Interaction in Distance Education

This paper will attempt to 1) pro­vide def­i­n­i­tions and con­cepts of inter­ac­tion, 2) com­pare the ways that tech­nol­ogy sup­ports inter­ac­tion, and 3) con­sider the impli­ca­tions for improv­ing inter­ac­tions in the learn­ing environment.

Note: This was writ­ten in 2003 for the course “Online Teach­ing in Dis­tance Edu­ca­tion and Train­ing,” part of the Dis­tance Edu­ca­tion pro­gramme at Athabasca Uni­ver­sity. I’ve left instruc­tor Mark Bullen’s com­ments. I should add, I’ve lost that unin­formed scep­ti­cism about inter­ac­tion since I wrote this.

A Brief Exam­i­na­tion of the Role of Inter­ac­tion in Dis­tance Education

Inter­ac­tion and its coun­ter­part, learner inde­pen­dence, form one of the ear­li­est and most per­sis­tent con­cep­tu­al­iza­tions of dis­tance edu­ca­tion (Kee­gan, 1996), by which edu­ca­tors seek ways to improve the qual­ity of learn­ing. Deci­sions about the types and lev­els of inter­ac­tion and their sig­nif­i­cantly dif­fer­ent eco­nomic, ped­a­gog­i­cal and social impli­ca­tions (Bates, 1995) are a pri­mary source for debate which promises to become even more con­tentious for three rea­sons. First, newer learn­ing tech­nolo­gies promise improved, cost-effective access to edu­ca­tion. Sec­ond, social cognitive-based learn­ing the­o­ries give col­lab­o­ra­tive learn­ing a cen­tral role. Third, these devel­op­ments are hap­pen­ing in the con­text of a global knowledge-based econ­omy (Advi­sory Com­mit­tee for Online Learn­ing, 2001). The result­ing par­a­digm shift from teacher-student inter­ac­tion in the class­room to one in which stu­dents inter­act with mul­ti­ple resources, unre­stricted by time or place, promises to keep out [our] atten­tion on the role of inter­ac­tion in the learn­ing process. This paper will attempt to 1) pro­vide def­i­n­i­tions and con­cepts of inter­ac­tion, 2) com­pare the ways that tech­nol­ogy sup­ports inter­ac­tion, and 3) con­sider the impli­ca­tions for improv­ing inter­ac­tions in the learn­ing environment.[excellent intro­duc­tion –MB]

Def­i­n­i­tions and Concepts

Despite, or because it is a defin­ing char­ac­ter­is­tic of dis­tance edu­ca­tion, inter­ac­tion itself is dif­fi­cult to define. [In what sense is inter­ac­tion a defin­ing char­ac­ter­is­tic of dis­tance edu­ca­tion? –MB] While its pres­ence implies bet­ter learn­ing expe­ri­ences, Moore (1989, p. 1) cau­tions that, “….inter­ac­tion car­ries so many mean­ings as to be almost use­less….” Garrison’s often-cited def­i­n­i­tion of a “sus­tained, two-way com­mu­ni­ca­tion among two or more per­sons for pur­poses of explain­ing and chal­leng­ing per­spec­tives” (1993, quoted in Liaw & Huang, 2000) sug­gests both agency and reci­procity. It does not spec­ify the par­ties involved and lim­its inter­ac­tion to an inter­per­sonal exchange.

Moore’s (1989) def­i­n­i­tion, also often cited, sug­gests three types of inter­ac­tion: learner-content inter­ac­tion, the process of “intel­lec­tu­ally inter­act­ing with con­tent” (p. 2); learner-instructor inter­ac­tion, which attempts to moti­vate and clar­ify mis­un­der­stand­ings about con­tent; and learner-learner inter­ac­tion, which occurs “between one learner and another…with or with­out the real-time pres­ence of an instruc­tor” (p. 4). These three types rep­re­sent two forms of per­sonal com­mu­ni­ca­tion. Learner-content inter­ac­tion is a form of intrap­er­sonal com­mu­ni­ca­tion refer­ring to the learner’s inner dia­log about con­tent. Learner-instructor and learner-learner inter­ac­tion involve the type of inter­per­sonal com­mu­ni­ca­tion cap­tured in Garrison’s orig­i­nal definition.

To these cat­e­gories, Hill­man, Willis, and Gunawar­dena (1994) add learner-interface inter­ac­tion, a type of com­mu­ni­ca­tion between learner and machine, rather than inter– or intrap­er­sonal in nature. Gilbert and Moore (1998) would argue that these four cat­e­gories limit inter­ac­tion to a rela­tion­ship between the learner and instruc­tional objec­tives (i.e., “instruc­tional inter­ac­tiv­ity”), and ignore the social con­text. They iden­tify “social inter­ac­tiv­i­ty” as the social aspects of com­mu­ni­ca­tion such as body lan­guage, the exchange of per­sonal infor­ma­tion, or learner encouragement.

Taken together, these def­i­n­i­tions sug­gest a com­mu­ni­ca­tion among par­tic­i­pants and con­tent that is rec­i­p­ro­cal (thereby elim­i­nat­ing expe­ri­ences medi­ated by one-way tech­nolo­gies), results in con­tent learn­ing and affec­tive ben­e­fits, and is place inde­pen­dent. Kears­ley (1995) points out that nei­ther is inter­ac­tion time depen­dent, although both the logis­tics and “feel” of learn­ing expe­ri­ences dif­fer between inter­ac­tions that are imme­di­ate (syn­chro­nous) and delayed (asyn­chro­nous). Imme­di­ate inter­ac­tion is often char­ac­ter­ized by a sense of excite­ment and spon­tane­ity, whereas delayed inter­ac­tion pro­vides learn­ers with more con­trol and flexibility.

Berge (1999) calls for inter­ac­tions that involve “com­plex activ­i­ties by the learner, such as engag­ing and reflect­ing, anno­tat­ing, ques­tion­ing, answer­ing, pac­ing, elab­o­rat­ing, dis­cussing, inquir­ing, problem-solving, link­ing, con­struct­ing, ana­lyz­ing, eval­u­at­ing and syn­the­siz­ing…” (p. 6, orig­i­nal empha­sis). Sims (1999) has iden­ti­fied var­i­ous dimen­sions in which such activ­i­ties are facil­i­tated: learner con­trol, respon­sive­ness to learner input (adap­ta­tion), par­tic­i­pa­tion and com­mu­ni­ca­tion, and sup­port of mean­ing­ful learn­ing. Such obser­va­tions raise the specter of mea­sur­ing interactions.

Moore’s (1989) trans­ac­tional dis­tance the­ory sug­gests the more an instruc­tor and learner are sep­a­rated, the less effec­tive the learn­ing expe­ri­ence [I think there is more to it than this. I think he sug­gests the neg­a­tive impact of dis­tance can be over­come by build­ing in struc­ture –MB]. Gilbert and Moore (1998) present a con­tin­uum that ranges from very lim­ited rela­tion­ships between learn­ers and the instruc­tional sys­tem to more com­plex ones; dif­fer­ent points on the con­tin­uum reflect dif­fer­ing lev­els of teacher con­trol, learner con­trol and group influ­ence. Rourke, Ander­son, Gar­ri­son and Archer (2001) pro­pose the use of tool for mea­sur­ing “social pres­ence” in computer-mediated con­fer­ences by ana­lyz­ing writ­ten tran­scripts [I don’t under­stand the rel­e­vance of this to the dis­cus­sion. –MB]. In quan­ti­ta­tive stud­ies, the dif­fer­ence between “low” and “high” lev­els of inter­ac­tiv­ity is typ­i­cally defined as the num­ber and types of rela­tion­ships between the learner and the instruc­tional sys­tem. Of course, such a count is mean­ing­ful only in the con­text of a sat­is­fac­tory def­i­n­i­tion of inter­ac­tion, and of related terms such as “social presence.”

Qual­i­ta­tive stud­ies unveil more ques­tions about interaction’s fun­da­men­tal nature. De Simone, Lou and Schmid (2001) describe an evo­lu­tion­ary pat­tern of inter­ac­tions over the life of a course. Early, per­sonal com­mu­ni­ca­tions yield to increas­ingly cog­ni­tive ones, cul­mi­nat­ing in “syn­thetic col­lab­o­ra­tions.” Glenn, Hoyt and Jones (2003) describe a lack of cor­re­la­tion between inter­ac­tion lev­els and test scores, and argue that learn­ers com­pen­sate for quan­ti­ta­tively lower inter­ac­tion lev­els with learn­ing strate­gies that allow them to achieve equiv­a­lent scores. Ear­lier, Ful­ford and Zhang (1993, in Sut­ton, 2001) sug­gested that the per­cep­tion of inter­ac­tiv­ity is as impor­tant as actual inter­ac­tion such that learn­ers do not have to be per­son­ally engaged to per­ceive a course is inter­ac­tive, but gain sat­is­fac­tion from an over­all sense of inter­ac­tion hap­pen­ing in the course.

Tech­nol­ogy Sup­port of Interaction

Tech­nolo­gies dif­fer con­sid­er­ably in the ways in which they sup­port inter­ac­tion (Bates, 1995). Newer tech­nolo­gies that sup­port two-way com­mu­ni­ca­tion spark debates about the extent to which tech­nol­ogy can or should replace face-to-face inter­ac­tion. Gilbert and Moore (1998) warn that inter­ac­tiv­ity must be under­stood as a prin­ci­ple that is exam­ined sep­a­rately from the media that employ it. In the con­text of these obser­va­tions, Table 1 explores the capac­ity for inter­ac­tion of typ­i­cal dis­tance deliv­ery for­mats, and com­pares them with tra­di­tional class­room delivery.

(table 1 not included)

Print best sup­ports con­tent inter­ac­tion. Holm­berg (1983 in Kee­gan, 1996) describes the rela­tion­ship between the learner and the dis­tant orga­ni­za­tion as a “guided didac­tic con­ver­sa­tion,” which is achieved through care­ful design of the teach­ing mate­ri­als. Learn­ers “make mean­ing” through writ­ten assign­ments, and the long time lags between their sub­mis­sion and the instructor’s response affords both the oppor­tu­nity for reflec­tion and the demo­ti­vat­ing effects of a delayed response.

Like class­room deliv­ery, video-conferencing and com­puter con­fer­enc­ing sup­port inter­per­sonal rela­tion­ships. Com­puter con­fer­enc­ing places a pre­mium on learner-learner inter­ac­tion, allow­ing asyn­chro­nous reflec­tion and schol­arly expres­sion in text for­mat, and its sup­port of learner-instructor inter­ac­tion encour­ages the role of teacher as facil­i­ta­tor and co-learner (Berge, 1991). Video­con­fer­enc­ing offers visual pres­ence, an attribute valu­able to social inter­ac­tion (Burge & Roberts, 1998). How­ever, suc­cess­ful inter­ac­tion may be restricted by tech­ni­cal lim­i­ta­tions and a ten­dency to use this medium for lecture-style deliv­ery despite its capac­ity to pro­mote inter­ac­tions among learn­ers. Berge (1991) points out that the poten­tial for social inter­ac­tions in com­puter con­fer­enc­ing may also not be real­ized because of lower social con­text cues and less inhib­ited behaviour.

Inte­grated Web envi­ron­ments dif­fer from other deliv­ery sys­tems in that a Web browser allows many dif­fer­ent media to be accessed through one inter­face. Based on inter­ac­tiv­ity char­ac­ter­is­tics of the com­po­nent media, Web envi­ron­ments offer con­tent and intrap­er­sonal inter­ac­tion, and enable asyn­chro­nous and syn­chro­nous com­mu­ni­ca­tion. Unfor­tu­nately, the increased oppor­tu­nity to vary medium and inter­ac­tion may also lead to “loss of the learner’s atten­tion, bore­dom, infor­ma­tion over­load and frus­tra­tion” (Berge, 1999).

Impli­ca­tions for Implementation

Var­i­ous design frame­works strive to bal­ance inter­ac­tiv­ity, syn­chronic­ity and tech­nol­ogy (e.g. Gilbert and Moore, 1998; Berge; Sims, 1999; Ander­son, 2002). Yet, Kears­ley (1995) observes even though inter­ac­tion is seen as key to learn­ing effec­tive­ness, “it is not clear from research or eval­u­a­tion data that inter­ac­tion does improve the qual­ity of learn­ing…” (p. 366). His con­clu­sion is con­sis­tent with Russell’s (1997) con­dem­na­tion reached after a review of com­par­a­tive media stud­ies that the value of inter­ac­tiv­ity is, “at best, suspect.”

Bates (1995, p. 56) acknowl­edges that “one of the great dif­fi­cul­ties” in edu­ca­tional tech­nol­ogy is the absence of a com­monly accepted, empir­i­cally grounded the­o­ret­i­cal frame­work. Lau­ril­lard (2000) has pro­posed a “con­ver­sa­tional frame­work” for learn­ing in which inter­ac­tion plays a crit­i­cal role. Wenger’s (1998) descrip­tion of a “learn­ing com­mu­ni­ties” also includes dif­fer­ent lev­els and types of inter­ac­tions. These mod­els offer a more com­plex under­stand­ing of inter­ac­tion that do not merely repli­cate class­room or instruc­tional sys­tems design models.

Con­clu­sion

As a buzz­word, “inter­ac­tiv­i­ty” sug­gests an inher­ent qual­ity of tech­nol­ogy. As an intu­itively appeal­ing con­cept, its role in the learn­ing process has been approached uncrit­i­cally. This brief review of inter­ac­tion gives evi­dence to the com­plex­ity of its role in the learn­ing process. Its strate­gic posi­tion at the con­flu­ence of ped­a­gogy, tech­nol­ogy and econ­omy assure con­tin­ued delib­er­a­tion.
[Shanta:
This is an excel­lent review and dis­cus­sion of inter­ac­tion in dis­tance edu­ca­tion. You’ve cov­ered a lot of ground for a short paper and you’ve con­sulted an impres­sive num­ber of ref­er­ences to sup­port your claims. The only weak­ness is in the impli­ca­tions sec­tion which does not delve very deeply into the issues but instead almost seems to dis­miss the impor­tance of inter­ac­tion.
27/30 –MB]

Ref­er­ences

Advi­sory Com­mit­tee for Online Learn­ing (2001). The e-learning e-evolution in col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties: A pan-Canadian chal­lenge. Retrieved March 31, 2002, from http://www.schoolnet.ca/mlg/sites/acol-ccael/en/report/e-volution-download.htm
Ander­son, T. (Sep­tem­ber 20, 2002). An Updated and The­o­ret­i­cal Ratio­nale for Inter­ac­tion. Retrieved Sep­tem­ber 23, 2003, from IT Forum Web site, http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper63/paper63.htm
Bates. A.W. (1995): Tech­nol­ogy, Open Learn­ing and Dis­tance Edu­ca­tion. Chap­ter 3, Select­ing tech­nolo­gies, retrieved Octo­ber 10, 2003, from Uni­ver­sity of B.C. Web site, http://itesm.cstudies.ubc.ca/561g/canada/resources/bates_ch3.html
Berge, Z. 1991. Com­puter con­fer­enc­ing and the on-line class­room. Retrieved Sep­tem­ber 30, 2003, from World Bank Web site, http://wbweb4.worldbank.org/disted/Teaching/Instruction/comp-02.html
Berge, Z. (1999). Inter­ac­tion in post-secondary Web-based learn­ing. Edu­ca­tional Tech­nol­ogy, 39(1), 5 – 11.
Burge E. & Roberts, J. (1998). Com­pressed video learn­ing: How do we cre­ate active learn­ers? Retrieved Sep­tem­ber 30, 2003, from World Bank Web site, http://wbweb4.worldbank.org/disted/Technology/interaction/videoconf01.html
De Simone, C., Lou, Y. & Schmid, R. (2001). Mean­ing­ful and inter­ac­tive dis­tance learn­ing sup­ported by the use of metaphor and syn­the­siz­ing activ­i­ties. Retrieved Sep­tem­ber 30, 2003, from Jour­nal of Dis­tance Edu­ca­tion Web site, http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol16.1/desimoneetal.html
Gilbert, L. & Moore, D. (1998). Build­ing Inter­ac­tiv­ity into Web Courses: Tools for social and instruc­tional inter­ac­tion. Edu­ca­tional Tech­nol­ogy, 38(3), 29 – 35.
Glenn, L., Hoyt, J. & Jones, C. (2003). Is there any­one on the other side? The impor­tance of inter­ac­tion and struc­ture in web courses. Pre­sented at the Pro­ceed­ings of the 5th Annual WebCT Users Con­fer­ence. Retrieved Octo­ber 5, 2003, from http://www.uvsc.edu/ir/research/qualanalysisver7.pdf
Hill­man, D., Willis, D., & Gunawar­dena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface inter­ac­tion in dis­tance edu­ca­tion: An exten­sion of con­tem­po­rary mod­els and strate­gies for prac­ti­tion­ers. Amer­i­can Jour­nal of Dis­tance Edu­ca­tion, 8(2), 30 – 42.
Kears­ley, G. (1995). The nature and value of inter­ac­tion in dis­tance learn­ing. In Dis­tance Edu­ca­tion Research Sym­po­sium 3: Instruc­tion (pp. 83 – 92). Penn­syl­va­nia State Uni­ver­sity: Amer­i­can Cen­ter for the Study of Dis­tance Edu­ca­tion.
Kee­gan, D. (1996). Foun­da­tions of dis­tance edu­ca­tion (3rd ed.). London:Routledge.
Lau­ril­lard, D. (2000). Inter­ac­tive learn­ing envi­ron­ments for learn­ing con­ver­sa­tions. Retrieved Octo­ber 5, 2003, from Open Uni­ver­sity Web site, http://www2.open.ac.uk/ltto/lttoteam/Diana/ilt/ILTpre.ppt
Liaw, S. & Huang, H. (2000). Enhanc­ing inter­ac­tiv­ity in web-based instruc­tion: A review of the lit­er­a­ture. Edu­ca­tional Tech­nol­ogy, 39(1), 41 – 51.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of inter­ac­tion. Amer­i­can Jour­nal of Dis­tance Edu­ca­tion, 3(2), 1 – 6.
Rourke, L., Ander­son, T. Gar­ri­son, R. & Archer, W. (2001). Assess­ing social pres­ence in asyn­chro­nous text-based com­puter con­fer­enc­ing. Retrieved Octo­ber 5, 2003, from Jour­nal of Dis­tance Edu­ca­tion Web site, http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol14.2/rourke_et_al.html
Rus­sell, T. (1997). Tech­nol­ogy wars: Win­ners and losers. Retrieved Octo­ber 5, 2003, from Edu­cause Web site, http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/review/reviewArticles/32244.html
Sims, R. (1999). Inter­ac­tiv­ity on stage: Strate­gies for learner-designer com­mu­ni­ca­tion. Retrieved Octo­ber 5, 2003, from Aus­tralian Soci­ety for Edu­ca­tional Tech­nol­ogy Web site, http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet15/sims.html
Sut­ton, L. (2001). The prin­ci­ple of vic­ar­i­ous inter­ac­tion in computer-mediated com­mu­ni­ca­tions. Retrieved Octo­ber 5, 2003, from http://www.eas.asu.edu/elearn/research/suttonnew.pdf
Wenger, E. (1998). Com­mu­ni­ties of prac­tice: Learn­ing as a social sys­tem. Retrieved Octo­ber 5, 2003 from Com­mu­nity Intel­li­gence Labs Web site,

http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml