The issue of interaction is not unique to the field of distance education. Interaction between teachers and students has been found to be the major influence for cognitive learning (Bloom, 1981) in traditional classrooms. With the advent of life-long learners and emerging interactive technologies, the issue of interaction as a powerful instructional and learning strategy is at the forefront of research studies in distance education. Providing opportunities for the varying components of interaction is critical for effective instructional design, effective delivery of distance education, and learner satisfaction. Michael G. Moore, in his 1989 editorial in The American Journal of Distance Education, stated the importance of establishing a "generally agreed upon" definition of interaction (p. 1). Learner-content interaction "is the process of intellectually interacting with content that results in changes in the learner's understanding, the learner's perspective, or the cognitive structures of the learner's mind (p. 2). He cites Holmberg (1986) describing this process as the "internal didactic conversation." Learner-instructor interaction is defined as the interaction between "the learner and the expert" (p.2). He further defines this interaction in terms of instructor responsibilities. Learner-learner interaction is "inter-learner interaction, between one learner and other learners, alone or in group settings, with or without the real-time presence of an instructor." In light of embracing the social nature of learning as presented by Lev Vygotsky, learning as the process of constructing knowledge, and the increase of cost-effective two-way interactive technology, Moore envisioned cooperative computer activities increasing and enhancing the inter-learner dialogue. He closed with the thought that distance education instructors need to plan for all three types of interaction in all types of media. Many researchers state that the concept of interaction varies (Holmberg, 1988; Moore, 1989; Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994; Wagner, 1994). Wagner devoted her 1994 article to defining interaction by presenting a framework based on the Wagner-Maxwell model. She states that, "Interaction should be viewed as a situation-specific contingency to be managed by means of instructional design methods" (p. 21). Anderson and Garrison (1995) concur with Wagner's concern with the importance of instructional design. Although varying definitions may be problematic, consensus is constant in respect to importance. The importance of planning and understanding interaction processes and factors is widely agreed upon. Kruh and Murphy (1990) resound this importance by stating that "Quality distant education is dependent upon the interaction and participation of the learners . . . it is essential that the distant educator purposefully designs this essential ingredient into the instructional program. Wong in 1987 believed that distance educators needed to shift their focus away from "the packaging and delivery of knowledge for the independent adult learner" to the interactions within the teaching/learning process. Shale and Garrison (1990) state that "...in its most fundamental form education is an interaction among teacher, student, and subject content." Learners are no longer viewed as passive receivers of information from the instructor (Bailey & Cotlar, 1994). The goal for learners in interactive distance environments as well as many face-to-face classrooms is active participation and participation in developing a community of learners to enhance cognitive activities and provide affective support as well. Studies have found that the perception of interaction is a critical predictor (Fulford & Zhang, 1993) and interaction is valued by learners (Anderson & Garrison, 1995). Recent contributions to the conceptual literature of the field indicates a need for a new component to Moore's three types of interactions with the inclusion of the learner-interface interaction (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994). New technologies have also impacted the learner-content interaction. The work in the area of Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE) suggests a new form of interaction with the content. Communal databases changes the interaction from one-way to two-way and the "internal didactic conversation" can be extended by learner-learner interactions. Scardamalia, Bereiter, Brett, Burtis, Calhoun and Lea (1992) conducted experiments validating the critical role a communal database plays in a setting designed to foster a community of inquiry, intellectual dialogue, and provide opportunities for the social construction of knowledge. Similar to the findings of Anderson and Garrison (1995), Scardamalia, et al discovered that learners who follow the intent of the instructional design obtain achievement scores higher on designed outcomes. Their experiments confirm the central role computers play in knowledge-related interactions. Sean Brophy in a paper presented in 1995 at the annual AERA meeting described this computer role in terms of a dual partnership--amplifies a learner's cognitive abilities and shares processing tasks. The later function helps a learner extend the capacity of his or hers cognitive resources. His work with elementary-aged students found cooperative computer learning activities an effective and powerful learning strategy. The value of exploring and understanding the nature of interaction within the dynamics of a distance learning environment is instrumental in creating a successful educative transaction. Two-way interaction is inherently fundamental to the education process. Understanding the issues, agreed upon and debatable, the factors inhibiting and influencing, substantively and methodologically contribute to the foundation building efforts of the field. The collective findings guide new research, inform new teaching paradigms, and encourage new learning styles necessary to excel in the information age.
References Anderson, T. D., & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Transactional issues in distance education: The impact of design in audioteleconferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9 (2), 27-45. Bailey, E. K., & Cotlar, M. (1994). Teaching via the internet. Communication Education, 43, 184-193. Bloom, B. S. (1981. Foreword. In T. Levin, Effective Instruction (p. vi). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brophy, S. P. (1995). Dual partnership of the computer in the classroom. [Online]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Available: http://www.radix.net/~reimann/enet/VC95/brophpa.html [February 28, 1997] Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of Interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7 (3), 8-21. Hillman, D. C. A., & 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), 30-42. Holmberg, B. (1986). Growth and structure of distance education. London: Croom-Helm. Holmberg, B. (1988). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg B. (Eds.). Distance Education: International Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 114-122. Kruh, J., & Murphy, K. (1990, October). Interactions in teleconferencing: The key to quality instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Rural and Small Schools Conference, Manhattan, KS. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 418) Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2), 1-7. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Brett, C., Burtis, P. J., Calhoun, C., & Lea, N. S. (1992). Educational applications of a networked communal database. Interactive Learning Environments, 2 (1), 45-71. Additional List of Resources on CSILE Shale, D., & Garrison, D. R. (1990). Introduction. In Education at a Distance, eds. D. R. Garrison and D. Shale, 1-6. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company. Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2), 6-29. Wong, A. T. (1987). Media as agents of interaction in distance learning. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 13 (2), 6-11.
Critique 1 Anderson, T. D., & Garrison, D. R. (1995). Transactional issues in distance education: The impact of design in audioteleconferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9 (2), 27-45. In 1995, Terry Anderson and Randy Garrison explored the issue of perception of interaction. They wanted to understand the influence of teacher-to-student and student-to-student interactions on creating a community of inquiry and developing critical thinking skills. Their study sampled distance education students in Canada attending interactive courses delivered using an audioteleconferencing system. Their well-written study provides an explanatory research design section. The literature review section clearly explains the major concepts of distance education and interaction. They explain why perception and audioteleconferencing were chosen as focal terms. However, the concepts of community of inquiry and independent learning support, although references are provided, are not operationally defined. Even in the case of a qualitative study, a definition of critical concepts are provided even if the definition changes during the study. It also is not clear if these categories evolved from the questionnaire analysis. A question arises if these terms were predetermined or evolved from the data analysis. The evidence used to support these two categories is convincing especially in light of the two distinct instructional designs that distinguish each category. From the literature review, the issue of Clark and Kozma's debate brought out the concern that the medium is not an island; it is not separated from its context. Their study focuses on identifying the nuances in instructional design or medium usage that impact learners' perceptions. The authors used a mixed-method design. Quantitative methodology was conducted using a mail survey and qualitative methodologies used teleconferencing observations, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group. The rationale for using the terms community of inquiry and critical thinking should have been provided because their initial questionnaire probed these concepts in depth. I found no blatant threats to internal or external validity. Their choice of statistical tests is appropriate and cogently presented. Appropriate methods of data collection and analysis builds a trust between the reader and the study. I was more than delighted to read that the researchers shared the initial analysis with the participants as a technique of confirming their findings. The sample of distance education students described as mature, career-oriented adult learners seem appropriately representative of the distance learning population. This study was exploratory in nature and relied primarily on qualitative methodologies. Therefore, the issue of generalization relies more on naturalized generalizations, in other words, do I accept the findings based on the information provided. The authors expertly provide enough participant comments to support their assertions yet not too many to interfere with the general discussion. This is especially challenging when space constraints are tight, and the study presents qualitative data. Their study is interesting to read and provides valuable insights into the nature of interaction and interactive distance delivery systems. The discussion of the two categories of instructional design related to learning experience clearly shows the dynamic effect of instructional design on the perception of interaction. Both learning groups used the same medium but experienced two different instructional designs and their respective learning activities. They concluded that the student-to-student interactions significantly impact learning within the medium. They recommend actively supporting this type of interaction by providing shared learning opportunities. They stress the importance that merely providing an interactive medium does not guarantee desired student-to-student interactions to promote critical thinking or a community of learners. Learning activities must be preplanned to provide these opportunities. The authors are very careful in explicitly stating what their study does not prove. They did not intend to prove that social interaction is a prerequisite for all types of learning. If within the course design, interaction plays an important function then students value that experience. I accept their study conclusions based on their statistical findings. I agree with their statement that the "challenge is to match instructional design to instructional purpose." Their final statement provides the practical implication of their findings in that research need not focus on media alone but on the influence of instructional design on desired learning outcomes. Overall, I found their study well-written and interesting to read.
Glossary from Article Excepts Distance Education (p. 28) - "Traditionally . . . characterized as an individual form of learning (Holmberg, 1986) lacking opportunities for socially shared learning." Interaction (p.29) - "Learner-content interaction is the basis for, and defining characteristic of, all types of education. Included in this concept is the internal, didactic interaction between learners and one-way media, including correspondence text, and electronic media such as broadcast television, interactive videodisc, and audio tapes (Moore 1989)." "Learner-teacher interaction is regard as essential by most distance and face-to-face educators. The goal of such interaction is to stimulate, motivate, and facilitate educational activities and use of learning strategies. The provision of feedback and the testing of new knowledge are the most valuable features of student-instructor interaction (Moore, 1989)." "Learner-learner interaction is rightfully described by Moore as 'a new dimension of distance education that will be a challenge to our thinking and practice in the 1990s' (1989, p.103)." Audioteleconference (p.29) "The defining characteristics of audioteleconference-enhanced distance education is a substantial increase in human interaction; this increase has the potential to markedly change the nature, practice, and context of the distance education experience." Perception (p.30) "...students' perceptions of the learning context as a crucial indicator of learning: 'it is perceptions of the learning environment that influence how a student learns, not necessarily the contest itself.' (Entwistle, 1991)"
Critique 2 Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of Interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7 (3), 8-21. The authors of this quantitative study set out to investigate the relationship between learner perceptions of interaction and learner satisfaction with the distance learning context. They wanted to test the notion, from traditional classrooms, that higher levels of interaction promote positive attitudes. They contended that perception of interaction, as stated in their title, is a critical predictor in a distance education learning environment. Their literature review section introduces an explanation for the need of interaction. This explanation purports a theory created by one of the authors. This theory is presented but is not referred to or related to the results or discussion of findings. The inclusion of this theory fulfills more of a vested interest than helping a reader understand the variables at work in this study. The concept of interactivity, which from a technical technology perspective pertains to software function, may confuse the focus of the study for some readers. I find their inclusion of the term "vicarious interaction" very relevant to their study needs. Five explicit research questions are clearly stated before they describe the context via interactive television. With the inclusion of so many questions, I would have preferred their also including their hypotheses. However, their brief introduction of the main variables included studies that found certain relationships existed. Their quantitative research used a questionnaire as a data collection technique. They do not state if they created the questionnaire but explain the structure of the instrument. At first I noted, while reading this section, that the participants were first time users of interactive TV and wondered if a novel effect would be considered an extraneous variable. Since this first time characteristic was pervasively true for the sample, I anticipated that this characteristic would be discussed in the results section, and it was. Their data results tables are easy to read and provide valuable information to support their analytical discussion. I did not see any external or internal threats to validity. Intuitively the results make sense to me since interaction is to some extent a matter of choice. Many learners prefer to listen to others and perceive the opportunity to interact as important as participating. I liked the format of their discussion. The listing of the research questions helps the reader pull the information together. Their findings support and confirm the findings of previous work in this area. I am reluctant to agree with their point about informing learners that their perception of interaction is linked to their satisfaction. If this phenomena is occurring, as their study and others have shown, how does this knowledge contribute to metacognition. I am not clear how this would contribute to the learning strategies. This information, not to infer disempowering the learner, is more relevant for instructors and instructional designers. In respect to their final conclusion about change over time, I wondered why they ignored the possibility that the content could have been at fault. The drawing near of a learning experience causes a learning to inspect closer if all expectations have been met. If information was not provided or a sense of gaining knowledge is absent perhaps dissatisfaction pervades and disinterest precludes active interaction. Overall, I found their article easy to read, informative, and substantive in providing a foundation for believing that overall interaction is a critical predictor of learner satisfaction.
Critique 3 Hillman, D. C. A., & 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), 30-42. The authors of this 1994 article entitled Learner-Interface Interaction in Distance Education: An Extension of Contemporary Models and Strategies for Practitioners extend Moore's concept of the three types of interaction to four. The new component is learner-interface interaction. Their article presents the issue of needing to add this fourth component due to emerging mediating technologies in distance education settings. They justify the need, describe, and explain the concept of learner-interface interaction and provide design recommendations. The nature of this study is presenting and introducing a new concept, so no research questions or hypotheses are presented. They explicitly define the learner-interface interaction as a "process of manipulating tools to accomplish a task." Their concept presentation is adequately supported with research findings. They provide practical suggestions for distance educators to consider when using a new technology. They emphasize the cognitive demands placed upon a learner is not to be underestimated. These cognitive demands vie for resources they would be better spent on direct learning activities than operating the delivery system. I agree with their suggestion to provide orienting activities and would base my choosing between their suggestions on the learning task, the audience, and complexity of the delivery system. Many adult learners, as the authors relate, do not want to use valuable course time going over how to use the system. I would disagree with offering a credit course and instead suggest making a one-day workshop part of an orientation session like a new student on campus seeing an academic advisor. A video tape could also be used just as effectively as time spent in a workshop. Their suggestions are valuable because they provide a range of solutions. The authors present a convincing article to add learner-interface as a fourth type of interaction. Their cogent presentation is well supported and welcomed as a new factor in interaction within a distance education setting.
Critique 4 Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Brett, C., Burtis, P. J., Calhoun, C., & Lea, N. S. (1992). Educational applications of a networked communal database. Interactive Learning Environments, 2 (1), 45-71. Additional List of Resources on CSILE The authors present their research findings of the uses and effects of a student-generated communal database. The trend of many networked systems is to provide access to stored material more so than just providing student-to student communication. Scardamalia, Bereiter, Brett, Burtis, Calhoun, and Lea have been working with elementary-aged students conducting a longitudinal study using an experimental-control design. This report relates observational data from the primary grades comparative data from the upper grades. Initial testing indicates significant gains for the experimental group exposed to using the communal database. The nature of this study is exploratory focused on uses and outcomes of use, so a clearly stated research question, hypotheses or variable relationships are not necessary. The students in the primary grades will be followed as they progress through the system. The final report will compare the educational outcomes of the CSILE and non-CSILE classrooms. The authors state the inability to rigorously control for extraneous variables due to the complexity of this experimental setting. The communal database is evolving as a result of use among the teachers, students, researchers, and designers. Since, this is report represents only the preliminary findings Scardamalia, et al do not provide an in-depth discussion of the reliability and validity of test measurements, partly because most of the data presented is observational and contained within the communal database. The demographics of the school appears representational of an adequate sampling of the elementary school population. No validity threats invalidate their observations of use or impact on achievement. The data used for their comparative analysis consists of the Canadian Test of Basic Skills, self-reports of what they learned, and a question-asking task designed by the researchers. The validity of using a standardized is countered by using authentic, generative tasks. I can accept the use of the CTBS knowing that the researchers intend to promote the communal database as an alternative curriculum. The use of a student-generated curriculum that produces high achievers on standardized tests validates an innovative curriculum approach. The data presented is exciting. First and second graders effectively manipulating and contributing to a database has far reaching implications related to curriculum and distributed learning networks. They discuss the tendency to borrow work from others and interestingly relate that even at this age the students are overly concerned with plagiarism and too much reliance on someone else's thinking. Children at this preliterate stage are able to perform the necessary computer tasks with remarkable resourcefulness. The database entries of the first graders indicate a variety of discourse modes. Usually this age only produce narrative writing, but the CSILE first graders are producing expository writing and criticism. From their observational findings and database audits, the authors are designing new features to further enhance the collaborative knowledge construction capabilities of the communal database. Their summary indicates that through the comparison of the two different models of use for the upper grades that their communal database does not impose a prescriptive use. Teachers can integrate the use of the database to fit their philosophy of learning and individual teaching style. Their preliminary report is well written and organized to promote comprehension. They support their discussion with illustrations and tables that complement their prose. Their results show CSILE students display significant knowledge gains over comparable students in traditional classrooms. This type of research can contribute greatly to the design of web-based distance learning environments. Return to Home Page
Copyright © 1997 |
