Mediation and Online Learning: Systematic Literature Mapping (2015–2020)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Method
2.2. Definition of Scope and Objective (Research Questions)
2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.4. Identificacion of Databases and Search Terms
2.5. Database Search and Article Retrieval
2.6. Creation of the Classification Scheme
3. Results
3.1. SRQ1: How Many Studies Are in WOS and Scopus Databases from 2015 to 2020, and What Is Their Design?
3.2. RQ2: What Are the Most Cited Articles?
3.3. RQ3: What Is the Geographical Distribution of the Authors?
3.4. RQ4: Which Are the Journals with the Most Publications on This Topic?
3.5. RQ5: What Type of Mediation Is Presented in the Articles?
3.6. RQ6: What Are the Trends Addressed in the Articles?
4. Discussion
5. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- United Nations. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Res. Adop. Gen. Assemb. 2015. Available online: https://dds.cepal.org/redesoc/publicacion?id=4116 (accessed on 20 November 2021).
- Rojas, E.; Poveda, L.; Grimblatt, N. Estado de la Banda Ancha en América Latina y el Caribe. 2016. Available online: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/40528/s1601049_es.pdf?sequence=6&isallowed=y (accessed on 14 October 2021).
- Slomski, V.G.; de Araujo, A.M.P.; Santana, A.S.; Weffort, E.F.J. Tecnologias e Mediação Pedagógica Na Educação Superior a Distância. J. Inf. Syst. Technol. Manag. 2016, 13, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avello Martínez, R.; Duart, J.M. Nuevas Tendencias de Aprendizaje Colaborativo En E-Learning: Claves Para Su Implementación Efectiva. Estud. Pedagóg. 2016, 42, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garcia Marcos, C.J.; Cabero Almenara, J. Evolución y Estado Actual Del E-Learning En La Formación Profesional Española. RIED Rev. Iberoam. Educ. Dist. 2016, 19, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Copriady, J. Self-Motivation as a Mediator for Teachers’ Readiness in Applying ICT in Teaching and Learning. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 176, 699–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- García-Peñalvo, F.J.; Fidalg-Blanco, Á.; Sein-Echaluce, M. Los MOOC: Un análisis desde una perspectiva de la innovación institucional universitaria. Cuest. Univ. 2017, 9, 117–135. Available online: https://zaguan.unizar.es/record/63528 (accessed on 5 June 2021).
- Quintero Ortega, S.P.; Díaz Correa, Á.M.; Ortiz Russi, G.E. Modelo de mediaciones pedagógicas y tecnológicas para entender e incorporar adecuadamente procesos pedagógicos-comunicativos-tecnológicos de ambientes virtuales de aprendizaje en la Policia Nacional de Colombia. Rev. Logos Cienc. Tecnol. 2015, 6, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabelas, J.A.; Marta-Lazo, C.; González Aldea, P. The relational factor in media convergence: An emerging proposal. Anàlisi 2015, 53, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Pablos Pons, J. Las tecnologías digitales y su impacto en la Universidad. Las nuevas mediaciones. RIED Rev. Iberoam. Educ. Distancia 2018, 21, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaramillo Morales, C.O.; Conde Pinzón, G.E.; Londoño Villamil, G. Modelo de diseño didáctico para la construcción de cursos virtuales: Una propuesta en la modalidad de educación a distancia de la Universidad de la Amazonia. Acad. Virtual. 2020, 13, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valenzuela, J.R. La innovación como objeto de investigación en educación: Problemas, tensiones y experiencias. Innovación educativa investigación, formación, vinculación y visibilidad. In Innovación Educativa Investigación, Formación, Vinculación y Visibilidad; Síntesis: Madrid, Spain, 2017; pp. 29–51. [Google Scholar]
- Trujillo Torres, J.M.; Aznar Díaz, I.; Cáceres Reche, M.P. Análisis Del Uso e Integración de Redes Sociales Colaborativas En Comunidades de Aprendizaje de La Universidad de Granada (España) y John Moores de Liverpool (Reino Unido). Rev. Complut. Educ. 2015, 26, 289–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Redding, S.; Twyman, J.; Murphy, M. What Is an Innovation in Learning? In Handbook on Innovations in Learning Part 1; Center on Innovations in Learning: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2014; pp. 3–14. [Google Scholar]
- Tébar, L. El Perfil del Profesor Mediador: Pedagogía de la Mediación; Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca: Salamanca, Spain, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Tobon, S.; Martinez, J.E.; Valdez, E.; Quiriz, T. Prácticas pedagógicas: Análisis mediante la cartografía conceptual. Rev. Esp. 2018, 39, 1–16. Available online: http://www.revistaespacios.com/cited2017/cited2017-31.html (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- Veytia, M.G. Manejo de herramientas de la web 2.0 como base para fortalecer procesos de mediación tecnológica. Rev. Iberoa. Inv. Des. Edu. RIDE 2015, 6, 1–18. Available online: http://www.ride.org.mx/index.php/RIDE/article/view/140 (accessed on 16 July 2021).
- Guetta, S. The Feuerstein approach to intercultural education and respect for human rights. Bull. Transil. Univer. Bras. Ser. VII Soc. Scien. Law 2016, 9, 181–186. Available online: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=509958 (accessed on 24 August 2021).
- Tzuriel, D. Mediated Learning Experience and Cognitive Modifiability. J. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. 2014, 12, 59–80. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270526553_Mediated_Learning_Experience_and_Cognitive_Modifiability (accessed on 3 September 2021). [CrossRef]
- Izard, M.; Francisco, J. Tutoría en espacios virtuales de aprendizaje y procesos de mediación didáctica. In Investigación y tecnologías de la información y comunicación al servicio de la innovación educativa; Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca: Salamanca, Spain, 2008; pp. 113–140. [Google Scholar]
- Ausubel, D. Teoría del aprendizaje signifactivo. Fascículos De CEIF 1983, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Dhawan, S. Online Learning: A Panacea in the Time of COVID-19 Crisis. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2020, 49, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayer, R.E. Thirty Years of Research on Online Learning. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2019, 33, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kentnor, H. Digital Commons @ DU Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship Distance Education and the Evolution of Online Learning in the United States. Med.-Leg. 2015, 17, 22–34. [Google Scholar]
- Panigrahi, R.; Srivastava, P.R.; Sharma, D. Online Learning: Adoption, Continuance, and Learning Outcome—A Review of Literature. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2018, 43, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, H.; Hmelo-Silver, C.E. Seven Affordances of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: How to Support Collaborative Learning? How Can Technologies Help? Educ. Psychol. 2016, 51, 247–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Z.; Liu, R.; Luo, L.; Wu, M.; Shi, C. Exploring Collaborative Learning Effect in Blended Learning Environments: Exploring Collaborative Learning Effect. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2017, 33, 575–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleveland-Innes, M.; Wilton, D. Guide to Blended Learning. Commonwealth of Learning. 2018. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11599/3095 (accessed on 26 April 2021).
- Bowyer, J.; Chambers, L. Evaluating Blended Learning: Bringing the Elements Together. Res. Matters Camb. Assess. Publ. 2017, 1, 17–26. Available online: https://learning.huph.edu.vn/pluginfile.php/7529/mod_resource/content/1/375446-evaluating-blended-learning-bringing-the-elements-together.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2021).
- Margolis, A.R.; Porter, A.L.; Pitterle, M.E. Best Practices for Use of Blended Learning. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2017, 81, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crompton, H.; Burke, D. The Use of Mobile Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Comput. Educ. 2018, 123, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crompton, H.; Burke, D.; Gregory, K.H.; Gräbe, C. The Use of Mobile Learning in Science: A Systematic Review. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2016, 25, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Emran, M.; Elsherif, H.M.; Shaalan, K. Investigating Attitudes towards the Use of Mobile Learning in Higher Education. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 56, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, P.; Saab, N.; Post, L.S.; Admiraal, W. A Review of Project-Based Learning in Higher Education: Student Outcomes and Measures. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 102, 101586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shpeizer, R. Towards a Successful Integration of Project-Based Learning in Higher Education: Challenges, Technologies and Methods of Implementation. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 2019, 7, 1765–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, S.K.W.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, K.; Chan, C.K.; Lee, C.W.Y.; Zou, E.; Lau, W. The Effectiveness of Wikis for Project-Based Learning in Different Disciplines in Higher Education. Internet High Educ. 2017, 33, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castillo-Martínez, I.M.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Research competencies to develop academic reading and writing: A systematic literature review. Front. Educ. 2021, 5, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Luque, A.-M.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S.; Cordón-García, J.-A. Training in digital competencies for health professionals: Systematic mapping (2015–2019). Prof. Inf. 2021, 30, e300213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farid, S.; Ahmad, R.; Niaz, I.A.; Arif, M.; Shamshirband, S.; Khattak, M.D. Identification and Prioritization of Critical Issues for the Promotion of E-Learning in Pakistan. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 51, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valverde-Berrocoso, J.; Garrido-Arroyo, M.D.C.; Burgos-Videla, C.; Morales-Cevallos, M.B. Trends in Educational Research about E-Learning: A Systematic Literature Review (2009–2018). Sustainability 2020, 12, 5153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henrie, C.R.; Halverson, L.R.; Graham, C.R. Measuring Student Engagement in Technology-Mediated Learning: A Review. Comput. Educ. 2015, 90, 36–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fofonca, E.; Zmorzenski Valduga Schoninger, R.R.; Sílvia da Costa, C. A Mediação Tecnológica e Pedagógica Em Ambientes Virtuais de Aprendizagem: Contribuições das Dimensões da Educomunicação. Rev. Tempos Espaç. Em Educ. 2018, 11, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- García, A.; Ramírez, M. Systematic Mapping of Scientific Production on Open Innovation (2015–2018): Opportunities for sustainable training environments. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1781. [Google Scholar]
- Kitchenham, B.; Charters, S. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. 2007. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.117.471 (accessed on 15 October 2021).
- Kitchenham, B. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews, Version 1.0. Emp. Soft. Eng. 2004, 33, 1–16. Available online: http://www.elizabete.com.br/rs/Tutorial_IHC_2012_files/Conceitos_RevisaoSistematica_kitchenham_2004.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2021).
- Kitchenham, B.; Pretorius, R.; Budgen, D.; Pearl Brereton, O.; Turner, M.; Niazi, M.; Linkman, S. Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering—A Tertiary Study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2010, 52, 792–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petersen, K.; Feldt, R.; Mujtaba, S.; Mattsson, M. Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE), Bari, Italy, 26–27 June 2008; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- López-Meneses, E.; Vázquez-Cano, E.; Román-Graván, P. Analysis and implications of the impact of MOOC movement in the scientific community: JCR and Scopus (2010-13). Comunicar 2015, 22, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Calderón, A.; Ruiz, M. A Systematic Literature Review on Serious Games Evaluation: An Application to Software Project Management. Comput. Educ. 2015, 87, 396–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Avogadro, M.E.; Quiroga, S.R. La mediación tecnológica y las TIC: Fenómenos y objetos técnicos. Razón Y Palabra 2016, 92, 1–18. Available online: http://www.razonypalabra.org.mx/N/N92/Varia/27_AvogadroQuiroga_V92.pdf (accessed on 3 November 2021).
- Ooi, K.-B.; Hew, J.-J.; Lee, V.-H. Could the Mobile and Social Perspectives of Mobile Social Learning Platforms Motivate Learners to Learn Continuously? Comput. Educ. 2018, 120, 127–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartau, I.; Aierbe, A.; Oregui, E. Mediación parental del uso de Internet en el alumnado de Primaria: Creencias, estrategias y dificultades. Com. Rev. Cen. Iberoam. Comu. Educ. 2018, 54, 71–79. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed.; SAGE Publications: California, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Ramírez, M.S.; Lugo, J. Revisión sistemática de métodos mixtos en el marco de la innovación educativa. Comunicar 2020, 600, 9–20. [Google Scholar]
- Kock, N.; Chatelain-Jardón, R. Surprise-Enhanced and Technology-Mediated Learning: A Two-Country Study. Cogn. Technol. Work 2016, 18, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.-C.; Chiu, C.-H.; Lin, C.-H.; Wang, T.-I. Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry. Comput. Educ. 2015, 91, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, C.-Y. The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students’ scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Comput. Educ. 2018, 116, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wakefield, J.; Frawley, J.K.; Tyler, J.; Dyson, L.E. The impact of an iPad-supported annotation and sharing technology on university students’ learning. Comput. Educ. 2018, 122, 243–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biddix, J.P.; Chung, C.J.; Park, H.W. The Hybrid Shift: Evidencing a Student-Driven Restructuring of the College Classroom. Comput. Educ. 2015, 80, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, H.-Y.; Chai, C.S. Principle-based design: Development of adaptive mathematics teaching practices and beliefs in a knowledge building environment. Comput. Educ. 2017, 115, 38–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humphry, D.; Hampden-Thompson, G. Primary School Pupils’ Emotional Experiences of Synchronous Audio-Led Online Communication during Online One-to-One Tuition. Comput. Educ. 2019, 135, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogler, J.S.; Munsell, S.E.; Knutson, D. LOLsquared: When Laughing-out-Loud and Learning-on-Line Intermingle in a Computer-Mediated Classroom Discussion. Comput. Educ. 2019, 140, 103597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiller, S.Z. CHAT for Chat: Mediated Learning in Online Chat Virtual Reference Service. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 65, 651–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yücel, Ü.A.; Usluel, Y.K. Knowledge building and the quantity, content and quality of the interaction and participation of students in an online collaborative learning environment. Comput. Educ. 2016, 97, 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butz, N.T.; Stupnisky, R.H. Improving Student Relatedness through an Online Discussion Intervention: The Application of Self-Determination Theory in Synchronous Hybrid Programs. Comput. Educ. 2017, 114, 117–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beltrán Hernández de Galindo, M.D.J.; Romero-Rodriguez, L.M.; Ramirez Montoya, M.S. Entrepreneurship Competencies in Energy Sustainability MOOCs. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 2019, 11, 598–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forkosh-Baruch, A.; Hershkovitz, A. Broadening Communication yet Holding Back: Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Relationship with Students in the SNS-Era. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 725–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vázquez-Cano, E.; González, A.I.H.; Sáez-López, J.M. An Analysis of the Orthographic Errors Found in University Students’ Asynchronous Digital Writing. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2019, 31, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, C.-Y.; Lin, C.-N.; Shih, W.-L.; Wu, P.-L. The Effect of Online Argumentation upon Students’ Pseudoscientific Beliefs. Comput. Educ. 2015, 80, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ainin, S.; Naqshbandi, M.M.; Moghavvemi, S.; Jaafar, N.I. Facebook usage, socialization and academic performance. Comput. Educ. 2015, 83, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pang, L.; Jen, C.C. Inclusive Dyslexia-Friendly Collaborative Online Learning Environment: Malaysia Case Study. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 1023–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogler, J.S.; Schallert, D.L.; Jordan, M.E.; Song, K.; Sanders, A.J.Z.; Te Chiang, Y.-H.Y.; Lee, J.-E.; Park, J.H.; Yu, L.-T. Life history of a topic in an online discussion: A complex systems theory perspective on how one message attracts class members to create meaning collaboratively. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2017, 12, 173–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, X.; Fu, S.; Sun, J.; Han, Y.; Shen, J.; Zarifis, A. Investigating Individual Trust in Semi-Virtual Collaboration of Multicultural and Unicultural Teams. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 62, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torrey, T.; Krutka, D.G.; Carpenter, J.P. “Together we are better”: Professional learning networks for teachers. Comput. Educ. 2016, 102, 15–34. [Google Scholar]
- Binder, J.F.; Cebula, K.; Metwally, S.; Vernon, M.; Atkin, C.; Mitra, S. Conversational Engagement and Mobile Technology Use. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 99, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, E.E. “A Real Double-Edged Sword:” Undergraduate Perceptions of Social Media in Their Learning. Comput. Educ. 2016, 103, 44–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farr, F.; Riordan, E. Tracing the Reflective Practices of Student Teachers in Online Modes. ReCALL 2015, 27, 104–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Levak, N.; Son, J.-B. Facilitating Second Language Learners’ Listening Comprehension with Second Life and Skype. ReCALL 2017, 29, 200–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Järvelä, S.; Kirschner, P.A.; Panadero, E.; Malmberg, J.; Phielix, C.; Jaspers, J.; Koivuniemi, M.; Järvenoja, H. Enhancing Socially Shared Regulation in Collaborative Learning Groups: Designing for CSCL Regulation Tools. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2015, 63, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eid, M.I.M.; Al-Jabri, I.M. Social networking, knowledge sharing, and student learning: The case of university students. Comput. Educ. 2016, 99, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaggars, S.S.; Xu, D. How Do Online Course Design Features Influence Student Performance? Comput. Educ. 2016, 95, 270–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wei, H.-C.; Peng, H.; Chou, C. Can More Interactivity Improve Learning Achievement in an Online Course? Effects of College Students’ Perception and Actual Use of a Course-Management System on Their Learning Achievement. Comput. Educ. 2015, 83, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kent, C.; Laslo, E.; Rafaeli, S. Interactivity in Online Discussions and Learning Outcomes. Comput. Educ. 2016, 97, 116–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stowell, J.R. Use of Clickers vs. Mobile Devices for Classroom Polling. Comput. Educ. 2015, 82, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, N.; Zhang, M.; Qi, D. Effects of Different Interactions on Students’ Sense of Community in e-Learning Environment. Comput. Educ. 2017, 115, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Bonk, C.J. Social Network Analysis of Peer Relationships and Online Interactions in a Blended Class Using Blogs. Internet High. Educ. 2016, 28, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passig, D.; Tzuriel, D.; Eshel-Kedmi, G. Improving Children’s Cognitive Modifiability by Dynamic Assessment in 3D Immersive Virtual Reality Environments. Comput. Educ. 2016, 95, 296–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.C. The Crossroads of English Language Learners, Task-Based Instruction, and 3D Multi-User Virtual Learning in Second Life. Comput. Educ. 2016, 102, 152–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imlawi, J.; Gregg, D.; Karimi, J. Student Engagement in Course-Based Social Networks: The Impact of Instructor Credibility and Use of Communication. Comput. Educ. 2015, 88, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsay, C.H.-H.; Kofinas, A.; Luo, J. Enhancing Student Learning Experience with Technology-Mediated Gamification: An Empirical Study. Comput. Educ. 2018, 121, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wise, A.F.; Cui, Y.; Jin, W.; Vytasek, J. Mining for Gold: Identifying Content-Related MOOC Discussion Threads across Domains through Linguistic Modeling. Internet High. Educ. 2017, 32, 11–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.; Jo, M.; Hyun, E.; So, H.-J. Examining Young Children’s Perception toward Augmented Reality-Infused Dramatic Play. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2015, 63, 455–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J. Can MOOCs Be Interesting to Students? An Experimental Investigation from Regulatory Focus Perspective. Comput. Educ. 2016, 95, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shadiev, R.; Huang, Y.-M. Facilitating Cross-Cultural Understanding with Learning Activities Supported by Speech-to-Text Recognition and Computer-Aided Translation. Comput. Educ. 2016, 98, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsiotakis, P.; Jimoyiannis, A. Critical Factors towards Analysing Teachers’ Presence in on-Line Learning Communities. Internet High. Educ. 2016, 28, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walther, J.B.; Hoter, E.; Ganayem, A.; Shonfeld, M. Computer-Mediated Communication and the Reduction of Prejudice: A Controlled Longitudinal Field Experiment among Jews and Arabs in Israel. Comput. Human Behav. 2015, 52, 550–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, S.; Liu, Q.; Chen, W.; Wang, Q.; Huang, Z. Interactive Networks and Social Knowledge Construction Behavioral Patterns in Primary School Teachers’ Online Collaborative Learning Activities. Comput. Educ. 2017, 104, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korkmaz, Ö.; Çakir, R.; Özden, M.Y. A Validity and Reliability Study of the Computational Thinking Scales (CTS). Comput. Human Behav. 2017, 72, 558–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, B.; Warschauer, M. Participation, Interaction, and Academic Achievement in an Online Discussion Environment. Comput. Educ. 2015, 84, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Symeonides, R.; Childs, C. The personal experience of online learning: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 51, 539–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Siau, K. Technology-Mediated Synchronous Virtual Education: An Empirical Study. J. Database Manag. 2016, 27, 39–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bower, M. Technology-mediated Learning Theory. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 1035–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marriott, R.; Ferreira, J.; Behrens, M.; Torres, P. The necessary knowledge for online education: Teaching and learning to produce knowledge. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2018, 14, 2097–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Sales Júnior, F.M.; Ramos, M.A.D.S.; de Pinho, A.L.S.; Santa Rosa, J.G.D.S. Pedagogical usability: A theoretical essay for e-learning. Holos 2016, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Madriñán Rodríguez, P. LIES: Learning Immersive Experiences Significative. Sist. Telemát. 2018, 16, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shintaku, K. The Interplay of Game Design and Pedagogical Mediation in Game-Mediated Japanese Learning. Int. J. Comput.-Assist. Lang. Learn. Teach. 2016, 6, 36–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Öztok, M.; Kehrwald, B.A. Social Presence Reconsidered: Moving beyond, Going Back, or Killing Social Presence. Distance Educ. 2017, 38, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Friedlander, V. Social relations of cyber-mediated learning platforms: Symmetry, relation, and evolution. Int. J. Contin. Eng. Educ. Life Long Learn. 2015, 25, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molinillo, S.; Aguilar-Illescas, R.; Anaya-Sánchez, R.; Vallespín-Arán, M. Exploring the Impacts of Interactions, Social Presence and Emotional Engagement on Active Collaborative Learning in a Social Web-Based Environment. Comput. Educ. 2018, 123, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cesareni, D.; Cacciamani, S.; Fujita, N. Role Taking and Knowledge Building in a Blended University Course. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2016, 11, 9–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, V.H.H.; Chng, G.S. Active and restrictive parental mediation over time: Effects on youths’ self-regulatory competencies and impulsivity. Comput. Educ. 2016, 98, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lau, W.W.F.; Yuen, A.H.K. The relative importance of paternal and maternal parenting as predictors of adolescents’ home Internet use and usage. Comput. Educ. 2016, 102, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torrecillas-Lacave, T.; Vázquez-Barrio, T.; Monteagudo-Barandalla, L. Percepción de los padres sobre el empoderamiento digital de las familias en hogares hiperconectados. Prof. Inf. 2017, 26, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kennedy, C.; Rhoads, C.; Leu, D.J. Online research and learning in science: A one-to-one laptop comparison in two states using performance based assessments. Comput. Educ. 2016, 100, 141–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karaoglan Yilmaz, F.G.; Yilmaz, R. Impact of Pedagogic Agent-Mediated Metacognitive Support towards Increasing Task and Group Awareness in CSCL. Comput. Educ. 2019, 134, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abe, Y.; Mashiko, Y. The Effects of Synchronous CMC on English Proficiency and Social Presence, Affinity for Partners: Text versus Video Chat between Japanese and Philippine EFL Learners. IEEJ Trans. Fundam. Mater. 2019, 139, 486–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvis, D.; Taylor, K.H.; Stevens, R. Community Technology Mapping: Inscribing Places When “Everything Is on the Move”. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2018, 13, 137–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puhl, T.; Tsovaltzi, D.; Weinberger, A. Blending Facebook Discussions into Seminars for Practicing Argumentation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 53, 605–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Law, K.M.Y.; Geng, S.; Li, T. Student Enrollment, Motivation and Learning Performance in a Blended Learning Environment: The Mediating Effects of Social, Teaching, and Cognitive Presence. Comput. Educ. 2019, 136, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, K.; Hale, W. The state of 21st century learning in the K-12 world of the United States: Online and blended learning opportunities for American elementary and secondary students. J. Educ. Multimed. Hypermedia 2017, 26, 131–159. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, J.-C.; Hwang, M.-Y.; Tai, K.-H.; Kuo, Y.-C. Parental monitoring predicts students’ prosocial and impulsive tendencies relevant to consequence-based reasoning in a blended learning environment. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2016, 24, 1534–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thai, N.T.T.; De Wever, B.; Valcke, M. Face-to-face, Blended, Flipped, or Online Learning Environment? Impact on Learning Performance and Student Cognitions. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2020, 36, 397–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ju Chen, H. Exploring the Role of M-Learning in Elementary Education. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 2017, 16, 459–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zou, B.; Li, H.; Li, J. Exploring a Curriculum App and a Social Communication App for EFL Learning. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2018, 31, 694–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adhikari, J.; Mathrani, A.; Scogings, C. Bring Your Own Devices Classroom: Exploring the Issue of Digital Divide in the Teaching and Learning Contexts. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 2016, 13, 323–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, G.; Guan, Y.; Chau, J. An empirical study towards understanding user acceptance of bring your own device (BYOD) in higher education. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2016, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hodges, C.B.; Moore, S.; Lockee, B.B.; Trust, T.; Bond, M.A. The Difference between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. 2020. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10919/104648 (accessed on 23 November 2021).
Question | Type of Response Sought |
---|---|
RQ1: How many studies are in the WOS and Scopus databases from 2015 to 2020? | Number of articles in WOS Number of articles in Scopus Number of duplicated articles Number of articles with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods and research design |
RQ2: Who are the authors of the most cited articles? | Most cited articles |
RQ3: What is the geographical distribution of the authors? | Countries where the authors are from |
RQ4: What are the journals that have the most publications on this subject? | Journals Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 |
RQ5: What type of mediation is presented in the articles? | Technological Pedagogical Social Parental |
RQ6: What are the trends that are addressed in the articles? | Type of learning empowered The educational level where the research is generated, virtual spaces, or technology and tool used. |
Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
---|---|
Databases: WOS and Scopus | Other databases |
Studies published between 2015 and 2020 | Studies from years before 2015 |
Documents: only articles | Reviews, conferences, book chapters, books, articles in reports, series, and studies of these in press. |
Articles: only from journals | |
Articles from the educational field that address mediation in online environments | Studies that address mediation as a conciliation or peace process or cases of educational conflict resolution. |
Search String in Scopus | Search String in WOS |
---|---|
(TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“pedagogical mediation” OR “*mediated learning*” OR “*mediated Communication”)) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“e-learning” OR “online education” OR “virtual education” OR “Virtual learning environment” OR “Computer Aided Instruction” OR “Massive Open Online Course” OR “MOOC”))) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2018) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2017) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2016) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2015)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) | TS = ((“pedagogical mediation” OR “*mediated learning*” OR “*mediated Communication”) AND (“e-learning” OR “online education” OR “virtual education” OR “Virtual learning environment” OR “Computer Aided Instruction” OR “Massive Open Online Course” OR “MOOC”)) AND PY = (2015 OR 2016 OR 2017 OR 2018 OR 2019 OR 2020) Refinado por: TIPOS DE DOCUMENTOS: (ARTICLE) |
Types of Mediation | Description | Theoretical Sustenance |
---|---|---|
Technological | Studies that analyze mediation but more associated with the media and the communicative process mediated by technology. | Technological mediation is not reduced to the technological aspect. It also involves cognitive and social. |
Technological | Dimensions oriented to the integral formation of the human being. This process favors both the individual and collaborative aspects, based on different tools [17]. | |
Pedagogical or cognitive | This category groups together those studies that aim to analyze mediation from a pedagogical or cognitive perspective and refer mainly to strategies in the teaching process. | Pedagogical mediation refers to the treatment of contents and the forms of expression of the different subjects to make the educational act possible. As a result, there is student participation, creativity, relationship, and interactivity [51]. |
Social | Corresponds to those studies that approach mediation from a context of collaborative training, in pairs, through social networks, that is to say, within a group, participative criterion. | Learning with mobile, smart devices, and social networks is a trend that has modified traditional learning. Moreover, a direct relationship is established between mediation, sense of relevance and social presence [52]. |
Parental | In this group are publications referring to mediation executed by parents through the control of their children, especially at school age. | Parental mediation tends to be more negative than positive as it focuses on advice, rules and prohibitions in using the Internet [53]. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Riofrío-Calderón, G.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S. Mediation and Online Learning: Systematic Literature Mapping (2015–2020). Sustainability 2022, 14, 2951. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052951
Riofrío-Calderón G, Ramírez-Montoya M-S. Mediation and Online Learning: Systematic Literature Mapping (2015–2020). Sustainability. 2022; 14(5):2951. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052951
Chicago/Turabian StyleRiofrío-Calderón, Gioconda, and María-Soledad Ramírez-Montoya. 2022. "Mediation and Online Learning: Systematic Literature Mapping (2015–2020)" Sustainability 14, no. 5: 2951. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052951