¹Francis Owusu-Mensah Ph.D, ²Abigail Mercy Opong Tetteh Ph.D,³Lauretha Owusu-Mensah

¹College for Distance and e-Learning, UEW.

²Department of Educational Foundations, UEW.

³Department of Basic Education, UEW

²Persada Indonesia University YAI Jakarta, Indonesia

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v4-i7-49

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

Design of distance education course materials is the single most important aspect of any distance education program. In recent times, many have questioned the experiences of the learners in the use of their course modules. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to find out the experiences of the distance education students in their use of the course modules (learner-content interaction), to see how it has been engaging, effective and efficient in their distance learning journey. Five graduates of the UEW distance education programme were chosen at random for this study and the in-depth interview guide was used to gather data. The four major themes that emerged from the phenomenological reduction process of the learners’ experiences with the distance education course modules were the user experience; module content; interactivity of the modules; and assessments. The findings of the study were that respondents had positive experiences in user experiences, module content, and interactivity of the modules. They however had not so good experiences with the assessment practices of their program. The findings only confirm the importance of learner-content interactions in distance education, it also adds to the limited literature on learner-content interaction in distance education in the developing countries like Ghana.

Keywords

Learner-Content interaction, distance education course design, andragogy, phenomenological inquiry, distance learner experiences.

REFERENCES

1) Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2).

2) Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilties. In Distance Learners in Higher Education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes. Madison, Wi.: Atwood.

3) Badu-Nyarko, S. K. (2006). Faculty attitudes towards distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 3(5), 59-71.

4) Banna, J., Lin, M. F. G., Stewart, M., & Fialkowski, M. K. (2015). Interaction matters: Strategies to promote engaged learning in an online introductory nutrition course. Journal of online learning and teaching/MERLOT, 11(2), 249.

5) Baran, E., & Correia, A. P. (2009). Student‐led facilitation strategies in online discussions. Distance Education, 30(3), 339- 361.

6) Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational research, 79(3), 1243- 1289.

7) Brown, A. R., & Voltz, B. D. (2005). Elements of effective e-learning design. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 6(1).

8) Cochran, C., & Brown, S. (2016). Andragogy and the adult learner. In Supporting the success of adult and online students. CreateSpace.

9) Conrad, R. M., & Donaldson, J. A. (2011). Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction (Vol. 38). John Wiley & Sons.

10) Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

11) Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating Effective Student Engagement in Online Courses: What Do Students Find Engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-13.

12) Dorst, K., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2004). Levels of expertise in design education. In DS 33: Proceedings of E&PDE 2004, the 7th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Delft, the Netherlands, 02.-03.09. 2004.

13) Dumais, S. A., Rizzuto, T. E., Cleary, J. & Dowden, L. (2013). Stressors and supports for adult online learners: comparing first-and continuing-generation college students. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(2), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2013.783265

14) Ertmer, P. A., York, C. S., & Gedik, N. (2011). Learning from the pros: How experienced designers translate instructional design models into practice. Educational Technology, 49(1), 19-27.

15) Hatziapostolou, T., & Paraskakis, I. (2010). Enhancing the impact of formative feedback on student learning through an online feedback system. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 8(2), 111-122.

16) Hege, B. A. (2011). The online theology classroom: Strategies for engaging a community of distance learners in a hybrid model of online education. Teaching Theology & Religion, 14(1), 13-20.

17) Hennigan, R. (2016). The Design of E-Learning Resources for Part-time Distance Education Students. DIT Teaching Fellowships Reports 2015-2016., 25.

18) 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.

19) Huss, J. A., Sela, O., & Eastep, S. (2015). A case study of online instructors and their quest for greater interactivity in their courses: Overcoming the distance in distance education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), n4.

20) Jaggars, S. S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance?. Computers & Education, 95, 270-284.

21) Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in education and teaching international, 39(2), 153-162.

22) Kara, M., Erdoğdu, F., Kokoç, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2019). Challenges faced by adult learners in online distance education: A literature review. Open Praxis, 11(1), 5-22.

23) Kassandrinou, A., Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2014). Transactional distance among open university students: How does it affect the learning process? European Journal of Open, Distance, and E-Learning, 17(1), 26-42

24) Kenny, R., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 9-26.

25) Knowles, M.S (1975) Self-directed learning. New York: Association Press

26) Knowles, M.S (1995) Design for adult learning. American Society for Training and Development.

27) Kuo, Y. C., & Belland, B. R. (2016). An exploratory study of adult learners’ perceptions of online learning: Minority students in continuing education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 661-680.

28) Lawlor, M. S. (2014). Mindfulness in practice: Considerations for implementation of mindfulness‐based programming for adolescents in school contexts. New Directions for Youth Development, 142, 83-95.

29) Liu, S. L. (2008). Student interaction experiences in distance learning courses: A phenomenological study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(1).

30) Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222.

31) Merrill, M. D. (2002). A pebble‐in‐the‐pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 41-46.

32) Merrill, M. D. (2006). Hypothesized performance on complex tasks as a function of scaled instructional strategies: Handling Complexity in Learning environments. Research and Theory, 3, 265-282.

33) Merrill, M. D. (2007). The proper study of instructional design. In R. R. Reister & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Person Prentice Hall.

34) Moore, M. G (1988) ‘On a theory of independent study’, in D. Sewart, D. Keegan and B. Holmberg (Eds.) Distance education: International perspectives, (68-95). London: Routledge.

35) Moore, M.G. (1993) ‘Theory of transactional distance’, in D. Keegan (ed.) Theoretical principles of distance education (22-38), London: Routledge.

36) Moore, M.G. and Kearsley, G. (1996) Distance education: A systems view, New York: Wadsworth.

37) Naidu, S. (2013). Instructional design models for optimal learning. Handbook of distance education, 3, 268-281.

38) Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2015). What factors impact student–Content interaction in fully online courses. IJ Modern Education and Computer Science, 7, 28-35. of learner preferences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(1).

39) Osei, C. K., & Saah, A. A. (2009). An Assessment of the Quality of Print Medium in Distance Learning for Undergraduate Programmes in Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology.

40) Perraton, H. (2004) ‘Aims and purpose’, in H. Perraton and H. Lentell (eds) Policy for open and distance learning; World review of open and distance learning, Vol.2, (pp.9-41) London: RoutledgeFalmer.

41) Sinclair, P. M., Levett‐Jones, T., Morris, A., Carter, B., Bennett, P. N., & Kable, A. (2017). High engagement, high quality: A guiding framework for developing empirically informed asynchronous e‐learning programs for health professional educators. Nursing & Health Sciences, 19(1), 126-137.

42) Parker, A. (2020). Interaction in distance education: The critical conversation. AACE Review (formerly AACE Journal), 13-17.

43) Rao, K., & Giuli, C. (2010). Reaching remote learners: Successes and challenges for students in an online graduate degree program in the Pacific Islands. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 141-160.

44) Rhode, J. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration

45) Rowntree, D. (1986). Teaching through self-instruction: A practical handbook for course developers. Nichols Publishing Company.

46) Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers+ qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage Publications.

47) Simonson, M. (2000). Myths and distance education: What the research says (and does not say). Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(4), 277-79.

48) Sims, R. C., & Koszalka, T. A. (2008). Competencies for the new-age instructional designer. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3, 569-575.

49) Sinclair, P. M., Levett‐Jones, T., Morris, A., Carter, B., Bennett, P. N., & Kable, A. (2017). High engagement, high quality: A guiding framework for developing empirically informed asynchronous e‐learning programs for health professional educators. Nursing & Health Sciences, 19(1), 126-137.

50) Tsang, E. Y. (2010). Learner-content interactions and learning effectiveness: A study of student perceptions (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).

51) Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American journal of distance education, 13(3), 22-36.

52) Williams, D. D., South, J. B., Yanchar, S. C., Wilson, B. G., & Allen, S. (2011). How do instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 885-907.

53) Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance Education, 38(1), 123-135.

54) Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 152-165.

VOlUME 04 ISSUE 07 JULY 2021