SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

A bibliometric analysis study on interaction in open and distance learning

Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede etkileşim üzerine bir bibliyometrik analiz çalışması

Enise Çınar(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0007-0642-054X
Gülsüm Orhan(DUMLUPINAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8497-503X
Sedef Sezgin(ANADOLU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9482-788X
Pages
55–95
Publication Date
2024-07-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

When the keywords in the articles are analyzed, the concepts of covid-19, collaborative learning, social presence, satisfaction, learning communities, learning analytics and self-regulated learning have come to the forefront.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The accelerating diffusion of open and distance learning has encouraged a better understanding of the types of interactions and their effects on learning outcomes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the articles on interaction in open and distance learning between 1988 and 2024 in the Scopus database.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When the keywords in the articles are analyzed, the concepts of covid-19, collaborative learning, social presence, satisfaction, learning communities, learning analytics and self-regulated learning have come to the forefront.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Etkileşim · Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme · Bibliyometrik analiz

Abstract

The accelerating diffusion of open and distance learning has encouraged a better understanding of the types of interactions and their effects on learning outcomes. This study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the articles on interaction in open and distance learning between 1988 and 2024 in the Scopus database. In order to fulfill the aim of the study, 602 articles published between 1988 and 2024 were accessed. The bibliometric data of 602 scientific articles in the Scopus database were analyzed through the VOSviewer 1.6.20 program. The data obtained were visualized through Scopus, VOSviewer and Microsoft Office Excel programs. According to the findings of the study, 602 studies were accomplished by researchers from 75 different countries. The pioneering institution in interaction studies in open and distance learning is the Malaysian University of Technology. The Journal of Computers and Education is ranked first with 22 publications and 1453 citations. When the keywords in the articles are analyzed, the concepts of covid-19, collaborative learning, social presence, satisfaction, learning communities, learning analytics and self-regulated learning have come to the forefront.

Özet

Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmenin hızla yaygınlaşması, etkileşim türlerinin ve bunların öğrenme çıktıları üzerindeki etkilerinin daha iyi anlaşılmasını gerektirmiştir. Bu çalışma Scopus veri tabanında 1988-2024 yılları arasında açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede etkileşim üzerine gerçekleştirilen makalelerin bibliyometrik analizini yapmayı hedeflemektedir. Araştırmanın amacını yerine getirebilmek için 1988-2024 yılları arasında yayınlanmış 602 makaleye ulaşılmıştır. Scopus veri tabanında bulunan 602 bilimsel makalenin bibliyometrik verileri VOSviewer 1.6.20 programı aracılığıyla analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler Scopus, VOSviewer ve Microsoft Office Excel programları aracılığıyla görselleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın bulgularına göre, 602 çalışma 75 farklı ülkeden araştırmacılar tarafından gerçekleştirilmiştir. Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede etkileşim çalışmalarında öncü kurum Malezya Teknoloji Üniversitesi’dir. Computers and Education Dergisi 22 yayın ve 1453 atıfla ilk sırada yer almaktadır. Araştırmalarda yer alan anahtar sözcükler incelendiğinde covid-19, işbirlikli öğrenme, sosyal bulunurluk, memnuniyet, öğrenme toplulukları, öğrenme analitikleri ve öz-denetimli öğrenme kavramları ön plana çıkmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çınar, E., Orhan, G., Sezgin, S. (2024). A bibliometric analysis study on interaction in open and distance learning. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 55–95. https://doi.org/10.51948/auad.1509279

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (77)

  1. Abubakar, Y. A. (2022). The Effects Of Quality, Interaction, Motivation, And User-Characteristics On Students’ Satisfaction And Learning In An Open And Distance Learning Environment (Doctoral dissertation). https://erepo.usm.my/entities/publication/a4c043f7-6afa-489b-aa90-9dc911092e1d/full
  2. Aitokhuehi, O. (2022). How well are student teachers prepared for e-learning and teaching? a case study from the university of lagos. Teacher Education through Flexible Learning in Africa (TETFLE), 3(1). https://doi.org/10.35293/tetfle.v3i1.4123
  3. Al Mamun, M. A. & Lawrie, G. (2023). Student-content interactions: Exploring behavioral engagement with self-regulated inquiry-based online learning modules. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00221-x
  4. Alismaiel, O., Cifuentes‐Faura, J., & Al-Rahmi, W. (2022). Online learning, mobile learning, and social media technologies: an empirical study on constructivism theory during the covid-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 14(18), 11134. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811134
  5. Anderson, T. (2003a). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149
  6. Anderson, T. (2003b). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. M. G. Moore ve W. G. Anderson (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education, 1, 129–144.
  7. Anderson, T. (2006). Interaction in learning and teaching on the educational semantic web. C. Juwah (Ed.), Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice (s. 141–155) içinde. Routledge.
  8. Aria, M. & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
  9. Artsın, M. (2020). Bir metin madenciliği uygulaması: VOSviewer. Eskişehir Teknik Üniversitesi Bilim Ve Teknoloji Dergisi B - Teorik Bilimler, 8(2), 344–354. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/estubtdb/issue/56628/644637
  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
  11. Bozkurt, A. (2015). Sosyal ağlar ve yaşamboyu öğrenme deneyimi. Akademik Bilişim 2015, (s. 113–118). 4-6 Şubat 2015, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335723613_Sosyal_aglar_ve_yasamboyu_ogrenme_deneyimi adresinden 19 Mayıs 2024 tarihinde alınmıştır. Bozkurt, A. (2020). Koronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemi süreci ve pandemi sonrası dünyada eğitime yönelik değerlendirmeler: Yeni normal ve yeni eğitim paradigması. AUAd, 6(3), 112–142.
  12. Bozkurt, A. (2022). A retro perspective on blended/hybrid learning: systematic review, mapping and visualization of the scholarly landscape. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2022(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.751
  13. Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 265–279.
  14. Debourgh, G. A. (2003). Predictors of student satisfaction in distance-delivered graduate nursing courses: what matters most? J. Prof. Nurs. 19, 149–163. DOI: 10.1016/S8755-7223(03)00072-3
  15. Delahunty, J., Verenikina, I., & Jones, P. (2013). Socio-emotional connections: identity, belonging and learning in online interactions. A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 243–265. https://doi-org.offcampus.anadolu.edu.tr/10.1080/1475939X.2013.813405
  16. 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).
  17. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
  18. Elizondo-Garcia, J., & Gallardo, K. (2020). Peer feedback in learner-learner interaction practices: Mixed methods study on an xMOOC. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 18(2), 122–135.
  19. Fırat, M. ve Kabakçı Yurdakul, I. (2015). Eğitsel web arayüz tasarımında metaforlar: EMMA adımları. Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 8(1), 41-50. https://doi.org/10.17671/btd.57664
  20. Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2000). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses: Principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(2). http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v4n2/v4n2_fredericksen.asp
  21. Fuller, R. G., Kuhne, G. W. ve Frey, B. A. (2011). Distinctive distance education design: models for differentiated instruction. Information Science Reference.
  22. Garrison, D. R. ve Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. RoutledgeFalmer.
  23. Gosmire D., Morrison, M., & Van Osdel, J. (2009). Perceptions of interactions in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 609–617
  24. Hillman, D. C. A., 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526853
  25. Hettiarachchi, S., Damayanthi, B., Heenkenda, S., Dissanayake, D., Ranagalage, M., & Ananda, L. (2021). Student satisfaction with online learning during the covid-19 pandemic: a study at state universities in Sri Lanka. Sustainability, 13(21), 11749. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111749
  26. Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (114–122). Croom Helm.
  27. Japanese Science and Technology Indicators (2023). NISTEP Research Material, 328, 1-20, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.15108/rm328e
  28. Jiang, H., Islam, A. Y. M., Gu, X., & Spector, J. M. (2021). Online learning satisfaction in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A regional comparison between Eastern and Western Chinese universities. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6747–6769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10519-x
  29. Jiang, Y. J., Bai, X. M., Wu, W. C., and Luo, X. J. (2019). Analysis of the structural relationship of influencing factors of the online learning experience. Mod. Distance Educ. 1, 27–36. DOI: 10.13927/j.cnki.yuan.2019.0004
  30. Joksimovíc, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12107
  31. Jonassen, D.H. & Kwon, H.I. (2001). Communication patterns in computer mediated versus face to face group problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development. 49(1), 35–51.
  32. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290252934603
  33. Kara, İ. ve Altındağ, T. (2022). Covid-19 pandemisiyle yaygınlaşan açık ve uzaktan öğrenme alanı bir disiplin mi?. Oğuz Emre Balkar (Ed.), Covid-19 Pandemisi Sürecinde Türkiye: Eğitim ve Finans Alanlarında İncelemeler (s. 53-67) içinde. Çizgi Kitabevi Yayınları.
  34. Kellogg, D. L. & Smith, M. A. (2009). Student‐to‐student interaction revisited: A case study of working adult business students in online courses. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(2), 433–456.
  35. Keskin, M. ve Özer Kaya, D. (2020). COVID-19 sürecinde öğrencilerin web tabanlı uzaktan eğitime yönelik geri bildirimlerinin değerlendirilmesi. İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 59–67.
  36. Kumtepe, A.T., Büyük, K., Güneş, İ., Öztürk, A., Tuna, G., Gümüş, S., ve Atak, N. (2017). Kitlesel uzaktan eğitimde öğrenen-içerik etkileşimi: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Sistemi örneği. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 9–36.
  37. Kumtepe, E. G., Toprak, E., Öztürk, A., Büyükköse, G. T., Kılınç, H., & Menderis, İ. A. (2019). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenmede destek hizmetleri: Yerelden küresele bir model önerisi. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 41–80.
  38. Kurucay, M. ve Inan, F. A. (2017). Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers & Education. 115 (20–37). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.010
  39. Lin, C. H., Zheng, B., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Interactions and learning outcomes in online language courses. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 48, 730–748. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12457
  40. Martin, F., Wu, T., Wan, L., & Xie, K. (2022). A meta-analysis on the community of inquiry presences and learning outcomes in online and blended learning environments. Online Learning Journal, 26(1), 325–359. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2604
  41. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.
  42. Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of Transactional Distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical Principles of Distance Education (22–29). Routledge.
  43. Mu, S., & Wang, X. J. (2019). Research on deep learning strategies in online learning. Distance Educ. China 10, 29–39.
  44. Offir, B., Barth, I., Lev, J. ve Shteinbok, A. (2005) Can interaction content analysis research contribute to distance learning? Educational Media International, 42(2), 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980500060324
  45. O’Keefe, L., Rafferty, J., Gunder, A., & Vignare, K. (2020). Delivering high-quality instruction online in response to COVID-19: Faculty playbook. Every Learner Everywhere. http://olc-wordpress-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/05/Faculty-Playbook_Final-1.pdf
  46. Özsari, G. ve Aydin, C. H. (2024) Interaction preferences of distance learners in Turkey. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 39(3), 258–279, DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2021.1981279
  47. 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, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00155-y
  48. Reece, J. M. (2024). Faculty and student perceptions about online interactions: Do faculty and student perceptions differ? https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/faculty-student-perceptions-about-online/docview/3050004693/se-2
  49. Safsouf, Y., Mansouri, K., & Poirier, F. (2020). An analysis to understand the online learners’ success in public higher education in morocco. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 19, 087–112. https://doi.org/10.28945/4518
  50. Santoso, H. B., Riyanti, R. D., Prastati, T., FA. Triatmoko, H. S., Susanty, A., & Yang, M. (2022). Learners’ online self-regulated learning skills in Indonesia Open University: implications for policies and practice. Education Sciences, 12(7), 469. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070469
  51. Su Tonga, E. ve Şahin, S. (2023). Interaction in distance education: Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. e -Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 10, 52–75.
  52. Sun, H. L., Sun, T., Sha, F. Y., Gu, X. Y., Hou, X. R., Zhu, F. Y., & Fang, P. T. (2022) The Influence of Teacher–Student Interaction on the Effects of Online Learning: Based on a Serial Mediating Model. Front. Psychol. 13:779217. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.779217
  53. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23–49.
  54. Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and direction (13–45). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
  55. Şahin, M. D., Kılınc, H., ve Altınpulluk, H. (2020). An Analysis of The Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Social Presence Scale Developed for Open and Distance Learning Environments. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(Special Issue-IODL), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.770937
  56. Telli Yamamoto, G. ve Altun, D. (2020). Coronavirüs ve çevrimiçi (online) eğitimin önlenemeyen yükselişi. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.711110
  57. Thurmond, V. A. & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1), 9–26.
  58. Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K., Connors, H. R., & Frey, B. B. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: Determining the impact of a Web-based environment by controlling for student characteristics. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 169–189.
  59. Tosun, N. & Özgür, H. (2009, 7-9 Ekim). E-öğrenme ortamlarında öğrenci-içerik etkileşimi. 3th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium içinde (s. 327–331). Trabzon, Türkiye.
  60. van der Stap, N., van den Bogaart, T., Rahimi, E., & Versendaal, J. (2024). Fostering online interaction in blended learning through social presence and convergence: A systematic literature review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12981
  61. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://akjournals.com/view/journals/11192/84/2/article-p523.xml
  62. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, (2014). Visualizing Bibliometric Networks In Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., & Wolfram, D. (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice (pp. 285–320). Springer. https://link-springer-com.offcampus.anadolu.edu.tr/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13
  63. Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2019). Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. International Review of Education, 65(4), 605–632.
  64. Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2017). The efect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1-33.
  65. Vrasidas, C. & McIsaac, S. M. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22–36.
  66. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526852
  67. Wang, X. (2023). Multimedia teaching mode in colleges and universities based on psychology-based human-computer interaction interface design. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2189817
  68. Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance Education, 38(1), 123–135, https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1298982
  69. Ye, Z. & Pang, L.J. (2021). The nature and characteristics of teacher-student interaction. Educational Research. 4, 30–34.
  70. Yılmaz, E. O., & Aktuğ, S. (Şubat, 2011). Uzaktan eğitimde çevrimiçi ders veren öğretim elemanlarının uzaktan eğitimde etkileşim ve iletişim üzerine görüşleri. Paper presented at the XIII. Academic Informatics Conference, 501–512.
  71. Zancanaro, A., Todesco, J. L., & Ramos, F. (2015). A bibliometric mapping of open educational resources. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.1960
  72. Zha, S. & Adams, A. H. (2015). Designing a nonformal open online learning program that encourages participant-to-content interaction. B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, M. W. Tracey vd. (Ed.), The design of learning experience: Creating the future of educational technology (s. 127–137) içinde. Springer International.
  73. Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker Jr, J. F. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & Management, 43(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.004
  74. Zheng, B., Ganotice, F., Lin, C., & Tipoe, G. (2023). From self-regulation to co-regulation: refining learning presence in a community of inquiry in interprofessional education. Medical Education Online, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2217549
  75. Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1302
  76. Aitokhuehi, O. (2022). How well are student teachers prepared for e-learning and teaching? a case study from the university of lagos. Teacher Education through Flexible Learning in Africa (TETFLE), 3(1). https://doi.org/10.35293/tetfle.v3i1.4123
  77. Su Tonga, E. ve Şahin, S. (2023). Interaction in distance education: Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. e -Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 10, 52–75.