Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrative Literature Review of Interactions in Online Courses

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Learning, Design, and Technology

  • 43 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reports findings of an integrative literature review examining the state of knowledge of interaction in online courses, specifically how interaction is conceptualized and how its conceptualization is reflected in design approaches of interaction in online courses. The literature review used Tarraco’s (Human Resource Development Review 15:404–428, 2016) guidelines for conducting an integrative literature review. The following research questions guided the integrative literature review: (1) How is interaction conceptualized in the Instructional Design Technology (IDT) and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) disciplines? (2) How is the conceptualization of interaction manifested in design approaches of interaction in IDT and HCI literature? The findings of the literature review revealed that interaction is mainly conceptualized as human-level interaction in IDT literature, and human-technology interactions, specifically learner-computer and learner-system interactions, are minimally represented. In HCI literature, interaction is often conceptualized as communication that occurs between people/users and an artifact, and such communication goes beyond just mere interaction of people with interfaces. The conceptualization of interaction is manifested in a variety of design approaches, from prescriptive methods to flexible, iterative design processes. The literature review also highlights implications for research and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 1,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation approaches on students’ interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers and Education, 53(3), 749–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asoodar, M., Vaezi, S., & Izanloo, B. (2016). Framework to improve e-learner satisfaction and further strengthen e-learning implementation. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 704–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attardi, S. M., Barbeau, M. L., & Rogers, K. A. (2018). Improving online interactions: Lessons from an online anatomy course with a laboratory for undergraduate students. Anatomical Sciences Education, 11(6), 592–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication, elearning, and interactivity: A review of the research. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 161. Retrieved Mar 26, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/95271/

  • Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2021). Instructional design and user experience design: Values and perspectives examined through artifact analysis. In B. Hokanson, M. Exter, A. Grincewicz, M. Schmidt, & A. Taufik (Eds.), Intersections across disciplines (pp. 93–107). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Caskurlu, S. (2018). Confirming the subdimensions of teaching, social, and cognitive presences: A construct validity study. Internet and Higher Education, 39, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y. K., & Kuwata, J. (2020). Learning experience design: Challenges for novice designers. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and user experience research: An introduction for the field of learning design and technology. Washington, DC: EdTech Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke-Plagwitz, J. (2017). Language–learner computer interactions: Theory, methodology, and CALL applications. Calico Journal, 35(2), 204–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1934). Having an experience. Art as experience, 36–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 452–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasson, S., & Waters, J. (2018). Simulating experiential learning in professional online courses. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 49(4), 46–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakos, M., Sharma, K., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Dillenbourg, P., & Rogers, Y. (2018, September). Learner-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction, pp. 968–971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Serrano, M. J., González-Sánchez, M., & Muñoz-Rodríguez, J. (2009). Designing learning environments improving social interactions: Essential variables for a virtual training space. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2411–2415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y. C., Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. P. (2014). Designing creative user interactions for learning. Educational Technology, 54, 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovde, M. R. (2015, July). Effective user experience in online technical communication courses: Employing multiple methods within organizational contexts to assess usability. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual international conference on the design of communication, pp. 1–5 (downloaded to the folder).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussin, W. N. T. W., Harun, J., & Shukor, N. A. (2019). Online interaction in social learning environment towards critical thinking skill: A framework. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(1), 4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahnke, I., Schmidt, M., Pham, M., & Singh, K. (2020). Learning experience design: Challenges for novice designers. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Sociotechnical-pedagogical usability for designing and evaluating learner experience in technology-enhanced environments. Learner and user experience research. Washington, DC: EdTech Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, S., & Jain, P. (2015). Designing interactive online nursing courses. Education, 136(2), 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janlert, L. E., & Stolterman, E. (2017). Things that keep us busy: The elements of interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ke, F., & Xie, K. (2009, June). Online discussion design on adult students’ learning perceptions and patterns of online interactions. In CSCL (1), pp. 219–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupczynski, L., Ice, P., Wiesenmayer, R., & McCluskey, F. (2010). Student perceptions of the relationship between indicators of teaching presence and success in online courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, G. L., Marchetti, C., & Fasse, R. (2011). The importance of interaction for academic success in online courses with hearing, deaf, and hard-of-hearing students. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mabrito, M. (2004). Guidelines for establishing interactivity in online courses. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(2), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, K. S., Watanabe, M., & McNamara, D. S. (2020). The design implementation framework: Guiding principles for the redesign of a reading comprehension intelligent tutoring system. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and user experience research: An introduction for the field of learning design and technology. Washington, DC: EdTech Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. (2014). Effects of online interaction and instructor presence on students’ satisfaction and success with online undergraduate public relations courses. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 69(3), 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2014). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 511–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2015). Interaction design beyond human-computer interaction. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purarjomandlangrudi, A., Chen, D., & Nguyen, A. (2016). Investigating the drivers of student interaction and engagement in online courses: A study of state-of-the-art. Informatics in Education, 15(2), 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, R. M., Hale, S. R., Magyar, N., & Yuanru, T. (2020). Integrating learner and user experience design: A bidirectional approach. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and user experience research: An introduction for the field of learning design and technology. Washington, DC: EdTech Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapanta, C., & Cantoni, L. (2014). Being in the users’ shoes: Anticipating experience while designing online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 765–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M., Tawfik, A. A., Jahnke, I., & Earnshaw, Y. (2020). Learner and user experience research: An introduction for the field of learning design and technology. Washington, DC: EdTech Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. A. (1990). The design process. In V. A. Howard (Ed.), Varieties of thinking: Essays from Harvard’s Philosophy of Education Research Center. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, B. E., Hung, J. L., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2017). Predicting student success by modeling student interaction in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 38(1), 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. (2001). Usability and learning in online environments: A case of interactive encounters. In EdMedia + innovate learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), pp. 1735–1740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. (2003). Promises of interactivity: Aligning learner perceptions and expectations with strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik, A. A., Gatewood, J., Gish-Lieberman, J. J., & Hampton, A. J. (2021). Toward a definition of learning experience design. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(1), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09482-2

  • Wanstreet, C. E. (2006). Interaction in online courses: A review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(4), 399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, M., Wollenschlaeger, A., Lefevre, D., Magoulas, G. D., & Poulovassilis, A. (2016, April). Analysing engagement in an online management programme and implications for course design. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge, pp. 236–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yukselturk, E., & Yildirim, Z. (2008). Investigation of interaction, online support, course structure and flexibility as the contributing factors to students’ satisfaction in an online certificate program. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 11(4), 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Victoria Abramenka-Lachheb

Authors
  1. Victoria Abramenka-Lachheb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria Abramenka-Lachheb .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning Technologies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  2. Instructional Design and Technology, Virginia Tech School of Education, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    Barbara B. Lockee

  3. Department of Learning Technologies, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

    Marcus D. Childress

Section Editor information

  1. Distance Education Center, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

    Hale Ilgaz

  2. Instituto Tecnológico de Saltillo, Saltillo, Mexico

    Gloria Natividad

  3. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

    Arif Altun

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Abramenka-Lachheb, V. (2023). Integrative Literature Review of Interactions in Online Courses. In: Spector, J.M., Lockee, B.B., Childress, M.D. (eds) Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17461-7_197

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation