Quality of interpersonal interactions in e-learning at the higher education: A scoping review

Document Type : Systematic review/Meta analysis

Authors

1 Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran

2 Department of E-Learning in Medical Education, Center of Excellence for E-learning in Medical Education, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Nurse, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran

Abstract

Background: The quantity and quality of interaction are critical elements of perceived interactions. This study aimed to summarize findings on the quality of interpersonal interactions in E-Learning at higher education and suggestions that inform future measurement efforts.
Method: The scoping review proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) was used. This approach consists of 5 steps: 1) identifying the research question,2) identifying relevant studies,3) study selection, 4) charting the data, and 5) reporting the results. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science have searched three databases, including manuscripts in English. The search was conducted from 2000 to July 2021. A PCC (population, concept, and context) was used as eligibility criteria and included the most relevant. The present PCC was defined as a population: university students, context: higher education, and Concept: E-learning and Interpersonal Interactions.
Results: This review includes twenty-five articles chosen for inclusion. With the thematic analysis, the results of this scoping review are presented in the form of four themes: interaction in the online environment affects learning outcomes, numerous factors affect the interaction of learners in online settings, online interaction and hidden curriculum, and the importance of forming an online learning community.
Conclusion: Findings showed that the quality of interpersonal interactions in e-learning seems to be a neglected link in e-learning. Further studies are needed focusing on the quality of interpersonal interactions in e-learning. It is necessary to develop appropriate tools to measure the quality of interpersonal interactions and further evaluate these interactions at the international level.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Joksimović S, Gašević D, Loughin TM, Kovanović V, Hatala M. Learning at distance: Effects of interaction traces on academic achievement. Computers & Education. 2015;87:204-17.
  2. Mawad G. Impact of electronic interaction patterns in a collaborative learning and instructional anchors-based environment on developing instructional design skills and achievement motivation. International Journal of Education and Practice. 2020;8(1):86-105.
  3. Chen Y-RR, Schulz PJ. The effect of information communication technology interventions on reducing social isolation in the elderly: a systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research. 2016;18(1):e4596.
  4. Goodboy AK, Martin MM, Bolkan S. The development and validation of the student communication satisfaction scale. Communication Education. 2009;58(3):372-96.
  5. Vlachopoulos D, Makri A. Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. International Review of Education. 2019;65(4):605-32.
  6. Casey DM. The impact of distance learning on interpersonal communication satisfaction: A comparison of online and face-to-face community college classrooms: University of Miami; 2004.
  7. Alawamleh M, Al-Twait LM, Al-Saht GR. The effect of online learning on communication between instructors and students during Covid-19 pandemic. Asian Education and Development Studies. 2020.
  8. BOZTEPE Ö. The adaptation of student communication satisfaction scale into Turkish culture. International Journal of Educational Research Review. 2016;2(1):27-33.
  9. Peltier JW, Schibrowsky JA, Drago W. The interdependence of the factors influencing the perceived quality of the online learning experience: A causal model. Journal of Marketing Education. 2007;29(2):140-53.
  10. Petrič G. Perceived quality of conversations in online communities: conceptual framework, scale development, and empirical validation. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking. 2014;17(2):82-90.
  11. Chen T, Peng L, Yin X, Rong J, Yang J, Cong G, editors. Analysis of user satisfaction with online education platforms in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare; 2020: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
  12. Shafiei Sarvestani M, Mohammadi M, Afshin J, Raeisy L. Students’ experiences of e-learning challenges; a phenomenological study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences. 2019;10(3):1-10.
  13. Hunter Dr J, Ross B. Does increased online interaction between instructors and students positively affect a student’s perception of quality for an online course? Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence. 2019;3(2):4.
  14. Ehlers LN. The relationship of communication satisfaction, job satisfaction and self-reported absenteeism: Miami University; 2003.
  15. Hung M-L, Chou C. The development, validity, and reliability of communication satisfaction in an online asynchronous discussion scale. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2014;23(2):165-77.
  16. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC medical research methodology. 2016;16(1):1-10.
  17. Muzammil M, SUTAWIJAYA A, HARSASI M. Investigating student satisfaction in online learning: the role of student interaction and engagement in distance learning university. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2020;21(Special Issue-IODL):88-96.
  18. Salta K, Paschalidou K, Tsetseri M, Koulougliotis D. Shift from a Traditional to a Distance Learning Environment during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Science & Education. 2022;31(1):93-122.
  19. Kim S, Kim D-J. Structural relationship of key factors for student satisfaction and achievement in asynchronous online learning. Sustainability. 2021;13(12):6734.
  20. Smith YM, Crowe AR. Nurse educator perceptions of the importance of relationship in online teaching and learning. Journal of Professional Nursing. 2017;33(1):11-9.
  21. Kayode BK. Effect of communication management on distance learners’ cognitive engagement in Malaysian institutions of higher learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2018;19(4).
  22. Sher A. Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 2009;8(2).
  23. Cung B, Xu D, Eichhorn S. Increasing Interpersonal Interactions in an Online Course: Does Increased Instructor Email Activity and Voluntary Meeting Time in a Physical Classroom Facilitate Student Learning? Online Learning. 2018;22(3):193-215.
  24. Kuo Y-C. Accelerated online learning: Perceptions of interaction and learning outcomes among African American students. American Journal of Distance Education. 2014;28(4):241-52.
  25. Abdullah Z, Hui J. The relationship between communication satisfaction and teachers’ job satisfaction in the Malaysian primary school. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (AJHSS). 2014;2(2):58-71.
  26. Mehall S. Purposeful Interpersonal Interaction in Online Learning: What Is It and How Is It Measured? Online Learning. 2020;24(1):182-204.
  27. Bliuc AM, Ellis R, Goodyear P, Piggott L. Learning through face‐to‐face and online discussions: Associations between students' conceptions, approaches and academic performance in political science. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2010;41(3):512-24.
  28. Kollalpitiya KY, Partigianoni CM, Adsmond DA. The role of communication in the success/failure of remote learning of chemistry during COVID-19. Journal of Chemical Education. 2020;97(9):3386-90.
  29. Eriksson T, Goller A, Muchin S, editors. A comparison of online communication in distance education and in conventional education. 31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference Impact on Engineering and Science Education Conference Proceedings (Cat No 01CH37193); 2001: IEEE.
  30. Zheng B, Warschauer M. Participation, interaction, and academic achievement in an online discussion environment. Computers & Education. 2015;84:78-89.
  31. ALPAL O, ANNE C. Electronic Engineering students' interactions through forums in the virtual component of a blended learning course. Cuadernos de Lingüística Hispánica. 2014(23):121-50.
  32. Kastler T, Grendus B, editors. Efficient Communication Strategies for Online Training in Geoinformatics. ISPRS Commission VI Mid-Term Symposium „Cross Border Education for Global Geoinformation “, Enschede, Netherlands (CD-ROM); 2010.
  33. Gdanetz LM, Hamer MK, Thomas E, Tarasenko LM, Horton-Deutsch S, Jones J. Technology, educator intention, and relationships in virtual learning spaces: a qualitative metasynthesis. Journal of Nursing Education. 2018;57(4):197-202.
  34. Mash B, Marais D, Van Der Walt S, Van Deventer I, Steyn M, Labadarios D. Assessment of the quality of interaction in distance learning programmes utilizing the Internet or interactive television: perceptions of students and lecturers. Medical Teacher. 2006;28(1):e1-e9.
  35. Malik SK, Khurshed F. Nature Of Teacher-Students’ Interaction In Electronic Learning And Traditional Courses Of Higher Education-A Review. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2011;12(4):157-66.
  36. Daher W, Sabbah K, Abuzant M. Affective engagement of higher education students in an online course. Emerging Science Journal. 2021;5(4):545-58.
  37. Hu M, Li H, editors. Student engagement in online learning: A review. 2017 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET); 2017: IEEE.
  38. Martin F, Bolliger DU. Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning. 2018;22(1):205-22.
  39. Agudo-Peregrina ÁF, Iglesias-Pradas S, Conde-González MÁ, Hernández-García Á. Can we predict success from log data in VLEs? Classification of interactions for learning analytics and their relation with performance in VLE-supported F2F and online learning. Computers in human behavior. 2014;31:542-50.
  40. Perveen A. Synchronous and asynchronous e-language learning: A case study of virtual university of Pakistan. Open Praxis. 2016;8(1):21-39.
  41. Torun ED. Synchronous interaction in online learning environments with Adobe Connect Pro. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;106:2492-9.
  42. Collin K, Karsenti T. The role of online interaction as support for reflective practice in preservice teachers. Formation Profession. 2013:64.
  43. Alsubaie MA. Hidden curriculum as one of current issue of curriculum. Journal of Education and practice. 2015;6(33):125-8.
  44. Anderson T. The hidden curriculum in distance education an updated view. Change: the magazine of higher learning. 2001;33(6):28-35.
  45. Karnadi DY, Sari E. Implementation of Hidden Curriculum in Online Learning at PKVM Al Ishlah Central Jakarta, Indonesia. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research. 2022:409.
  46. Chen G, Chiu MM. Online discussion processes: Effects of earlier messages’ evaluations, knowledge content, social cues and personal information on later messages. Computers & Education. 2008;50(3):678-92.
  47. Shackelford JL, Maxwell M. Sense of community in graduate online education: Contribution of learner to learner interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2012;13(4):228-49.
Future of Medical Education Journal
Volume 14, Issue 3
September 2024
Pages 39-44

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics