Monitoring and evaluating e-tutors in the digital age

Contributed by:

Sharp Tutor Fri, Jan 07, 2022 09:34 PM UTC

The aim is to have teachers digitally empower diverse learners to connect, communicate and collaborate by creating a rich environment indulging technology in the classroom to help them evolve. 21st-century education requires technology integration to help make the world a smaller place and encourage social and collaborative learning to ensure the flow of information is not limited to the classroom but goes beyond it to commence projects and work.

1. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME)
e-ISSN: 2320–7388,p-ISSN: 2320–737X Volume 5, Issue 5 Ver. II (Sep. - Oct. 2015), PP 61-66
Monitoring and evaluating e-tutors in the digital age
Bhushan Talwar1, Shradha Kanwar2, Vijay Mandke3
1
(Educational Technology, NIIT University, India)
2
(Educational Technology, NIIT University, India)
3
(Educational Technology, NIIT University, India)
Abstract : E-tutoring is emerging as an effective teaching learning intervention to address the prevailing e-
learning challenges in the digital age. The author in his previous research paper ‘Adaptive Remediation
Solutions Design Framework and Implementation for Student Success’ has identified the current gap and
recommended Learning to learn driven remedial interventions for improving overall learning experience and
student success rate. For the effective implementation of Adaptive Remediation Solutions framework, e-tutors
need to be continuously monitored and evaluated to teach in the online and blended learning environments.
This paper ascertains the need of an effective monitoring and evaluation criteria for e-tutors in the digital age.
The monitoring and evaluation criteria emphasizes the importance of learning effectiveness by promoting
interactive and effective learning, immediacy behavior by timely and quality pedagogic interventions, learners’
engagement by creating conditions to keep learners committed to the learning process and ensuring steady
progress towards completion of the course activities and student surveys by implementing effective feed-
backward mechanism to continuously improve learning outcomes. It’s a process centric timely intervention to
improve convergence technology enabled educational technology skills of e-tutors in the information age and
thus enabling them to enhance the teaching-learning interplay to improve overall learning outcomes.
Keywords: Monitoring criteria for e-tutors, Instructor onboarding and evaluation criteria for effective e-
tutoring, Preparing e-tutors for student success, 21st century tutoring skills
I. Introduction
E-tutoring is emerging as an effective teaching learning solution to the prevailing e-learning challenges
in the digital age. A white paper by Cherie Mazer, Ed.M, entitled Online Tutoring: A New Retention and
Remediation Solution, found that while the number of students enrolling in undergraduate degree programs has
increased 34% from 2000 to 2009, the number of those students who are unprepared for college has increased
proportionately. According to Virtual Strategy Magazine, fully 60% of students entering community college
require at least one remedial course (James Marshall Crotty, 2012) [1]. Thereby, it indicates that e-tutoring is
seen as a personalized intervention to address individual learning requirements.
E-tutoring is different from traditional tutoring and requires 21st century skill to impart effective
delivery of instructions. Thereby, it requires different set of onboarding & evaluation criteria for continuous
development of e-tutors to ensure better learning outcomes in the digital age. Sahiba Pahwa in her article „21st
century educators? You must know these skills‟ has mentioned that teaching in the 21st century is definitely not
an easy task. Students are digitally focused and have more free access to information challenging thus the
traditional prototypic picture of the teacher as the knowledge instigator. Engagement is also another serious
issue that makes educating such kind of students a real nightmare. It takes so much creativity, originality, and
novelty from the part of teachers to get students motivated and engaged. Technology has the cure but this cure
cannot be effective unless teachers know how to use its prescription. Teachers need to acquire certain digital
skills that are detrimental to the success of their instruction and without which no learning objectives could be
cultivated. (Pahwa 2013) [2]
The author in his previous research paper „Adaptive Remediation Solutions Design Framework and
Implementation for Student Success‟ has identified the current gap and recommended Learning to learn driven
remedial interventions for improving overall learning experience and student success rate. E-tutoring applied
with Adaptive Remediation Solutions Framework focuses on creating a personalized, customized and timely
anchored instructional interplay between the teacher and the learner leading to adequate analysis of learner‟s
engagement and effective and constructive assessment process (Talwar et al 2015) [3]. The aim is to have
teachers to digitally empower diverse learners to connect, communicate and collaborate by creating a rich
environment indulging technology in the classroom to help them evolve. 21st century education requires
technology integration to help make the world a smaller place and encourage social and collaborative learning to
ensure flow of information is not limited to the classroom but goes beyond it to commence projects and work.
Siddhika Bajpai in her article „Vision: 21st Century Learning, Teaching, and Education‟ stated that “The aim is
to have teachers to digitally empower diverse learners to connect, communicate and collaborate by creating a
DOI: 10.9790/7388-05526166 www.iosrjournals.org 61 | Page

2. Monitoring and evaluating e-tutors in the digital age
rich environment indulging technology in the classroom to help them evolve. The main aim is to make the
students learn in a more impactful manner by integrating words with visuals and other means of technology to
help them grasp more. 21st century education does not involve only learning the traditional way, but also to
integrate technology to help make the world a smaller place, to make the interaction go beyond the classroom
and classmate to virtual trips and multi-region and multi-nation interactivity to commence projects and work
(Bajpai, 2013) [4]
For effective implementation of Adaptive Remediation Solutions framework, e-tutors need to be on-
boarded, monitored and evaluated to teach in the online and blended learning environments. The monitoring and
evaluation criteria needs to emphasize the importance of learning effectiveness, quality and timeliness of
response, learners‟ engagement and student surveys to continuously improve instructors digital skills to support
the learning process itself by providing instructions, stimulating questions, examples, feedback, motivation to
deliver better learning outcomes. In other words, e-tutors need to be supported to improve on their Convergence
Technology (CT) enabled Educational Technology (ET) skills to enhance the overall teaching-learning
interplay. CT constitutes convergence of computing (Net and Mobile Computing included), wireless sensory
networks and telecommunications, consumer electronics and content. CT enabled ET has productized the
classroom and provided abundant opportunities for higher education worldwide in the form of e-learning, e-
tutoring supporting teacher-learner, learner-learner, and learner-content communication.
II. Approach
The focus of this research is to design an effective onboarding and evaluating criteria for e-tutors in
the digital age. The work involves identification of drivers for enhancing the e-tutoring experience by exploring
and documenting best practices and key learning for designing the onboarding and evaluation criteria. As a part
of the implementation of this model, e-tutors are educated in the process of tutoring by emphasizing and
enhancing learning effectiveness, quality and timeliness of response, learners‟ engagement and student surveys
to support the learning process itself by providing instructions, stimulating questions, examples, feedback,
motivation to deliver better learning outcomes.
III. E-Tutor Monitoring And Evaluation Criteria In The Digital Age
In distance education, learners are separated by time and space and e-tutor plays a pivotal role to
support the learning process by timely interventions. These interventions are carried out by means of
Convergence Technology enabled Educational Technology in the digital age. Initial and ongoing training,
mentoring, and assessment of effectiveness are keys to the success of any tutoring program whether it is face-to-
face or virtual. Sulcic and Sulcic (2007) developed and demonstrated a successful e-tutoring program. Training
programs are designed to help the e-tutor understand the specifics of e-learning and become familiar and
competent within an online learning environment (p. 208)[5]. The below mentioned monitoring and evaluation
criteria has been identified for e-tutors in the digital age.
3.1.1 Learning Effectiveness - Interactive & Effective Learning
The goal of education is learning. So, learning effectiveness is rated as one of the most critical
parameters to judge education in the digital age. "Learning Effectiveness means that learners who complete an
online program receive educations that represent the distinctive quality of the institution. The goal is that online
learning is at least equivalent to learning through the institution‟s other delivery modes, in particular through its
traditional face-to-face, classroom-based instruction. Interaction is key." (Johnson et al 2000) [6]
As noted, what research there is linking interactions with instructors and student learning is based, for
the most part, on perceptions of the same. Richardson and Ting [7], for example compared the perceptions of
two groups of students involved in asynchronous learning. They found that students learning through written
correspondence with instructors were more concerned with instructor feedback than any other sort of interaction
with their instructors, whereas students learning online felt that all interactions with instructors mattered. Shea,
et al [8] found significant differences in perceived learning among students interacting with their instructors at
differing perceived levels. Students who reported low levels of interaction with their instructors also reported
the lowest levels of learning. Conversely, students who reported high levels of interaction with their instructors
also reported higher levels of learning from them. Swan, et al. [9] found a strong correlation between student
perceptions of learning and their perceived interactions with instructors. Richardson and Swan [10] similarly
reported a significant correlation between student satisfaction with their instructors and their perceived learning
online, and Jiang and Ting [11] found correlations between perceived interactions with instructors and perceived
Interaction refers to reciprocal events involving at least two actors and/or objects and at least two
actions in which the actors, objects, and events mutually influence each other (Wagner, 1994) [12]. Irrespective
of the learning theories we hold (behaviorist, constructivist, cognitivist, or social), mutual interaction in some
DOI: 10.9790/7388-05526166 www.iosrjournals.org 62 | Page

3. Monitoring and evaluating e-tutors in the digital age
form is integral to our notion of how we learn. Similarly, interaction is widely cited as the defining characteristic
of computing media [13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. Researchers concerned with computer-based education have identified
three kinds of interactivity that affect learning: interaction with content, interaction with instructors, and
interaction among peers (Moore, 1989( [18].Interaction with content refers both to learners' interactions with the
course materials and to their interaction with the concepts and ideas they present. Interaction among peers refers
to interactions among learners which also can take many forms -- debate, collaboration, discussion, peer review,
as well as informal and incidental learning among classmates. In any educational setting, the instructor serves as
an expert who plans instruction to stimulate students' interests, motivates their participation in the learning
process, and facilitates their learning. The relationship between instructor/student interactions and learning
outcomes has been well documented in traditional classrooms [19, 20]. It stands to reason that interactions with
instructors would be equally important online. Interaction with instructors includes the myriad ways in which
instructors teach, guide, correct, and support their students. The interactions between e-tutor and learners that
take place in the class need to be observed to determine effectiveness as an instructor. Specifically, the
instructors need to be evaluated on the effectiveness in elucidating the course objectives, maintaining clear and
supportive communication with students, and creating an engaging learning environment. Each of these modes
of interaction support learning and each can be uniquely enacted in online learning environments. The student
success rate is a good indicator of learning effectiveness. It‟s a percentage of learners successfully completing
the course over the total number of learners enrolled for the course. The Student Success Rate is collected on the
completion of the course and is a good indicator of interactive and effective learning.
3.1.2 Immediacy Behavior – Timely & Quality Interventions
Hillman et al maintained that user-interface interaction involved more than just the mediation that occurs
between senders and receivers in all communication, but rather entailed genuine and ongoing interactive
processes through which users developed mental models of the interface based on their interpretations of its
structure and actions. They further contended that learner-interface interactions were critical because failure to
interact successfully could dramatically inhibit learning. For example, a student who has difficulty navigating
folders or asynchronous conferences may completely miss vital course content or instructions. At the very least,
students who must devote significant mental resources to interface interaction will have fewer resources to
devote to learning. On the other hand, productive interactions with well-designed interfaces can enhance
learning by elucidating knowledge structures or scaffolding knowledge creation (Hillman et all, 1994) [21].
Process-centric timely interventions are designed to facilitate the teaching-learning interplay by providing
customized and differentiated instructions and feedback on the basis of analysis of the learning risk. The key is
to monitor learners progress at an intermediate level since the progress at an intermediate level is tied with the
success in the final goal. At times, working in the online environment is new for both tutors and students. Miller
recommends “trying to encourage the students as much as possible because they often tend to feel quite lost,
alone and discouraged. Let them know that the online procedure is new and will get easier” (S. Miller, personal
communication, April 21, 2001). Timey intervention helps in improving immediacy. Immediacy refers to
perceived “psychological distance between communicators” (Kelley, 1988) [22]. In traditional, face-to-face
classrooms, educational researchers have found that teachers‟ immediacy behaviors can lessen the psychological
distance between themselves and their students, leading, directly or indirectly depending on the study, to greater
learning [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31].
Educational researchers have found that both teachers‟ verbal immediacy behaviors (i.e., giving praise,
soliciting viewpoints, humor, self-disclosure) and their non-verbal immediacy behaviors (i.e., physical
proximity, touch, eye-contact, facial expressions, gestures) can lessen the psychological distance between
teachers and their students, leading (directly or indirectly, depending on the study) to greater learning. For
example, while early research on immediacy posited a direct relationship (learning model) between teachers‟
immediacy behaviors and both cognitive [22, 23] and affective learning [23, 24, 25], more recent immediacy
research has come to believe that intervening variables mediate the relationship. In motivation models [26, 27,
28], the intervening variable is hypothesized to be state motivation. In these kinds of models, teachers‟
immediacy behaviors are conceptualized as increasing students‟ motivation to learn resulting in greater affective
and cognitive learning. In Rodriguez, Plax and Kearney‟s [29] affective learning model, affective learning itself
is seen as the intervening variable; that is, teacher immediacy behaviors are seen as increasing students' affective
learning which in turn affects their cognitive learning.
Whatever the proposed model of the relationship between teacher immediacy behaviors and learning, a
positive relationship between teacher immediacy and learning has been clearly documented in the research
literature. This has led certain theorists to suggest that asynchronous media, because they are less personal than
media which transmit non-verbal and/or vocal communications, are less capable of representing teacher
immediacy, in this literature referred to as "social presence" [32, 33, 34 ], hence, by implication, are less capable
of supporting learning. Researchers and practitioners experienced with online teaching and learning, however,
DOI: 10.9790/7388-05526166 www.iosrjournals.org 63 | Page

4. Monitoring and evaluating e-tutors in the digital age
contest this view. They argue that rather than impersonal, computer-mediated communication often seems
“hyper-personal” [35], that participants in computer mediated communications create social presence by
projecting their identities through verbal immediacy behaviors alone [36, 11, 37, 38, 39]. This latter research,
however, centers on online course discussions, hence on interactions among discussion participants, of which
interactions between instructors and students are only a small, usually unidentified, fraction. As previously
noted, research focusing on the roles instructors play in online discussions and their relationship to knowledge
creation and learning within them is definitely a priority. Also of interest are other sorts of interactions between
online instructors and students such as instructor feedback on assignments, journaling between instructors and
students, and teaching presence in online lectures.
In today‟s information driven environment, instructors immediacy behavior needs to be closely monitored
and continuously honed for deep learning and better retention and are developed by sharing additional and
preparatory content for students to supplement standard instructions, clarifying students‟ doubts by
understanding the context of the difficulty, providing quick resolution through synchronous learning (online
chat) and sharing digital resources for quick reference and reinforcement of learning. Rich media, multimodal
interplays provided through CT enabled ET in the form of internet, email, online chat, discussion forums,
collaborating tools, social networking platforms need to be used to enhance/exhibit immediacy behavior.
Immediacy behavior helps in reducing perceived psychological distance among instructors and learners. This
becomes critical in the case of online learning where instructor and learners are separated by time and distance.
Timely responses to student questions and assignment submissions are critical. Quick feedback keeps students
on track with their academic progress and assures them that they are not alone in the learning process.
Conversely, delays on instructor‟s part can quickly lead students to experience feelings of isolation and
demotivation. As a result, instructors are advised to login to their online class daily and check for submissions
that require their attention. The instructors are recommended to provide query resolution and intervention to
graded assignments within defined timelines.
4.1.1 Engaging Students
Student engagement in the class is at the heart of instructor‟s mission. The best learning occurs when
students are engaged – when they are doing things instead of sitting passively and listening. A classic study by
the National Training Board US found that students retained only 5% of the information they received in lecture
twenty-four hours later. Retention rates increased to 75-90% when active learning involving peer teaching was
used instead of lectures. Other active learning methods (e.g., demonstration and discussion) also resulted in
higher retention rates (30% and 50%, respectively). In another study of the effectiveness of lectures (McLeish
1968; cited in Fink 2003), students were tested on their understanding of facts, theory, and application after
hearing a lecture that was specially designed to be effective. Despite being able to use their own lecture notes
and a printed summary of the lecture, average student recall after the lecture was only 42%. A week later recall
had dropped to only 20% [40] [41]. In a recent review of the effectiveness of active learning, Prince (2004)
found extensive, widespread support for active learning approaches, especially when activities were designed
around important learning outcomes and promoted thoughtful engagement [42]. Many instructors recognize that
active learning results in significant improvements in student knowledge retention, conceptual understanding,
engagement, and attitudes about learning. According to Vonderwell and Zachariah (2005, p.214), “Learner
participation is an essential element for active and engaged learning”[43]. Although student participation is not a
direct measure of learning, its necessary in order for a discussion to occur in the first place; and through the
discussion, it is more likely that learning takes place (Dennen, 2005) [44].
So, student engagement promotes learning in the classroom and is important for receiving the full
benefit of class discussions, announcements, and learning materials. If learners do not attend regularly, interact
with classmates and class materials, and invest themselves actively in the learning process, they are unlikely to
succeed academically. Therefore student engagement is a critical aspect of monitoring and evaluating e-tutors in
the digital age. In order to analyze this correlation, tracking of students is done on the basis of learners engaging
in one of the following activities: a) submission of a course assignment, b) participation in a course discussion
thread by posting a comment, question, or response related to a course topic, c) submission of an “Ask the
Instructor” question in the course management system, or d) submission of a Quiz or Exam. Instructors are
encouraged to track student participation and engagement using this feature and to contact learners who appear
to be disengaging from the class.
The engagement is measured primarily in terms of regular submission of graded assignments and
successful course completion. E-tutors needs to make their presence regular, visible in the classroom. The job of
an instructor is largely about creating conditions that will keep students committed to regular attendance in the
class and steady progress towards completion of course activities. E-tutors need to participate frequently in class
discussions and stay vigilant about creating the conditions necessary for lively and engaging class discussion
and offering strategies to complete pending assignments. Students enjoy sharing their ideas. They need to be
DOI: 10.9790/7388-05526166 www.iosrjournals.org 64 | Page

5. Monitoring and evaluating e-tutors in the digital age
provided with an assignment/challenge to do so in the Discussion Forum. It‟s advisable to post valuable and
encouraging announcements in the digital classroom to promote student engagement. The announcements need
to be fun, useful to the learning process, informative and a source of new and exciting information.
4.1.2 Student Surveys – An effective feed-backward mechanism
Generally speaking “little is known, still, and users‟ perceptions and behaviors when interacting with online
learning environments, reinforcing the dichotomy between designers and users‟ perception of how web based
environments ought to work.” (Hemard 2006: 262)[45]. The role of the tutor as an intermediary between learner
and course becomes therefore even more important in all aspects of learning. A big part of that is listening to
what the learners have to say and to invite learners to give feedback. It should not be forgotten that the teacher-
learner relationship in an online environment is substantially different from the one learners are used to from
their face to face teaching experiences (White 2003: 98) [46], and that the necessary adjustments can cause
anxieties, frustrations and undermine their confidence.
There is no question that ongoing feedback from learners is vital for monitoring and evaluating e-tutors in
the digital age. An effective feedback loop between tutors and learners is not only generally stimulating, but can
greatly help in avoiding mistakes, in the sharing of successfully strategies, exchange of experiences and, last but
not the least, it can lighten the burden of responsibility, especially if the tutor is running a course on his/her own.
Student Surveys are considered to be important tool to feedback information on the instruction, delivery and
learning modality. Students are asked to complete a course survey every quarter for each course in which they
are enrolled. Responses are given on a 5-point scale (5 being the best score) and pertain to a range of course
components including content, delivery, instruction, and support services. Students also have the opportunity to
provide individual comments on any aspect of the course that they feel warrants special attention. The learning
administrative staff reviews the results of these surveys to identify areas of potential improvement at the
program, course, and instructional levels. Part of the overall evaluation as an instructor includes the ratings
instructors receive from their students.
IV. Conclusion
E-tutoring is emerging as a preferred intervention to address prevailing e-learning challenges. E-
tutoring is different from traditional tutoring and thereby requires 21st century information savvy skills to
engage students in the learning process. If not engaged, students may get easily distracted and get dropped from
the course. At times, instructors are not fully equipped with convergence technology enabled educational
technology teaching-learning skills and need regular monitoring and feedback to bridge the gap. It‟s critical to
bridge the gap since learners (recipient of knowledge) are pretty active in the information age and have access to
all the information and knowledge resources in the world. These information learners need to be digitally
empowered by creating a rich environment indulging technology in the classroom. This ensures that learning is
not limited to the classroom but goes beyond it to commence project and work and thus promotes collaborative,
social and experiential learning. E-tutoring monitoring and evaluation criteria is an effective process centric
timely intervention to continuously evaluate and develop e-tutors helping them to improve the teaching learning
interplay. It emphasizes the importance of learning effectiveness by promoting interactive and effective
learning, immediacy behavior by timely and quality pedagogic interventions, learners‟ engagement by creating
conditions to keep learners committed to the learning process and ensuring steady progress towards completion
of course activities and student surveys by implementing effective feed-backward mechanism to continuously
improve learning outcomes. The criteria helps in improving overall teaching-learning experience for e-tutors
and learners. While e-tutors get a platform to improve their convergence enabled educational technology skills,
learners benefit from the improved teaching-learning methodology. It supports e-learning delivery and creates
and engaging and conducive environment for learners for steady progress towards the completion of course
activities. In other words, e-tutoring monitoring and evaluation criteria assists in the academic integration of
learners resulting in higher academic performance.
References
[1]. Cherie Mazer (2012). Online Tutoring: A New Retention and Remediation Solution for Colleges. Retrieved Sep 21, 2015, from
http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2012/06/05/new-report-discusses-value-online-tutoring-address-higher-education-retention-and-
remedia#ixzz2DY1GBZqE
[2]. Sahiba Pahwa (2013). 21st century educators? You must know these skills. Retrieved Aug 20, 2015, from
http://edtechreview.in/trends-insights/insights/259-21st-century-educator-skills
[3]. Bhushan Talwar, Shradha Kanwar, Vijay Mandke (2015). Adaptive Remediation Solutions Design Framework and Implementation
for Student Success. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME) e-ISSN: 2320–7388,p-ISSN: 2320–737X
Volume 5, Issue 4 Ver. I (Jul - Aug. 2015), PP 00-00
[4]. Sidhikka Bajpai (2013). Vision : 21 st Century Learning, Teaching and Education. Retrieved Aug 25, 2015, from
http://edtechreview.in/trends-insights/insights/210-21stcentury-teaching-learning-education
DOI: 10.9790/7388-05526166 www.iosrjournals.org 65 | Page

6. Monitoring and evaluating e-tutors in the digital age
[5]. Sulcic, V., & Sulcic, A. (2007). Can online tutors improve the quality of e-learning. Informing Science and Information
Technology,4, 201-210. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/8476547/Can-Online-Tutors-Improve-the-
Quality-ofELearning
[6]. Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R. Shaik, N. & Palma-Rivas, N. Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in
online and fact-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11 (1) 29-49, 2000.
[7]. Richardson J. & E. Ting, E. Making the most of interaction: what instructors do that most affect students‟ perceptions of their
learning. College Park, MD: Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Asynchronous Learning, 1999.
[8]. Shea, P. J., Swan, K., Fredericksen, E. E & Pickett, A. M. Student satisfaction and reported learning in the SUNY Learning
Network. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds) Elements of Quality Online Education, Volume 3. Olin and Babson Colleges: Sloan
Center for Online Education, 2002.
[9]. Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A, Pelz, W. & Maher, G. Building knowledge building communities: consistency,
contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23 (4), 389-413, 2000.
[10]. Richardson, J. & Swan, K. An examination of social presence in online learning: students' perceived learning and satisfaction.
Seattle, WA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 2001.
[11]. Jiang, M. & Ting, E. A study of factors influencing students‟ perceived learning in a web-based course environment . International
Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6 (4), 317-338, 2000.
[12]. Wagner, E. D. In support of a fuctional definition of interaction. The American Journel of Distance Edcuation, 8 (2), 6 -29, 1994.
[13]. Bolter, J. D. The Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext and the History of Writing. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina Press, 1991.
[14]. Landow, G. P. Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1992.
[15]. Lanham, R. A. The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
[16]. Murray, J. H. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York: The Free Press, 1997.
[17]. Turkle, S. Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.
[18]. Moore, M.G. Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2), 1 -6, 1989.
[19]. Madden, M. & Carli, L. Students' Satisfaction with Graduate School and Attributions of Control and Responsibility. New York:
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, 1981.
[20]. Powers, S. & Rossman, M. Student satisfaction with graduate education: Dimensionality and assessment in college education.
Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior, 22 (2), 46-49, 1985.
[21]. Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J. & Gunawardena, C. N. Learrner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of
contemporary models and strategies for practioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2), 30-42, 1994.
[22]. Kelley, D. & Gorham, J. Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Communication Education, 37 (2), 198-207, 1988.
[23]. Gorham, J. The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning.
[24]. Communication Education, 37 (1), 40-53, 1988.
[25]. Kearney, P., Plax, T. G. & Wendt-Wasco, N. J. Teacher immediacy for affective learning in divergent college classes.
Communication Quarterly, 33 (1), 61-74, 1985.
[26]. Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S. & McCrosky, J. The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In
M. McLaughlin (Ed.) Communication Yearbook 10. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 574-590, 1987.
[27]. Christophel, D. The relationship among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education,
39, (4), 323-240, 1990.
[28]. Richmond, V. P. Communication in the classroom: power and motivation. Communication Education, 39 (3), 181-195, 1990.
[29]. Frymier, A. B. (1994) A model of immediacy in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 42 (2), 133-144, 1994.
[30]. Rodriguez, J. L., Plax, T. G. & Kearney, P. Clarifying the relationship between teacher nonverbal
[31]. Christenson, L. & Menzel, K. The linear relationship between student reports of teacher immediacy behaviors and perceptions of
state motivation, and of cognitive, affective and behavioral learning. Communication Education, 47, (1), 82-90, 1998.
[32]. Swan, K. Virtual interactivity: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses.
Distance Education, 22, (2), 306-331, 2001.
[33]. Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Toronto: Wiley, 1976.
[34]. Rice, R. E. Contexts of Research in Organizational Computer-Mediated Communication. In M. Lea. (Ed.), Contexts of Computer-
Mediated Communication. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf , 113-144, 1992.
[35]. Picard, R. W. Affective Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997
[36]. Walther, J. Interpersonal effects in computer mediated interaction. Communication Research, 21 (4), 460-487, 1994.
[37]. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R. & Archer, W. Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer
conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14 (2), 2001.
[38]. Gunawardena, C. & Zittle, F. Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment.
American Journal of Distance Education, 11 (3), 8-26, 1997.
[39]. LaRose, R. & Whitten, P. Re-thinking instructional immediacy for web courses: a social cognitive exploration. Communication
Education, 49, 320-338, 2000.90.
[40]. LaRose, R. & Whitten, P. Re-thinking instructional immediacy for web courses: a social cognitive exploration. Communication
Education, 49, 320-338, 2000.
[41]. McLeish, J., 1968, The Lecture Method. Cambridge Institute of Education, Cambridge, England. National Research Council, 1999,
How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 346 p.
[42]. Fink, L.D., 2003, Creating Significant learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. Jossey-Bass
Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 295 p.
[43]. Prince, M., 2004, Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering Education, v. 93, p. 223 -231.
[44]. Vonderwell, S. (2004). Assessing online learning and teaching: Adapting the minute paper, TechTrends, 48(4), 29–31.
[45]. Dennen, V. P. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: Factors affecting learner participation in asynchronous
discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127-148.
[46]. Hémard D (2006) Design Issues Related to the Evaluation of Learner‐ Computer Interaction in a Web‐based Environment
: Activities v. Tasks, Computer Assisted Language Learning 19 (2 & 3), April 2006, pp. 261‐276.
[47]. White C (2003) Language Learning in Distance Education, Cambridge, Cambridge UP
(Cambridge Language Teaching Library).
DOI: 10.9790/7388-05526166 www.iosrjournals.org 66 | Page

Book a Trial Class

Download