Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Online and Blended LearningEducational Technology and E-LearningEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The ABC's of Online Course Design According to Addie Model

Open access
Durak, Gürhan, Ataizi, Murat·2016·Universal Journal of Educational Research
DOI 10.13189/ujer.2016.040920
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to design the course of Programming Languages-I online, which is given on face-to-face basis at undergraduate level. It is seen in literature that there is no detailed research on the preparation of a fully-online course directly based on an instructional design model. In this respect, depending on the ADDIE design model, the most popular instructional design models, an online course was adapted in phases. Each phase of the model and on the steps in each phase were explained. The preparation of this course given via DLP lasted approximately 500 hours. Following its preparation, the pilot application was carried out with the learners taking the course of Programming Languages during summer school period. The learners used DLP in all respects, and DLP was revised and the necessary changes were made in line with the learners' views and with the results of the usability test. The study revealed that it was important to analyze all the related areas in the analysis phase of an online course design and to make the necessary decisions in the phase of design. In the dimension of distance education evaluation, since there is no precise and reliable method, the traditional evaluation methods were favored within the scope of the product evaluation of this course taught via DLP. In addition, within the scope of the process evaluation, the learners' views were determined via weekly evaluations. Establishing interaction in online courses is important to prove the live structure of the system, and this situation will help learners perceive themselves to a part of the course.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.13189/ujer.2016.040920

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Sun P, Tsai RJ, Finger G, Chen Y, Yeh D. What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical Investigation of the critical factors influencing learning satisfaction. Computer & Education. 2008; 50: 1183-1202.
  2. Stephen DE, O'Connell P, Hall M. Going the extra mile: 'fire fighting', or laissez-faire? Reevaluating personal tutoring relationships within mass higher education. Teaching in Higher Education. 2008; 13(4): 449-460.
  3. Johnson L, Adams S, Cummins M. The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium; 2012 [accessed 2015-01-12]. Available at: http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2012-horizon-report-HE.pdf
  4. Bouhnik D, Marcus T. Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2006; 57(3): 299-305.
  5. Tello SF. An analysis of student persistence in online education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education. 2007; 3(3): 47-62.
  6. Motiwalla LF. Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education. 2007; 49: 581-596.
  7. Alexander MW, Truell, AD, Zhao JJ. Expected Advantages and Dısadvantages of Onlıne Learnıng: Perceptıons from College Students Who Have Not Taken Onlıne Courses. Issues in Information Systems. 2012; 13(2): 193-200.
  8. Song L, Singleton ES, Hill JR, Koh M. Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education. 2004; 7(1): 59-70.
  9. Vonderwell S. An examination of asynchronous communication experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A case study. Internet and Higher Education. 2003; 6: 77-90.
  10. Petrides LA. Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media. 2002; 29(1): 69-77.
  11. Uysal Ö, Gürcan A. Assure Modeli İle Öğretim Tasarımı. The ABC's of Online Course Design According to Addie Model Malatya: XIII. Conference of the International Educational Sciences, İnönü University; 2004.
  12. Durak G. The effects of a distance education programming language course on student performance. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education. 2014; 10(1): 202-219.
  13. Driscoll A, Jicha K, Hunt AN, Tichavsky L, Thompson G. Can Online Courses Deliver In-class Results?: A Comparison of Student Performance and Satisfaction in an Online versus a Face-to-face Introductory Sociology Course. Teaching Sociology. 2012; 40(4): 312-331.
  14. Feintuch H. Keeping their distance: New study indicates students perform better online. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education. 2010; 27(3): 20.
  15. Joy E, Garcia F. Research paper questions 'No Significant Difference' claims. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2000; 6(1): 21 -39.
  16. Quillen I. E-learning delivery debated. Education Week. 2010; 29(30): 5.
  17. Wilson D, Allen D. Success rates of online versus traditional college students. Research in Higher Education Journal. 2011; 14.
  18. Zhao Y, Lei J, Yan B, Lai C, Tan HS. What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record. 2005; 107(8): 1836-1884.
  19. Borthick AF, Jones DR. The motivation for collaborative discovery learning online and its application in an information systems assurance course. Issues in Accounting Education. 2000; 15(2), 181-210.
  20. Friday E, Friday-Stroud SS, Green AL, Hill AY. A multi-semester comparison of student performance between multiple traditional and online sections of two management courses. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management. 2006; 8(1): 66-81.
  21. Royse D. Teaching Research over the Internet: An Evaluation. Journal of Teaching in Social Work. 2000; 20(1): 145-158.
  22. Gagne M, Shepherd M. Distance Learning in Accounting: A Comparison Between a Distance and Traditional Graduate Accounting Class. T.H.E. Journal. 2001; 28(9): 58-65.
  23. Huh S, Yoo S, Jin J, Lee K. Comparisons of performances between online learners and offline learners across different types of tests. Academy of Information and Management Sciences Journal. 2008; 11(1): 45-63.
  24. Piccoli G, Ahmad R, Ives B. Web-based Virtual Learning Environments: A Research Framework and a Preliminary Assessment of Effectiveness in Basic IT Skills Training. MIS Quarterly. 2001; 25(4): 401-26.
  25. Rich, AJ, Dereshiwsky MI. Assessing the Comparative Effectiveness of Teaching Undergraduate Intermediate Accounting in the Online Classroom Format. Journal of College Teaching & Learning. 2011; 8(9): 19-28.
  26. Roseth CJ, Saltarelli AJ, Glass CR. Effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated constructive controversy on social interdependence, motivation, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2011; 103(4): 804-820.
  27. Aly İ. Performance in an Online Introductory Managerial Accounting Course in a Classroom Setting. Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 2013; 43(2): 85-99.
  28. Cavuş N, Uzunboylu H, Ibrahim D. Assessing the success of students using a learning management system and together with a collaborative tool in web-based teaching of programming languages. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2007; 36 (3): 301-321.
  29. Daymount T, Blau G. Student performance in online and traditional sections of an undergraduate management course. Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. 2008; 9(3): 275-294.
  30. Farag W. Comparing Achievement of Intended Learning Outcomes in Online Programming Classes with Blended Offerings. SIGITE Conference; Calgary, Alberta: Mount Royal University; 2012. p. 25-30.
  31. Jones KT, Chen CC. Blended learning in a graduate accounting course: Student satisfaction and course design issues. The Accounting Educator's Journal. 2008; 18: 15-28.
  32. Köse U, Koç D, Yücesoy SA. Design and development of a sample "computer programming" course tool via story -based e-learning approach. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. 2013; 13(2): 1235 -1250.
  33. Lapsley R, Kulik B, Moody R, Arbaugh J. Is Identical Really Identical? An Investigation of Equivalency Theory and Online Learning. The Journal of Educators Online. 2008; 5(1): 1-19.
  34. Stivason T, Saunders G, Price J. A comparison of student performance in an online introductory accounting course with traditional classroom students. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal. 2008; 4(5): 1-8.
  35. Doğan D, Tüzün H, Dağhan G, Altıntaş A, Ilgaz H, et al. Uzaktan Eğitimde Ders Tasarımı: Yüz Yüze Verilen Bir Dersin Uzaktan Eğitim Sürecine Hazır Hale Getirilmesi. e-journal of new world sciences academy. 2012; 7(2).
  36. Durak G. The online teaching of programming languages: Examining learner's attitudes, satisfaction and success. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Anadolu University, Institude of Social Sciences; 2013.
  37. McKeachie WJ. Research on College Teaching: The Historical Background. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1990; 82(2): 189-200.
  38. Oestmann E, Oestmann J. Relationship between online class size and student discussion interactivity. Journal of Online Educators. 2005; 1(4): 16-32.
  39. Keller J. Using the ARCS Motivational Process in Computer-Based Instruction and Distance Education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 1999; 78: 39-47.
  40. Bilgiç EŞ. E-öğretim Tasarım Süreci: Bir Materryalin Kullanışlığına İlişkin Katılımcı Görüşleri. [Master's thesis]. Ankara: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Merkez Bankası İnsan Kaynakları Genel Müdürlüğü; 2005.
  41. Moore M. Three types of interaction. The American journal of distance education. 1989; 3(2): 1-6.
  42. Holmberg B. Theory and practice of distance education. London, New York: Routledge; 1995.
  43. Bunn J. Student persistence in a LIS distance education program. Australian Academic Research Libraries. 2004; 35(3): 253-270.
  44. Wang Pao-hsi. The production of reusable learning objects in Chinese culinary arts online instruction using the ADDIE instructional design model. [dissertation]. Pocetello: Idaho State University; 2011.
  45. Zimmerly LC. Dance Online: Can the Students Still Follow the Steps? A Rationale for Online Delivery Methods in Dance. [dissertation]. Pocatello: Idaho State University; 2012.

Cited by

See all 56

Metadata

Authors
Durak, G., & Ataizi, M.
Affiliations
  • Balıkesir University (TR)
  • Anadolu University (TR)
ORCID
Venue
Universal Journal of Educational Research
Publisher
Horizon Research Publishing Co., Ltd.
Published
2016-09
Volume
4
Issue
9
Pages
2084-2091
ISSN
  • 2332-3205 (ISSN-L)
  • 2332-3213
DOI
10.13189/ujer.2016.040920
OpenAlex
W2508353118
Cited by
56
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Universal Journal of Educational Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
online course design, ADDIE model, distance learning platforms, programming languages course, instructional design, usability testing, student interaction, course evaluation, distance education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The ABC's of Online Course Design According to Addie Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.13189/ujer.2016.040920
The paper
Durak, G., & Ataizi, M. (2016). The ABC's of Online Course Design According to Addie Model. Universal Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040920

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.