JRTE, 40(4), 407–426

Effectiveness of Personal Interaction in

a Learner-Centered Paradigm Distance
Education Class Based on
Student Satisfaction
Shu-Hui Hsieh Chang and Roger A. Smith
Iowa State University

Abstract
This study examined relationships between students’ perceptions of course-related interaction
and their course satisfaction within the learner-centered paradigm in distance education. A
Students’ Perceived Interaction Survey (SPIS) instrument was developed to examine nine
separate hypotheses about the nature of course-related interaction. A volunteer sample of 855
students from the 949 students enrolled in Computer Science 103—Computer Literacy and
Applications at Iowa State University in the fall of 2005 was used. This study employed a
multiple linear regression. It concluded that student-instructor personal interaction, student-
student personal interaction, and student-content interaction, along with students’ perceptions
of WebCT features and gender were predictors of course satisfaction. In this study 94% of
the participants indicated they were satisfied with the course. No significance was found in
the relationships between student satisfaction and student-teaching assistant (TA) personal
interaction, the student’s prior partial online distance education experience, the student’s prior
entirely online distance education experience, and academic year. (Keywords: interaction,
learner-center, student satisfaction, distance education.)

INTRODUCTION
Distance education has become widely used around the world today and is
available in a number of forms that reduce the time and space constraints pres-
ent in traditional classrooms (Verduin & Clark, 1991). Distance education
is especially advantageous because it makes learning accessible to students all
day, everyday, giving them immense control over their own learning schedules.
Within this new educational paradigm, virtual classrooms provide students with
an environment that allows them to access information conveniently (Ko &
Rossen, 2001).
According to Perez’s (2001) research, many students reported that the main
disadvantage of distance education was a lack of personal interaction between
the instructor and the students. Opportunities for students to meet with their
instructor in a face-to-face environment were nonexistent, preventing students
from asking questions, engaging in discussions, and exchanging non-verbal cues
with the instructor (Perez, 2001).
In Rost’s (2000) research regarding distance education, online instructors
utilized forms of technology that lacked personal interaction, decreasing the
quality of education. Although many studies have considered different variables
related to student performance and satisfaction, few studies have examined

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 407

the relationship between interactivity, the effectiveness of technology used in
distance education, and course satisfaction levels of distance education learn-
ers. Concerns about the quality of distance learning can be addressed better if
researchers understand how students perceive interaction in virtual classrooms
and how technology contributes to their learning.

PROBLEM OF THE STUDY AND HYPOTHESES

This study determined whether there was a relationship between students’
perceptions of how effective course-related interaction was and their level of
course satisfaction. The Students’ Perceived Interaction Survey instrument
(SPIS) was developed by the researchers to measure nine variables within the
learner-centered paradigm in distance education. These variables included: stu-
dent-instructor personal interaction, student-teaching assistant (TA) personal
interaction, student-student personal interaction, student-content interaction,
gender, academic classification, students’ prior experiences with distance educa-
tion in a partially online class setting, students’ prior experiences with distance
education in an entirely online class setting, and students’ perceptions on the ef-
fectiveness of particular WebCT features in helping them learn. Based on these
variables, nine hypotheses were developed.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study served three purposes:
1. To identify the relationships between student-instructor personal interaction
and course satisfaction, student-TA personal interaction and course satisfac-
tion, student-content interaction and course satisfaction, and student-stu-
dent personal interaction and course satisfaction.
2. To identify the relationship between students’ perceptions about the effec-
tiveness of WebCT features for their learning and course satisfaction.
3. To identify the relationships between course satisfaction and specific student
demographics such as gender, academic classification, and prior distance
education course experiences.

LITERATURE REVIEW
In an educational setting, interaction through communication and collabo-
ration is the most central mechanism educators use to encourage students to
become active learners. As the distance education system evolves, interactive
processes, especially those that imitate the interactive processes in traditional
face-to-face classrooms, have been attracting special attention. The insufficient
amount of interactive learning opportunities within the online course environ-
ment is considered one of the major downsides of distance education (Perez,
2001).
In response to this lack of interaction, educators should examine thoroughly
the current status of the distance education field and study the factors that de-
fine and influence the current designs and contents of distance education. In a
world that constantly develops new technologies, understanding these factors

408 Summer 2008: Volume 40 Number 4

is important to anticipate and modify the newest educational methods to cor-
respond with the newest technologies.
The internet has become an invaluable asset to distance education because it
allows students to learn through various technologies, such as two-way video
and computer-mediated communication. This enables students to play an ac-
tive role in the learning process and provides flexibility and convenience for
learners (Willems, 2005). Increased interaction, made possible by utilizing the
newer two-way communication technologies, has immense impact upon dis-
tance education.
Inadequate faculty training, lack of knowledge of online course design, and
doubt about real-time classroom concepts working in the online environment
determines a need for theoretical and empirical research on course design prin-
ciples for online instructors (McCombs & Vakili, 2005). Furthermore, Barrett,
Bower, and Donovan (2007) indicated it is critical for online instructors to shift
from the traditional teacher-centered to the learner-centered teaching style.

New Education Model: The Shift to a Learner-Centered Paradigm

Olson and Wisher (2002), in examining 47 studies on Web-based courses in
higher education, found many cases where faculty members were not trained
adequately in online instructional design. The American Psychological Associa-
tion addressed this concern and developed 12 learner-centered principles in
1990, then revised the list into 14 learner-centered principles in 1995 (Alexan-
der & Murphy, 1998). McCombs and Whisler (1997) defined the learner-cen-
tered paradigm based on these principles:

The perspective that couples a focus on individual learners (their hered-

ity, experiences, perspectives, backgrounds, talents, interests, capacities,
and needs) with a focus on learning (the best available knowledge about
learning and how it occurs and about teaching practices that are most
effective in promoting the highest levels of motivation, learning, and
achievement for all learners) (p. 9).

McCombs et al. (2005) indicated that online educators should implement

these 14 learner-centered psychological principles into curriculum design. These
principles included: 1) nature of the learning process, 2) goals of the learning
process, 3) construction of knowledge, 4) strategic thinking, 5) thinking about
thinking, 6) context of learning, 7) motivational and emotional influences on
learning, 8) intrinsic motivation to learn, 9) effects of motivation on effort, 10)
developmental influences on learning, 11) social influences on learning, 12)
individual differences in learning, 13) learning and diversity, 14) standards and
assessment. This learner-centered dynamic curriculum focuses on the needs of
individual learners and provides opportunities to gain expertise as goals and
projects progress. In addition, the curriculum provides students the opportunity
to learn anytime, anywhere, encourages learning autonomy, assesses students’
backgrounds to understand individual needs, promotes interaction and col-
laboration with other students, allows students to share their personal needs and
interests with others, observe the learning progression and feedback, and change

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 409

according to students’ needs. They concluded that teachers should include
learners in decisions about learning processes and respect students’ individual
backgrounds and abilities while simultaneously focusing on promoting motiva-
tion, overall achievement, and learning.
White (2005) stated that online educators should focus on developing learn-
ers and understanding their perspectives on distance education. Miller (2007)
reported that students in learner-centered online classrooms produced higher-
quality course projects and mastered concepts better than those in non-learner-
centered online classrooms. The learner-centered model has become a key com-
ponent for online distance education, breaking from the traditional teaching
model.
Chou (2001) conducted a research study at the University of Hawaii on an
upper level undergraduate course based on learner-centered instructional design
and employed constructivist and small group cooperative learning activities in
the curriculum. The study utilized WebCT and other computer media com-
munication systems such as Palace and Active World. Chou identified two ele-
ments that impact the different patterns of interaction, one being the design of
leaner-centered online activities. These activities, which include student-moder-
ated discussion, small group cooperative learning projects, and constructivist-
based instructional activities, were found to enhance interpersonal relationships
and increase opportunities for students to share information and build knowl-
edge while collaborating with others. They also allowed students to express their
viewpoints and take responsibility for their learning to reduce confusion in the
online environment. The second element Chou identified was the technological
attributes that enhance social presence and effective communication. Student
perceptions of the technological attributes of the course management system af-
fect how frequently they engage in online interaction. In order to promote stu-
dent learning and interaction, instructors should help students become familiar
with the technology at the beginning of the semester. The faster the students
learn the technological features needed to complete coursework, the faster they
can concentrate on learning the course material.
In Chou’s (2001) study, out of a variety of different course management sys-
tems, students rated the WebCT chat feature to be the most straightforward
and reliable. These research results showed the incorporation of learner-centered
instructional design and constructivist, and cooperative activities into distance
education enhanced student learning. Well-planned, synchronous activities
executed through a well-designed and trustworthy course management system
can indeed promote student interaction and active learning.
These studies indicate the online course management system is one of the
most important elements impacting a student’s learning and satisfaction. Many
researchers reported that WebCT helped online educators develop active and ef-
fective online courses (Cheng-Chang, 2003; Freeman & Field, 2004; Hutchins,
2001; Kendall, 2001; LeRouge, Blanton & Kittner, 2002; Robertson & Klotz,
2001; Sabine, 1998; Spilotopoulos & Carey, 2005). WebCT offers several ac-
tive tools that can facilitate meaningful interaction between instructors and stu-

410 Summer 2008: Volume 40 Number 4

dents, students and teaching assistants, students and students, and students and
the course design and content, including discussion forums and chat features
(Dabbagh & Schmitt, 1998; McGreal, 1998; Morss, 1999). Maurino (2006)
indicated that threaded discussions served as a vehicle for the development of
a student’s in-depth learning and critical thinking skills. The online discussion
activities contributed to student’s course participation and satisfaction, their
learning outcomes and facilitated interaction (Goodell & Yusko, 2005).

Interaction: A Critical Factor in Online Distance Education

Moore (1989) categorized three types of interaction in distance education:
student-content, student-instructor, and student-student interactions. Zhao,
Lei, Yan, Lai ,and Tan (2005) and others agree that personal interaction is the
fundamental element that facilitates learning in distance education.
Miller, King, and Doerfert (1996) emphasized that students desire personal
contact with their instructors and peers, along with a high-quality level of tech-
nology in the distance education environment. New techniques must be con-
structed that make time for students to interact, because personal interaction
between teachers and students, students and students, and students and course
content directly relates to student course satisfaction. Stravredes (2002) empha-
sized the importance of interaction by affirming that student achievement and
positive attitudes increased as the level of interaction increased.
Gao (2001) investigated the effects of different levels of interaction on
achievement and attitudes of college students in a Web-based learning environ-
ment. The results of the study showed that active learning on the part of stu-
dents directly contributes to their learning outcomes. Gao declared that provid-
ing feedback from instructors helps reinforce the learning material and provides
further motivation for students to become even more active in the learning
process.
LaPointe and Gunawardena (2004) conducted a research study to under-
stand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in
computer-mediated conferencing. The online courses LaPointe and Gunawar-
dena studied were very diverse; the courses ranged from teaching basic skills to
teaching theories, and covered many levels of education. Courses for associate,
bachelor, masters, and doctoral degrees were all incorporated into the research,
all of which were designed using asynchronous online discussions. The final
research results indicated peer interaction had a strong direct effect on learning
outcomes.
Moreover, human interaction with technology is the primary way students
learn in the online environment; therefore, it is crucial for online educators to
develop a learning environment that promotes student-instructor, student-con-
tent, and student-student personal interactions (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes,
2005). These online courses can bring people all over the world together to dis-
cuss course content at the same time, producing an incredible interactive online
learning experience. To reach this goal, having a qualified educator who has the
ability and knowledge to design effective materials that allow learners to partake
in an enriched interactive learning experience is essential (Porter, 1997).

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 411

Student Satisfaction
Course satisfaction is a critical component in improving learning achievement
in the traditional classroom and the distance education environment. Many
researchers have examined the factors that influence student satisfaction in dis-
tance education (Freddolino & Sutherland, 2000; Fredericksen, Pickett, Shea,
Pelz, & Swan, 2000; Niles, 2002). Researchers believe student satisfaction,
which reflects a student’s attitude toward learning, should be studied and im-
proved by all educators so that students can excel in a distance education setting
(Biner, Dean, & Mellinger, 1994).
Moore (2002) stated that social interaction prompted by the instructor and
prompt instructor feedback were both linked to students’ satisfaction with the
course. The most significant contributor to perceived learning in these online
courses was the interaction between the instructor and the students. Students
reported that the higher the level of interaction with the instructor or their
classmates, the higher the level of learning they achieved in the course.
With the advancement of the Internet, educators have an unmatched oppor-
tunity to design and conduct effective distance learning courses filled with help-
ful features that promote communication and interaction. However, dangers
accompany these promises made by ever-improving technology. Educators must
understand that utilizing these advanced technologies will not automatically
make their distance learning courses more dynamic and interactive. In fact,
more hard work is required by the instructor to effectively adapt the technolo-
gies to develop clear, interactive online courses.
Within the advancements of education, the role of interaction has changed
considerably along with the development of pedagogical approaches and meth-
odologies. Even though the degree of interaction varies between traditional
and distance settings, research about the implications of interaction on student
learning has identified that interaction positively affects students’ abilities
to learn. Conversely, lack of interaction makes learning boring and difficult.
Therefore, further research focusing on the specific implications of interaction
on student learning should increase understanding on how to integrate interac-
tion most effectively in distance education settings to maximize students’ abili-
ties to learn. Because WebCT is one of the most prominent resources utilized
by distance education, it is important to examine the effectiveness of WebCT
features on the incorporation of interaction in distance education, the impact
of interaction on student learning, and students’ attitudes about learning within
the learner-centered paradigm. Furthermore, studies focusing on innovative
uses of technology that promote interaction in distance learning would be espe-
cially beneficial to teachers. These types of specialized studies expand teachers’
knowledge about the different types of interaction that can occur within the on-
line setting. Because interaction has been defined as a crucial component of the
learning process, educators must familiarize themselves with interaction’s impact
on the quality of learning, experiment with various approaches to interaction,
conduct research exploring the effectiveness of these different types of interac-
tion, and eventually implement their findings into distance education courses so
students can reap the benefits of this knowledge.

412 Summer 2008: Volume 40 Number 4

METHODOLOGY
The methodology developed for this study included the research design, the
development of the instrument and the pilot test, the participants’ characteris-
tics, the sampling procedure, and the data collection and analysis techniques.
Research Design
A survey was developed for this particular study called the Students’ Perceived
Interaction Survey (SPIS). The survey was administered to the participants
through WebCT during the week of November 29 to December 7, 2005.
Participant Characteristics
Computer Science 103—Computer Literacy and Applications, at one large
Midwestern university, is a one-semester online computer literacy and ap-
plications course. In the fall of 2005, 949 students enrolled in the class and
25 teaching assistants were employed to help grade student homework. These
Computer Science 103 students volunteered to participate in this study while
taking the course. Freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors with various ma-
jors in various colleges participated, along with different ethnicities and genders.
Development of the Instrument and Pilot Test
The survey was developed in four phases. In phase one, the original version of
the survey was prepared and initial exploratory data were collected. Phase two
consisted of a survey review by an expert committee of professors. Phase three
involved a pilot test where 20 Computer Science 103 teaching assistants took
the survey, along with 46 Computer Science 103 students. The survey was re-
vised at each phase and finalized in the fourth phase.
Validity and Reliability of the Instrument
To examine the validity and reliability of the Students’ Perceived Interaction
Survey (SPIS) instrument for distance education, factor analysis and Cronbach’s
alpha tests were conducted. Factor analysis was one of the primary statistical
methods used in this research. By using the principal component method, in-
dividual factors were extracted from each of the scales. Kaiser’s rule and Scree
plots were used to determine the number of factors. To justify the factor analy-
sis results, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) was
examined. To access internal consistency, the Cronbach’s alpha statistic, based
on standardized item scores for a set of unidimensional items, was calculated.
After running the factor analyses for parts 2–6, most of the values of the Kai-
ser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) were greater than 0.8.
These results indicated that the factors were well defined and the probability
would be high that if another sample was obtained and the analysis repeated,
the resulting factors would be consistently the same (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001). Most of the reliability of Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items
scores for each factor were greater than 0.7. A Cronbach’s alpha score greater
than 0.7 indicates strong internal consistency of a construct (Cronbach, 1951).
These scores indicate how consistently individuals respond to the items within a
scale. Table 1 (p. 414) shows the factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha scores for
the six factors found in the SPIS.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 413

Table 1: Factor Analysis and Reliability for the Final SPIS Survey
        Factor Analysis Reliability
(Cronbach’s
Alpha
# of % of # of Based on
Part Variable Questions KMO
Items Variance Factors Standardized)
Overall
Only need
WebCT
1 N/A correlation
Features
with part 6
Student–
2 3 10-12 0.656 70.384 1 0.787
TA
Student– 15-18,
3 7 0.836 42.093 1 0.765
Instructor 21-23
Student–
4 5 25-29 0.736 44.651 1 0.685
Student
Student– 42-45,
5 5 0.804 54.588 1 0.786
Content 47
Course 38-41,
6 6 0.821 54.901 1 0.833
Satisfaction 46, 48

Data Collection and Data Analysis

The survey results were analyzed using SPSS 14.0 for Windows. The Univari-
ate General Linear Model Procedure and Linear Regression Procedure in SPSS
were used to perform a multiple regression analysis to determine the relation-
ship between the independent variables and course satisfaction. Descriptive sta-
tistics were calculated for each of the demographic variables: age, gender, race,
college classification, and prior distance education experiences.

RESEARCH MODEL AND FINDINGS

To examine the relationship between course satisfaction and other inde-
pendent variables, a multiple linear regression model was developed by the
researcher. The most appropriate statistical method to analyze the data was re-
gression analysis. The model used a set of continuous and categorical variables
to predict course satisfaction. For the categorical independent variables, dummy
variables were created. The model developed was as follows:
where Y = Course satisfaction
X1 = WebCT effectiveness
X2 = Prior partial online experience
X3 = Prior entirely online experience
X4 = Student-TA interaction
X5 = Student-instructor interaction
X6 = Student-student interaction

414 Summer 2008: Volume 40 Number 4

Table 2: Test of Between Subjects Effects
Type III Sum Mean One Tailed
Source df F
of Squares Square Significance*
Corrected Model 285.660 11 25.969 179.447 < 0.001
Intercept 1.400 1 1.400 9.671 0.001
Gender 1.289 1 1.289 8.909 0.002
Academic Year 0.497 3 0.166 1.145 0.165
WebCT Effectiveness 2.045 1 2.045 14.133 < 0.001
Partial Online
0.001 1 0.001 0.006 0.471
Experience
Entirely Online
0.112 1 0.112 0.774 0.190
Experience
Student–TA 0.107 1 0.107 0.737 0.196
Student–Instructor 1.103 1 1.103 7.621 0.003
Student–Student 1.958 1 1.958 13.527 < 0.001
Student–Content 85.787 1 85.787 592.788 < 0.001
* One-tailed significant p-value was divided by the two-tailed p-value from SPSS output. R2 =
.702

X7 = Student-content interaction
Z1 = Gender (Male)
Z21 = Year (Freshman)
Z22 = Year (Sophomore)
Z23 = Year (Junior)

Examination of Overall Model

The F test (shown in Table 2) was used to examine the overall multiple re-
gression model. The null hypothesis was H0 : βi = 0, while the F statistic was
179.447. The p-value was < 0.001, meaning the model was significant. The R
square value of 0.702 indicated that all the independent variables together pre-
dicted 70.2% of the variability of course satisfaction, which was fairly high.
­­­The assumptions of this model—independence, normality, and equality of
variances—were satisfied. Because students completed the surveys at times that
were personally convenient as opposed to a classroom setting, independence can
be assumed. The histogram of standardized residuals showed the residuals close-
ly followed a normal distribution. The results of the Levene’s Test of Equality
of Error Variances (Table 3, p. 416) indicated the F value was 1.427 and the P-
value was 0.191. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected and the model
met the equality variance assumption; the error variance of the dependent vari-
able was equal across groups.
VIF (variance inflation factor) was used to assess multicollinearity, which ex-
ists when the independent variables correlate with each other. If a VIF value is
above 10, then these values indicate serious multicollinearity, which inflates the

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 415

Table 3: Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances
Dependent Variable: Course Satisfaction
F df1 df2 Significance
1.427 7 842 0.191
This tested the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable was equal across
groups. Design: Intercept + Gender + Academic Year + WebCT Effectivess + Partial Online Ex-
perience + Entirely Online Experience + StudentTA Interaction + StudentInstructor Interaction +
StudentStudent Interaction + StudentContent Interaction

standard errors of the regression coefficients. At a result, t-tests would not be

accurate for testing deviation of the regression coefficient from zero. According
to Table 4, VIF statistics for this model were between 1.084 and 3.372. These
statistics did not indicate any multicollinearity problems. Because all the as-
sumptions for multiple regression were satisfied, this model was used to test the
research question.

Testing the Null Hypotheses, Findings, and Discussion

Nine hypotheses were tested using the multiple regression model at an alpha
level of 0.05 (one tailed). The multiple regression results took into account the
relationships of all variables in the model simultaneously, and thus provided a
more accurate measure of how any one independent variable was related to the
dependent variable. The regression model estimated the partial slopes between
each of the predictor variables and the dependent variable. This estimate dif-
fered from the bivariate correlation between these variables, which did not par-
tial out the relationships among the other variables in the model.
The research results demonstrated that student-instructor interaction, stu-
dent-student interaction, and student-content interaction, along with gender
and student perceptions of WebCT features were predictors of course satisfac-
tion. In this study 94% of the participants indicated they were satisfied with the
course.
Moore (1989) found that there were three critical types of interaction in
distance education: student-instructor, student-student, and student-content,
which this study supports. Interaction is considered the key to success in tradi-
tional classrooms, as well as in the distance education environment (Fulford &
Zhang, 1993). The results of this study strongly support this perspective.

Testing the First Null Hypothesis:

According to the results shown in Table 4 for student-instructor interac-
tion, the p-value for the t test was 0.003, which was less than 0.05. Therefore,
the null hypothesis was rejected. The results showed that there was a positive
and significant relationship between students’ scores on the student-instructor
interaction items in the SPIS instrument for distance education and students’
scores on the course satisfaction items in the SPIS instrument for distance
education.

416 Summer 2008: Volume 40 Number 4

Table 4: Parameter Estimates
One-Tailed
Parameter B Std. Err t VIF
Significance*
Intercept -0.0567 0.153 -3.579 0.002
Gender(Male =0) 0.0810 0.027 2.985 0.002 1.084
Gender(Female = 1) 0 . . . .
Year [Freshman = 1] 0.094 0.052 1.818 0.035 3.261
Year [Sophomore =2] 0.080 0.049 1.642 0.051 3.372
Year [Junior =3] 0.075 0.053 1.417 0.079 2.609
Year [Senior] 0 . . . .
WebCT Effectiveness 0.117 0.031 3.759 < 0.001 2.069
Prior Partial Online
-0.001 0.010 -0.075 0.471 1.288
Experience
Prior Entirely Online
0.015 0.017 0.880 0.190 1.141
Experience
Student – TA 0.017 0.020 0.858 0.196 1.491
Student – Instructor 0.105 0.038 2.761 0.003 2.205
Student – Student 0.079 0.021 3.678 < 0.001 1.466
Student – Content 0.756 0.031 24.347 < 0.001 2.107
* One-tailed significant p-value was divided by the two-tailed p-value from SPSS output.

Student-Instructor Interaction is a Predictor of Course Satisfaction

Moore and Kearsley (1996) indicated that the instructor is responsible for
facilitating student-instructor, student-student, and student-content interac-
tions in the distance education classroom environment. In addition, interaction
between the instructor and students greatly impacts students’ perceptions of
distance education (Hiltz, 1995). Computer Science 103 presented several op-
portunities for student-instructor interaction, which contributed to students’
levels of satisfaction with the course. These opportunities included: 1) face-to-
face orientation sessions in the first week of the semester, 2) effective commu-
nication via WebCT e-mail, 3) synchronous chat sessions to develop interactive
communication, 4) access to a frequently updated grade book, 5) constructive
feedback about students’ performances, 6) opportunities to reflect on learning
and identify ways to improve performance.
In this study 90.4% of the participants stated that they enjoyed the class very
much. The prompt feedback and constructive comments from the instructor
increased students’ enjoyment levels and influenced their course satisfaction.

Testing the Second Null Hypothesis:

The mean of the student-TA interaction variable was 5.171. According to the
results shown in Table 4, the regression coefficient of the student-TA interac-

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 417

tion variable was estimated to be 0.017. The corresponding p-value for the t
test was 0.196, which was greater than 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was
not rejected. It suggested that there was no positive and significant relationship
between the students’ scores on the student-TA interaction section in the SPIS
instrument and their scores on the course satisfaction section in the SPIS instru-
ment. However, several circumstances could explain these results. Computer
Science 103 was a large class that consisted of 949 students divided into 40-per-
son sections with a total of 25 sections. A total of 25 section TAs were assigned
to grade students’ homework and answer questions about course material. In
general, students appreciated the work of the TAs, but students’ opinions about
the quality of their own TA varied significantly, potentially affecting students’
perceptions of student-TA interaction. Therefore, compared to other factors
such as student-instructor interaction, student-student interaction, student-con-
tent interaction, WebCT features, and gender, student-TA interaction was not
significant in predicting course satisfaction.
Testing the Third Null Hypothesis:
According to the results for student-student interaction shown in Table 4, the
p-value was less than 0.001 for the third hypothesis. Therefore, the null hypoth-
esis was rejected. The results showed that there was a positive and significant
relationship between the students’ scores on the student-student interaction
section in the SPIS instrument for distance education and their scores on the
course satisfaction section in the SPIS instrument.
Student-Student Interaction is a Predictor of Course Satisfaction
Students in an online classroom environment often feel isolated because of
a lack of interaction with other students. It is crucial for online instructors to
develop a curriculum that actively promotes student-student interaction. There
were several student-student interactions that occurred as part of this study
that contributed to increasing students’ levels of course satisfaction; namely: 1)
constructivist-based hands-on projects and simulation tests, 2) discussion board
case study projects, 3) a student homepage design project, and 4) chat sessions.
Students responded positively to these activities; discussion board postings from
Computer Science 103 totaled more than 51,000 over the course of the semes-
ter. Over 97% of survey participants indicated they appreciated the opportunity
to work with partners on the case study projects, and 83.6% indicated they
posted at least 60 comments about the work of other groups. Students also
appreciated the chat sessions—many participants (90%) within this study in-
dicated that they liked the opportunity provided for them to get to know their
fellow students in the Computer Science 103 online community.
Testing the Fourth Null Hypothesis:
The results for student-content interaction, shown in Table 4, indicated the
p-value for the t test for hypothesis four was less than 0.001. Therefore, the null
hypothesis was rejected. The results showed that there was a positive and signifi-
cant relationship between the students’ scores on the student-content interac-
tion section in the SPIS instrument and their scores on the course satisfaction
section in the SPIS instrument.

418 Summer 2008: Volume 40 Number 4

Student-Content Interaction is a Predictor of Course Satisfaction
Several types of student-content interaction contributed to students’ satisfac-
tion with the course. In this study, over 96.8% of the participants reported that
the Computer Science 103 WebCT course materials were well organized, and
about 94.2% indicated that they were satisfied with the quality of the stream-
ing lectures. Well-organized course material and streaming lectures can assist
student learning, facilitate student-content interaction, and increase learning
retention. According to Choi and Johnson (2005), video-based instruction
methods provided higher retention rates than traditional text-based instruction.
Johnson’s assertions are supported by the results of this study.
Furthermore, the instructor posted simulation projects and many other con-
tent-rich course materials in each weekly module for students to learn. Because
of the instructor’s extra efforts, over 97.1% of the participants indicated that
they were satisfied with the content of the course. Furthermore, 93.2% of the
participants responded that they were satisfied with the amount of learning they
achieved in the class.

Testing the Fifth Null Hypothesis:

In the results for gender shown in Table 2, the p-value for the t test was 0.002,
which was less than 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, suggest-
ing that the mean score of females was less than the mean score of males on the
course satisfaction items in the SPIS instrument for distance education. The
mean for males was 5.263, while the mean for females was 5.164. Males were
more satisfied than females with the course, although the practical difference is
small.

Gender as a Predictor of Course Satisfaction

The results of this study demonstrated that both male and female participants
were very satisfied with the course. However, males were slightly more satisfied
with the course than females. This online course provided flexibility, social pres-
ence, a cooperative learning community, along with high quality student-in-
structor, student-student, and student-content interactions. These components
were satisfactory for both male and female students. However, Pascarella and
Ternzini (2005) indicated that men performed better than women performed
in the areas of mathematics and science, and Kearsley (2000) and many others
stated that males held more positive attitudes toward computers and technology
than females (Furger, 1998; Shashaani, 1994; Spender, 1995, Ullman, 1997).
Furthermore, Keinath (1991) indicated that females often felt like they did not
have enough time to complete everything they wanted, not only in coursework,
but also in all aspects of life. Because the coursework for Computer Science
103 was demanding, females might have felt they had less time to accomplish
the required assignments in the class and were therefore less satisfied than males
with the course.

Testing the Sixth Null Hypothesis:

According to the results shown in Table 2, the p-value for the t test related to
classification in college was 0.165, which was greater than 0.05. Therefore the

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 419

null hypothesis was not rejected. There was no positive relationship between
students’ academic classifications and students’ scores on the course satisfaction
section in the SPIS instrument for distance education.
Zhang (2005) also found that there was no significant relationship between
age and how receptive distance education learners were. However, Lim (2001)
found that there was a negative relationship between academic status and course
satisfaction. The results of this research are consistent with Zhang’s findings, in-
dicating no significant relationship between academic classification and course
satisfaction.

Testing the Seventh Null Hypothesis:

Table 4 shows a p-value for the t test related to students’ experience with dis-
tance education was 0.471, which was greater than 0.05. Therefore, the null hy-
pothesis was not rejected. There was no positive relationship between students’
prior experiences with distance education in partially online class settings and
their scores on the course satisfaction section in the SPIS instrument. Discus-
sion regarding this hypothesis is closely tied with the next hypothesis, and will
be included in the next section.

Testing the Eighth Null Hypothesis:

According to the results shown in Table 4, the p-value for the t test related to
experience with a totally online class was 0.190, which was greater than 0.05.
Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. There was no positive relation-
ship between students’ prior distance education experience in an entirely online
class and their scores on the course satisfaction section in the SPIS instrument.
Several factors could have contributed to these results. First, the course was
well organized, helping students easily find the information they needed. Sec-
ond, successful orientation sessions may have helped students understand what
they needed to do to succeed and made online learning easy and enjoyable.
Third, the technologies adopted by the instructor promoted active learning.
Fourth, the course instructor maintained a high level of communication with
students, helping them stay on task and be more satisfied with the course. All
of these factors could help explain why prior distance education experience did
not impact students’ course satisfaction.

Testing the Ninth Null Hypothesis:

The mean of the WebCT features variable was 5.055. According to the results
shown in Table 4, the p-value was less than 0.001. Therefore, the null hypoth-
esis was rejected, suggesting that there was a positive and significant relationship
between students’ scores on the effectiveness of WebCT features section in the
SPIS instrument for distance education and students’ scores on the course satis-
faction section in the SPIS.
The instructor adopted several WebCT features that promoted active student
learning and increased interaction between students and the instructor, other
students, and the course content. The use of these features also built an online
learning community. Overall, 97.5% of participants within this study stated

420 Summer 2008: Volume 40 Number 4

that the WebCT features used in this class were easy to learn. The results of this
study are consistent with Lai (2004) and others who concluded that effective
WebCT tools enhanced the student learning experience (LeRouge et al., 2002;
Hutchins, 2001).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

As distance education has become a more and more popular educational prac-
tice, it is crucial to examine online course quality. For students to successfully
learn, teachers must present clear goals and objectives so students do not get
frustrated (Porter, 1997). Instructors in the online environment must focus on
learners’ needs and plan and execute their lessons clearly and effectively to help
students learn the maximum amount of information (Barker & Patrick, 1989;
Knowlton, 2000).
There are many ways to promote learner achievement in online class envi-
ronments, but learner satisfaction is one especially important component in
successful distance education courses (Ritchie & Newby, 1989). Some research-
ers believe student satisfaction should be examined before learning outcomes,
because students’ negative opinions can hinder their learning (Biner, Dean
& Mellinger, 1994). Student satisfaction should be taken into account by in-
structors because attitudes are often indicative of success. Barrett et al. (2007)
reported that the online instructors need to shift their teaching styles from
teacher-centered to learner-centered paradigms in order to facilitate better on-
line learning environments and promote student satisfaction. Based on these
research findings, several recommendations have been made regarding how to
create a learner-centered online classroom that incorporates effective WebCT
features, increases student-instructor interaction, increases student-student in-
teraction, and increases student-content interaction. The results of this research
can help educators create a rich distance education environment that encour-
ages students to enjoy what they’re learning and perform well.
These research results showed that student-instructor, student-student, and
student-content interactions, as well as gender and WebCT features are predic-
tors of course satisfaction. The following are suggestions for future research:
1. Investigate if increased interaction will increase student learning outcomes
measured by grades or academic achievement.
2. Replicate this study on a national level for undergraduate students who are
taking a similar course using various course management systems.
3. Replicate this study in other courses in other subject areas.
4. Conduct a qualitative research study to investigate students’ perceptions of
the relationships between interaction and their course satisfaction.
5. Conduct an experimental study with a control group to measure if increas-
ing interaction will increase course satisfaction. One group would require
little to no interaction, while another group would be given a sufficient
amount of interaction.
6. Conduct the same study on different course management platforms other
than WebCT.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 421

7. Determine if the research results concerning gender and preference re-
mained consistent in other subject matter. This course was a computer sci-
ence course; perhaps a broader subject area would change the results.
8. Determine whether other factors affect interaction, such as students’ learn-
ing styles and instructors’ teaching styles, which are not addressed in this
study. Further study is needed in these areas.

Contributors
Shu-Hui Hsieh Chang is the director of distance education and a Black-
board/WebCT senior certified trainer for the Computer Science Department at
Iowa State University. She has developed several online courses and has taught
Computer Science 103 entirely online with about 1,000 students each semester
for the past four years. Her main research interests include computer technolo-
gies in education, curriculum and instructional design, and evaluation and
assessment in both traditional and distance education settings. Dr. Chang is a
member of the university’s Distance Education Council. (Address: 116 Biscayne
Street, Port Lavaca, TX 77979; 361.552.4702; shchang@iastate.edu)
Roger A. Smith is a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership
and Policy Studies at Iowa State University. His research interests include dis-
tance education; student learning styles, issues related to retention and recruit-
ment especially of community college transfer students, and training needs in
industry. Dr. Smith is a member of the university’s Distance Education Council.
(Address: N232B Lagomarcino Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011;
515.294.7001; rasmith@iastate.edu)

References
Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). The research base for APA’s learner-
centered psychological principles. In N. Lambert, & B. McCombs (Eds.),
How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education, (pp.
25–60). Washington DC: APA.
Barker, B., & Patrick, K. (1989). Microcomputer based teleteaching: A descrip-
tion and case study. Computers in the Schools, 6, 155–164.
Barrett, K., Bower, B. L., & Donovan, N. C. (2007). Teaching styles of com-
munity college instructors. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1),
37–49.
Biner, P. M., Dean, R. S., & Mellinger, A. E. (1994). Factors underlying dis-
tance learner satisfaction with televised college-level courses. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 60–71.
Cheng-Chang, P. (2003). System use of WebCT in the light of the technology ac-
ceptance model: A student perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Central Florida. Dissertation Abstract International, AAT 3094813.
Choi, H. J, & Johnson, S. D. (2005). The effect of context-based video instruc-
tion on learning and motivation in online courses. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 19(4), 215–227.
Chou, C. C. (2001). Model of learner-centered computer-mediated interaction for
collaborative distance learning. Paper presented at the 24th National Conven-

422 Summer 2008: Volume 40 Number 4

 tion of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
ERIC Document # ED 470075.
Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psy-
chometricka, 16, 297–334.
Dabbagh, N. H., & Schmitt, J. (1998). Redesigning instruction through
web-based course authoring tools. Educational Media International, 35(2),
106–110.
Freddolino, P. P., & Sutherland, C. A. (2000). Assessing the comparability
of classroom environments in graduate social work education delivered via
interactive instructional television. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(1),
115–129.
Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2000). Student sat-
isfaction and perceived learning with online courses: Principles and examples
from the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
4, 2. Retrieved March 9, 2006, from http://www. aln.org/publications/jaln/
v4n2/ index.asp/
Freeman, A. S., & Field, W. D. (2004). Student perceptions of web-based sup-
plemental instruction. The Journal of Technology Studies, 30(4), 25–31.
Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical
predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education,
7(3), 8–21.
Furger, R. (1998). Does Jane compute? Preserving our daughters’ place in the cyber
revolution. New York: Warner Books.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence
in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Dis-
tance Education, 19(3), 133–148.
Gao, T. (2001). The effects of different levels of interaction on the achievement and
attitudes of college students in a web-based learning environment. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Purdue University. Dissertation Abstract International,
AAT 3075664.
Goodell, J., & Yusko, B. (2005). Overcoming barriers to students participation
in online discussion. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,
5(1), 77–92.
Hiltz, S. R. (1995). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer
networks. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Hutchins, M. H. (2001). Enhancing the business communication course
through WebCT. Business communication quarterly, 64(3), 87–94.
Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Keinath, L. L. (1991). The role of human interaction in distance education. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University. Dissertation Abstract
International, AAT 9215108.
Kendall, M. (2001). Teaching online to campus-based students: The experience
of using WebCT for the community information module at Manchester Met-
ropolitan University. Education for information, 19, 325–346.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 423

Knowlton, D. S. (2000). A theoretical framework for the online classroom: A
defense and delineation of a student-centered pedagogy. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 84, 5–13.
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2001). Teaching online: A practical guide. Boston: Hough-
ton Mifflin Company.
Lai, H. (2004). Evaluation of WWW on-line courseware usability and tools. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of Idaho. Dissertation Abstract
International, AAT 3123848.
La Pointe K. D., & Gunawarndena, C. (2004). Developing, testing and refin-
ing of a model to understand the relationship between peer interaction and
learning outcomes in computer-mediated conferencing. Distance Education,
25(1), 83–106.
LeRouge C., Blanton, E., & Kittner, M. (2002). The other semi-virtual
team: Using collaborative technologies to facilitate student team proj-
ects. In Proceedings of the international academy for information manage-
ment (IAIM) 17th annual conference: International conference on infor-
matics education research (ICIER), Barcelona, Spain. Available online:
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 481742). Retrieved
September 4, 2007, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/cus-
tom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExt-
Search_SearchValue_0=ED481742&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_
accno&accno=ED481742
Lim, C. K. (2001). Computer self-efficacy, academic self-concept, and other
predictors of satisfaction and future participation of adult distance learners.
American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 41–51.
Maurino, P. S. (2006). Looking for critical thinking in online threaded discus-
sions. Journal of Education Technology Systems, 35(3), 241–260.
McCombs, B. L., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-
learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582–1600.
McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and
school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
McGreal, R. (1998). Integrated distributed learning environments (IDLEs) on
the internet: A survey. Educational Technology Review, 9, 25–31.
Miller, C. (2007). Enhancing web-based instruction using a person-centered
model of instruction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1),
25–34.
Miller, W., King, J., & Doerfert, D. (1996). Evaluating interaction in the dis-
tance education setting. (Abstract). NACTA Journal, 40(3), 22.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Dis-
tance Education, 3(2), 1–6.
Moore, G. M. (2002). What does research say about the learners using com-
puter-mediated communication in distance learning. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 16(2), 61–64.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

424 Summer 2008: Volume 40 Number 4

Morss, D. A. (1999). A study of student perspectives on web-based learning:
WebCT in the classroom. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applica-
tions and Policy, 9(5), 393–408.
Nilles, Y. J. (2002). Student achievement and satisfaction with asynchronous and
synchronous learning in two horticulture courses. Unpublished masters thesis,
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. ISU 2002 N55. Retrieved September 4,
2007, from http://www.lib.iastate.edu:81/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=1B889P48
446X7.22221&menu=search&aspect=basic_search&npp=10&ipp=20&spp
=20&profile=parks&ri=&index=.GW&term=Student+achievement+and+sat
isfaction+with+asynchronous+&x=0&y=0&aspect=basic_search
Olson, M. T., & Wisher, A. R. (2002). The effectiveness of web-based instruc-
tion: An initial inquiry. International Review of Research in Open and Dis-
tance Learning, 3(2), 1–17. Retrieved August, 2007, from http://www.irrodl.
org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/14
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perez Cereijo, M. V. (2001). Factors influencing how students value asynchronous
Web-based courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North
Texas. Dissertation Abstract International, AAT 9989796.
Porter, L. (1997). Creating the virtual classroom: Distance learning with the In-
ternet. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.
Ritchie, H., & Newby, T. J. (1989). Classroom lecture/discussion via live tele-
vised instruction: A comparison of effects on student performance, attitude
and interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(3), 36–45.
Robertson, T., & Klotz, J. (2001). Confronting design problems in developing
online courses in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Mid-South Educational Research Association in Little Rock, AK,
November 14-16, 2001. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED
459674).
Rost, B. (2000). Interaction analyzed in traditional and satellite-delivered ex-
tension education presentations. Journal of Extension, 38(1). Retrieved Sep-
tember 4, 2007, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2000february/rb3.html
Sabine, S. (1998). To integrate your language web tools – CALL WebCT. Paper
presented at the natural language processing and industrial application (NLP
& IA/TAL & AI) – Special Accent on Language Learning, Moncton, New
Brunswick, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 422899).
Retrieved September 4, 2007, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPor-
tal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExt-
Search_SearchValue_0=ED422899&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_
accno&accno=ED422899
Shashaani, L. (1994) Gender differences in computer experience and its influ-
ence on computer attitudes. Journal of Computing Research, 11(4), 347–367.
Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the net: Women, power and cyberspace. North
Melbourne: Spiniflex Press Pty Ltd.
Spiliotopoulos, V., & Carey, S. (2005). Investigating the role of identity in
writing using electronic bulletin boards. The Canadian Modern Language Re-
view, 62, 1, 87–109.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 425

Stavredes, M. T. (2002). A case study of student experiences using alternative
systems of delivery: Face-to-face versus interactive television video and computer-
mediated communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota. Dissertation Abstract International, AAT 3037491.
Tabachnick, G. B., & Fidell, S. L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Ullman, E. (1997). Close to the machine: Technophilia and its discontents. San
Francisco: City Lights Books.
Verduin, J. R., Jr., & Clark, T. A. (1991). Distance education: The foundations of
effective practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
White, C. (2005). Contribution of distance education to the development of
individual learners. Distance Education, 26(2), 165–181.
Willems, J. (2005). Flexible learning: Implications of “when-ever”, “where-ever”
and “what-ever”. Distance Education. 26(3), 429–435.
Zhang, Y. (2005). Distance learning rReceptivity–Are they ready yet? The Qual-
ity Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 45–53.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C. & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes a differ-
ence? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance educa-
tion. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884.

426 Summer 2008: Volume 40 Number 4