Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Padilla Rodriguez, Brenda Cecilia; Armellini, Alejandro (2014)
Publisher: The University of Alabama, the University of Texas at Tyler, and Miami University
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: LB1028.43, HF5549.5.T7

Classified by OpenAIRE into

Finding effective ways of designing online courses is a priority for corporate organizations. The interaction equivalency theorem states that meaningful learning can be achieved as long as courses are designed with at least a high level of one of three types of interactions (learner-content, learner-teacher or learner-learner). This study aimed to establish whether the interaction equivalency theorem applies to online learning in the corporate sector. The research was conducted in a large Mexican commercial organization, and involved 147 learners (sales supervisors), 30 teachers (sales managers and directors) and 3 academic assistants (course designers, or Education support staff). Three courses of an existing Leadership Program (Situational Leadership, Empowering Beliefs and Effective Performance) were redesigned and developed to test three course designs, each emphasizing a different type of interaction (learner-content, learner-teacher or learner-learner). Data were collected through surveys (for diagnostic and evaluation purposes) and exams. All courses yielded high levels of effectiveness, in terms of satisfaction, learning, perceived readiness for knowledge transfer and return on expectations. This suggests that the interaction equivalency theorem not only applies in a business setting but might also include other indicators of course effectiveness, such as satisfaction, learning transfer and return on expectations. Further research is needed to explore the possible expansion of the theorem.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Adams, J. (2008). Understanding the factors that limit the acceptability of online courses and degrees. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(4), 573-587.
    • Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230.
    • Armellini, A., Moseley, A., Hayes, N., Sweeney, D., Padilla Rodriguez, B. C., Conole, G., & Beard, J. (2012, September). An inclusive review of current uses of the institutional VLE staff and students at the University of Leicester. Paper presented at the Association for Learning Technology Conference, Manchester, United Kingdom.
    • Becker, K. L., Newton, C. J., & Sawang, S. (2013). A learner perspective on barriers to elearning. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 53(2), 211-233.
    • 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.
    • Caliskan, H. (2009). Facilitators' perception of interactions in an online learning program. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(3), 193-203.
    • Chang, S.-H. H., & Smith, R. A. (2008). Effectiveness of personal interaction in a learnercentered paradigm distance education class based on student satisfaction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 407-426.
    • Cotton, D. R. E., & Gresty, K. A. (2007). The rhetoric and reality of e-learning: Using the think aloud method to evaluate an online resource. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 583-600.
    • Dennen, V. P., Darabi, A. A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructor-learner interaction in online courses: The relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on performance and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 65-79.
    • DeWitt, D., Alias, N., Siraj, S., & Zakaria, A. R. (2014). Interactions in online forums: A case study among first year undergraduate students. Frontiers in Education (FE), 2(1), 6-13.
    • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
    • International Labor Organization (ILO). (2004). R195 - Human Resources Development Recommendation, 2004 (No. 195). Recommendation concerning Human Resources Development: Education, training and lifelong learning. Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTR UMENT_ID:312533
    • Jung, I. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web-based instruction in the context of distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 525-534.
    • Kim, K.-J., Bonk, C. J., & Teng, Y.-T. (2009). The present state and future trends of blended learning in workplace learning settings across five countries. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10, 299-308.
    • Kim, K.-J., Bonk, C. J., & Zeng, T. (2005, June). Surveying the future of workplace e-learning: the rise of blending, interactivity, and authentic learning. eLearn Magazine. Retrieved from http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=1073202
    • Macdonald, I. S., Bullen, M., & Kozak, R. A. (2010). Learner support requirements for online workplace training in the South African furniture industry. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(3), 49-59.
    • Macpherson, A., Elliot, M., Harris, I., & Homan, G. (2004). E-learning: Reflections and evaluation of corporate programmes. Human Resource Development International, 7(3), 295-313.
    • Nie, M., Armellini, A., Harrington, S., Barklamb, K., & Randall, R. (2010). The role of podcasting in effective curriculum renewal ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 18(2), 105-118.
    • Padilla Rodriguez, B. C., & Armellini, A. (2013). Interaction and effectiveness of corporate elearning programmes. Human Resource Development International, 16(4), 1-10.
    • Padilla Rodriguez, B. C., & Fernandez Cardenas, J. M. (2012). Developing professional competence at a Mexican organization: Legitimate peripheral participation and the role of technology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69(2012), 8-13.
    • Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21- 40.
    • Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1). Retrieved, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/603/1178
    • Russell, M., Kleiman, G., Carey, R., & Douglas, J. (2009). Comparing self-paced and cohortbased online courses for teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 443-466.
    • Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing Inc.
    • Scott-Jackson, W., Edney, T, & Rushent, C. (2008). Learning at work: E-learning evolution or revolution? Latest trends and blends in management and leadership development. Chartered Management Institute. Retrieved from: http://classtap.pbworks.com/f/SkillSoft+-+New+ELearning+Strategies.pdf
    • Skillsoft. (2007). The future of learning: Benchmark study. Retrieved, from:   https://www.meritalk.com/uploads_legacy/whitepapers/futureoflearning.pdf
    • Su, B., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R. J., Liu, X., & Lee, S. (2005). The importance of interaction in web-based education: A program-level case study of online MBA courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(1), 1-19.
    • Tomkin, J. H., & Charlevoix, D. (2014). Do professors matter?: Using an a/b test to evaluate the impact of instructor involvement on MOOC student outcomes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference. Retrieved on April 10, 2014, from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2566245
    • Udegbe, I. B. (2012). Attitudes of prospective human resource personnel towards distance learning degrees. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring151/udegbe.html
    • Vaughan, K., & MacVicar, A. (2004). Employees' pre-implementation attitudes and perceptions to e-learning: A banking case study analysis. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(5), 400-413.
    • Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, K. G., & Simmering, M. J. (2003). E-learning: Emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 245-258.
    • Woo, Y. & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Interaction in asynchronous web-based learning environments: Strategies supported by educational research. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3-4), 179-194.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article