Effects of Different Interactions on Students Sense of Community in E Learning Environment

Questions and Answers: Effects of Different Interactions on Students' Sense of Community in E-Learning Environment 1. Correctly reference the article using current APA format. Luo, N., Zhang, M. & Qi, D. (2017). Effects of Different Interactions on Students' Sense of Community in E-Learning Environment. Computers & Education, 115, 153-160 2.

What is the purpose of the study? In the present study, the authors sought to “understand how interactions influence students' sense of community and continuous use intention of e-learning platform.” A study of this nature is of great relevance, particularly given the fact that most educational institution continue to adopt e-learning in an attempt to broaden and extend their reach while at the same time further enhancing convenience in learning. 3. List the hypotheses; then, underline and label the corresponding independent/dependent variables or predictor/criterion variables.

Are there any covariates? If so, name them.

In reference to effects of student-instructor interaction and student-student interaction on sense of community, the authors of the present study hypothesized “that student-instructor interaction and student-student interaction will play a positive relationship with the student’s sense of community (membership and influence).” On the other hand, in reference to the effects of sense of community on stickiness, the authors hypothesized that “the sense of community (membership and influence) will promote a greater degree of stickiness with the system.” Lastly, in relation to the moderating effects of student-content interaction, the authors hypothesized that “student-instructor interaction and student-student interaction relies on the level of student-content interaction in the formation of sense of community in the e-learning environment.” 4.

What research design is used and why? The authors make use of a cross-sectional research design. This is particularly the case given that participants in this case have not been selected on the basis of random allocation, but on existing differences. A preview of outcomes has been given. 5. What type of sampling method is used? A probability sampling approach has been used by the authors in the present study. More specifically, a simple random sampling method was utilized. 6.

What are the names of the instruments (provide a list)? Are the instruments valid and reliable? Why or why not? a). Cronbach Alpha b). Composite reliability (CR) c). Average variance extracted (AVE). It is important to note that while the construct’s Cronbach alpha coefficients exceeded the level recommended (a good reliability indicator), the average variance extracted had a square root that exceeded the inter-construct correlation (which essentially was indicative of the constructs’ discriminant validity). 7.

Do the author(s) give enough detail regarding the procedure so that the study could be replicated? How or how not? Enough detail regarding the procedure was given – effectively meaning that it would be possible to replicate the study. In addition to clearly highlighting how the sample was in this case obtained, the authors also identify the survey instrument and measures in clear and certain terms. The authors also explain how the latent constructs’ causal relationship was assessed. 8.

What type of statistical analysis is used and why? The authors made use of a two-step analysis method – measurement as well as structural level. Even in instances whereby the normality assumption is not met, this approach yields good results. 9. What are the major conclusions of the study? How do they.