Journal of Interactive Online Learning
www.ncolr.org/jiol

Volume 13, Number 2, Winter 2014
ISSN: 1541-4914

Applying the Interaction Equivalency Theorem to Online Courses in a Large Organization

Brenda Cecilia Padilla Rodriguez
Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico
Alejandro Armellini
University of Northampton, UK

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

In 2004, the International Labor Organization actively encouraged the use of informationand communication technologies in workplace learning (ILO, 2004). Increased adoption of
online and blended education has followed (Kim, Bonk & Teng, 2009; Kim, Bonk & Zeng,
2005; Scott-Jackson, Edney & Rushent, 2008; Skillsoft, 2007). However, online learning
platforms are often used as content repositories (e.g., Armellini et al., 2012). Web-based courses
sometimes replicate face-to-face teaching methods or consist of uploaded digital materials,
offering little or no advantage in the use of technology (Cotton & Gresty, 2007). A number ofmanagers still hesitate to accept online education as an adequate means to obtain professional

	
  

51

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

credentials such as an academic degree (Adams, 2008; Udegbe, 2012). Yet, online learning iscurrently becoming more of a fixed reality than a choice, and designing effective courses
remains an important challenge (Woo & Reeves, 2008) and a priority for organizations.
Studies conducted in academic settings (Chang & Smith, 2008; DeWitt, Alias, Siraj &Zakaria, 2014; Su, Bonk, Magjuka, Liu & Lee, 2005) have emphasized the importance ofcommunications between people (i.e., social interactions) to build knowledge and foster learning.
Accordingly, different proposals to understand online social interactions have emerged, such as
Jung’s taxonomy of interactions (2001) and the community of inquiry framework (Garrison,
Anderson & Archer, 2000).
In business contexts, however, it is not always possible to generate interpersonal
exchanges in online courses, even if employees consider these contacts important (e.g., Becker,
Newton & Sawang, 2013; Vaughan & MacVicar, 2004). This may be due to the lack of focus on
successful pedagogical design models (Macpherson, Elliot, Harris & Homan, 2004) or just-intime, just-for-me demands (i.e., a single person requiring training at a given time). It is common
for organizations to have programs with limited opportunities for social interactions (Padilla
Rodriguez & Armellini, 2013; Padilla Rodriguez & Fernandez Cardenas, 2012; Welsh, Wanberg,
Brown & Simmering, 2003).
Is an online course with no embedded social interactions effective in a corporate setting?
The first thesis of the interaction equivalency theorem (Anderson, 2003) suggests an answer byclaiming that meaningful learning can be supported as long as the course is designed with a highlevel of one of three types of interactions (learner-content, learner-teacher or learner-learner).
The other two forms can be offered in a minimal degree, or omitted, without decreasing thequality of learning. This thesis represents an attractive idea for organizations that wish to expand
and improve their offering of online programs, as it addresses limitations in social interactions bysuggesting that meaningful learning will occur if another type of interaction can be maximized(Rhode, 2009). If shown to be well supported by evidence, the first thesis could guide effective
course designs (Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini, 2013).
Empirical research is still needed, as very few studies have addressed or framed theirresults within Anderson’s theorem. Research with online learners shows that they do notconsider different interaction types to be equivalent or interchangeable (Padilla Rodriguez &Armellini, 2013; Rhode, 2009). Nonetheless, perceptions may be different from actual behaviors
and results (e.g., Caliskan, 2009; Picciano, 2002). Bernard et al. (2009) reviewed 74 studies withdifferent interaction treatments (learner-content, learner-teacher and learner-learner), defined asconditions designed to encourage interactive behaviors. They reported that all three are importantfor students’ academic achievement, and that high and moderate levels of treatment strength
were better than low levels. This finding is consistent with the notion that high levels of one typeof interaction support meaningful learning.
Further support for the theorem can be found in two empirical studies that comparedonline course designs emphasizing different types of interactions. One of the studies (Russell,
Kleiman, Carey & Douglas, 2009) used four groups. Group 1 had a high level of learner-teacher
and learner-learner interactions. Group 2 focused on learner-learner interactions. Group 3 had ateacher but no embedded means for communications between students. Learner-teacher
interactions happened via email. Group 4 was self-paced, with no discussion forums andminimum human support available (i.e., a high level of learner-content interactions). As
Anderson (2003) predicted, outcomes were comparable across all four course variations.
Participants rated the quality of all courses highly and achieved the expected objectives. A

	
  

52

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

second study (Tomkin & Charlevoix, 2014) divided participants of a massive open online course
into two groups, one with a high level of learner-teacher interactions and one without (but withhigh levels of learner-learner interactions). As in the research by Russell et al. (2009),
completion and participation rates were similar across both groups, as well as students’
perceptions on the course.
While these previous studies are encouraging, they focus on academic settings and thus
leave aside other indicators of course effectiveness relevant in business contexts. Several
questions remain unanswered: How do employees at an organization interact online with course
content, teachers and peers? Is the interaction equivalency theorem applicable to online learningand training in the corporate sector? In other words, do online corporate courses with designs
emphasizing different types of interaction yield similar learning results? Could the theorem
incorporate other indicators of course effectiveness, such as learner satisfaction, readiness totransfer learning to the workplace and return on expectations? This research contributes toanswering these questions by comparing the effectiveness of three online corporate courses, each
designed to emphasize a different type of interaction (learner-content, learner-teacher or learnerlearner).
Methodology
A large commercial Mexican company (6000+ employees) with 30 food distribution centersand offices in the country participated in this study. Since 2004, its course designers had
developed a face-to-face Leadership Program, which was composed of eight five-hour courses,
or modules. After jointly evaluating the topics covered in each course, the materials available
and the potential advantages and disadvantages of the medium for participants, the organizationand the researchers selected three courses to be redesigned and delivered online:
1. Situational Leadership
2. Empowering Beliefs
3. Effective Performance
Online Courses
The topic and desired outcomes of each course (see Table 1) provided a rationale for the
specific course design used, each emphasizing a different type of interactions (see Figure 1).

	
  

53

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Table 1
Course design rationale
Course Topic
PredominantInteractions
Situational
Learner-content (LC)
Leadership

Empowering
Beliefs

Learner-teacher (LT)

Effective
Performance

Learner-learner (LL)

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

Rationale
This course was suitable for independent
study because it focused on theoreticalconcepts, and aimed to foster thecompetencies of planning and selfdevelopment.
The objective of this course was to encouragesales supervisors to believe in their own
potential and feel like leaders. The
organization wanted teachers, who were also
students’ line managers, to motivate andprovide emotional support in this area.
This course focused on generating strategies
to improve the performance of retailers, whowere subordinates of sales supervisors(students of this course). Peer exchanges were
expected to help learners obtain practicalideas and specific context-based suggestions.

Figure 1. Levels of different types of interactions designed into online courses.

	
  

54

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

Each course required approximately five study hours. The course design incorporated
five non-assessed activities and a non-assessed final project that fostered a particular type ofinteractions (learner-content, learner-teacher or learner-learner). To test the first thesis of theinteraction equivalency theorem (Anderson, 2003), in each online course the researchersattempted to design high levels of only one type of interaction and low levels of the rest, asshown in Figure 1. In some cases it was not possible to completely omit the other types ofinteractions. For example, courses with social interactions included reading texts that enable
learner-content interactions.
All courses had a general discussion forum available as an open space for questions andcomments, monitored by a staff member of the education department at the organization. Course
designers (also education staff) at the organization validated materials. The researchers prepareda teacher manual with a description of the role of teachers and specific examples of how to
respond to the different activities. This manual was available for all courses. The specificcharacteristics of each course are described next.
Situational Leadership: Learner-content interactions.
The Situational Leadership course (see Figure 2) emphasized learner-content interactions.
Its activities required explicit, observable responses from the students (e.g., providing an answer
to a question instead of reflecting internally on a topic). Its non-assessed final project focused on
the application of knowledge in the workplace. Besides the general discussion forum, there wereno other embedded communication tools. While the course had a teacher assigned, their role wasto monitor student progress without directly intervening. If required, teachers could use thegeneral discussion forum to answer questions and clarify tasks.

	
  

55

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

Figure 2. Outline (in the original Spanish) of the Situational Leadership course. On a single
screen, participants could see all materials and activities, thus obtaining an overview of thecourse structure. Main topics are in bold letters.
The design and development of this course required a high time investment. Since
sources of human support would be kept to a minimum to avoid encouraging social interactions(thus increasing their level in the course), the content needed to be self-explanatory. The
researchers tried to think of all the possible questions students could have when navigating
through the course and to provide answers. Education staff at the organization helped improve
resources by identifying where more clarity was needed.
Internet connection issues were anticipated (as in Macdonald, Bullen & Kozak, 2010).
Media and applications requiring high bandwidth (e.g., videos and audio) were used with caution
and always with a text alternative (i.e., transcript). To add a human touch, a two-minute podcast(Nie, Armellini, Harrington, Barklamb & Randall, 2010) and four brief videos (<1 minute long),with their respective transcripts, were made available.
Other online tools included two personal wikis, which served only as a space for students
to write their reflections and were chosen over other tools because of their easy access (blogs
were blocked); multiple-choice questions with automated feedback for both correct and incorrect
answers; and three polls, which allowed students to see the responses of the group. There werealso eight reading texts which incorporated hyperlinks to glossary definitions, images and selfreflection questions (e.g., Think about three of your collaborators and their main tasks. How
	
  

56

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

would you describe them? What is their maturity level? [One of the concepts students had tolearn was “maturity level”]).
Empowering Beliefs: Learner-teacher interactions.
The Empowering Beliefs course fostered learner-teacher interactions. Its activities
followed Salmon’s (2002) e-tivity framework (see Figure 3) and had a clarifying example ofexpected responses. Online tools included three discussion forums and three wikis. There werealso six text-only reading materials, with no multimedia.
A risk when designing the Empowering Beliefs course was inadvertently fostering peer
exchanges, which could change the emphasis on learner-teacher to learner-learner interactions.
In an attempt to prevent this situation, activity instructions referred specifically to teacher
feedback. Sometimes teachers were asked to reply to each student (see Figure 3), and at othertimes they would address the whole group by summarizing the contributions. The minimum
requirements of expected teacher behaviors were specified in the teacher manual, which also
included research-based suggestions on key practices, such as maintaining contact and having a
regular presence in online discussions (Dennen, Darabi & Smith, 2007). Teachers were expected
to be an active part of the course, moderating online learning and providing guidance forstudents.
Activity 2.2 My story
Objective: To acknowledge your own achievements.
Task: Check the text 2.2 Empowering Beliefs. Now share your story. Post a message inwhich you describe an achievement you feel proud of. It can be personal, social, workrelated, or family-related. What happened? What did you do? What did you achieve?
Response: Read your teacher’s feedback. How do you feel? Share your reflections in a
message (you have to click on “reply” in your teacher’s message).
Figure 3. Example (translated from the original Spanish version) of activity fostering learnerteacher interactions.
Effective Performance: Learner-learner interactions.
The Effective Performance course fostered learner-learner interactions. Its activities
followed Salmon’s (2002) e-tivity framework (see Figure 4), and had a discussion forum and aclarifying example. Participants were expected to post at least two messages in each activity, onewith their solution to the task and a second one replying to others’ contributions. There were alsonine brief reading materials, with only text (no multimedia). While this course had teachersavailable, the teacher manual advised them to moderate by exception. Teachers were expected tostand back and let students interact among themselves.

	
  

57

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

Activity 3.1 SMART Objectives
Objective: To practice elaborating objectives using the SMART methodology.
Task: Consider the text 3.1 SMART goals. Write three objectives you have in one of thefollowing areas:● Sales● Execution standards● Work environment● Employee turnover
These objectives may be ones that you have established for a previous activity. Remember
to use the formula:
Active verb + area of the objective + achievement level + commitment date
Post a message with this information.
Response: Check the objectives of a course mate. Verify that they meet the SMART
criteria (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound). Post a message inwhich you indicate the results of your evaluation (i.e., which criteria are met). If not all
the criteria are met, include a suggestion to meet them.
Figure 4. Example (translated from the original Spanish version) of activity fostering learnerlearner interactions.
Participants
Sales supervisors (n = 147) participated as students of the three online courses. Their ages
ranged from 25 to 57 with a mean of 38 years. On average, they had worked at the organization
for five years. Their average time in their current job was four years. Most of them (≈62%) had
some university studies. Others (≈31%) had only completed high school (9-12 years of formal
education). Few (≈7%) had only secondary education (6-9 years).
In their daily jobs, sales supervisors were usually out in the field, visiting supermarkets
and convenience stores, negotiating sales and talking to retailers. Most of them were not used to
office work. Nine months before the study, sales supervisors had received a netbook computerwith internet access. They had weekly compulsory training to learn the basics of using thistechnology. Most learners (≈71%) had some knowledge of online education, having studied atleast one web-based course.
Learners were divided into 18 groups of 5-16 participants and a median of 8. The average
student-teacher ratio was 5:1. Sales managers and directors (n = 30, 2 women and 28 men)participated as teachers. They were selected for this role mainly due to their experience in andknowledge of the topic. The Education staff believed that the best people to teach how a leader
should behave in the specific context of the organization were those with job positions that
required managing teams and deploying effective leadership skills (i.e., managers and directors).
Teachers’ age ranged from 27 to 55 with a mean of 41 years. Their average tenure withthe organization was six years. Their average time in their current job was three years. All but

	
  

58

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

two of them had at least some university studies. Most of them (≈62%) had some knowledge of
online education, having studied at least one course via the web.
Three Education staff members performed as academic assistants to the courses,
monitoring activities and providing general support for participants.
Data Collection and Analysis
Different groups of students had access to the courses in six different sequences, as
shown in Table 2. Learners had one week to finish each course, with a commitment ofapproximately five study hours. Course delivery took a month, three weeks for three courses,
with a one-week break.
Table 2
Sequence of access to courses
Sequence 1

Sequence 2

Sequence 3

Sequence 4

Sequence 5

Sequence 6

LC

LC

LT

LT

LL

LL

LT

LL

LL

LC

LC

LT

LL

LT

LC

LL

LT

LC

Note. LC = Situational Leadership, learner-content interactions; LT = Empowering Beliefs,
learner-teacher interactions; LL = Effective Performance, learner-learner interactions
At the beginning of each course, a diagnostic survey was available online. It consisted ofclosed questions that gauged students’ initial course expectations, previous knowledge of the
topic and their perceived competence in the skill to be developed by the course. Students’
perceptions of their own knowledge and performance served as a reference point for comparison
with learning and behaviors after the course.
To avoid their expectations becoming biased, students were not told which type ofinteraction was emphasized in each course. They had one week to review the resources andcomplete all the activities.
A final exam with ten multiple-choice, matching and true/false questions evaluatedstudents’ learning at the end of each course. After answering these questions, participants could
check their grades and feedback. Average grades for each course exam were calculated.
An evaluation survey included closed questions (5-point Likert scales) about perceived
engagement with the activities, interactions with content, teacher and peers, and students’evaluation of the course in terms of satisfaction, learning, workplace behaviors and expectations.
Frequencies and percentages were calculated for each course. Open questions in the same survey
explored the number of study hours spent, learners’ perceived responsibility in relation to theirown performance, their favorite aspect of the course and their suggestions to improve the course.
Coding focused on references to the different types of interactions.

	
  

59

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

Results
Results are organized in terms of participants’ interactions within the course, learning
outcomes and other indicators of course effectiveness. For comparison purposes, data weregrouped and labelled according to the type of interactions emphasized in each course:● Learner-content: Situational Leadership● Learner-teacher: Empowering Beliefs● Learner-learner: Effective Performance
Interactions within the Online Courses
In all three courses, most learners spent nearly the full recommended study time of five
hours. Most reported being engaged or very engaged with the activities, regardless of the type ofinteraction fostered. Students also rated the usefulness of the types of interactions available intheir courses (i.e., in the course with no social exchanges, participants were only asked about
their engagement with the content). Most expressed favorable reactions towards course activities(see Table 3).
Table 3
Percentage of student agreement with the usefulness of course interactions
Predominant Interactions in Course
Learner-Content
Learner-Teacher
Learner-Learner(n = 131)(n = 136)(n = 139)
Learners reporting
86%
87%
82%
engagement with course
activities
Course content fostered my
95%
97%
99%
reflections on the topics of thecourse.
The teacher helped me
NA
78%
80%
understand the topics of thecourse.
In this course, I have shared
NA
NA
89%
valuable learning experienceswith other students.
Note. NA = Not applicable.
In the evaluation survey open questions, some participants referred to interactions thatwere not designed into the courses (see Table 4). One learner mentioned that his favorite aspectof the Situational Leadership course, which had no embedded communication tools except for aseldom used general discussion forum, was the participation of other course mates. Nine
participants mentioned that their favorite aspect of the Empowering Beliefs course wasexchanges with peers (e.g., knowing about my course mates’ experiences and talking aboutmine), even though learner-learner interactions had not been intentionally embedded into thiscourse.

	
  60

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Table 4
Favorite aspect of course
Learner-content interactions
Learner-teacher interactions
Learner-learner interactions
Interactions in general (probablyreferring to social interactions)
Other (e.g., learning, experiencing
an online course, etc.)

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

Learner-Content(n = 131)
24
0
1
2

Learner-Teacher(n = 136)
16
4
9
1

Learner-Learner(n = 139)
14
0
30
0

104

106

95

In all courses, about a quarter (23-24%) of suggestions for improvement related to having
more and higher-quality interactions with the content, the teachers and other learners.
Learning Outcomes
Learning outcomes were positive in all courses. In the diagnosis survey, students selfassessed their own previous knowledge of the course topic, on a scale from 1 to 10. Average
exam grades were over 9 (out of 10) in all courses. Almost all course participants (96-99%)
reported having learned a lot or very much (see Table 5).
Table 5
Learning outcomes across different courses
Learner-Content
Average self-assessment of
6.8
previous knowledge(n = 140)

Learner-Teacher
5.3(n = 147)

Learner-Learner
7.3(n = 145)

Average exam grades

9.3(n = 133)

9.5(n = 137)

9.3(n = 139)

Students reporting having
learned a lot or very much

98%(n = 131)99%(n = 136)96%(n = 139)

Other Indicators of Course EffectivenessAll courses, regardless of their design, yielded high levels of effectiveness. Comments
were mostly positive, for example:● It is a very complete course.
● Everything [was] very good. Thank you and congratulations.
● I liked [the course] because it made me learn how I can perform [better andachieve] objectives and [improve] my relationship with my collaborators.
Almost all participants (96-98%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the courses.
Students’ initial expectations were mostly to do with learning more about the courses’ topics,
improving their workplace performance and how to impact on business macro-level results, suchas sales. After completing the activities, almost all students in each course (98-99%) claimed that

	
  

61

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

their expectations had been met. Also, they (96-98%) reported feeling prepared to apply the newknowledge in their workplace (see Table 6).
Table 6
Other indicators of course effectiveness
Course satisfaction
Perceived readiness to apply learned
knowledge in the workplace
Fulfillment of expectations

Learner-Content(n = 131)
98%

Learner-Teacher(n = 136)
96%

Learner-Learner(n = 139)
96%

98%

96%

98%

99%

99%

97%

Discussion
In all courses, students reported engaging in interactions that were not emphasized or
included in the design. For example, the Situational Leadership course had no activities thatenabled communications between participants. Yet, one student reported that his favorite aspectof the course was the participation of his course mates. Where did these communications
happen? Could they have happened in other contexts, such as private messages or face-to-faceconversations? Participants may have found value in communications with others as a resource
to build knowledge (as in Chang & Smith, 2008; DeWitt et al., 2014; Su et al. 2005), and sought
informal exchanges beyond course boundaries. This is an interesting finding because it showsthat course design does not determine students’ learning behaviors. While unplanned interactions
may be ‘invisible’ to course designers and teachers, they may have a significant influence on thelearning experience.
If students engage in educational interactions beyond course boundaries, how influential
is course design for learning? Why did participants seek additional interactions? Were they
trying to make the course more meaningful or were the designed interactions not enough? Whilethese questions are beyond the scope of this study, it is clear that designers should incorporate
sufficient opportunities for meaningful exchanges within the course boundaries, allow thepossibility of informal interactions and ensure that support channels are available for learners.
The results of this study provide evidence of all three course designs being engaging,effective alternatives for online education in corporate settings. Regardless of the type ofinteraction present at a high level, participants achieved the desired learning outcomes in all
courses. Their exam grades were higher than their self-assessed previous knowledge. All types ofinteraction can promote academic achievement (Bernard et al., 2009; Russell et al., 2009;
Tomkin & Charlevoix, 2014). This implies supporting evidence for the first thesis of Anderson’s(2003) interaction equivalency theorem: Deep learning is supported as long as one of three typesof interaction (learner-content, learner-teacher or learner-learner) is present at a high level.
Although these findings are limited to the context of the participating organization, the theorem
could serve as general guidance to design effective online courses in similar corporate settings,
but it must be used with caution. Students’ engagement in informal interactions suggests that a
focus on a single type of interactions may not be enough. Additional research is needed.

	
  

62

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

When considering other indicators of course effectiveness relevant in business settings,
the first thesis of the interaction equivalency theorem (Anderson, 2003) remains applicable. All
three online courses were equally effective in terms of satisfaction, perceived readiness totransfer knowledge to the workplace and return on expectations. These findings are particularly
relevant for organizations that are more interested in the translation of course knowledge intobusiness practices than the mere acquisition of knowledge.
This research is not without limitations. Participants’ previous online learning
experiences may have biased their satisfaction reports. If –as reported in other studies (Cotton &Gresty, 2007; Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini, 2013; Padilla Rodriguez & Fernandez Cardenas,
2012; Welsh et al., 2003)– their previous online courses consisted solely of content available forindependent study, students might not know if they are missing something by having only one
type of predominant interaction designed into their course. A second source of potential bias isfound in socially desirable responses (i.e., socially or culturally acceptable replies). In mostcases, teachers were the line managers of the students, which could compel learners to express
themselves positively about their teachers’ performance or to exaggerate the benefits of theonline courses (even if they were ensured anonymity when answering).
The limited duration of the courses raises the question of whether longer ones would
yield similar results. Further research may also be needed to assess course effectiveness throughindicators other than student perceptions, such as measuring actual learning transfer instead of
perceived readiness, and to expand the interaction equivalency theorem.
Conclusions
Course design does not dictate or constrain the type of interactions that students use. Thisemphasizes the role of informal interactions, which can be valuable for learning. Understanding
these interactions could inform course design and delivery decisions. Additional research isneeded to evaluate the specific relationship between engagement in different types of interactions
and the achievement of learning outcomes.
In the context of the participating organization, online courses were effective in terms ofsatisfaction, learning, readiness for learning transfer, and return on expectations, as long as oneof three types of interaction (learner-content, learner-teacher or learner-learner) featured
prominently in the course design. This provides supporting evidence for the applicability of theinteraction equivalency theorem (Anderson, 2003) in business contexts and suggests its potential
expansion to incorporate different indicators of course effectiveness. However, findings also
indicate that focusing exclusively on a single type of interaction during the design phase, with noor very limited attention to the other types, may not be desirable, as students can benefit from all
three types as part of their learning process.

	
  

63

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

References
Adams, J. (2008). Understanding the factors that limit the acceptability of online courses anddegrees. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(4), 573-587.
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale forinteraction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).
Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230.
Armellini, A., Moseley, A., Hayes, N., Sweeney, D., Padilla Rodriguez, B. C., Conole, G., &Beard, J. (2012, September). An inclusive review of current uses of the institutional VLE
staff and students at the University of Leicester. Paper presented at the Association for
Learning Technology Conference, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Becker, K. L., Newton, C. J., & Sawang, S. (2013). A learner perspective on barriers to elearning. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 53(2), 211-233.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., &Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distanceeducation. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
Caliskan, H. (2009). Facilitators' perception of interactions in an online learning program.
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(3), 193-203.
Chang, S.-H. H., & Smith, R. A. (2008). Effectiveness of personal interaction in a learnercentered paradigm distance education class based on student satisfaction. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 407-426.
Cotton, D. R. E., & Gresty, K. A. (2007). The rhetoric and reality of e-learning: Using the thinkaloud method to evaluate an online resource. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 32(5), 583-600.
Dennen, V. P., Darabi, A. A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructor-learner interaction in online
courses: The relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on
performance and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 65-79.
DeWitt, D., Alias, N., Siraj, S., & Zakaria, A. R. (2014). Interactions in online forums: A casestudy among first year undergraduate students. Frontiers in Education (FE), 2(1), 6-13.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet andHigher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
International Labor Organization (ILO). (2004). R195 - Human Resources Development
Recommendation, 2004 (No. 195). Recommendation concerning Human Resources
Development: Education, training and lifelong learning. Retrieved from:http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTR
UMENT_ID:312533
Jung, I. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web-based instruction in the context of
distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 525-534.
Kim, K.-J., Bonk, C. J., & Teng, Y.-T. (2009). The present state and future trends of blended
learning in workplace learning settings across five countries. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 10, 299-308.

	
  

64

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

Kim, K.-J., Bonk, C. J., & Zeng, T. (2005, June). Surveying the future of workplace e-learning:
the rise of blending, interactivity, and authentic learning. eLearn Magazine. Retrieved
from http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=1073202
Macdonald, I. S., Bullen, M., & Kozak, R. A. (2010). Learner support requirements for online
workplace training in the South African furniture industry. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 14(3), 49-59.
Macpherson, A., Elliot, M., Harris, I., & Homan, G. (2004). E-learning: Reflections andevaluation of corporate programmes. Human Resource Development International, 7(3),295-313.
Nie, M., Armellini, A., Harrington, S., Barklamb, K., & Randall, R. (2010). The role of
podcasting in effective curriculum renewal ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology,
18(2), 105-118.
Padilla Rodriguez, B. C., & Armellini, A. (2013). Interaction and effectiveness of corporate elearning programmes. Human Resource Development International, 16(4), 1-10.
Padilla Rodriguez, B. C., & Fernandez Cardenas, J. M. (2012). Developing professional
competence at a Mexican organization: Legitimate peripheral participation and the role oftechnology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69(2012), 8-13.
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, andperformance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 2140.
Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An
exploration of learner preferences. International Review of Research in Open andDistance Learning, 10(1). Retrieved, fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/603/1178
Russell, M., Kleiman, G., Carey, R., & Douglas, J. (2009). Comparing self-paced and cohortbased online courses for teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
41(4), 443-466.
Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing
Inc.
Scott-Jackson, W., Edney, T, & Rushent, C. (2008). Learning at work: E-learning evolution or
revolution? Latest trends and blends in management and leadership development.
Chartered Management Institute. Retrieved from:http://classtap.pbworks.com/f/SkillSoft+-+New+ELearning+Strategies.pdf
Skillsoft. (2007). The future of learning: Benchmark study. Retrieved, from: 	
  https://www.meritalk.com/uploads_legacy/whitepapers/futureoflearning.pdf
Su, B., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R. J., Liu, X., & Lee, S. (2005). The importance of interaction in
web-based education: A program-level case study of online MBA courses. Journal ofInteractive Online Learning, 4(1), 1-19.
Tomkin, J. H., & Charlevoix, D. (2014). Do professors matter?: Using an a/b test to evaluate theimpact of instructor involvement on MOOC student outcomes. Paper presented at theProceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference. Retrieved on
April 10, 2014, from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2566245
Udegbe, I. B. (2012). Attitudes of prospective human resource personnel towards distancelearning degrees. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(1). Retrieved
from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring151/udegbe.html

	
  

65

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Padilla Rodriguez & Armellini

Vaughan, K., & MacVicar, A. (2004). Employees’ pre-implementation attitudes and perceptions
to e-learning: A banking case study analysis. Journal of European Industrial Training,
28(5), 400-413.
Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, K. G., & Simmering, M. J. (2003). E-learning: Emerging
uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training andDevelopment, 7(4), 245-258.
Woo, Y. & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Interaction in asynchronous web-based learning environments:
Strategies supported by educational research. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 12(3-4), 179-194.

	
  66