G. Vasiloudis, M. Koutsouba, Y. Giossos and I. Mavroidis
This paper studies the transactional distance between the students and the tutor as well as the autonomy of students in a postgraduate course of the Hellenic Open University (HOU). The aim of the paper is to examine how the relation between autonomy and transactional distance evolves during an academic year and how this relation is affected by demographic parameters, such as gender, age group and student experience (year of studies). For this purpose an empirical research was conducted and a sample of postgraduate students responded to a questionnaire (which included a scale for transactional distance, a scale for autonomy and demographic questions) during two different time periods within an academic (2012-2013). The results of the statistical analysis showed that during the evolution of the learning process there was a small change in transactional distance, especially for the dimension of co-understanding, while there was also a change in one of the dimensions of autonomy, namely sensitivity to others. However, no relation was observed between transactional distance and autonomy, ether in the first or the second measurement during the academic year. This finding is also regarded in the overall framework of the different critiques and interpretations of Moore’s theory.
). Quality Matters Rubric Standards 2011 - 2013 edition. Maryland Online, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/layout-1/download/QM%20Standards%202011-2013-4.pdf
20. Saaty, T. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making. Why Pairwise Comparisons are Central in Mathematics for the Measurement of Intangible Factors The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. In Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Serie A: Matemáticas (RACSAM), 102(2), (p. 251).
21. SEEQUEL. (2004). Quality
institutions. Computers & Education, 72 , 100-109.
14. Davies, S. (2010). Effective assessment in a digital age A guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback. Bristol: JISC Innovation Group.
15. Delclos, V. R., & Harrington, C. (1991). Effects of strategy monitoring and proactive instruction on children’s problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1), 35-42. doi: 10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.52
16. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: the emerging alternative. Exceptional children, 52 (3), 219-232.
undergraduate management students in using ICT, Barbados. In International Journal of Education and Development, 2(4). Retrieved May 11, 2007, from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu
15. Hurt, H.T.; Joseph, K.; Cook, C.D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4, (pp. 58-65). Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ175432)
16. Keengwe, J. (2007). Faculty integration of technology into instruction and students’ perceptions of computer technology to improve student learning. In Journal of Information Technology
Naghmeh Aghaee, Henrik Hansson, Matti Tedre and Ulrika Drougge
). Research Methods in Education. (6th ed). New York: Routledge.
13. Concannon, F.; Flynn, A. and Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the quality and benefits of e-learning. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), (pp. 501-512).
14. Cook, C.; Heath, F. and Thompson, R.L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. In Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), (pp. 821-836).
15. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and
’ perspective on blended learning. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36(2), 172-182.
39. Wakeman, C. (2006). Emotional Intelligence: Testing, measurement and analysis. Research in Education, 75, 71-93.
40. Wheeler, S. (2015). Learning with ‘e’s. Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing.
41. Wiesenberg, F., & Hutton, S. (1996). Computer Mediated Conferencing. Journal of the Alberta Association for Continuing Education, 24, 9-16.
42. Williams, P. E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education
Maria Vakoufari, Angelaki Christina and Ilias Mavroidis
attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
61. Tu, C.-H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. In International Journal on E-Learning, April-June, (pp. 34-45).
62. Valås, H. (1999). Students with learning disabilities and low-achieving students: Peer acceptance, loneliness, self-esteem and depression. In Social Psychology of Education, 3, (pp. 173-192).
63. von Prummer, C. (1990) Study motivation of distance students: a report on some results from a survey done at the
the Open University: Definition, measurement, interpretation and action. Open Learning, 19 (1), 65-77.
5. Barefoot, B. O. (2004). Higher education’s revolving door: confronting the problem of student drop out in US colleges and universities. Open Learning, 19 (1), 9-18.
6. Berge, Z. L., & Huang, Y. (2004). A model for sustainable student retention: A holistic perspective on the student dropout problem with special attention to e-learning. DEOSNEWS, 13 (5).
7. Betts, K. (2017, January 10). The growth of online learning: How Universities must
Dissertation. UMI Number: 3388741.ProQuest.
27. Favretto, G.; Caramia, G. and Guardini, M. (2005). E-learning measurement of the learning differences between traditional lessons and online lessons. In European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 8(2). Available online at: http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2005&halfyear=2&article=187
28. Fillion, G.; Limayem, M.; Laferrière, T. and Robert, M. (2007). Integrating ICT into higher education: a study of onsite vs. online students. In Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 11