A qualitative meta-analysis of social interaction in e-learning

Melanie Johnston

Meta-analysis methods

Step One: browsing of twenty Educational Technology journals

Step Two: identification of a theme

Step Three: conducted a search to find 15 studies related to the theme

Meta-analysis methods

Summary of studies selected

Years covered open-access journals 15 non-open access journals

1- 19993- 20021- 20031- 20041- 20051- 20062- 20073- 20082- 2009

11/15 4/15

Meta-analysis methods

Step Four: synthesized studies according to:o Purpose and Objectiveso Methods (Conceptual or theoretical framework,

education level, context, approach, participants, data collection, and data forms)

o Main Findingso Main Conclusionso Implications

Step Five: analyzed synthesis to determine any similarities, differences, and gaps

Meta-analysis findings

Meta-analysis findingsAuthor(s) Conceptual or theoretical framework

Godwin, Thorpe and Richardson (2008)

Fung (2004)

Sher (2008) Based on Moore’s extended framework; Social Learning Theory

Johnson (2007)

Lee and Rha (2009) Structure versus interaction

Insung, Seonghee, Cheolil and Junghoon (2002)

Cleveland and Garrison (2005) Community of Inquiry model

O’Reilly and Newton (2002)

Jeong (2009) Theory of dialogism

Yukselturk and Yildirim (2008)

Fahy (2002)

Rhode (2009) Interaction Equivalency Theorem

McIsaac and Vrasidas (1999) Symbolic interactionist framework

Fahy (2006)

Celentin (2007) Practical Inquiry model

Author (s) Surveys Interviews CMC text transcripts

Student ass’ts/ marks

# of participants

Godwin, Thorpe & Richardson (2008) * * 4 500

Fung (2004) * * 272

Sher (2008) * 208

Johnson (2007) * 127

Lee & Rha (2009) * * * * 123

Insung, Seonghee, Cheolil & Junghoon (2002)

* * * 120

Cleveland, & Garrison (2005) * 75

O’Reilly & Newton (2002) * 70

Jeong (2009) * 34

Yukselturk & Yildirim (2008) * * * 30

Fahy (2002) * 13

Rhode (2009) * 10

McIsaac & Vrasidas (1999) * * 8

Fahy (2006) * unknown

Celentin (2007) * unknown

Meta-analysis findings: methods

Data Collection and Participants

Author(s) Beliefs Perceptions Interview Transcripts

Survey Results

Discussion Transcripts

Ass’t Scores

Godwin, Thorpe & Richardson (2008)

* * *

Fung (2004) * * * *Sher (2008) * *Johnson (2007) *Lee & Rha (2009) * * * * *Insung, Seonghee, Cheolil &

Junghoon (2002)* * * *

Cleveland & Garrison (2005)

* * *

O’Reilly & Newton (2002) * *Jeong (2009) *Yukselturk & Yildirim (2008) * * * *

Fahy (2002) *Rhode (2009) * *McIsaac & Vrasidas (1999) * * *Fahy (2006) *Celentin (2007) *

Meta-analysis findings: methods Data Forms

Findings

Conclusion

Implications

Discussion

Conclusion

Implications

Study Reference

1 Lee, H.-J., & Rha, I. (2009). Influence of structure and interaction on student achievement and satisfaction in web-based distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 372–382.

2 O’Reilly, M., & Newton, D. (2002). Interaction online: Above and beyond requirements of assessment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 57-70.

3 Fahy, P. (2002). Epistolary and expository interaction patterns in computer conference transcript. The Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 20-35.

4 Fahy, P. (2006). Online and face-to-face group interaction processes compared using Bales’ Interactional Process Analysis (IPA). European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning,(1).

5 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. Education Technology & Society, 11(4), 51-65.

6 Celentin, P. (2007). Online education: Analysis of interaction and knowledge building patterns among foreign language teachers. The Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 39-58.

7 Johnson, E., (2007). Promoting learner-learner interactions through ecological assessments of the online learning environment. MERLOT Journals of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 142 – 155.

Study Reference

8 Sher, A., (2008). Assessing and comparing interaction dynamics, student learning, and satisfaction within web-based online learning programs. MERLOT Journals of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 446-458.

9 Fung, Y., (2004). Collaborative online learning: interaction patterns and limiting factors. Open Learning, 19(2), 135- 148.

10 McIsaac, M.S., & Vrasidas, C. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 22-36.

11 Jeong, A., (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking in online threaded discussions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25-43.

12 Rhode, J.F., (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), 1-17.

13 Cleveland, M.-I., & Garrison, R., (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education,19(3), 133-148.

14 Insung, J., Seonghee, C., Cheolil, L., & Junghoon, L., (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 39(2), 153-162.

15 Godwin, S.J., Thorpe, M.S., & Richardson, J.T.E., (2008). The impact of computer-mediated interaction on distance learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 52-70.