QUALITY INTERACTION IN DISTANCE LEARNING PROCESSES. BEYOND EMERGENTIAL EDUCATION

Roberta Piazza, Simona Rizzari

Abstract


Distance learning provides extraordinary opportunities to allow access to as large a number of students and reduce the cost of delivering lessons. Furthermore, if used well, it can be considered as a means to improve the quality of teaching/learning processes. However, the challenge for universities is to overcome the emergency approach that was adopted following the COVID-19 crisis and to support university thanks to an adequate and competent planning of teaching activities.

The theme of interaction in the framework of digital teaching that characterizes this intervention arises from the reflection on some characteristics of quality distance learning. It intends to focus above all on the importance of investing in the professional development of university teachers. The intent is to assume a systemic logic in the design of ecosystems designed specifically to support students in their learning paths.


Full Text

PDF

Riferimenti bibliografici


Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M, Bures, E. M, Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 82-103.

Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 155-170). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Beldarrain, Y. (2008). Integrating interaction in distance learning: A comparative analysis of five design frameworks. In C. Bonk et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare and higher education 2008 (pp. 1471–1477). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Bennett, S., Lockyer, L., & Agostinho, S. (2018). Towards sustainable technology-enhanced innovation in higher education: Advancing learning design by understanding and supporting teacher design practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(6), 1014-1026. Retrieved January, 28, 2021 from https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12683.

Berge Z. 2002. Active, Interactive and Reflective eLearning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(3), 181-190.

Bigatel, P. M., & Edel-Malizia, S. (2018). Using the “Indicators of Engaged Learning Online” framework to evaluate online course quality. TechTrends, 62(1), 58-70.

Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in Distance-Learning Courses. Journal of the american society for information science and technology, 57(3), 299-305.

Brahmasrene, T., & Lee, J. W. (2012). Determinants of intent to continue using online learning: A Tale of Two Universities. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 7, 1-20.

Ching, Y. H., Hsu, Y. C., & Baldwin, S. (2018). Becoming an online teacher: an analysis of prospective online instructors’ reflections. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 29(2), 145-168.

Ehlers, U. D., Goetz, L., Hildebrandt, B., & Pawlowski, J. M. (2005). Quality in e-learning. Use and dissemination of quality approaches in European e-learning. A study by the European Quality Observatory. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Herrington, A. J., Herrington, J. A., Oliver, R. G., Stoney, S. B., & Willis, J. A. (2001). Quality guidelines for online courses: the development of an instrument to audit online units. Proceedings of 18th Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 263-270). Melbourne, VIC. Biomedical Multimedia.

Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing, and sequencing planned elearning interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141-60.

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27 March. Retrieved January, 28, 2021 from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/thedifference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.

Joksimović, S., Gasević, D., Loughin, T. M., Kovanović, V., & Hatala, M. (2015). Learning at distance: Effects of interaction traces on academic Achievement. Computers & Education, 87, 204-217

Jung, I. (2011). The dimensions of e-learning quality: From the learner’s perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 445-464.

Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Do we need teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning? Instructional Science, 43(2), 309–322. Retrieced January, 28, 2021 from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9346-9.

Martin, F., Polly, D., Jokiaho, A., & May, B. (2017). Global standards for enhancing quality in online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 18(2), 1-102.

McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: an ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science, 43(2), 181-202. Retrieved January, 28, 2021 from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9337-2.

Moore, M.G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.

Pawlowski, J. M. (2006). Adopting quality standards for education and e-learning. In U. D. Ehlers & J. M. Pawlowski (Eds.), Handbook on quality and standardization in e-learning (pp. 65-77). Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer.

Picciano, A.G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in on-line course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21-40.

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2020). Online university teaching during and after the Covid-19 crisis: Refocusing teacher presence and learning activity. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 923-945.

Salmi, L. (2013). Student experiences on interaction in an online learning environment as part of a blended learning implementation: what is essential?. IADIS International Conference e-Learning 2013.

Shraim, K. (2020). Quality Standards in Online Education: The ISO/IEC 40180 Framework. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(19), 22-36. Retrieved January 28, 2021 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/217901/.

Slimp, M. (2014). Trends in distance education-What college leaders should consider. Instructional Technology Council, 1-14.

Stracke, C. M. (2019). Quality Frameworks and Learning Design for Open Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(2), 180-203. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i2.4213

Strauß, S, & Rummel, N. (2020). Promoting interaction in online distance education: designing, implementing and supporting collaborative learning. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(5/6), 251-260.

Zhu, Y., Zhang, J. H., Au, W., & Yates, G. (2020). University students’ online learning attitudes and continuous intention to undertake online courses: a self-regulated learning perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 485-1519.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). New York: Academic Press.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.32043/gsd.v4i4_si.294

Refback

  • Non ci sono refbacks, per ora.


Copyright (c) 2021 Giornale Italiano di Educazione alla Salute, Sport e Didattica Inclusiva

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.