Content uploaded by Ozgur Yılmaz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ozgur Yılmaz on Jan 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2015, volume 14 issue 1
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 108
THE EFFECTS OF “LIVE VIRTUAL CLASSROOM” ON STUDENTS’
ACHIEVEMENT AND STUDENTS’ OPINIONS ABOUT “LIVE VIRTUAL
CLASSROOM” AT DISTANCE EDUCATION
Ozgur Yilmaz
Istanbul University, Hasan Ali Yucel Education Faculty, Computer Education & Instructional Technology, Istanbul, Turkey
oyilmaz@istanbul.edu.tr
ABSTRACT
This study was performed to investigate the effects of live virtual classroom on students’ achievement and to
determine students’ opinions about the live virtual physics classroom at distance learning. 63 second-year
Distance Computer Education & Instructional Technology students enrolled in this study. At the live virtual
physics classroom, the instructor presented physics lessons. Midterm, final and make-up scores were examined
after the LOC instruction. Students who are LOCFF (n=32), joined over 50 % percent and they had significantly
higher scores than students who are LOCFR (n=31), joined below 50 % percent to the lessons. According to t-
test result, LOCFF group more successfully than LOCFR group (p=.006*). In addition, the interviews carried out
with students to determine students’ opinions about the live virtual physics classroom and the results were
evaluated, classified and discussed several essential considerations about virtual classrooms.
Keywords: Distance education, virtual classroom, live virtual physics classroom
INTRODUCTION
Distance education is a field of education that focuses on, technology and incorporated in delivering education to
students who are not physically “on site” to receive their education (Potashnik & Capper, 1998). Distance
education is going to become more popular and accepted approach for education in the modern age. Several
considerations have led to wide acceptance and sustained growth of distance education in all over the world.
First, it is recognized that education is a key factor in economic development and social change (Rashid & Elahi,
2012). Distance education activities are designed to fit the specific context for learning, the nature of the subject
matter; need and goals of the learner, the learner’s environment and instructional technologies methods.
Use of the web based instruction for educational purposes is widespread and rapidly growing. Thousands of
university courses have been developed for delivery entirely via the web. This approach accelerates more
colleges and universities urge faculty to create online versions of their courses (Dutton et al., 2002). Online
course is one of the most dynamic and enriching forms of distance learning that exist today. Online course is a
subcategory of distance education, which has been defined as the formal delivery of instruction in which time
and geographic location separate students and instructors (Holmberg, 1989; McIsaac & Gunawardena, 1996;
Verduin & Clark, 1991).
A virtual classroom is an online learning environment (Wang & Newlin 2012). Characteristics of online courses
are a type of distance education. The delivery format goes by a number of names: e-learning, Internet learning,
distributed learning, networked learning, tele-learning, virtual learning, or web-based learning (WCET, 2004).
Online synchronous learning is, in many ways, similar to a physical classroom. For example, both physical and
virtual classrooms allow for immediate feedback, interactions with instructor and peers, and guided exercises to
motivate and increase student learning. Collis (1996) outlined four equally compelling advantages of
synchronous systems in an instructional context.
• Motivation synchronous systems provide motivation for distance learners to keep up with their peers.
• Telepresence real time interaction fosters development of group cohesion and a sense of community.
• Good feedback synchronous systems provide quick feedback and support consensus and decision-making in
group activities.
• Pacing synchronous events encourage discipline in learning and help students prioritize their studies.
With synchronous systems, an instructor can assess students’ levels of knowledge and tailor the course material
appropriately. In addition, the inclusion of a scheduled time adds the perception (or reality) that the instructor
and classmates are providing external motivation and are encouraging students’ participation, which can result in
higher retention and completion rates (Schullo et al., 2007).
From the student perspective, synchronous systems allow for immediate feedback in the form of “just-in-time
clarification and information”. This feedback is particularly helpful when dealing with abstract concepts. The
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2015, volume 14 issue 1
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 109
ability to talk with other class participants and instructors in real time can enhance the interaction that other
forms of communication cannot (Pan & Sullivan, 2005).
The online virtual classroom has another advantage as interactions which are learner-content, learner-instructor,
and learner-learner in the online environment (Hillman et al., 1994; Miltiadou & Savenye, 2003; Moore, 1989;
Riel & Harasim, 1994). Synchronous technologies can add value to teaching and learning models, either as a
supplement or replacement for face-to-face or asynchronous learning (Schullo et al., 2007). Many researchers
have indicated that interaction in the distance course and considered it as an important factor that can influence
the success or failure of a course (Kearsley, 1995; Keegan, 1988; Moore, 1989; Miltiadou & Savenye, 2003;
Ross, 1996; Tsui, 1996; Vrasidas & McIsaac,1999). Kearsley (1995) find out that a high level of interaction has
positive effects at distance learning courses. Moore (1989) examined distance course’s interaction types. Tsui
and Ki (1996) indicated that students interacted more frequently over the course of the semester, as they became
more comfortable using technology and more successfully.
In the light of these findings this study was aimed to investigate the effects of live virtual classroom on students’
achievement at distance learning and to determine students’ opinions about the live virtual physics classroom at
distance education in Istanbul University.
METHODS
Purpose of the research
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of live virtual classroom on students’ achievement at
distance education. In the context of this study, “Is live virtual classroom effective in terms of student
achievement at distance education?” research question was investigated and examined.
Participant and procedure
The participant of this study was 63 second-year Distance Department of Computer Education & Instructional
Technology students. At the live virtual physics classroom, the instructor presented one-dimensional motion,
Newton mechanic, force concept, two-dimensional motion, energy conservation and momentum subjects in each
week. Students were able to ask questions to instructor at the misunderstanding points and the instructor had
solved physics problems in detailed online with students. In addition, students could follow the recorded lessons
whenever they want.
In this study, to investigate the effects of live virtual classroom on students’ achievement at distance learning;
midterm, final and make-up exam scores of students were examined after the live virtual physics classroom
(LVPC) implementation.
In addition, the interviews carried out with students to determine students’ opinions about the live virtual physics
classroom at Istanbul University. The interviews were recorded and reported by 3 experts. Students’ responses
were evaluated and similar responses were classified within the scope of the study. Some examples of these
responses were presented in the study.
Findings
In order to investigate the effects of live virtual classroom on students’ achievement at distance learning,
students’ midterm exam, final exam and make-up scores were examined in detailed and the results were
presented for Live Virtual Physics Classroom Followers Rarely (LVPCFR) and Live Virtual Physics Classroom
Followers Frequently (LVPCFF) groups under the 3.1. and 3.2. sub-headings as follows.
Live Virtual Physics Classroom Followers Rarely (LVPCFR) Findings
In the analysis of the live virtual physics classroom data, Live Virtual Physics Classroom Followers Rarely
(LVPCFR) group’s content following numbers, live virtual physics classroom following numbers, scores and
grade frequencies according to months during the semester were determined and graphs were presented.
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2015, volume 14 issue 1
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 110
Table 1. LVPCFR group’s numbers of content following, numbers of live virtual physics classroom following,
scores and grade frequencies
Student Score and Grade Number of Content
Following
Number of Live Virtual
Physics Classroom
Following
Line
Student Group
(LVPCFR)
Midterm Score
Final Score
Make-Up Score
Average Score**
Letter Grade
(Final)
Letter Grade
(Make-Up)
Result
September
October
November
December
January
Total
September
October
November
December
January
Total
1 R1 65 25 40 48 FF FF FF 0 0 2 0 10 12 0 0 1 0 4 5
2 R2 70 40 50 56 FF BB BB 9 8 7 0 0 24 0 1 0 0 0 1
3 R3 50 45 70 64 FF BA BA 3 13 8 0 12 36 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 R4 60 45 NE* 50 FF - FF 0 1 18 1 9 29 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 R5 50 47 67 64 FF BA BA 0 8 15 2 10 35 0 0 0 0 1 1
6 R6 45 30 35 38 FF FF FF 5 19 7 2 4 37 0 2 0 0 2 4
7 R7 75 60 NE* 65 BA - BA 1 5 19 2 6 33 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 R8 55 50 NE* 52 CB - CB 0 8 25 0 12 45 0 0 4 0 0 4
9 R9 45 30 NE* 35 FF - FF 0 8 11 0 1 20 0 1 1 0 0 2
10 R10 20 25 40 34 FF FF FF 0 18 6 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 R11 80 45 60 66 FF BA BA 4 1 3 15 2 25 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 R12 35 40 45 42 FF FF FF 3 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 R13 50 75 NE* 68 BA - BA 0 3 16 0 19 38 0 1 0 0 0 1
14 R14 70 40 45 53 FF FF FF 0 10 25 0 3 38 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 R15 50 67 NE* 69 BA - BA 2 17 4 18 3 44 0 7 0 0 0 7
16 R16 45 45 45 45 FF FF FF 0 2 9 0 0 11 0 2 0 0 0 2
17 R17 90 20 55 67 FF BA BA 2 6 18 6 5 37 0 0 4 1 0 5
18 R18 50 55 NE* 54 CB - CB 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 R19 45 35 40 42 FF FF FF 4 14 7 2 3 30 0 3 1 2 2 8
20 R20 70 65 NE* 67 BA - BA 0 0 39 1 9 49 0 0 9 0 0 9
21 R21 83 20 57 65 FF BA BA 4 12 13 0 2 31 0 2 2 0 0 4
22 R22 35 40 50 46 FF CC CC 0 0 11 1 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 R23 40 45 50 47 FF CC CC 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 1
24 R24 95 52 NE* 64 BA - BA 2 14 5 4 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 R25 82 58 NE* 66 BA - BA 0 11 24 3 7 45 0 0 0 1 0 1
26 R26 85 55 NE* 64 BA - BA 4 23 15 5 1 48 0 2 2 2 0 6
27 R27 65 30 25 41 FF FF FF 2 9 4 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 1
28 R28 75 25 45 54 FF FF FF 3 4 6 1 5 19 0 1 0 0 0 1
29 R29 75 35 45 54 FF FF FF 2 12 3 11 1 29 0 1 1 0 0 2
30 R30 65 20 35 44 FF FF FF 0 18 16 3 6 43 0 5 3 2 1 11
31 R31 85 20 57 69 FF BA BA 3 5 6 1 0 15 0 1 2 0 0 3
32 R32 60 40 40 46 FF FF FF 0 10 9 3 9 31 0 0 0 0 4 4
NE*: Not Entered
Average Score**: 30% Midterm + 70% Final / Make-Up Score
LVPCFR: Live Virtual Physics Classroom Followers Rarely
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2015, volume 14 issue 1
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 111
As seen in Table 1.; when examined LVPCFR group’s the lowest and the highest scores were determined.
Student who was numbered as 14 followed content and Live Virtual Physics Classroom, 38 and 0 respectively.
Student numbered as 30 followed content and Live Virtual Physics Classroom, 43 and 11 respectively. The both
of students failed at the distance physics course.
Figure 1. LVPCFR group’s numbers of content following, numbers of live virtual physics classroom following,
scores and grade frequencies
It was shown in Figure 1, general frequency distributions of LVPCFR Group’s Content Following (Total) and
Live Virtual Physics Classroom Following (Total) during the semester.
Live Virtual Physics Classroom Followers Frequently (LVPCFF) Findings
In the analysis of the live virtual physics classroom data, Live Virtual Physics Classroom Followers Frequently
(LVPCFF) group’s content following numbers, live virtual physics classroom following numbers, scores and
grade frequencies according to months during the semester were determined and graphs were presented.
Table 2. LVPCFF group’s numbers of content following, numbers of live virtual physics classroom following,
scores and grade frequencies.
Student Score and Grade Number of Content
Following
Number of Live Virtual
Physics Classroom
Following
Line
Student Group
(LVPCFF)
Midterm Score
Final Score
Make-Up Score
Average Score**
Letter Grade
(Final)
Letter Grade
(Make-Up)
Result
September
October
November
December
January
Total
September
October
November
December
January
Total
1 F1 65 50 NE* 55 CB - CB 0 17 12 18 3 50 0 4 4 20 0 28
2 F2 45 25 35 38 FF FF FF 0 1 27 0 24 52 0 0 0 0 1 1
3 F3 60 60 NE* 60 BB - BB 11 26 45 16 4 102 0 0 1 3 0 4
4 F4 55 30 50 52 FF CB CB 2 19 28 4 21 74 0 7 7 1 0 15
5 F5 80 75 NE* 77 AA - AA 2 19 19 15 9 64 0 11 5 2 0 18
6 F6 90 40 75 80 FF AA AA 3 19 22 23 15 82 0 3 7 5 3 18
7 F7 70 45 55 60 FF BB BB 1 2 47 10 34 94 0 1 5 11 4 21
8 F8 70 55 NE* 60 BB - BB 7 28 35 13 15 98 0 3 10 3 0 16
9 F9 91 42 74 83 FF AA AA 13 30 16 26 0 85 0 4 0 13 0 17
10 F10 70 40 30 49 FF FF FF 12 20 26 14 1 73 0 4 0 10 0 14
11 F11 60 60 NE* 60 BB - BB 9 28 9 9 7 62 0 0 0 2 1 3
12 F12 75 65 NE* 68 AA - AA 12 27 36 15 4 94 0 16 9 13 0 38
13 F13 90 30 35 52 FF FF FF 17 20 34 3 4 78 0 5 0 0 1 6
14 F14 89 42 73 84 FF AA AA 8 8 25 29 12 82 0 2 4 2 4 12
15 F15 90 40 73 79 FF AA AA 10 31 4 4 3 52 0 10 0 3 0 13
16 F16 90 38 75 80 AA AA AA 0 2 15 47 1 65 0 0 5 1 0 6
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2015, volume 14 issue 1
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 112
17 F17 50 40 40 43 FF FF FF 3 21 18 9 0 51 0 4 3 6 0 13
18 F18 45 25 30 35 FF FF FF 6 7 17 7 18 55 0 1 5 0 13 19
19 F19 60 25 30 39 FF FF FF 15 19 28 0 4 66 0 0 0 0 2 2
20 F20 60 50 NE* 53 CB - CB 16 8 27 2 8 61 0 0 0 5 7 12
21 F21 60 40 50 53 FF CB CB 0 2 24 11 27 64 0 0 2 4 1 7
22 F22 65 50 NE* 55 CB - CB 0 55 9 0 17 81 0 21 0 0 2 23
23 F23 60 45 NE* 50 FF - FF 0 33 13 12 8 66 0 6 3 6 0 15
24 F24 65 40 50 55 FF CB CB 19 16 28 6 6 75 0 8 12 0 2 22
25 F25 60 55 NE* 57 BB - BB 0 14 32 13 23 82 0 1 5 1 1 8
26 F26 50 25 50 50 FF CB CB 8 18 21 8 20 75 0 1 7 3 5 16
27 F27 78 80 NE* 81 AA - AA 6 21 19 4 2 52 0 4 8 1 0 13
28 F28 82 74 NE* 77 AA - AA 9 15 18 15 11 68 0 0 1 5 0 6
29 F29 30 25 30 30 FF FF FF 2 16 20 12 5 55 0 0 9 5 4 18
30 F30 90 72 NE* 79 AA - AA 14 26 24 17 16 97 0 9 4 9 6 28
31 F31 60 55 NE* 57 BB - BB 5 10 13 15 17 60 0 1 0 1 6 8
NE*: Not Entered
Average Score**: 30% Midterm + 70% Final / Make-Up Score
LVPCFF: Live Virtual Physics Classroom Followers Frequently
As seen in Table 2; when examined LVPCFF group’s the lowest and the highest scores were determined. The
student who was numbered as 2 followed content and Live Virtual Physics Classroom, 52 and 1 respectively.
The student numbered as 12 followed content and Live Virtual Physics Classroom, 94 and 38 respectively.
While student 2 failed at distance physics course, student 12 finished physics course with the highest score.
Figure 2. LVPCFF Group’s content following (total) and live virtual physics classroom following (total)
frequencies during the semester as scale.
It was shown in Figure 2, general frequency distributions of LVPCFF Group’s Content Following (Total)
and Live Virtual Physics Classroom Following (Total) during the semester.
Table 3. Comparison of LVPCFR and LVPCFF groups’ scores of students’ according to independent group t-
test results.
Groups Mean N Std.
Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Independent group t test
t SD p
LVPCFR 49,12 31 17,006 3,006 -2,859 61 ,006*
LVPCFF 65,74 32 27,980 5,025
As shown in Table 3.; LVPCFF group had significantly higher mean score (65,74) than LVPCFR group’s mean
score (49,12) during Live Virtual Physics Course and independent group t-test results showed that there was
statistically significant difference between LVPCFF and LVPCFR groups’ scores (p= ,006*).
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2015, volume 14 issue 1
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 113
Figure 3. The comparison between the LVPCFR and LVPCFF groups were presented according to general
frequency distributions of content following (total) and live virtual physics classroom following (total) during
the semester.
In addition, the comparison between the LVPCFR and LVPCFF groups were presented according to general
frequency distributions of Content Following (Total) and Live Virtual Physics Classroom Following (Total)
during the semester in Figure 3.
Interview Findings
There are three open-ended questions in the interview form, which are as follows: (1) “What do you think about
the live virtual physics classroom?”, (2) “Which factors effected your success in the live virtual physics
classroom? and (3) “Which points of the live virtual physics classroom did you like the most?”. Some examples
of data obtained in the analysis of the responses are briefly listed below:
“Although the physics lessons are boring and difficult, I enjoyed the lessons and it encouraged me to do my
homeworks”
“It effected my understanding the subject to be part of solving problems during the live virtual physics
classroom”
“It was the most important factor of the live virtual physics classroom on my success that I could follow lessons
over and over again”
“The instructor solved problems about the subjects and I could asked my questions to him whenever I need at the
live virtual physics classroom”
When the similar responses obtained in the interviews are classified, two main opinions become prominent, as
follows: (1) Live virtual classroom is highly desirable and (2) To be able to access the recorded live virtual
physics classroom at any time by students were the most important factors of students’ success. These results
indicate that the students were generally positively affected by the live virtual physics classroom at distance
education.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of live virtual classroom on students’ achievement at
distance learning. In order to investigate the effects of live virtual classroom on students’ achievement at
distance education, students’ midterm exam, final exam and make-up scores were examined in detailed.
According to data analysis, it was found that LVPCFF group had significantly higher mean score (65,74) than
LVPCFR group’s mean score (49,12) during The Live Virtual Physics Classroom and independent group t-test
results showed that there was statistically significant difference between LVPCFF and LVPCFR groups’ scores
(p= ,006*). According to the findings, it was seen that LVPCFF group more successful than LVPCFR group.
According to the interviews results, it was seen that students had two main opinions as follows: (1) live virtual
classroom is highly desirable and (2) To be able to access the recorded live virtual physics classroom at any time
by students were the most important factors of students’ achievement. These results indicate that the students
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2015, volume 14 issue 1
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 114
were generally positively affected by the live virtual physics classroom at distance education. As mentioned
before, live virtual classroom has the advantage of being able to show an image of the speaker, three dimensional
objects, motion, and preproduced video footage. The unique advantage of live virtual classroom is that they
provide for two-way interaction between the instructor and the students (McIsaac & Gunawardena, 1996).
According to data analysis and student's interview results support to importance of live virtual classroom on
distance education.
As indicated at previous researches, an important advantage in using recorded live virtual classroom is that
students can exercise “control” over the programming by using the stop, rewind, replay, and fast forward
features to proceed at their own pace. Recorded live virtual classroom is also a very flexible medium allowing
students to use the recorded live virtual classroom at a time that is suitable to them. Students can repeat the
material until they gain mastery of it by reflecting on and analyzing it (McIsaac & Gunawardena, 1996).
According to Jason (2001), students view the use of the virtual classroom as an ease of accessibility. It is much
easier with the information posted on the Web because it is available 24 hours a day. Distance learning courses
can be done anywhere and at any time. Students can view this information without having to contact the
instructor (Posey et al., 2010). In this context, data analysis and student’s interview results show that providing
the recorded live virtual classroom in distance education has positively effected on students’ success. As shown
in this study, our findings support previous works of researchers (Miltiadou & Savenye, 2003; Potashnik &
Capper, 1998; Riel & Harasim, 1994; Verduin & Clark, 1991; Vrasidas & McIsaac, 1999) about importance of
live virtual classroom and it is clear that the live virtual physics classroom has played a critical role in students’
achievement at distance education.
REFERENCES
Collis, B. (1996). Tele-learning in a digital world: The future of distance learning. London. International
Thompson Computer Press.
Dutton, J., Dutton, M., & Perry, J. (2002). How Do Online Students Differ From Lecture Students?, Jaln
Volume 6, Issue 1.
Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and Practice of Distance Education. London: Routledge.
Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-Interface Interaction in Distance Education:
An Extension of Contemporary Models and Strategies for Practitioners. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 8(2), 31-42.
Jason, L. A., Kennedy, C. L. & Taylor, R. R. (2001). Development and Evaluation of a Web-based Classroom.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28(3), 155-160.
Kearsley, G. (1995). The Nature and Value of Interaction in Distance Learning. Third Distance Education
Research Symposium, May 18-21.
Keegan, D. (1988). Problems in Defining the Field of Distance Education. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 2(2), 4-11.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three Types of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
Miltiadou M., & Savenye W. C. (2003). Applying Social Cognitive Constructs of Motivation to Enhance Student
Success in Online Distance Education, Educational Technology Review, v11, n1.
McIsaac, M. S., & Gunawardena C. N. (1996). Distance Education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology: a project of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology (pp. 403-437). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Pan, C. C. & Sullivan, M. (2005). Promoting synchronous interaction in an eLearning environment. Technical
Horizons in Education Journal, 33(2), 27-30.
Potashnik, M. & Capper, J. (1998). Distance Education: Growth and Diversity. Fin Dev; 35: 42–45.
Posey, G., Burgess, T., Eason, M. & Jones, Y. (2010). The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Virtual
Classroom and the Role of the Teacher. Southwest Decision Sciences Institute Conference, March 2-6
<http://www.swdsi.org/swdsi2010/SW2010_Preceedings/papers/PA126.pdf> Accessed 16.07.2012
Rashid, M., & Elahi, U. (2012). Use of Educational Technology in Promoting Distance Education. Turkish
Online Journal Distance Education; 13.
Riel, M., & Harasim, L. (1994). Research Perspectives on Network Learning. Machine Mediated Learning, 4(2-
3), 91-113.
Ross, A. R. (1996). The Influence of Computer Communication Skills on Participation in a Computer
Conferencing Course. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(1), 37-52.
Schullo, S., Hilbelink, A., Venable, M. & Barron, A. E. (2007). Selecting a Virtual Classroom System:
Elluminate Live vs. Macromedia Breeze. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 331-
345.
Tsui, A. B. M, & Ki, W. W. (1996). An Analysis of Conference Interactions on Telenex - A Computer Network
for ESL Teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 23-44.
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2015, volume 14 issue 1
Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 115
Verduin, J. R. J., & Clark, T. A. (1991). Distance Education: The Foundations of Effective Practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors Influencing Interaction in an Online Course. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22-35.
Wang, A. Y. & Newlin, M. H. (2012). Online Lectures: Benefits for the Virtual Classroom. T.H.E. Journal.
<http://www.thejournal.com/articles/15513> Accessed 16.07.2012
WCET:Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications, (2004). Distance education: A consumer's
guide < http://wcet.wiche.edu> Accessed 16.07.2012
