www.jitae.

orgJournalofInformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducationVolume4,2015
doi:10.14355/jitae.2015.04.002

AretheMostInteractiveLearnerson
WebbasedLearningSystemstheBestOutput
Performers?
YuxiuHu1,AdamsBodomo2
SouthernUniversityofScienceandTechnologyofChina,China

UniversityofVienna,Austria

huyx@sustc.edu.cn2adams.bodomo@univie.ac.at

Abstract
In various learning platforms that comprise facetoface, webbased, and hybrid learning systems, interactivity, as a concept
addressing how learners engage with the learning environment, is a much discussed theme. The assumption in such
discussionsisthatthemoreinteractivelearnersarethemorelearningwilltakeplace;increasinginteractivitythenwouldbea
desirable goal in designing learning systems. Surprisingly, however, there are no studies thus far that have empirically
establishedalinkbetweeninteractivityandoutputperformanceinalearningsituation.Thispaperreportsonastudylinking
interactivitywithoutputperformanceinacoursethatinvolvesbothfacetofaceandwebbasedlearning.Anexperimentbased
on linear correlation statistical analysis tests the hypothesis whether the most interactive learners are the best output
performers.Itisshownthatthereispositivecorrelationbetweenhighinteractivelearning,asdefinedintermsofonlineusage
statistics,andhighoutputperformance,asdefinedintermsoffinalcoursemarks.
Keywords
WebBasedLearning,Interactivity,OutputPerformance,ConversationalLearningCommunity,InformationCommunicationTechnology

Introduction
Interactivity in learning situations has attracted considerable attention in the search for newer and more active
methodsofteachingandlearning.Elearningapproacheshavebeendiscussedandpresentedfordifferentsubjects
inrecentyears[13][19][20].Interactivityis,indeed,awidelyusedtermindiscussionsofmultimedialearning[1][3]
[4][5][6][9][14][15][18][23][24].However,surprisinglyenough,empiricalstudiesontherelationshipbetween
interactivityandstudentsorlearnersperformancedonotyetexist.Inlearningsituationsinvolvingamixtureof
webbased course administration and facetoface classroom instruction, a lot of issues await discussion. These
includewhyinstructionalinteractivityissoimportantandhowinstructionalinteractivitycanbeenhanced.
Sofar,asmentionedabove,therearenopublishedstudiesthatempiricallyandstatisticallyjustifytheraisondetre
of interactivity and why at all we should promote it as a necessary ingredient of effective learning. Implicit
assumptions about interactivity as a desirable goal of learning are not enough and we ought to be carrying out
studiestodeterminethedifferencesandsimilaritiesinoutputperformancebetweenlearnersexhibitingdifferent
degreesofinteractivity.Inthepresentstudyweraisequestionsandissuessuchastowhatextentcaninteractivity
predict good performance? Do the most interactive learners in a learning situation produce the best output
measuresat the end of the learning programme? Based on these researchquestions andissues, we construct the
followinghypothesis:themostinteractivelearnersarethebestoutputperformers.
Totestthishypothesisweperformastatisticalexperimentonagroupofstudentstakingasemestercoursetofind
out if there is a correlation between interactivity and output performance. To enable us do the study within
specificallydefinedparametersweinterpretinteractivitybyexaminingthenumberoftimesstudentslogon,and
bycountinghowmanytimestheyreadandcontributetodiscussiontopics.Interactivityisthusmeasuredinsuch
specifictermsandsomeonewhoscoreshigherthananotherwouldthenbealearnerwhoshowsahigherdegreeof
interactionwithinthecourseenvironment.Interactivitythen,definedinthisway,isaspecialaspectofthegeneral
notion of interaction i.e. the act of engaging constantly with other participants in a communication situation, so

JournalofInformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducationVolume4,2015www.jitae.org

that output performance can be measured in concrete and specific statistical terms, such as the specific grade or
mark1thatlearnersscoreattheendofthecourse.
This kind of experiment involving hypothesis testing requires a theoretical framework that models a learning
environment. As a result, a learning model, the Conversational Learning Community (CLC), addressing these
issues,isoutlinedinthispaperasthetheoreticalandconceptualbasisofourwebbasedlearningendeavour.What
doesCLCinvolve?IntheageofIT,theuseoftheweb,anaspectofthenewdigitalinformationcommunication
technology (ICT), along with other accessories and software that together give us what is termed webbased
teachinginacourse,playacrucialroleinenhancinginteractivity.WebCT,awebbasedplatformforcoursedesign,
is used in this paper to interpret this. A course on Blackboard WebCT is used to address the question how
interactivityinavirtuallearningcommunityisrelatedtoparticipatingstudentsperformance.
The paper is organized as follows. Section two outlines the model of CLC and shows three main types of
instructionalinteractivity.Insectionthree,wepresentacasestudycomprisingareportofactivitiesontheWebCT,
a taught semesterlong course on Globalization in terms of linear correlation analysis. In section four, we do a
furtherdiscussionofthecorrelationstatisticalanalysisproducedinsectionthree.Thefifthsectionsummarizesand
concludesthepaper.
The Conversational Learning Community and Constructivist Theories
CLC
TheConversationalLearningCommunity(CLC)isamodeloflearningthatprojectstheideathatlearningismost
effectiveinanatmosphereofinteractivecommunicationbetweenlearners,teachersandmoderndigitalresources
[3][4][5][6][8].Thethemeofthetheoryisthatknowledgeandmeaningareconstructedoutofthelearnersown
experience,andoneofthetenetsofCLCistograduallyencouragestudentstofreneticallyworkthemselvesintoa
communityofpartnershipsforlearningbasedonactivitiesbothintheclassroomandonline(informationmining,
group presentations, competitive group debates, etc). In this community, we have instructor(s), learners, course
materials, and links to remote experts and resources. Three main types of instructional interactivity which we
defined as active communication in a conversational learning community between instructor(s), learners, course
materials,andlinkstoremoteexpertsandresourcesareidentifiedasfollows:

Instructorlearner interaction either via physical facetoface interaction (at lectures, tutorials,
demonstrations, and consultations) or via digital ICTs (email enquiries, bulletin board enquiries and
clarifications,andveryrarelychatrooms)oramixtureofboth.

Learnerlearner interaction within or without an ICT medium, where students are involved in
communicationwitheachotherintheclassroom,inthecorridors,onwebbasedbulletinboards,inchatrooms,
andbyemails.

Learnerresource interaction which involves learners actively communicating with textbooks,

hardcopy hand outs, lecture notes, and with ICTbased current and remote resources such as online lecture
notesandoutlines,CDROMs,glossaries,calendarofactivities,progressreports,quizzes,andlinkstoexperts
andmoreresources.
Figure1isadiagrammaticillustrationofthemodel.
ConstructivistTheories
TheCLCthatwehaveoutlinedaboveisbasedonagroupoftheoriesknownasConstructivisttheoriesoflearning.
As seen above it is based on the premise that learners cannot be handed or given information to immediately
digest and understand; instead they should be helped to construct their own knowledge. Major works on
1. The final courses marks and grades were determined through a midterm quiz designed by the course lecturer based on the
courses aims and content, an endofterm essay, a field trip report, and the students attendance and participation at lectures and
tutorials.Atthebeginningofthecourse,thestudentsweretoldthatWebCTparticipationcouldbeconsideredaspartofgeneralcourse
participation in determining final grades, if necessary; however this was not necessary as we had enough information about course
participationbasedontutorialdiscussionsandonfieldtripactivities.

www.jitae.orgJournalofInformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducationVolume4,2015

constructivism include Piaget [17], Bruner [10] [11], Pask [16], Vygostsky [21] [22], and Duffy [12]. Two distinct
types of constructivist theories include cognitive constructivism as espoused by Piaget [17] and social
constructivism as espoused by Vygotsky [21] [22]. We lean more on cognitive constructivism here as we are
dealing with language learning but the social constructivism is nevertheless relevant for the learning activities
reported.

FIGURE1.CONVERSATIONALLEARNINGCOMMUNITY(CLC)

Empirical Case Study: Report of Pedagogical Activities

In this section, we will describe a specific course within our webbased teaching program. We will show how
interactivity was achieved in the course design. We will also try to examine the correlation, if any, between the
learnersinteractivityandtheiroutputperformance.
WebCTDesignoftheCourse
The Globalization:AfricanExperiences course examines the economic, social, political, environmental, and cultural
dimensions of globalization from African perspectives. Major global issues such as democratic governance,
inequalitiesofdevelopment,povertyalleviation,conflictandwar,diseasecontrol,climatechange,financialcrises,
natural resource exploitation, and cultural change and appropriation are illustrated and analyzed from the
perspectiveofAfricasexperienceofglobalization.Thisapproach,inturn,throwslightontheintricate,andoften
difficult,relationsbetweenglobalandlocalforcesthattypifytheworldtoday.Thecourseaimsto:

IdentifyanddescribethemajorglobalissuesconfrontingAfricatoday.

CriticallyassessboththepositiveandnegativeconsequencesofglobalizationforselectedAfrican
societiesandcultures.

EnablestudentstocomparetheimpactofglobalizationonAfricaneconomic,politicalandsocio
culturaldevelopmentswiththeconsequencesofglobalizationontheirownsocietyandculture.

Identifyandanalysetheeconomic,politicalandsocioculturalimplicationsofChinasinvestment

inAfrica.
InstructionalInteractivityonWebCT
WebCTprovidesagoodplatformforachievinginteraction.Nowletslookathowthefeaturesembeddedwithin

10

JournalofInformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducationVolume4,2015www.jitae.org

WebCTworkinthecourseonGlobalization.
1)

MainFeaturesoftheWebCTPlatform

CourseContent:ThecoursecontentoftheWebCTincludesbasiccourseinformationsuchaslecturenotesfrom
which students can download lecture handouts, recommended videos which provide links to short videos
related to the main issues of the course, and course readings which were uploaded by the instructor for
studentstoreadbeforeattendinglectures.
DiscussionForums:Thismoduleprovidesausefuldiscussionplatformforstudentstoaskquestionsondifferent
aspectsofthecourseandtopostcommentsandgeneralmessagestotheclass.Ontheotherhand,theinstructor
cansendinformationtotheclass,makeclarificationsaboutspecificpoints,answerquestions,andinspiremore
discussionstoarousestudentsinterestonthecourseandlearnmore.

EXCERPT1:DISCUSSIONHOMEPAGE

EXCERPT2:SOMETOPICSDISCUSSEDBYCOURSEPARTICIPANTS

2)

HowInteractionwasAchievedintheCourseAbove?

Three main types of instructional interactivity as defined in the model of CLC are identified in the course
WebCT.
(1)

Instructortolearner

ThroughWebCT,instructorscouldinteractwiththeirstudentsjustlikeinclass,andsometimesitisevenmore

11

www.jitae.orgJournalofInformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducationVolume4,2015

effectivethroughWebCTthaninclass,becauseitmaynotallowstudentstoaskmanyquestionsonclass,and
somestudentsarejusttooshytoaskquestionsinclass.Inthefollowingexcerpt,theinstructorrespondedtoa
messagepostedbyastudentonthediscussionboard:
(2)

Learnertolearner

WebCTallowsstudentstocommunicateonlineafterclassanddiscussspecifictopicsonthecoursethathavent
beendiscussedinclass/tutorialsbecauseoftimelimitofeachclass/tutorial.Thefollowingexcerptwasposted
byastudentraisingatopicthatwasnotdiscussedinclass.
Afterhersuggestions,15followupmessageswerepostedontheboard.
(3)

Learnertoresource

WebCTmakesdifferentresourceaccessibletostudents.Wecanuploadreadingmaterials,tutorialarrangement,
lecturenotesetc.todifferentsectionsofWebCT.Studentscanreadanddownloadthematanytimewhenthey
wanttodoso.Studentsdidanexerciseoninformationmininginthiscourse.

EXCERPT3:INSTRUCTORSRESPONSETOASTUDENTSMESSAGEPOSTEDONTHEDISCUSSIONBOARD

EXCERPT4:ASTUDENTSSUGGESTIONPOSTEDONTHEWEBCT

EXCERPT5:PARTICIPANTSFOLLOWUPMESSAGES

12

JournalofInformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducationVolume4,2015www.jitae.org

Observations
There are 34 students, one instructor and two teaching assistants in this class. The number of activities on the
WebCTwasrecordedforthiscourse.Weobservedthat:
1)

TheDiscussionForumwastheMostPatronizedbytheStudents.

Fromthegraphabove,wecanclearlyseethatthetoolofDiscussionswasusedmostfrequentlyanditisused
muchmoreoftenthantheothertools.ThepercentageoftheDiscussionsusageoccupies50%oftotalsessions.
2) AccordingtoWebCTSummaryofActivityReport,theMostActiveDayoftheCourseWebCTUsageison
9March,2011,theMidTermQuizDay.
WebCT, as a conversational learning community among teachers, learners and modern digital resources, not
onlyprovidesaplatformforcoursedesign,butalsoprovidescoursematerialsandaplatformforteachersand
learnerstodiscussissuesrelatedtothecourse.Onthemidtermquizday,thelearnersloggedintothecourse
WebCTtoprepareforthequiz,whichexplainstheactiveloginontheday.
3)

ThereisaPositiveCorrelationbetweentheStudentsFinalMarksandTheirUsageoftheCourseWebCT.

ThemostactiveusersofthecourseWebCTarethebestperformers,asshowninthetable.
Linear Correlation Analysis has been done to determine if there is a relationship between the students final
marksandtheusageofthecourseWebCT.TheDiscussionforumwaspatronizedthemostbythestudents,so
individualstudentsusageoftheforumwasincludedasvariables.ThecorrelationcoefficientisshowninTable
3.
The results show that there is a relationship between the students final marks and their usage of the course
WebCT,althoughitisnotaverystrongrelationship.Thestudentswhoaremoreactiveonthediscussionforum
tend to get higher marks;The following scatter diagrams provide general pictures of the correlation between
differentvariables.

EXCERPT6:GRAPHOFTOOLUSAGEINDEC.1MAY19,2010GENERATEDBYTHEFEATUREOFTRACKINGOFTHEWEBCT
TABLE1.SUMMARYOFACTIVITYREPORT

Statistic
Totalusersessions:
Averageusersessionlength:
Averageusersessionsperday:
Averageusersessionsperdayonweekdays:
Averageusersessionsperdayonweekends:
Mostactiveday:
Leastactiveday:
Mostactivehouroftheday:
Leastactivehouroftheday:

Value(times*)
1099
0:10:40
8
10
5
9Mar2011
25Mar2011
4:00PM5:00PM
4:00AM5:00AM

(*Theunitofvalueisthetimesthatthestudentslogintotheplatform.Onestudentmaylogintotheplatform
severaltimeseveryday,buteachtimethelengthisdifferent.)

13

www.jitae.orgJournalofInformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducationVolume4,2015

TABLE2.STUDENTSMARKSANDWEBCTLOGININFORMATION

Name
Student1
Student2
Student3
Student4
Student5
Student6
Student7
Student8
Student9
Student10
Student11
Student12
Student13
Student14
Student15
Student16
Student17
Student18
Student19
Student20
Student21
Student22
Student23
Student24
Student25
Student26
Student27
Student28
Student29
Student30
Student31
Student32
Student33
Student34

Finalmarks
78
77
77
77
74
74
74
74
74
73
72
72
72
72
70
70
70
70
69
69
69
68
68
67
67
66
65
64
63
62
60
60
50
19

Logintimes
35
56
129
43
36
55
24
9
48
41
15
31
22
10
27
42
24
19
26
45
8
30
13
38
88
16
22
25
22
5
26
8
9
13

Totaltime
11:44:53
6:27:58
6:25:44
17:16:34
6:33:05
7:21:14
5:06:03
2:09:33
29:52:40
14:34:15
3:49:19
11:58:31
3:35:56
2:38:45
33:44:40
8:16:48
5:38:58
6:26:53
0:46:03
8:03:50
1:11:04
10:56:32
4:57:31
23:28:16
23:10:27
5:29:02
4:42:13
10:54:19
3:06:29
0:44:24
4:34:57
0:40:19
0:20:10
6:10:58

DiscussionReadMassage*
274
136
220
250
217
316
81
137
384
52
43
157
6
0
283
245
109
123
13
144
33
10
4
226
73
123
0
171
7
0
141
0
0
0

DiscussionPostedMassage*
8
6
4
9
18
7
3
2
5
7
3
11
0
0
10
4
3
1
0
5
0
6
0
4
0
2
0
24
0
0
5
0
0
0

(*Discussionreadmessagereferstothenumberofmessagesthatthestudentreadonthediscussionforum,while
discussionpostedmessagereferstothenumberofmessagesthatthestudentpostedontheforum.)
TABLE3.CORRELATIONBETWEENDIFFERENTVARIABLESANDTHESTUDENTSMARKS

Variables
Sessions
DiscussionReadMassage
DiscussionPostedMassage
TotalTime

CorrelationCoefficient
0.3318
0.3849
0.2473
0.1783

80

80

70

70

60

60

50
Grade

Grade

50

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

20

40

60
80
Sessions

100

120

140

DIAGRAM1.RELATIONSHIPBETWEENTHESTUDENTS
MARKSANDTHEIRLOGINSESSIONS

14

40

50

100

150
200
250
Discussion Read Massage

300

350

400

DIAGRAM2.RELATIONSHIPBETWEENTHESTUDENTS
MARKSANDTHENUMBEROFTHEMESSAGE

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

50
Grade

Grade

JournalofInformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducationVolume4,2015www.jitae.org

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

10
15
Discussion Posted Massage

20

25

DIAGRAM3:RELATIONSHIPBETWEENTHESTUDENTSMARKS
ANDTHENUMBEROFMESSAGESPOSTEDBYTHESTUDENTS

6
8
Total Time

10

12

14
4

x 10

DIAGRAM4:RELATIONSHIPBETWEENTHESTUDENTS
MARKSANDTHEIRTOTALLOGINTIME

(Totaltimereferstothetotaltimethatthestudentsspentontheplatform.)

Fromthesescatterdiagrams,servingasconcreteillustrationsofcorrelationmeasuresbetweenthetwovariables
of interactivity and performance, we may say that the hypothesis that the most interactive users are the best
performers is proved, suggesting that high levels of interactivity can predict high levels of performance: as
shownonthediagram,thetopfivestudentsscoringmarks78,77,77,77,74(whichcompriseanA)arealsothe
most interactive in terms of logon statistics, reading statistics and also to a large extent writing statistics,
thoughstudentno5isquiteexceptional.Itisnothowevernecessarilytruethattheleastinteractiveuserscome
upwiththeworstperformance.
Discussion
Intermsoflimitation,thispapersoughttotestaconcreteandspecificcorrelationbetweeninteractivityandoutput
performance. In doing so the hypothesis did not have as a goal to address all aspects of the specific notion of
interactivity, let alone the general notion of interaction. For instance, such a specific hypothesis can only test
quantitativeaspectsofinteractivity.Thisisbecausethesequantitativeaspectsaremoreexplicitandobjectivethan
qualitativeaspectsofinteractivity,whicharemoresubjective.Apossiblehypothesistotestwouldbethatlearners
with the best interactive measures would be the best output performers, where best interactivity here would be
defined in terms of the quality of the interactivity such as how good the learners write. This is however not an
objectivemeasureandcannotthusbestatisticallyandscientificallytestedincorrelationanalysis.Thepresentstudy
thus limits its hypothesis testing to measuring correlations between the concrete, quantitative amount of
interactivityandconcrete,quantitativeoutputperformance.
Afurtherpointofdiscussionisthateventhoughwehaveestablishedapositivecorrelationbetweenthelevelof
coursewebpageusageandoutputperformance,asthecorrelationcoefficientinsectionthreeshows,thisisnota
very strong correlation. It may be the case that future studies still need to define interactivity even more
specificallyinordertogainahighcorrelationcoefficient,eventhoughwemightthenruntheriskofbeingunable
to project such specific interpretations of interactivity onto more general issues about interaction. Of course, too
broad a definition of interactivity might produce over general results, so the challenge for future research is to
striveforanoptimalspecificationofinteractivity.
Conclusion
Thisstudyhasaddressedthefollowingquestions:towhatextentcaninteractivitypredictgoodperformance,and
dothemostinteractivelearnersinalearningsituationproducethebestoutputmeasuresattheendofthelearning
programme?Basedontheseresearchquestions,wetestedthefollowinghypothesis:themostinteractivelearnersare
thebestoutputperformers.WebbasedlearningsystemslikeBlackboardWebCTandMoodleprovideplatformsfor
enhancinginstructionalinteractivity,butuntilnownostudyhasmadespecificexperimentstotesttherelationship
between the degree of interactivity and the degree of performance at the end of the learning situation. Our

15

www.jitae.orgJournalofInformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducationVolume4,2015

observation, description, and the empirical evidence presented above not only show that within the WebCT
platform,theDiscussionForumisthemostimportantfeaturethatcanbeexploitedforachievinginteractivity,but
alsothatthereisapositivecorrelationbetweenhighdegreeofinteractivityandhighoutputperformance.
Themostinteractivelearnersareamongthebestoutputperformers!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Wethankthe34studentsintheGlobalizationcoursewhoseactivitieswerethebasisofthisstudy.
REFERENCES

[1]

lvarez. N. J. Finat, R. Martnez J.C. Puche. Improving Interaction for eLearning Complex Contents: a
ShowcaseinCHEnvironments.JournalofInformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducation.Volume3
Issue3,2014.

[2]

Blurton, C.. New directions of ICTuse in education, UNESCOs World Communication and Information
Report1999.URL:http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/lwf/d1/edict.pdf

[3]

Bodomo,A.B.&Hu,Y.X..ConstructingaConversationalLearningCommunity:Acasestudyofknowledge
constructionandinteractivityenhancementinwebbasedlearningandteaching.JournlofCommunications
inInformationScienceandManagementEngineering.Vol.1No.8,2011.URL:http://www.jcisme.org/

[4]

Bodomo, A. B.. Strategies for enhancing and evaluating interactivity in webbased learning and teaching.
InternationalJournalofWebBasedLearningandTeachingTechnologies,5(4),2010:1843.

[5]

Bodomo,A.B..Instructionalinteractivityinawebbasedlearningcommunity.InLilianEsnault(ed).Web
BasedEducationandPedagogicalTechnologies:SolutionsforLearningApplications,IGIGlobalBooks,2008:
131146.

[6]

Bodomo, A. B.. Interactivity in webbased learning. International Journal of WebBased Learning and
TeachingTechnologies.IdeaGroup,2006,1:1830.

[7]

Bodomo, A. B. . Constructing knowledge through online bulletin board discussions. Encyclopedia of

DistanceLearning,editedbyC.Howardetal.IdeaGroupInc.,2005.

[8]

Bodomo,A.B.,K.K.Luke,andA.Anttila.Evaluatinginteractivityinwebbasedlearning.GlobalEJournal
ofOpen,FlexibleandDistanceEducation.VolumeIII2003.

[9]

Brogan,Pat.Usingthewebforinteractiveteachingandlearning:Animperativeforthenewmillennium.A
whitepaperfortheMacromediasinteractivelearningdivision.1999.

[10] Bruner,J..TowardaTheoryofInstruction,Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.1966.
[11] Bruner,J..ActsofMeaning,Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.1990.
[12] Duffy, T. & D. H. Jonassen. Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Lawrence

ErlbaumAssociates,Hillsdale,NewJersey.1992.
[13] Nouf Alzahrani, Paul Newbury, Phil L. Watten. SelfSummarized Videos in Adaptive Collaborative E

LearningEnvironment.JournalofInformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducation.Volume4,2015.
[14] Oman, A. & L. Svensson. Similar Products Different Processes: Exploring the Orchestration of Digital

Resources in a Primary School Project. Computer & Education. PergamonElsevier Science LTD, Oxford,
England.2015.
[15] Parker, Angie. Interaction in distance education: the critical conversation. Education Technology Review.

13.1990.
[16] Pask,G..Conversation,Cognition,andLearning,NewYork:Elsevier.1975.
[17] Piaget,J..ToUnderstandistoInvent,NewYork:Grossman.1973.
[18] Rudolph, A. Lamine, B. Joyce, M. Vignolles, H & D. Consiglio. Introduction of Interactive Learning into

16

JournalofInformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducationVolume4,2015www.jitae.org

French University Physics Classrooms. Physical Review Special Topicsphysics Education Research. Amer
PhysicalSoc,OnePhysicsEllipse,CollegePK,MD207403844USA.2014.
[19] Srinivasan,D.EffectiveIncorporationofElearningFeaturesinaFoundationEngineeringCourse.Journalof

InformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducation.Volume3Issue3,2014.
[20] Virve Siirak. Moodle Elearning Environment as an Effective Tool in University Education. Journal of

InformationTechnologyandApplicationinEducation.Volume1Issue2,2012.
[21] Vygotsky,L.S..MindinSociety,Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.1978.
[22] Vygotsky,L.S..ThoughtandLanguage.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.1962
[23] Wang, M.J. Shen, R. M. Novak, D & Pan, X. Y.. The Impact of Mobile Learning on Students Learning

Behaviours and Performance: Report from a large blended classroom. British Journal of Educational
Technology.40(4),2009:673695.
[24] Wessels,A.Fries,S.Horz,Holger,Scheele,N&Effelsberg,W..InteractiveLectures:Effectiveteachingand

learninginlecturesusingwirelessnetworks.ComputersinHumanBehavior.23(5),2007:25242537.

17