Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 248257

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Internet and Higher Education

A predictive study of learner satisfaction and outcomes in face-to-face, satellite

broadcast, and live video-streaming learning environments
M'hammed Abdous a,, Cherng-Jyh Yen b
a
Center for Learning Technologies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA
b
Darden College of Education, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study was conducted to assess the predictive relationships among delivery mode (DM), self-perceived
Accepted 27 April 2010 learner-to-teacher interaction, self-rated computer skill, prior distance learning experience, and learners'
satisfaction and outcomes. Participants were enrolled in courses which used three different DMs: face-to-
Keywords:
face, satellite broadcasting, and live video-streaming (LVS). In each case, the course was offered
Distance education
simultaneously by the same teacher via all three formats. The results indicated no predictive utility of
Learner-to-teacher interaction
Student satisfaction
delivery mode for self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction. On the other hand, the results supported the
Learning outcomes validity of self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction as a predictor for student satisfaction and learning
Live video-streaming outcomes (measured by course nal grades). To a lesser extent, self-rated computer skills and the number of
distance learning courses taken played a weak role in learning outcomes and students' satisfaction. Overall,
ndings from the study support prior research that has reported the importance of learner-to-teacher
interaction in learning outcomes and satisfaction of distance education students.
Published by Elsevier Inc.

1. Introduction
The explosive growth of information technology is forcing
universities into a structural paradigmatic shift that affects adminis-
tration, teaching, and learning. At the heart of this transformative
process lies distance education (DE), an umbrella term that
encompasses a variety of delivery modes and technologies ranging
from satellite broadcast (to remote sites) to mobile learning (via
hand-held devices). Indeed, the convergence of technological innova-
tions in hardware, software, and telecommunications, combined with
the ubiquity of learning management systems, is reconguring and
strengthening traditional teaching and learning delivery modes
(Amirault & Visser, 2009; Harasim, 2006; Laurillard, 2008; Tapscott
& Williams, 2010).
As universities are forced to adapt, rethink, and even reinvent
themselves, the traditional lines between DE and face-to-face
teaching and learning are becoming progressively blurred, particu-
larly with the dramatic rise of online and blended or hybrid learning
(Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009; Parsad & Lewis, 2008;
Vaughan, 2007). Yet paradoxically, while DE is expanding access to
non-traditional and underserved populations (Donavant, 2009),
adding exibility and enriching teaching and learning environments,
it continues to be perceived skeptically by many in higher education
(Casey, 2008; Shin, 2002). Surprisingly, even the perception that DE is
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 757 683 6378; fax: + 1 757 683 3176.
E-mail address: mabdous@odu.edu (M.' Abdous).
strategically important to universities has declined over the last few
years (Allen & Seaman, 2010), mainly because of institutional,
pedagogical, and workload issues associated with faculty participation
in DE (Tabata & Johnsrud, 2008).
This perception of ineffectiveness continues to pressure DE to
prove its equivalency to the traditional face-to-face learning experi-
ence, which is considered as inherently effective. This equivalency
challenge has given birth to a long tradition of comparative studies
aiming to prove that DE is equally as effective as traditional methods
of education (Bernard et al., 2009, 2004; Lou, Bernard, & Abrami,
2006; Maushak, Chen, Martin, Shaw, & Unfred, 2001; Mullins-Dove,
2006).
In spite of some design and methodological weaknesses associated
with these comparative studies, such as their inability to disentangle
the effects of the delivery mode, instructor and learner characteristics,
instructional method, and media attributes (Howsen & Lile, 2008; Joy
& Garcia, 2000; Surry & Ensminger, 2001), these studies have
contributed signicantly to the advancement of the DE body of
knowledge and understanding. In these studies, the lack of interaction
and visible contact (particularly between the instructor and the
learner) is mentioned as one of the main the drawbacks of DE
(Bernard et al., 2009; Mullins-Dove, 2006). Supported by the
perceived role of the instructor in facilitating interaction (Moore &
Kearsley, 1996), this criticism is grounded into the epistemological
and pedagogical belief that interaction is the building block of both
teaching and learning (Anderson, 2003).
Following this perspective, the instructor's social presence and
immediacy, as expressed in verbal (choice of words, tone, expression,

1096-7516/$ see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc.

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.005
 M.' Abdous, C.-J. Yen / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 248257
etc.) and non-verbal (gesture, proximity, appearance, eye contact,
etc.) cues (Arbaugh, Bangert, & Cleveland-Innes, 2010; Conaway,
Easton, & Schmidt, 2005) are feared to be lost in the DE landscape.
However, it has been contended elsewhere (Epp, Green, Rahman,
& Weaver, 2010) that this loss of the facial expression and tone of
voice used by instructors when gauging learners' understanding in
F2F environments has been replaced by the promotion of the use of
reection and by the type of critical thinking encouraged in the DE
environment.
A variety of studies document that interaction is positively
related to student learning and satisfaction (Moore, 2002; Swan,
2001). More specically, learner-to-teacher interaction (LII) is
reported as is the main predictor of student satisfaction and suc-
cess (Bolliger & Martindale, 2004). In this regard, Wasilik and
Bolliger (2009) indicate that student interaction is one of the key
predictors of faculty satisfaction teaching online courses. For their
part, Darabi, Sikorski, and Harvey (2006) recommend that faculty
members should be keenly aware that interaction is critical to
student success in DE courses. Similarly, instructor intervention
is widely recognized as a crucial factor in ensuring asynchronous
online discussions' effectiveness (An, Shin, & Lim, 2009), in
promoting critical thinking (Tianyi, Tianguang, Ring, & Wei, 2007),
and in establishing a sense of classroom community (Ice, Curtis,
Phillips, & Wells, 2007; Shea, Sau Li, & Pickett, 2006). In contrast, a
lack of feedback from the instructor, feelings of loneliness on the
part of the student, and perceived difculty in communication and
interaction with their instructor are among the reasons leading to
learners' dissatisfaction and withdrawal (Ertmer et al., 2007).
Although several studies have shown that learner-to-teacher
interaction is a key predictor of learner success and satisfaction, few
studies have examined the predictive relationships between various
delivery modes and the self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction.
Much of the research has focused on asynchronous learner-to-teacher
interaction, using course management's threaded discussion features
(An et al., 2009; Ice et al., 2007; O'Leary & Quinlan, 2007; Shea et al.,
2006; Tianyi et al., 2007). A deeper understanding of the interaction
requirements and dynamics within multiple DE delivery modes
is critical to universities' efforts to grapple with the changing DE
landscape. To this end, the impetus to investigate the self-perceived
learner-to-teacher interaction in various delivery modes is greater
than ever, particularly as the traditional model of interaction (with its
heavy emphasis on teacher presence) is being augmented with
various tools and technologies.
This paper is focused upon the interplay of the self-perceived
learner-to-teacher interaction with learner outcomes and satis-
faction within various delivery modes (face-to-face, via satellite
broadcasting, or live video-streaming). More specically, this study
explores how the delivery mode predicts the level of learner-to-
teacher interaction. Then, it examines how the self-perceived learner-
to-teacher interaction predicts learners' outcomes and satisfaction.
Finally, it explores how learners' self-rated computer skills and past
distance learning experience predict their satisfaction. By investigat-
ing these interrelated dimensions, this work aims to enrich the
existing body of literature, while augmenting understanding of
effective learning strategies and student satisfaction in the various
delivery modes which shape the higher education landscape today.
This paper is divided into four sections. It begins by reviewing
the literature dealing with interaction and learner satisfaction and
then narrowing its focus to learner-to-teacher interaction and its
predictive capacity of learner outcomes and satisfaction. The second
section explains the purpose and research questions explored in this
paper. The third section describes the background of the study and
details its methodological approach (sampling, data collection, and
analysis). The paper concludes by highlighting key ndings, discuss-
ing the study's limitations, and proposing several recommendations
for DE administrators and practitioners.
249
2. Review of the literature
2.1. Interaction as a building block of teaching and learning
By itself, interaction is an ambiguous term, unless specic sub-
meanings are dened and agreed upon (Moore, 1989; Shin, 2002;
Wanstreet, 2006). Broadly dened, interaction is perceived as a
dening characteristic of education, and is thought to be vitally
important to learning, specically in bridging the transactional
distance that exists between the learner and the instructor (McIsaac
& Blocher, 1998; Moore, 2007). Closely related to this concept, the
term interactivity is used interchangeably with interaction by some
researchers, while others, such as Wagner (1994), distinguish
between interaction and interactivity. According to this perspective,
interactions describe the behaviors of individuals and groups, while
interactivity tends to focus on the attributes of the technologies used
in distance learning, (Wagner, 1997).
In his foundational work on interaction, Moore (1989) distin-
guished among three overlapping types of interaction by describing
three different categories: learner-to-content interaction (LCI),
learner-to-teacher interaction (LII), and learner-to-learner interaction
(LLI). The rst category, LCI, works by playing a key role in changing
the cognitive structures of the learner's mind. The second category,
LII, which is highly desirable by many learners, is aimed at
stimulating, motivating, facilitating application, and even providing
a degree of student affective support. It is perceived to be the most
signicant contributor factor in encouraging student learning. The
third category, LLI, is also perceived to be a valuable resource for
learning.
As an academic construct conceptualized by Moore to under-
stand the dynamics and nature of interaction in traditional DE, this
typology continues to be referenced by most of the studies that
investigate interaction in DE. According to Garrison and Cleveland-
Innes (2005), Moore's work has precipitated growing interest in
issues around interaction in a distance or online learning context.
Following this trend, and arguing that past typologies have failed to
recognize the learners' interaction with the medium, Hillman,
Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) have proposed a fourth category
dealing with learnerinterface interaction (LIL). This fourth dimen-
sion, reported to affect the quality of the student learning expe-
rience (Swan, 2004), is equally important to this quadratic concept,
particularly as user interfaces are acquiring new capabilities and
functionalities by leveraging networking and computing power
(Kroeker, 2010).
After examining a large number of studies about the use of inter-
action in various DE delivery modes, Bernard et al. (2009) concluded
in their recent meta-analysis study that designing ITs (interaction
treatments) into DE courses, whether to increase interaction with the
material to be learned, with the course instructor, or with peers,
positively affects student learning (p. 1264).
Umphrey, Wickersham, and Sherblom (2008) reported that
student perceptions of the instructor's relational characteristics,
classroom communication experience, and interaction involvement
were rated more positively in courses taken face-to-face than in
courses taken using video conferencing. From a different perspective,
Contreras-Castillo, Favela, Prez-Fragoso, and Santamara-del-Angel
(2004) concluded that informal interaction led to better understand-
ing of course material and to a better social relationship with
instructor and classmates.
Focusing on factors inuencing interaction, Vrasidas and McIsaac
(1999) reported that the structure of the course, along with the class
size, feedback, and students' prior experience with computer-medi-
ated communication, inuenced online course interaction. Along
the same lines of thinking, Sahin and Shelley (2008) suggested
that computer-savvy students with a positive attitude toward DE
were more satised. In turn, this satisfaction led to a higher level
250 M.' Abdous, C.-J. Yen / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 248257
of engagement and success in their learning experience. As sug-
gested by Koroghlanian and Brinkerhoff (2008), students who
reported a higher level of computer skills expressed positive attitudes
towards online instruction. Furthermore, ndings by Menchaca and
Bekele (2008) supported that both experience and prociency in
information technologies were required for success in online learning.
In spite of this overwhelming support for the importance of
interaction in student learning and satisfaction, one should heed
the caution noted by Rovai (2002) that interaction is not inherently
conducive to learning. Rovai noted that interaction should be em-
bedded into a learner community framework built around four
dimensions: spirit, trust, interaction, and the commonality of learn-
ing expectations and goals. In fact, Dennen, Darabi, and Smith
(2007) argued that there was a threshold at which instructor inter-
action and involvement could inhibit or discourage learner
communication and participation.
To sum up these ideas, the following diagram, which describes
the consensual meaning built around the concept of interaction
within the DE research community, is offered Fig. 1.
2.2. Factors affecting student satisfaction in DE
The consensus emerging from previous comparative studies
suggests that student satisfaction in DE remains undiminished in
comparison to face-to-face methods of instruction (Allen, Bourhis,
Burrell, & Mabry, 2002). Of the key variables associated with student
success in DE, satisfaction is usually ranked high (Iverson, Colky, &
Cyboran, 2005). In this regard, online learners have been found to
report signicantly more positive levels of enjoyment and utility and
a signicantly stronger intent to transfer their learning. Roach and
Lemasters (2006) analyzed student satisfaction in seven online
courses and two campus-based courses. Their comparison suggested
that students in a graduate educational administration program
could be equally satised with either course delivery method.
Recently, Larson and Chung-Hsien (2009) conducted a comparison
of three DMs (face-to-face, hybrid, and online) using student exams
and nal grades. Their analysis supported the no signicant dif-
ference nding regarding student satisfaction, learning effective-
ness, and faculty satisfaction. Likewise, Skylar, Higgins, Boone, and
Jones (2005) concluded that online and CD-ROM delivery modes were
equally as effective as the traditional face-to-face delivery method
when presenting instructional content. Skylar (2009) suggested that
the use of synchronous lecturing using web conferencing tools was
more appealing to students than was a text-based lecture.
For their part, Bolliger and Martindale (2004) suggested that
learner satisfaction was a positive correlate with the quality of learn-
ing outcomes, and an important contributor to student attrition.
Likewise, Palmer and Holt (2009) reported that students' ability to
Fig. 1. Interaction as a dening characteristic of education.
communicate online, combined with their understanding of course
requirements, explained a large proportion of their satisfaction. In-
structor feedback and student learning styles are among the key
factors affecting perceived learning outcomes (Eom, Wen, & Ashill,
2006).
Indeed, learnerteacher interaction is found to signicantly and
meaningfully relate to student satisfaction and outcomes. Swan
(2001) reported the three factors which contribute to student
satisfaction and perceived learning in online courses: clarity of course
design, interaction with instructors, and active discussion among
participants. Furthermore, Swan suggested that interaction with
instructors had a much larger effect on satisfaction and perceived
learning than did interaction with peers.
This positive relationship has long been recognized in traditional
face-to-face instruction. In a comprehensive literature review,
Lamport (1993) reported that to varying degrees, faculty can aid
in student academic achievement, college satisfaction, intellectual
and personal development, persistence in college, and career and
educational aspirations.
In contrast, Anderson, Banks, and Leary (2002) studied differ-
ences between traditional on-campus classes and interactive,
televised, distance learning classes. They indicated that remote
site students expressed signicantly lower satisfaction levels on
every examined item on the rating scale. Likewise, Kearns, Shoaf,
and Summey (2004) used student course survey data to compare
the satisfaction levels of students in a web-based program with
the satisfaction levels of students in a traditional classroom setting,
and determined that students in the traditional classroom were
more satised than those in the web-based classes.
As a recap, notwithstanding the diversity of delivery modes and
approaches used in the research studies compiled in a literature re-
view, a clear consensus that learner-to-teacher interaction is posi-
tively related to learner outcome and satisfaction has emerged.
3. Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between
self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction and learning outcomes
and satisfaction across various delivery modes (face-to-face, satellite
broadcasting, or live video-streaming). In order to identify the way in
which interaction predicts learning outcomes (as revealed by nal
grades) and learner satisfaction, the following research questions
guided this study:
1. How will the delivery modes (face-to-face in class, via satellite
broadcasting at a remote site, or via live video-streaming at home
or at work) predict the level of self-perceived learner-to-teacher
interaction?
2. How will the self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction predict
student satisfaction?
3. How will the self-rated computer skills predict learners'
satisfaction?
4. How will the self-reported number of distance courses taken
predict learners' satisfaction?
5. How will the self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction predict
the learners' nal grades?
As one asks these questions, one must be mindful of facing
some of the same methodological pitfalls faced by comparative
studies; however, this paper, along with several others, posits that
the use of nal grades (Kochman & Maddux, 2001; Larson & Chung-
Hsien, 2009; Shachar & Neumann, 2003; Summers, Waigandt, &
Whittaker, 2005) and student satisfaction (Allen et al., 2002;
Johnson, 2002; Larson & Chung-Hsien, 2009; Phillips & Peters,
1999; Skylar et al., 2005) as criteria is still relevant. Yet one must
concede with Donavant (2009) that, when examining learning
 M.' Abdous, C.-J. Yen / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 248257 251

effectiveness largely based on student satisfaction, the response will 50.34%), and the live video-streaming group (243, 48.99%) ranked
often be colored by the convenience associated with the DM itself. the face-to-face delivery mode as their most preferred mode. To the
contrary, few participants (19, 3.83%) ranked the mixed delivery
mode (i.e., face-to-face instruction plus web-based instruction) as
4. Method their most preferred mode. This conclusion could be generalized to
all three delivery mode groups.
4.1. Participants

Participants (N = 496) were recruited from a public four-year
research university in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States.
This public higher education institution serves a student body of
17,000 undergraduate students and 6000 graduate students. It offers
more than 70 bachelors degree programs, 60 masters degree
programs, and 35 doctoral degree programs, with strong emphases
in science, engineering, and technology, especially in the maritime
and aerospace sciences. Additionally, the institution is known as a
national leader in technology-mediated distance learning and has
been serving students at over 50 sites in Virginia, Arizona, and
Washington State for more than 25 years.
In the spring of 2009, after securing institutional review board
(IRB) approval, an online survey was sent to 3258 students enrolled in
either the face-to-face, satellite broadcast, or live video-streaming
sections of a variety of courses. In total, 513 students responded to the
survey, but 17 of them were excluded from the data analysis due to
the invalid responses of unspecied delivery mode or multiple
delivery modes. Accordingly, the results from 496 respondents
(15.22%) were actually used for the data analyses.
Of these 496 respondents, 104 (21%) were enrolled in the face-
to-face sections, 290 (58%) in the satellite broadcasting sections, and
102 (21%) in the live video-streaming sections of the same courses.
The information regarding participants' characteristics (i.e., Gender,
Age, Enrollment status, Employment status, Number of distance courses
taken, and Self-rated computer skills) in each delivery mode group is
listed in Table 1. Overall, the majority of the participants were
female, younger than 30 years of age, and employed full-time.
Participants were also asked to rank different delivery modes in
terms of preference on a 15 scale with 1 as the most preferred and
5 as the least preferred. Of those participants, 243 (48.99%) ranked
the face-to-face delivery mode as the most preferred mode of
delivery. Roughly the same percentages of the participants in the
face-to-face group (52, 50.00%), the satellite broadcast group (146,
4.2. Operationalization of course delivery mode variable
Delivery mode served as the predictor variable for the level of
the Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction. Since the university
under study uses comprehensive distance learning technologies
to deliver courses via a variety of distinct delivery modes, all of
the courses chosen for inclusion in the study were offered via multiple
delivery modes, simultaneously. In each instance, students in the
same course with the same professor took their course face-to-face, or
via satellite broadcasting or video-streaming, in real time.
The simultaneous delivery worked in this way: students and
faculty met on-campus in a classroom equipped with a two-way video
system. From that classroom, the teacher interacted with his or her
students using three different DMs: face-to-face, via two-way audio
and video satellite broadcast, or via a chat window on students'
personal computers as they watched the broadcast of the class.
Those students enrolled in the satellite broadcasting section of
a course participated by watching a live video feed from the main
campus at specied remote sites. At each site, student desks were
equipped with microphones to enable students to interact with their
teacher and with their distant classmates via audio connection.
Those students enrolled in the video-streaming section of the
same course participated in the class in real time via a personal
computer to view a live feed of the class lecture. To interact with
their teacher, the live video-streaming students sent text messages via
the live video-streaming course interface. Additionally, the video-
streaming students could chat, live, with their video-streaming
classmates via the same interface.
To control for teacher effect, the often-cited weakness in
comparative studies design, only courses taught simultaneously by
the same teacher using all three delivery modes were identied and
included in the study. These courses were offered across colleges
and disciplines, and included courses in Economics, Nursing,

Table 1
Participant demographics by delivery mode.

Delivery mode Face-to-face Satellite broadcast Video-streaming Total

n % n % n % N %

Gender Female 64 18.13 233 66.01 56 15.86 353 71.17

Male 40 27.97 57 39.86 46 32.17 143 28.83
Age b 30 75 28.74 145 55.55 41 15.71 261 52.62
3039 14 11.86 70 59.32 34 28.82 118 23.79
4049 12 14.46 49 59.04 22 26.5 83 16.74
5059 3 9.09 25 75.76 5 15.15 33 6.65
N 59 0 0 1 100 0 0 1 .2
Enrollment Full-time 81 29.67 161 58.97 31 11.36 273 55.04
Part-time 23 10.31 129 57.85 71 31.84 223 44.96
Employment Full-time 36 14.52 140 56.45 72 29.03 248 50
Part-time 40 29.85 78 58.21 16 11.94 134 27.02
Unemployed 28 24.56 72 63.16 14 12.28 114 22.98
Number of distance courses taken 0 43 40.56 46 43.4 17 16.04 106 21.37
1 12 27.91 22 51.16 9 20.93 43 8.67
2 17 28.81 32 54.24 10 16.95 59 11.9
3 11 25.58 23 53.49 9 20.93 43 8.67
4 or more 21 8.57 167 68.16 57 23.27 245 49.39
Self-rated computer skills 1 0 .00 3 1.03 0 .00 3 61
2 3 2.89 4 1.38 1 .98 8 1.61
3 27 25.96 62 21.38 18 17.65 107 21.57
4 46 44.23 136 46.90 42 41.18 224 45.16
5 28 26.92 85 29.31 41 40.19 154 31.05
252 M.' Abdous, C.-J. Yen / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 248257
Table 2
Survey items assessing Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction and Student
satisfaction.
Variable Survey item
Self-perceived learner-to- How likely are you to tell the instructor when you
teacher interaction have a complaint or suggestion about the course?
How likely are you to discuss your academic goals
and/or career plans with your instructor?
How likely are you to discuss the ideas and concepts
taught in this course with your instructor?
How likely are you to feel isolated from your
instructor?
How likely are you to participate actively in
scheduled discussions about the course material
(such as an in-class discussion section or a
Blackboard discussion board)?
Student satisfaction Taking this course has been a valuable experience for
me.
I have been able to learn a lot from this course.
I like the fact that I am taking this course.
The course has enhanced my thinking skills.
The course has helped my intellectual growth.
The course has helped me to look at things in
different ways.
The course has provided me with knowledge to work
more effectively.
The course has enabled me to enhance my learning
ability.
Engineering and Psychology, at both undergraduate and graduate
levels.
4.3. Measurements of research variables
An online survey was developed using two research variables: (1)
Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction, and (2) Student satisfac-
tion. As detailed in Table 2:
1) Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction served as the criterion
variable in the research question 1 but as the predictor variable
in the research questions 2 and 3. The level of self-perceived
learner-to-teacher interaction was measured by the total score
of ve survey items (see Table 2) on a ve-point scale (4: Very
Likely; 3 Likely; 2: Less Likely; 1: Unlikely; 0: Not Applicable). The
higher the total score, the more intensive a student's interaction
with the teacher would be.
2) Student satisfaction was indicated by the total score of 8 survey
items (see Table 2) on a ve-point scale (5: Strongly Agree; 4: Agree;
Fig. 2. Summary of study variables.
3: Neither Agree nor Agree; 2: Disagree; 1: Strongly Disagree). The
higher the total score, the more satised with the course a student
would be. This section was partially inspired from Shin and Chan's
(2004) study.
In addition to these two variables, there were three additional
research variables used:
1) Course nal grades were supplied by the Registrar of the university.
The grades were categorized into three groups in actual data
analysis: (1) A, (2) A- to B-, and (3) Other.
2) Computer skill was indicated by a student's response to the survey
item to self-rate his or her computer skill on a 15 scale.
3) The Number of distance courses taken in the past was based on a
student's response to the survey item on a 04 scale (0: None in
the past; 1: one in the past; 2: two in the past; 3: three in the past;
4: four or more in the past).
The following gure visually summarizes the relationship between
the different variables under study (Fig. 2):
5. Data analysis
For the current study, data analyses were performed using SPSS
17.0. Furthermore, the alpha levels were set at the .05 level for all
signicance tests in this study. Three types of analysis were
conducted.
First, descriptive statistics of means, standard deviations, frequen-
cies and percentages were computed for various research variables.
Second, linear regression analyses (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken,
2003) were implemented to address research questions 1 and 2. In
this regard, four linear regression analyses (Cohen et al., 2003)
were conducted to assess the predictive relationships between (1)
Delivery mode and Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction,
(2) Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction and Student
satisfaction, (3) Self-rated computer skill and Student satisfaction,
and (4) Number of distance courses taken and Student satisfaction,
and (5) Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction and student
Course nal grade. Since Delivery mode was a categorical predictor
variable, two dummy vectors were created to incorporate the group
membership information of delivery mode into the linear regression
model (Cohen et al., 2003). The F test of the squared multiple
correlation coefcient (R2) was implemented and examined to see
if there was an overall, nonzero predictive relationship between
the predictor variable and the criterion variable in each of those
two linear regression models. In the linear regression model with
 M.' Abdous, C.-J. Yen / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 248257 253

dummy vectors for delivery mode, the aforementioned F test

assessed whether students' interaction with their teacher varied
across delivery mode groups. Furthermore, the face-to-face delivery
group was used as the reference group in dummy coding and was
assigned 0 on both dummy vectors of delivery mode. Accordingly,
the t tests of the regression coefcients associated with those
two dummy vectors tested the differences in self-perceived learner-
to-teacher interaction between (1) the satellite broadcast delivery
group and the face-to-face delivery group, and (2) the live video-
streaming group and the face-to-face group (Cohen et al., 2003).
The squared multiple correlation coefcient (R2) served as the
overall model t index to estimate the proportion of variance in
student's interaction with the teacher associated with (or predict-
able by) the group membership of Delivery mode. The adjusted R2
was also computed as a more accurate estimate of the above-
mentioned proportion in the population (Cohen et al., 2003).
Graphic 1. Students' nal grades by delivery mode.
Third, due to the ordinal nature of Course nal grade, the
criterion variable, this study used ordinal logistic regression analysis
(O'Connell, 2006). The ordinal logistic regression analysis was overall model t (O'Connell, 2006). The larger the pseudo R2 was,
implemented to examine whether the predictor variable (Self- the better the model t.
perceived learner-to-teacher interaction) was predictive of the
ordinal criterion variable, Course nal grade. Specically, a cumu-
lative odds model was tted to the data to assess the above- 6. Results
mentioned predictive relationship. In the ordinal logistic regression
model, the highest-grade group (i.e., the Grade of A group) served 6.1. Descriptive Statistics of research variables
as the rst group to form the cumulative odds at two descending
cut-offs: (1) A and (2) A- to B-. As a result, the odds of (1) obtaining The descriptive statistics for the variables of Delivery mode, Self-
an A grade relative to all other lower grades, and (2) obtaining an A perceived learner-to-teacher interaction, Student satisfaction, Self-rated
through B- grade (relative to all other lower grades) could be computer skills, Number of distance courses taken, and Course nal grade
estimated. The probabilities of falling into three possible categories are listed in Tables 3 and 4, Graphic 1.
of course nal grade (i.e., 1: A; 2: A- to B-; 3: Other) could also be The majority of the participants (290, 58.47%) were enrolled in
derived from those odds. The overall predictive utility of a logistic the satellite broadcast sections of the courses and the remaining
model was assessed by testing the improvement of model t participants were almost equally distributed between the face-to-face
relative to the null model with the likelihood ratio test of the sections and the live video-streaming sections. The average scores
differences between the deviances in the null model and the model on both Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction and Student
under study (O'Connell, 2006). The individual parameter estimate satisfaction were similar across the three delivery mode groups. As
(i.e., the location coefcient) for the predictor variable was tested to Self-rated computer skills, the percentage of participants (40.19%)
with the Wald test (Norusis, 2008). Two different pseudo R2, Cox who self-rated themselves as 5 was highest in the video-streaming
and Snell R2 and Nagelkerke R2, were computed to assess the sections, relative to their counterparts in other two delivery modes.
The percentage of participants (41.34%) who reported no previous
distance course experience was highest in the face-to-face sections.
Table 3 On the other hand, higher percentages of students in the satellite
Descriptive statistics of Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction and Student broadcast sections (57.59%) and in the live video-streaming sections
satisfaction in different delivery mode groups. (55.88%) had taken four or more-than-four distance courses. With
Variables N Missing M SD Min. Max. regard to the Course nal grade, the percentages of students who were
Self-perceived Learner-to-instructor interaction
conferred an A grade were higher in the face-to-face sections (50.96%)
Face-to-face 104 0 11.17 1.93 3 16 and in the satellite broadcast sections (48.62%).
Satellite broadcast 278 12 11.1 1.65 7 16
Live video-streaming 100 2 11.25 1.96 5 16
Total 482 14 11.15 1.78 3 16
6.2. Research question 1: delivery mode as the predictor for
Student satisfaction self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction
Face-to-face 104 0 32.38 6.22 8 40
Satellite broadcast 287 3 31.34 7.66 8 40 The results in the regression model with two dummy vectors of
Live video-streaming 102 0 33.32 6.89 9 40 delivery mode failed to support a statistically nonzero predictive
Total 493 3 31.76 7.23 8 40
relationship between Delivery mode and Self-perceived learner-to-
teacher interaction, F(2, 479) = 1.256, p N .05. Furthermore, the t tests
of the regression coefcients for the dummy vectors of delivery
Table 4
Descriptive statistics of Delivery mode and Course nal grade.
mode indicated no differences between (1) the satellite broadcast
group and the face-to-face group, t(479) = .116, p N .05; and (2) the
Delivery mode Face-to-face Satellite Video- Total live video-streaming group and the face-to-face group, t(479) =
broadcast streaming
1.486, p N .05. The negligible magnitude of R2 as .005 was
Final grade N % N % N % N % consistent with the above-noted statistically zero predictive relation-
A 53 50.96 141 48.62 39 38.23 233 46.98 ship between delivery mode and self-perceived learner-to-teacher
A- to B- 28 26.92 85 29.31 37 36.28 150 30.24 interaction. The adjusted R2 was .001. Therefore, Delivery mode was
Other 23 22.12 64 22.07 26 25.49 113 22.78 not a useful predictor for Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction.
Total 104 20.97 290 58.47 102 20.56 496 100
The level of self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction remained
254 M.' Abdous, C.-J. Yen / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 248257
constant across the three delivery mode groups: face-to-face,
satellite broadcast, and live video-streaming.
6.3. Research question 2: self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction
as the predictor for student satisfaction
The results in the regression model lent support to a statistically
nonzero predictive relationship between Self-perceived learner-to-
teacher interaction and Student satisfaction, F(1, 480) = 46.784, p b .05.
The R2 as .089 and the adjusted R2 as .087 estimated an approximate
9% variation in Student satisfaction associated with Self-perceived
learner-to-teacher interaction. Accordingly, Self-perceived learner-to-
teacher interaction could serve as a predictor for student satisfaction
in courses similar to the ones in the current study. Furthermore,
the predicted change in the Student satisfaction per unit increase in
Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction was estimated by the
unstandardized regression coefcient as .943. Therefore, the increase
in self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction would tend to be
accompanied by the increase in student satisfaction.
6.4. Research question 3: self-rated computer skills as the predictor
for student satisfaction
The predictive relationship between students' Self-rated computer
skills and Student satisfaction was supported by the results, F(1, 491) =
4.788, p b .05. However, the R2 and the adjusted R2 were only .010 and
.008 respectively and suggested a very weak relationship. The
regression coefcient, .883, indicated a negative relationship
between Self-rated computer skills and Student satisfaction. Namely,
the one-unit increase in Self-rated computer skills would be accom-
panied by a decrease of .883 in the Student satisfaction score. To get a
closer look at how self-rated computer skills were related to student
satisfaction, mean Student satisfaction scores were examined and were
28.67, 34.50, 33.07, 31.63, and 30.95 in ve Self-rated computer skills
groups with self-rated skill levels ranging from 1 to 5. But only 11 out
of 493 participants self-rated their computer skill levels as 1 or 2. If
those participants with low Self-rated computer skills were removed as
outliers, Student satisfaction did change negatively with Self-rated
computer skills, and the above-mentioned negative relationship was
consistent with the negative regression coefcient of Self-rated
computer skills. Overall, computer skill could serve as a predictor for
student satisfaction, but those two variables were negatively related
to each other. As a result, the increase in computer skill would tend to
go with the decrease in student satisfaction.
6.5. Research question 4: number of distance courses taken as
the predictor for student satisfaction
A statistically nonzero predictive relationship between Number
of distance courses taken and Student satisfaction was supported by the
results, F(1, 491) = 4.992, p b .05. However, both the R2 as .010 and the
adjusted R2 as .008 indicated a weak relationship between them.
Number of distance courses taken could, at best, serve as a weak
predictor for Student satisfaction. The regression coefcient for
Number of distance courses taken was .441. In specic, the overall
predicted change in Student satisfaction would be .442 per unit
increase in Number of distance courses taken.
6.6. Research question 5: self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction
as the predictor for course nal grade
In the ordinal logistic regression model (see Table 5), the results of
the chi-square likelihood ratio test supported an overall nonzero
predictive relationship between Self-perceived learner-to-teacher
interaction and Course nal grade, 2(1, N = 482) = 3.934, p b .05.
Furthermore, the logistic regression coefcient (i.e., the location
Table 5
Ordinal logistic model for Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction as the predictor
for Course nal grade (N = 496).
Parameter Estimate
Location
Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction .136
Threshold
Grade = A 1.640
Grade = A- to B- .262
Overall model evaluation 2 df Cox and Snell R2 Nagelkerke R2
Likelihood ratio test 7.962 1
Goodness-of-t index .016 .019
p b .05.
coefcient) for Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction was .075,
Wald(1) = 3.897, p b .05. According to the way the ordinal logistic
regression model was set up in SPSS (Norusis, 2008), the above-noted
regression coefcient suggested that the odds of getting a higher
course nal grade, relative to all lower course nal grades at various
cut-offs, increased by a factor of 1.078 per unit in the Self-perceived
learner-to-teacher interaction score. The Cox and Snell R2 and the
Nagelkerke R2 were .008 and .009 respectively and indicated a weak
predictive relationship.
Due to the number of the levels in the ordinal criterion variable,
Course nal grade, two cut-offs were set (O'Connell, 2006) to
examine how the increase in self-perceived learner-to-teacher
interaction was related to the change in the odds, and in turn, to
the probability of obtaining a higher nal grade(s). The odds of
obtaining a higher nal grade(s) at the two cut-offs were the ratios
of the probabilities of: (1) A to all lower grades, and (2) A through B-
to all lower grades. The Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction
scores as the sample mean (i.e., 13.268 in raw score), and the 1-
standard deviation (i.e., 2.273 in raw score) above the sample mean
were examined to demonstrate the way in which the probabilities of
obtaining a higher course nal grade(s) changed with the increase
in self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction (Norusis, 2008).
Given an increase of one standard deviation in the Self-perceived
learner-to-teacher interaction score from the sample mean, 13.268,
to 15.541, the predicted probability of obtaining a nal grade of A
increased from 47.20% to 51.46% at the rst cut-off. At the second
cut-off, the predicted probability of obtaining a nal grade of B- or
higher increased from 77.82% to 80.62%.
Moreover, given Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction as
the sample mean (i.e., 13.268 in raw score), the predicted proba-
bilities of obtaining one of those three categories of course nal
grade (i.e., A, A- to B-, and Other) were 47.20%, 30.62%, and 22.18%
respectively. While the raw Self-perceived learner-to-teacher inter-
action score increased by one standard deviation to 15.541, the
predicted probabilities of obtaining one of those nal grades became
51.46%, 29.16%, and 19.38% respectively. Therefore, the increase in
the Self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction score would be
accompanied by the increased probabilities of obtaining a better
course nal grade.
7. Discussion
This study produced ve potentially noteworthy ndings:
(1) The rst question explored the level of self-perceived learner-
to-teacher interaction in three different delivery modes (face-
to-face, via satellite broadcasting, and via live video-stream-
ing). Regression analysis revealed that the DM was not a useful
predictor for self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction. In
other words, the level of self-perceived learner-to-teacher
interaction remained similar across delivery mode groups. One
 M.' Abdous, C.-J. Yen / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 248257
possible explanation is that these delivery modes offered the
same teacher social presence and immediacy, as expressed in
verbal (choice of words, tone, expression, etc.) and non-verbal
(gesture, proximity, appearance, eye contact, etc.) cues
(Arbaugh et al., 2010; Conaway et al., 2005). Effective
management of three different audiences (face-to-face, remote
site and live video-streaming) seems to have provided students
with the same level of self-perceived interaction, although it
required additional attention and effort from faculty.
However, this study highlights that the video-streaming
students used a text-based interface to interact with their
teachers, which put them in a slightly disadvantaged position
in comparison to other groups. This might suggest that VS
students' self-perception of their level of interaction is likely to
be tainted by the appreciation, exibility, and convenience
reported in numerous studies (Luppicini, 2007; Mullins-Dove,
2006; Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006; Wuensch, Aziz, Ozan,
Kishore, & Tabrizi, 2008).
(2) The second question examined the relationship between self-
perceived learner-to-teacher interaction and student satisfac-
tion. Data reveals that an increased level of self-perceived
learner-to-teacher interaction tends to be accompanied by an
increase in student satisfaction. This nding echoes previous
studies which support the importance of teacher-to-student
interaction in learners' satisfaction. Numerous studies have
reported student-to-teacher interaction to be signicantly and
meaningfully related to learner satisfaction (An et al., 2009;
Bolliger & Martindale, 2004; Ice et al., 2007; O'Leary & Quinlan,
2007; Shea et al., 2006; Tianyi et al., 2007).
(3) The third question explored self-rated learners' computer skills
and satisfaction. The data reveals that an increase in learners'
computer skills tends to follow with the decrease in student
satisfaction. These results are inconsistent with the previous
ndings, such as those of Sahin and Shelley (2008) who con-
cluded that computer-savvy learners with a positive attitude
towards DE were more satised. Similarly, Koroghlanian and
Brinkerhoff (2008) suggested that learners with a higher level
of self-rated computer skills expressed more positive attitudes
towards online instruction. Moreover, Owens, Hardcastle, and
Richardson (2009) found that learners with limited experience
using communications technologies reported the highest
dissatisfaction when taking distance education courses. A
possible explanation for this negative relationship is that
students self-select delivery modes which don't require strong
computer literacy skills. With the exception of live video-
streaming students, computer skills requirements are similar to
those needed in any other class. As previously noted, LVS
students self-rated their computer skills higher than any other
group.
(4) The fourth question examined whether learners' previous DL
experience was a useful predictor of overall learners' satisfac-
tion. The number of distance courses taken was found to
weakly contribute to learners' satisfaction. Perhaps the self-
selection of the students contributed to this result. This weak
relationship would slightly support the conclusions of Shu-Hui
Hsieh and Smith (2008) who found no relationship between
learners' prior experiences with distance education and
learners' satisfaction in partially online class settings. Knowing
that prior DL experience is usually fused into computer and
literacy information skills, it is possible to reuse the foregoing
argument and assume that previous DL experience is more
critical for LVS students than for students taking courses via
other delivery modes.
(5) The nal question explored the relationship between self-
perceived learner-to-teacher interaction and students' nal
grades. Consistent with well-documented studies, this study's
255
result reinforces ndings that learner-to-teacher interaction
is a strong predictor of student learning outcomes, as mea-
sured by nal grades (Kim & Sax, 2009). As could be expected,
self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction is positively
associated with positive learning outcomes (Eom et al.,
2006; Swan, 2001), even though the authors of this study
noted slight differences among the various DMs, favoring
face-to-face instruction.
While they contribute to the existing body of literature, ndings
from this study generally echo much of the previous research that has
reported no signicant difference in the outcomes of distance
learning DMs in comparison with face-to-face or hybrid education
(Larson & Chung-Hsien, 2009; Roach & Lemasters, 2006; Skylar et al.,
2005; Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006). In addition, this study reiterates
results from previous studies (Luppicini, 2007; Mullins-Dove, 2006;
Tallent-Runnels et al., 2006; Wuensch et al., 2008) arguing that
student appreciation of DE's exibility and convenience is one of its
key advantages.
As the portfolio of distance education offerings expands, it
becomes necessary to ensure that appropriate and effective learning
strategies are identied and to ensure that all learners, regardless of
delivery method, achieve equivalent outcomes.
8. Limitations
Like most comparative studies, this study has several limitations.
First, the study was quasi-experimental, since random selection and
assignment of participants to groups was not possible. The sample
was selected based on the survey response, which creates a self-
selection bias that may have affected the results. Second, there are
limitations inherent in using nal grades and satisfaction levels as the
measurement of the outcomes of courses delivered by various course
DMs. Although they are the most relevant and widely used measures
of educational assessment available today, the authors of this study
suggest that future studies consider measures of cognitive, affective,
and social processes of learning.
Third, although this study examined self-perceived learner-to-
teacher interaction, the authors believe that it would also be benecial
to examine the other types of interaction presented in Fig. 1. With
only the focus of self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction, it is
difcult to grasp the dynamics of interaction within the various
delivery modes. Exploring various interaction types offers the
potential to help in the development of a comprehensive view of
the interaction requirements and dynamics across the various
delivery modes. In addition, self-reported data often carry a certain
dose of subjectivity.
Fourth, although it might be terminologically appealing to use an
umbrella term such as DE, one should keep in mind that sometimes
major technical, pedagogical, and logistical differences exist between
DE's various modalities. In light of these limitations, the generaliz-
ability of the study's results might be limited to contexts similar to the
one in the current study.
9. Conclusion and recommendations
This study was conducted to assess the predictive relationships
among delivery modes, self-perceived learner-to-teacher interaction,
self-rated computer skill, prior distance learning experience, and
learners' satisfaction and outcomes. Overall, ndings from the study
corroborate those of previous studies which highlight the importance
of learner-to-teacher interaction in learning outcomes and satisfac-
tion. In spite of the limitations previously discussed, these results
provide guidance to universities as they implement DE programs.
More specically, the following actions are recommended:
256 M.' Abdous, C.-J. Yen / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 248257
To strengthen both faculty and student use of the appropriate DM,
the authors' ndings suggest that a closer examination of the
teaching and learning strategies associated with each particular DM
be made available.
To diversify delivery modes and combine them, the authors'
ndings support the idea that the use of diverse DMs can meet
the increasing demand for distance education by expanding
learning opportunities in remote locations. Obviously, the effec-
tiveness of the use of a variety of delivery modes hinges on strong
faculty development and support, combined with strong student
support (Graphic 1).
To assist learners in the development of self-diagnosing tools
capable of guiding them to choose the right DM, it is recommended
that research to help them match their learning styles and
preferences to the attributes of the various DMs be made available.
(However, the authors recognize that student choices in this arena
are often driven by convenience and exibility.)
To improve overall learner satisfaction, it is recommended that
learners be provided with multiple options to increase their
computer literacy skills. This can be achieved by offering tutorials
and how-to guides. Such a strategy has the potential to reinforce
students' skills and abilities, maximizing their distance learning
experience.
With these practical recommendations in mind, and in order to
provide insights that will both engender more effective course design
and enhance the learning experience, the authors propose that future
research should focus on examining the dynamics and patterns of
interaction occurring across the different DMs. Further understanding
of interaction patterns will help faculty manage the various delivery
modes, while ensuring an effective experience for all learners.
References
Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., & Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction
with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-
analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 8397.
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United
States, 2009. Babson Survey Research Group & The Sloan Consortium Retrieved
February 3, 2010, from http://www.sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/
learningondemand.pdf.
Amirault, R., & Visser, Y. (2009). The University in periods of technological change: A
historically grounded perspective. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1),
6279.
An, H., Shin, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of different instructor facilitation
approaches on students' interactions during asynchronous online discussions.
Computers & Education, 53(3), 749760.
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale
for interaction.International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2)
Retrieved February 3, 2010, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/
view/149/230.
Anderson, L. P., Banks, S. P., & Leary, P. A. (2002). The effect of interactive television
courses on student satisfaction. Journal of Education for Business, 77(3), 164168.
Arbaugh, J. B., Bangert, A., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2010). Subject matter effects and the
Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework: An exploratory study. The Internet and
Higher Education, 13(12), 3744.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A.,
et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance
education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 12431289.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004).
How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-
analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379439.
Bolliger, D. U., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction
in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 6167.
Casey, D. (2008). A journey to legitimacy: The historical development of distance
education through technology. TechTrends, 52(2), 4551.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conaway, R. N., Easton, S. S., & Schmidt, W. V. (2005). Strategies for enhancing student
interaction and immediacy in online courses. Business Communication Quarterly,
68(1), 2335.
Contreras-Castillo, J., Favela, J., Prez-Fragoso, C., & Santamara-del-Angel, E. (2004).
Informal interactions and their implications for online courses. Computers &
Education, 42(2), 149168.
Darabi, A. A., Sikorski, E. G., & Harvey, R. B. (2006). Validated competencies for distance
teaching. Distance Education, 27(1), 105122.
Dennen, V. P., Darabi, A. A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructorlearner interaction in online
courses: The relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on
performance and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 6579.
Donavant, B. W. (2009). The new, modern practice of adult education: Online
instruction in a continuing professional education setting. Adult Education
Quarterly, 59(3), 227245.
Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students' perceived
learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical
investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215235.
Epp, E., Green, K., Rahman, A., & Weaver, G. (2010). Analysis of studentinstructor
interaction patterns in real-time, scientic online discourse. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 19(1), 4957.
Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., et al.
(2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings:
An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2),
412433.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online
learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3),
133148.
Harasim, L. (2006). A history of E-learning: Shift happened. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J.
Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The international handbook of virtual learning
environments (pp. 5994). Netherlands: Springer.
Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learnerinterface
interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and
strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 3042.
Howsen, R. M., & Lile, S. (2008). A comparison of course delivery methods: An exercise in
experimental economics. Journal of Economics and Finance Education, 7(1), 2128.
Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to
enhance teaching presence and students' sense of community. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 325.
Iverson, K. M., Colky, D. L., & Cyboran, V. L. (2005). E-learning takes the lead: An
empirical investigation of learner differences in online and classroom delivery.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(4), 518.
Johnson, M. (2002). Introductory biology online: Assessing outcomes of two student
populations. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 312317.
Joy, E. H., & Garcia, F. E. (2000). Measuring learning effectiveness: A new look at no-
signicant-difference ndings. Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(1),
3339.
Kearns, L. E., Shoaf, J. R., & Summey, M. B. (2004). Performance and satisfaction of
second-degree BSN students in web-based and traditional course delivery
environments. The Journal of Nursing Education, 43(6), 280284.
Kim, Y., & Sax, L. (2009). Studentfaculty interaction in research universities:
Differences by student gender, race, social class, and rst-generation status.
Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 437459.
Kochman, A., & Maddux, C. D. (2001). Interactive televised distance learning versus on-
campus instruction: A comparison of nal grades. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 34(1), 8791.
Koroghlanian, C. M., & Brinkerhoff, J. (2008). Online students' technology skills and
attitudes toward online instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(2),
219244.
Kroeker, K. L. (2010). Alternate interface technologies emerge. Communications of the
ACM, 53(2), 1315.
Lamport, M. A. (1993). Studentfaculty informal interaction and the effect on college
student outcomes: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 28(112), 971.
Larson, D., & Chung-Hsien, S. (2009). Comparing student performance: Online versus
blended versus face-to-face. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1),
3142.
Laurillard, D. (2008). Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical
innovation. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3/4), 521533.
Lou, Y., Bernard, R., & Abrami, P. (2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate
distance education: A theory-based meta-analysis of empirical literature. Educa-
tional Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 141176.
Luppicini, R. (2007). Review of computer mediated communication research for
education. Instructional Science, 35(2), 141185.
Maushak, N. J., Chen, H. -H., Martin, L., Shaw, B. C., Jr., & Unfred, D. (2001). Distance
education: Looking beyond no signicant difference. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 2(2), 119140.
McIsaac, M. S., & Blocher, J. M. (1998). How research in distance education can affect
practice. Educational Media International, 35(1), 42.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-
based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning
studies. US Department of Education Retrieved February 3, 2010, from http://www.
ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/nalreport.pdf.
Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identied success factors
in distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231252.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education,
3(2), 17.
Moore, M. G. (2002). What does research say about the learners using computer-
mediated communication in distance learning? American Journal of Distance
Education, 16(2), 6164.
Moore, M. G. (2007). Meeting the theorists in Europe. American Journal of Distance
Education, 21(2), 5559.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Mullins-Dove, T. G. (2006). Streaming video and distance education. Distance Learning,
3(4), 6371.
 M.' Abdous, C.-J. Yen / Internet and Higher Education 13 (2010) 248257
Norusis, M. (2008). SPSS statistics 17.0 advanced statistical procedures companion.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
O'Connell, A. (2006). Logistic regression models for ordinal response variables. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
O'Leary, P. F., & Quinlan, T. J., Jr. (2007). Learnerinstructor telephone interaction:
Effects on satisfaction and achievement of online students. American Journal of
Distance Education, 21(3), 133143.
Owens, J., Hardcastle, L., & Richardson, B. (2009). Learning from a distance: The
experience of remote students. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 5374.
Palmer, S. R., & Holt, D. M. (2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online
learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 101113.
Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions: 2006-07. First Look. NCES 2009-044: National Center for Education
Statistics Retrieved February 3, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubSearch/pubsinfo.
asp?pubid=2009044.
Phillips, M. R., & Peters, M. J. (1999). Targeting rural students with distance learning
courses: A comparative study of determinant attributes and satisfaction levels.
Journal of Education for Business, 74(6), 351356.
Roach, V., & Lemasters, L. (2006). Satisfaction with online learning: A comparative
descriptive study. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(3), 317332.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1).
Sahin, I., & Shelley, M. (2008). Considering students' perceptions: The distance
education student satisfaction model. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3),
216223.
Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2003). Differences between traditional and distance
education academic performances: A meta-analytic approach.The International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning(4), 2 Retrieved February 3, 2010,
from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/153/234.
Shea, P., Sau Li, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense
of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. Internet
& Higher Education, 9(3), 175190.
Shin, N. (2002). Beyond interaction: The relational construct of transactional presence.
Open Learning, 17(2), 121137.
Shin, N., & Chan, J. K. Y. (2004). Direct and indirect effects of online learning on distance
education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(3), 275288.
Shu-Hui Hsieh, C., & Smith, R. A. (2008). Effectiveness of personal interaction in a
learner-centered paradigm distance education class based on student satisfaction.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 407426.
Skylar, A. A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and
synchronous interactive web conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2),
6984.
Skylar, A. A., Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Jones, P. (2005). Distance education: An
exploration of alternative methods and types of instructional media in teacher
education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(3), 2533.
257
Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of student
achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics
class. Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233250.
Surry, D. W., & Ensminger, D. (2001). What's wrong with media comparison studies?
Educational Technology, 41(4), 3235.
Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and
perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2),
306331.
Swan, K. (2004). Learning online: Current research on issues of interface, teaching
presence and learner characteristics. In J. Bourne, & J. Moore (Eds.), Elements of
quality online education, into the mainstream (pp. 6379). Needham, MA: Sloan
Center for Online Education.
Tabata, L., & Johnsrud, L. (2008). The impact of faculty attitudes toward technology,
distance education, and innovation. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 625646.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., et al.
(2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 76(1), 93135.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2010). Innovating the 21st-century university: It's time!
EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 45(1), 1629 Retrieved February 3, 2010, from http://www.
educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume45/
Innovatingthe21stCenturyUniver/195370.
Tianyi, Z., Tianguang, G., Ring, G., & Wei, Z. (2007). Using online discussion forums to
assist a traditional English class. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(4),
623643.
Umphrey, L. R., Wickersham, J. A., & Sherblom, J. C. (2008). Student perceptions of the
instructor's relational characteristics, the classroom communication experience,
and the interaction involvement in face-to-face versus video conference instruc-
tion. Communication Research Reports, 25(2), 102114.
Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International
Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 8194.
Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors inuencing interaction in an online course.
American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 2236.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional denition of interaction. American
Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 629.
Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 71, 1926.
Wanstreet, C. E. (2006). Interaction in online learning environments. Quarterly Review
of Distance Education, 7(4), 399411.
Wasilik, O., & Bolliger, D. U. (2009). Faculty satisfaction in the online environment: An
institutional study. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(34), 173178.
Wuensch, K., Aziz, S., Ozan, E., Kishore, M., & Tabrizi, M. H. N. (2008). Pedagogical
characteristics of online and face-to-face classes. International Journal on E-Learning,
7(3), 523532.