class-room. Given concerns that suggest that on-linestudents feel isolated, are there differences in levels of interaction in the on-line and traditional classroom? We then examine therelationship between interaction and courseeffectiveness for both traditional and on-linestudents, and thus ask: ‘What are the differ-ences between the importance of student-to-student interaction and instructor-to-studentinteraction that exist between traditionaland on-line courses?’A review of the literaturein terms of instructor-to-student and student-to-student interaction suggests that both areimportant to learning and teaching effective-ness for traditional and on-line instruction.These interactions are generally more time-consuming and less efficient on-line, given theconstraints of available technology for bothstudents and faculty. Communication itselftends to be less rich on-line due to the depen-dence on the written word as opposed to theoften face-to-face communication that takesplace in the traditional setting. However, on-line instructors as well as students may have tolearn to take the extra time and effort requiredto develop and benefit from these interactions.

Method

Research setting

This study was conducted at the University ofWisconsin-Whitewater, a regional Midwesternuniversity in the United States.The university’son-line MBA programme was approximatelysix years old and had recently been ranked by

US News and World Report as one of the top25 on-line programmes offered in the country(2001). All on-line courses were structuredsuch that students were not required to cometo campus. Also all on-line courses use Learn-ing Space (from the Lotus Corporation) astheir courseroom software. On-line courseswere expected to have an accompanying CD-ROM made by the instructor with audio-visualfiles that included administrative content forthe course as well as lecturettes coveringcourse content.

Questionnaire development

This study was based on a standard studentevaluation questionnaire used by the Collegeof Business and Economics to provide facultyand administrators feedback on course andprogramme effectiveness for the university’son-line and traditional MBA programmes.The survey was developed based on questionsobtained from the Purdue Rating Scale(Remmers, 1960), survey questions used inother on-line programmes and questionsdesigned by the committee deemed pertinentto the specific programmes. Some questionshad to be modified slightly so that they wouldmore easily pertain to both the on-line and tra-ditional courses and programmes. A five-pointLikert-type scale was used to guide responses,with an answer of ‘5’ indicating ‘strongly agree’and an answer of ‘1’ indicating ‘strongly disagree’.

Data collection

The questionnaire was given at the end of theterm for all MBA courses taught during the fallsemester of 2001 and spring semester of 2002and all on-line courses during the summer of2002. In total 58 MBA courses were included.Of these, 31 were on-line and 27 were tradi-tional courses. Of the 1840 students in thosecourses, 1126 returned surveys for a responserate of 61.2%. For comparison purposes theresponse rate for traditional classes was 84.6%,while the response rate for on-line classes was 51.9%. Courses taught were dispersedbetween six departments, namely: manage-




ment, marketing, finance/business law,economics, accounting and computing for the end-user.

Research design

Thirteen questions were used from this stan-dard evaluation instrument for this study.Threeitems were measures of the global teachingeffectiveness of the course. A summated indexwas created that included responses to thesethree items for an overall measure of courseeffectiveness. Six items were used to deter-mine instructor-to-student interaction, whilefour other items were used to measure student-to-student interaction. These items weregrouped based on a factor analysis of all itemsthought to represent some form of interaction.Factors from this analysis were used as overallmeasures of each type of interaction. The 13

questions can be found in Tables 1–3. A com-parison of means between on-line and tradi-tional courses was used to determine qualitydifferences between these two modes of deliv-ery. Multiple regression analyses were used todetermine the importance of instructor-to-student and student-to-student interaction onoverall course effectiveness.

Results and discussion

Differences in overall course effectiveness

Somewhat unexpectedly, on-line coursesscored higher in terms of overall or globaleffectiveness than traditional courses.This wastrue for the overall effectiveness index andalso for each of the three individual items thatformed the index. There could be a number of


Table 1. Comparison of means between on-line and traditional students onglobal effectiveness measure

Measure On-line Traditional Significance

Global effectiveness overall 12.05 11.66 0.05I would recommend this 3.98 3.84 0.05

course to friends or colleagues

I have learned a lot on 4.07 3.91 0.05this course

I have enjoyed taking 3.99 3.88 nsthis course

Table 2. Comparisons of means between on-line and traditional students onstudent–student interaction


Student–student interaction 17.14 15.73 0.01overall

This course provides an 4.23 3.88 0.01opportunity to learn from other students

Student interaction is an 4.09 3.81 0.01important learning componentof this course

I have sufficient opportunity to 4.37 3.98 0.01interact with other students on this course

Each student is encouraged to 4.45 4.02 0.01contribute to class learning

reasons for this finding. One possibility is thatstudents appreciate the convenience and flex-ibility of on-line courses and are willing toreward the instructor with high marks for thisopportunity. Another possibility is that theyvalue the opportunity to learn on-line as it pro-vides important skill development in terms ofinformation technology and ‘virtual’ inter-action as well as providing important coursecontent. The high scores may also be due to‘newness’. Students appreciate learning in anew and different mode. Most have gonethrough years of traditional, ‘top-down’classroom instruction and appreciate the self-motivating, interactive style of teaching oftenused in these courses.

Differences in interaction

The results showed that on-line studentsscored significantly higher than traditionalstudents on all measures of student–studentinteraction.This therefore suggests that on-linestudents can and do interact with one anotherand would seem to disagree with earlier worksuggesting that on-line students feel isolated.

In respect of student–instructor interaction,on-line courses were found to score slightlyhigher than their traditional counterparts.Twoindividual items seemed to have most to dowith this difference in overall mean score: ‘My

instructor is readily available for consultation’and ‘The instructor responds to my questionsin a timely manner’. This suggests that on-lineinstructors are operating at a slightly higherlevel of fulfilling interaction needs than theirtraditional classroom counterparts.

The relationship between interactionand course effectiveness

Multiple regression analyses were performedin order to assess the importance of interac-tions in achieving course effectiveness forboth on-line and traditional students. Empiri-cal results of the multiple regression analysesperformed for this study can be found in theappendix. A brief summary of these results is provided in Table 4.



Table 3. Comparison of means between on-line and traditional students oninstructor–student interaction


Instructor–student interaction 25.26 24.62 0.05overall

I interact with my professor on 4.05 4.00 nsthis course

My instructor is readily 4.33 4.18 0.01available for consultation

The instructor responds to my 4.30 4.12 0.01questions in a timely manner

My instructor returns papers 4.16 4.05 nsquickly enough to benefit me

The instructor provides 4.10 3.99 nssufficient feedback onassignments and exams

I feel free to ask questions in 4.35 4.26 nsclass

Table 4. Summary results of regression analyses

Instructor-to-student and student-to-student interactionsare both positively associated with overall teachingeffectiveness in traditional and on-line teachingenvironments.

There is little difference in the combined predictivepower of instructor-to-student and student-to-studentinteraction in explaining overall teachingeffectiveness for on-line and traditional courses.

For both models instructor-to-student interaction wasthe strongest predictor of global effectiveness.

Student-to-student interaction explained more variancein effectiveness for on-line courses than fortraditional courses in these models.


As was expected, instructor-to-student andstudent-to-student interaction were importantin achieving overall course effectiveness forboth traditional and on-line programmes.Together, these two measures explained abouthalf of the variance in overall effectiveness forcourses in the study, suggesting the impor-tance of interaction regardless of mode ofdelivery. Individually each was positively asso-ciated with overall effectiveness of the courseand highly significant. Instructor-to-studentinteraction was the stronger of the two interaction measures in terms of predictingeffectiveness for both types of delivery. Thissuggests that while the role of the instructorin on-line courses may be more as a facilitatorin the learning process rather than a teacherof knowledge, the role they play is pivotal toachieving success. Student-to-student interac-tion explained more variance in overall effec-tiveness of on-line courses than classroomcourses. This may mean that students dependon each other more to assure learning in avirtual environment. If this is true, on-lineinstructors and the designers of on-linecourses need to make sure that student-to-student interaction is possible and encour-aged throughout the programme.

How on-line courses fare on other dimen-sions of teaching effectiveness thought to beimportant to overall course effectiveness incomparison to traditional courses will have tobe left to further study. However, those thatfeel on-line courses and programmes are anautomatically inferior means of distributingknowledge should take heed. This is not thefirst study to find that course effectiveness andlearning are not just as good as traditionalcourses, but may in fact be better. Critics haveargued that on-line students feel isolated,resulting from a lack of interaction with otherstudents and instructors. However, the resultsof this study in fact suggest just the opposite— that on-line students engage in more interaction than traditional students. Thus,although encouraging interaction in thevirtual classroom may involve greater effortand thought, it can be successfully achieved.This study has also underscored the

importance of interaction for both traditionaland on-line courses in achieving overall effec-tiveness. Those that might believe the onlynecessary student interaction in on-linecourses takes place between the student andhis/her computer, or between the student andthe Internet, need to rethink this perspective.Students expect to interact with other students and with the instructor, and if theseinteractions are not available learning andcourse effectiveness will suffer.

This study may provide insights to thoseoutside of education that find themselves in aposition of transferring knowledge over a dis-tance. Corporate training programmes offeredon-line, virtual communities used to marketand sell product and gather feedback andknowledge transfers within organizations andacross organization boundaries may want todesign systems and processes where ‘people’interactions can take place. Without that interaction the effort may not be accom-plished at a satisfactory level.

This study may provideinsights to those that find

themselves in a position oftransferring knowledge

over a distance

Conclusion

This study investigated the global effectivenessof traditional and on-line courses and the linkbetween student interaction and effectivenessfor those two modes of educational delivery.Findings suggest that on-line courses in theprogramme investigated scored significantlyhigher on global or overall course effective-ness measures. This therefore highlights thesuperiority of on-line courses in this case.Moreover, the study has also demonstratedthat levels of student interactions, with otherstudents and with the instructor, are higher inthe virtual classroom, providing counter


evidence to critics of on-line courses. Fur-thermore, instructor-to-student and student-to-student interaction was positively associatedwith course effectiveness at a highly signifi-cant level for both forms of educational delivery. Multiple regression models formedsuggest that these two types of student inter-action predict about half the variance inoverall course effectiveness for both on-lineand traditional courses. Generally, these find-ings suggest that all courses, both traditionaland on-line, must be designed to facilitate andencourage interaction between students andbetween students and the instructor.

Student interaction is very important tolearning and teaching effectiveness, whether astudent is in a traditional classroom or in anon-line ‘virtual’ classroom. The paradigm shiftnecessary to manage or facilitate an on-linecourse may have more to do with effectivelydelivering the course along those dimensionsthat always mattered, whether in the tradi-tional classroom or the virtual one. Theseinclude, but are not limited to, student-to-student interaction and instructor-to-studentinteraction. The paradigm shift occurs in thesuccessful delivery of the course throughthese dimensions given the constraints of thetechnology. Students do not take on-linecourses because they want to or are willing toreplace student-to-student and student-to-instructor interaction with student-to-computer or student-to-Internet interaction.They expect human interaction in their learn-ing environment and instructors of on-linecourses must provide this to be effective.

There are a number of limitations of thisstudy that should be mentioned. On-line pro-grammes are still a relatively new phenome-non to the education world. Just as businessesin emerging industries tend to offer relativelyunique products and services, the on-lineofferings of universities may also be verydiverse at this stage of development. This maylimit the ability to generalize findings from thisstudy to other universities with on-linecourses and programmes. The response ratefor on-line courses was 51.9%. While this wasrespectable, we have to ask whether the 48%

that did not respond would have altered thefindings and if so, in what direction. The studymay also be hampered by data loss and sampleselection problems that are common in end-of-semester evaluations. Students who fail tocomplete the course are not assessed and yet may have some very strong opinions concerning teaching style and overall courseeffectiveness (Becker, 1997).

Further research is necessary to understandthe differences between on-line and traditionaleducation formats. On-line courses are here tostay. While quality differences for courses inthis study actually favoured on-line courses,we have far more to learn about effectivelearning through this medium. In respect ofvirtual interactions, further work is needed toexplore the quality and nature of virtual dis-cussions. Businesses have had to adjust toinnovations in information technology andtelecommunications to remain competitive.Currently, many universities are struggling toadapt. Those that choose the appropriatestrategic moves may have huge opportunities,as this educational delivery system knows nogeographical boundaries. Those that make thewrong strategic moves, or worse stand still,may not be able to compete in this educationalmarket of the future.

Biographical notes

Dr Amanda Hay is a Research Fellow at theDepartment of Strategic Management and Marketing at Nottingham Business School.Amanda is a Chartered Psychologist and has a PhD in Occupational Psychology. She is currently involved in research examining thevalue of MBA education.

Myra Hodgkinson is Professor of ManagementLearning in the Department of Strategic Man-agement and Marketing, Nottingham BusinessSchool.

Dr James W. Peltier is the Arno KleimenhagenProfessor of Marketing in the College of Business and Economics at The University ofWisconsin-Whitewater. He gained his PhDfrom the University of Wisconsin-Madison with




a focus on marketing and advertising. His research interests include online education, data-base marketing, customer relationship mana-gement, advertising and health care marketing.

Dr William A. Drago is Professor of Management in the College of Business andEconomics at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. He earned his PhD from the Uni-versity of Arkansas in Business Administrationwith an emphasis in strategic management.His research interests include strategic man-agement and organization theory and morerecently management of technology andonline education. Will is a recently appointedmember of the Editorial Board of StrategicChange.

References

Abrahamson CE. 1998. Issues in interactive communication in distance education. CollegeStudent Journal 32(1): 33–43.

Allen C. 1997. The virtual university. WashingtonPost Magazine, 10 August.

Arbaugh JB. 2002. Managing the on-line classroom.A study of technological and behavioural char-acteristics of web based MBA courses. Journalof High Technology Management Research 13:203–223.

Aron C. 1999. On-line U. Across the Board 36(8):63–66.

Becker WE. 1997. Teaching economics to under-graduates. Journal of Economic Literature35(September): 1347–1373.

Benbunan-Fich R, Lozada HR, Pirog S, Priluck R,Wiesenblit J. 2001. Integrating information technology into the marketing curriculum: apragmatic paradigm. Journal of Marketing Education 23(Apr): 5–15.

Biggs J. 1999. Teaching for Quality Learning atUniversity. USA Society for Research in HigherEducation and the Open University Press:Buckingham, UK and Philadelphia.

Blunt R. 2001. How to build an e learning community. E-Learning, November [http://www.elearningmag.com].

Borbely E. 1994. Challenges and opportunities inextending the classroom and campus via digitalcompressed video. In ISDN:Applications in Edu-cation and Training, Mason R, Bacsich P (eds).

Institution of Electrical Engineers: London;65–82.

Braskamp LA, Ory JC. 1994. Assessing FacultyWork: Enhancing Individual and InstitutionalPerformance. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Carpenter R. 1998. The anywhere MBA. CanadianBusiness 71(October): 62–67.

Cashin WE. 1995. Student ratings of teaching:a summary of the research. IDEA Paper No 32,Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development,Division of Continuing Education, Kansas StateUniversity.

Centra JA. 1993. Reflective Faculty Evaluation:Enhancing Teaching and Determining FacultyEffectiveness. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Cohen PA. 1981. Student ratings of instruction andstudent achievement: a meta analysis of multi-section validity studies. Review of EducationalResearch 51: 281–309.

Collier KG. 1983. The Management of Peer GroupLearning: Syndicate Methods in Higher Educa-tion. Society for Research in Higher Education:Guildford.

Dillon CL, Gunawardena CN. 1995. A framework for the evaluation of telecommunications-baseddistance education. In Selected Papers from the17th World Congress of the InternationalCouncil for Distance Education,Vol. 2, Sewart D(ed.). Open University: Milton Keynes; 348–351.

Eastman JK, Swift CO. 2001. New horizons in distance education: the on-line learner-centeredmarketing class. Journal of Marketing Educa-tion 23(April): 25–34.

Feldman KA. 1976. The superior college teacherfrom the student’s view. Research in HigherEducation 5: 243–288.

Feldman KA. 1989. The association betweenstudent ratings of specific instructional dimen-sions and student achievement: refining andextending the synthesis of data from multisec-tion validity studies. Research in Higher Educa-tion 30: 583–645.

Figallo C. 1998. Hosting Web Communities:Building Relationships, Increasing CustomerLoyalty, and Maintaining a Competitive Edge.John Wiley: Chichester.

Havasim LM. 1990. Online education: Perspectiveson a new environment. Praeger: New York.

Johnson DW, Johnson RT. 1990. Learning Togetherand Alone: Co-operation, Competition and Individualization. Prentice Hall: EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.


Lowman J, Mathie VA. 1993. What should graduateteaching assistants know about teaching? Teach-ing of Psychology 29(2): 84–88.

Marsh HW. 1987. Students’evaluations of universityteaching; research findings, methodologicalissues, and directions for future research.International Journal of Educational Research11: 253–388.

Marsh HW, Dunkin M. 1992. Students’ evaluationsof university teaching: a multidimensional perspective. In Higher Education: Handbook ofTheory and Research, Vol. 8, Smart JC (ed.).Agathon: New York; 143–233.

McGrath C. 1997–98. A new voice on interchange:is it talking or writing? Implications for the teaching of literature. Journal of EducationalTechnology Systems 26: 291–297.

Mintu-Wimsatt A. 2001. Traditional versus technology mediated learning: a comparison ofstudents’ course evaluations. Marketing Educa-tion Review 11(2): 63–72.

Peltier J, Drago W, Schibrowsky J. 2003.Virtual com-munities and the assessment of on-line market-ing education. Journal of Marketing Education25(3): 260–276.

Phillips V. 1998. On-line universities teach knowl-edge beyond the books. HR Magazine 43(8):120–128.

Prince C. 1999. Transforming the university business school for the 21st century. StrategicChange 8(3): 459–471.

Prince C, Beaver G. 2004. Commercial activity innew university business schools: trends and pre-dictions for the future. Strategic Change 13(1):30–40.

Rahm D, Reed B. 1997. Going remote: the use ofdistance learning, the World Wide Web, and

the Internet in graduate programmes of public affairs and administration. Public Pro-ductivity and Management Review 20(4):459–471.

Remmers H. 1960. Manual of Instructions for the Purdue Rating Scale of Instruction. PurdueUniversity: West Lafayette, IN.

Shea T, Motiwalla L, Lewis D. 2001. Internet-basesdistance education: the administrator’s per-spective. Journal of Education for BusinessNov/Dec: 112–117.

Sonner BS. 1999. Success in capstone businesscourse: assessing the effectiveness of distancelearning. Journal of Education for Business74(Mar/Apr): 243–247.

Strauss SG. 1996. Getting a clue: communicationmedia and information distribution effects ongroup processes and performance. Small GroupResearch 27(1): 115–142.

Sullivan P. 2001. Gender differences and the on-lineclassroom: male and female college studentsevaluate their experiences. College Journal ofResearch and Practices 25: 805–818.

Topping KJ. 1996. The effectiveness of peer tutor-ing in further and higher education: a typologyand review of the literature. Higher Education32: 321–345.

Volery T. 2001. On-line education: an explora-tory study into successful factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research 24(1):77–92.

Vygotsky LS. 1978. Mind in Society. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Webster J, Hackley P. 1997. Teaching effectivenessin technology-mediated distance learning.Academy of Management Journal 40(6):128.



AppendixMultiple regression (traditional courses) — model summary

Model R R2 Adjusted Std. error of Change statisticsR2 the estimate

R2 F change df1 df2 Sig. F changechange

1 0.668a 0.446 0.445 2.21393 0.446 344.696 1 428 0.0002 0.742b 0.551 0.549 1.99504 0.105 100.074 1 427 0.000

a Predictors: (constant) instructor–student.b Predictors: (constant) instructor–student, student–student.



Multiple regression (on-line courses) — model summary

Model R R2 Adjusted Std. error of Change statisticsR2 the estimate

R2 F change df1 df2 Sig. F changechange

1 0.579a 0.335 0.334 2.52965 0335 335.255 1 666 0.0002 0.732b 0.535 0.534 2.11628 0.200 286.581 1 665 0.000

a Predictors: (constant) instructor–student.b Predictors: (constant) instructor–student, student–student.

interaction and virtual learning

Documents