Transactional distance perceptions, student engagement, and course satisfaction in flipped learning: a correlational study

References

• Al Mamun, M. A., Azad, M. A. K., & Boyle, M. (2022). Review of flipped learning in engineering education: Scientific mapping and research horizon. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 1261–1286.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Al-Samarraie, H., & Hurmuzan, S. (2018). A review of brainstorming techniques in higher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best, B., & Conceição, S. C. (2017). Transactional distance dialogic interactions and student satisfaction in a multi-institutional blended learning environment. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 20(1), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2017-0009
   Google Scholar
• Bienkowski, M., Feng, M., & Means, B. (2012). Enhancing teaching and learning through educational data mining and learning analytics: An issue brief. Office of Educational Technology, US Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39, 299–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolliger, D. U., & Martin, F. (2018). Instructor and student perceptions of online student engagement strategies. Distance Education, 39(4), 568–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonk, C. J., & Zhang, K. (2006). Introducing the R2D2 model: Online learning for the diverse learners of this world. Distance Education, 27(2), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910600789670
   Google Scholar
• Bonk, C. J., & Zhang, K. (2008). Empowering online learning: 100 + activities for reading, reflecting, displaying, and doing. John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Çağıltay, K., Graham, C. R., Lim, B. R., Craner, J., & ve Duffy, T. M. (2001). The seven principles of good practice: A practical approach to evaluating online courses. Hacettepe ÜNiversitesi EğItim FakülTesi Dergisi, 20, 40–50.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, S. C., Hwang, G. J., & Lai, C. L. (2020). Critical research advancements of flipped learning: A review of the top 100 highly cited papers. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1765395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. john Wiley & sons.
   Google Scholar
• Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus-based student engagement. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600801878
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (pp. 146–166). Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Doo, M. Y., Bonk, C. J., Shin, C. H., & Woo, B. D. (2021). Structural relationships among self-regulation, transactional distance, and learning engagement in a large university class using flipped learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(3), 609–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1832020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekwunife-Orakwue, K. C., & Teng, T. L. (2014). The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education, 78, 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elyakim, N., Reychav, I., Offir, B., & McHaney, R. (2019). Perceptions of transactional distance in blended learning using location-based mobile devices. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 131–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117746169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ergün, E., & Koçak Usluel, Y. (2015). The Turkish adaptation of student’s engagements scale in online learning environment: A study of validity and reliability. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 5(1), 18–33.
   Google Scholar
• Gülbahar, Y. (2012). Study of developing scales for assessment of the levels of readiness and satisfaction of participants in e-learning environments. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 45(2), 119–138.
   Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526853
   Google Scholar
• Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/104648
   Google Scholar
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling, fit indices, covariance structure modelling; reporting structural equation modelling; model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hung, J. L., & Zhang, K. (2008). Revealing online learning behaviors and activity patterns and making predictions with data mining techniques in online teaching. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 426–437. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no4/hung_1208.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., & Yin, C. (2017). Objectives, methodologies and research issues of learning analytics. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(2), 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1287338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2019). The impact of feedback form on transactional distance and critical thinking skills in online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(1), 119–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2020). Student opinions about personalized recommendation and feedback based on learning analytics. Tech Know Learn, 25(4), 753–768.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korkmaz, S., & Mirici, İH. (2021). Converting a conventional flipped class into a synchronous online flipped class during COVID-19: University students’ self-regulation skills and anxiety. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2018615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurucay, M., & Inan, F. A. (2017). Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers & Education, 115, 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, C.-L., & Hwang, G.-J. (2016). A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course. Computers & Education, 100, 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latorre-Cosculluela, C., Suárez, C., Quiroga, S., Sobradiel-Sierra, N., Lozano-Blasco, R., & Rodríguez-Martínez, A. (2021). Flipped classroom model before and during COVID-19: Using technology to develop 21st century skills. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(2), 189–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(3), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundin, M., Rensfeldt, A. B., Hillman, T., Lantz-Andersson, A., & Peterson, L. (2018). Higher education dominance and siloed knowledge: A systematic review of flipped classroom research. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0101-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, F., Wang, C., & Sadaf, A. (2018). Student perception of helpfulness of facilitation strategies that enhance instructor presence, connectedness, engagement and learning in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNally, B., Chipperfield, J., Dorsett, P., Del Fabbro, L., Frommolt, V., Goetz, S., Lewohl, J., Molineux, M., Pearson, A., Reddan, G., & Rung, A. (2017). Flipped classroom experiences: Student preferences and flip strategy in a higher education context. Higher Education, 73(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0014-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE Higher Education Report, 40(6), 1–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20018
   Google Scholar
• Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 869–874.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, M. G. (1973). Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 44(9), 661–679. https://doi.org/10.2307/1980599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Nerantzi, C. (2020). The use of peer instruction and flipped learning to support flexible blended learning during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 7(2), 184–195. https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.72.20-013
   Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (version 10). Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1), 1–33.
   Google Scholar
• Quadir, B., Yang, J. C., & Chen, N. S. (2022). The effects of interaction types on learning outcomes in a blog-based interactive learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(2), 293–306.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, J. C., & Newby, T. (2006). The role of students’ cognitive engagement in online learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde2001_3
   Google Scholar
• Romero, C., & Ventura, S. (2010). Educational data mining: A review of the state of the art. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 40(6), 601–618. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2010.2053532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roque-Hernández, R. V., Díaz-Roldán, J. L., López-Mendoza, A., & Salazar-Hernández, R. (2021). Instructor presence, interactive tools, student engagement, and satisfaction in online education during the COVID-19 Mexican lockdown. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1912112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rumble, G. (1986). The planning and management of distance education. St Martins Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schnitzler, K., Holzberger, D., & Seidel, T. (2021). All better than being disengaged: Student engagement patterns and their relations to academic self-concept and achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(3), 627–652..
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shea, P., 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 and Higher Education, 9(3), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005
   Google Scholar
• Shin, N. (2001). Beyond interaction: Transactional presence and distance learning [Doctoral dissertation]. Pennsylvania State University.
   Google Scholar
• Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, C. (2002). Improving traditional teaching using findings from distance education. Journal of Effective Teaching, 5(2).
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Tang, T., Abuhmaid, A. M., Olaimat, M., Oudat, D. M., Aldhaeebi, M., & Bamanger, E. (2020). Efficiency of flipped classroom with online-based teaching under COVID-19. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy, 11(1), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Tsai, S. C. (2019). Implementing interactive courseware into EFL business writing: Computational assessment and learning satisfaction. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1451896
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ustun, A. B., Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2021). Investigating the role of accepting learning management system on students’ engagement and sense of community in blended learning. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4751–4769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10500-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ustun, A. B., & Tracey, M. W. (2020). An effective way of designing blended learning: A three phase design based research approach. Education and Information Technologies 25(3), 1529–1552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09999-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ustun, A. B., & Tracey, M. W. (2021). An innovative way of designing blended learning through design-based research in higher education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.906821
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ustun, A. B., Zhang, K., Karaoğlan-Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. ( 2022).Learning analytics based feedback and recommendations in flipped classrooms: an experimental study in higher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, J., & Jou, M. (2020). The influence of mobile-learning flipped classrooms on the emotional learning and cognitive flexibility of students of different levels of learning achievement. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1830806.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance Education, 38(1), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1298982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yilmaz, R. (2017). Exploring the role of e-learning readiness on student satisfaction and motivation in flipped classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yilmaz, R., & Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G. (2019). Assigned roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: Comparison of transactional distance and knowledge sharing behaviors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(5), 1303–1325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118786855
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yilmaz, R., & Keser, H. (2017). The impact of interactive environment and metacognitive support on academic achievement and transactional distance in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(1), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116656453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yılmaz, R., & Keser, H. (2015). The adaptation study of transactional distance scale. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30(4), 91–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, A. (2003). Transactional distance in web-based college learning environments: Toward measurement and theory construction [Doctoral dissertation]. Virginia Commonwealth University.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, K., & Aslan, A. B. (2021). AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2, 100025.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, K., Peng, S. W., & Hung, J. L. (2009). Online collaborative learning in a project-based learning environment in Taiwan: A case study on undergraduate students’ perspectives. Educational Media International, 46(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980902933425
   Google Scholar