This morning I spent a few minutes examining my LinkedIn profile to see if it still accurately reflects my “professional online identity,” as they say in their Customer Service Center. LinkedIn is business-oriented social networking site. It offers a set of tools that lets you share advice, resources and business opportunities among your colleagues, prospective clients and employers and build trust across your networks. One of these tools is the profile, which is like a business card in many ways, except that you must choose the industry in which you work from a limited list. And, as is often the case, constraints make you consider the circumstances more thoroughly.

Almost all my colleagues who do similar work have chosen the e-learning industry option, an industry that can be defined as “education and training provided in computer networks.” This would be fine, except that in my networks, e-learning is too often collapsed into the view that classroom content can be digitized, sent to great masses of people with little involvement of trainers or teachers, and at no cost for facilities or transportation. This is a narrow, flawed view of learning that I do not want to perpetuate for a number of reasons:

First, it is not true that posting content such as presentations, articles and videos makes good instruction. These are important resources to be sure, just as textbooks were and are important resources, but they are effective only in a learning environment that includes motivation and interaction.

Second, networks and computers that access networks, and developing the digital literacies to use those networks have costs associated with them.

Third, online teaching and training needs at least as much human effort as does classroom teaching and training. Instructors not only prepare and post content; they guide and motivate learners through interaction and social presence.

Fourth, learning also happens through interactions among learners. They pose questions, articulate ideas, construct concepts and investigate hypotheses together, teaching one another, and observing how others respond and learn. Technical support for such interactions is more difficult to achieve that posting content. It requires an interdisciplinary set of skills that looks to psychology, anthropology, brain science, computer science, design practices, among others.

And, fifth, e-learning inexplicably excludes face-to-face interactions from the learning experience. Not only can digital technologies support interactions at a distance through online communication tools, they can also support interactions in the classroom (for example, building a model or exploring a simulation together), and that support can be both synchronous or asynchronous.

My concern with using e-learning industry option is that it bypasses entirely what many of us are trying to do; that is, design effective learning environments in a networked world. So what are the other options? LinkedIn’s Customer Service Center recommends choosing from Primary/Secondary Education, Higher Education or Education Management for teaching. There is no Workplace Learning option, which I would happily select. (Education Management deserves a post of its own.) LinkedIn does offer a way to submit a missing industry, which suggests that others in different fields feel as constrained as I do. A colleague suggested I submit e-learning 2.0, but I’m not sure my fledgling professional online identity could survive that bastard neologism offspring of Web 2.0.

So which industry did I settle on? For now, it’s Internet.

Am I Part of the E-Learning Industry? originally appeared on Portable Learner on March 29th, 2010

A mere 15 minutes from our front porch, in Ottawa’s greenbelt parklands, is this treasure: Mer Bleue, a spaghnum bog and wildlife sanctuary named for a blue mist that rises mysteriously under just the right weather conditions. This morning we decided to walk the Mer Bleue Boardwalk Trail. The crunch of spring snow under our feet surely scared whatever wildlife we may have otherwise seen this frosty morning, and we were left to read, uninterrupted, the numerous interpretation signs that mark the 1.2 km path. This is how I came to know not only about the blue mist for which the bog is named, but that bogs are common features uch further north in the Boreal forests of northern Canada, and that Mer Bleue’s current topography was created some 9,500 years ago thanks to the retreating Laurentide Ice Sheet and Champlain Sea. Deposits of sphagnum peat moss form a dense mat up to 6 m deep in some areas, which keeps the water uniquely oxygen-poor, excessively cold, and highly acidic. According to one sign, the water here is 1000 times more acidic than milk.

Now, why am I going to remember that for a long time to come?

Interpretation is an informal educational method used widely in museums, parks and zoos to convey the meaning and value of a place. It is very effective in a short period of time. Why? Because interpretation offers high-quality communication at the precise moment when a visitor to the museum or park is awed by their surroundings, the very definition of a teachable moment.

Mer Bleue is part of Ottawa’s greenbelt system of parklands managed by the National Capital Commission (NCC), a Crown Agency of the Canadian government. It has also been designated as a Wetland of International Significance under the Ramsar Convention since October 1995. Yet, it wasn’t always an internationally significant conservation area. During World War II, the Royal Canadian Air Force used this area for bombing practice. Today it is threatened by urban sprawl, the unchecked activities of beavers and those of us who don’t recognizeits significance. The NCC’s challenge is to deliver fascinating accounts of the ecology and the geology of the bog, and compelling stories of the French settlers that described the blue mist, and to reveal to those of us perhaps more interested in a Sunday morning walk than ecological advocacy why Mer Bleue should be interpreted at all. Why does it matter? In her book, Capital Rambles: Exploring National Capital Region, Katherine Fletcher answers that the moss mats fullfill a significant ecological niche:

…the wetland serve as “lungs” of the earth, much in the same way as mangrove trees do in the tropics. Mer Bleue bog is critical to the health of its surrounding landscape because it filters contaminants from the watershed region. It also services as natural reservoir by replenishing the water table. More than 75 percent of Ontario’s wetlands have been drained, so it is particularly important that the NCC remains committed to maintaining Mer Bleue as an internationally significant conservation area (p. 75).

NCC’s interpretive walk is not meant merely to entertain or disseminate facts about bogs, although it does do that. It is meant to create empathy and meaning for this special place. Remnants of the last ice age. More acidic than milk. Unique flora and fauna. On this very spot a mere 15 minutes from our front porch. Meaningful places matter to us; we are far more likely to serve as environmental stewards. The real success of the interpretive walk is that it creates the kind of empathy that ensures Mer Bleue may will survive many more thousands of years.

More

• La Mer Bleue: Neighbouring Carlsbad Springs offers this informative, slightly academic description of Mer Bleue bog, quite unlike the typical tourist brochures.
• A Virtual Tour of the National Capital Region: Interesting satellite imagery of the Mer Bleue bog from Satellite Impressions, which shows the different vegetation communities quite clearly.
• Capital Rambles: Exploring National Capital Region: Katherine Fletcher’s insider’s guide to Canada’s national capital region — West Quebec (the Outaouais) and Eastern Ontario region that surround Ottawa. If you are visiting us, this book will guide you along 12 “rambles” through hills, lakes, watersheds and heritage villages, including, of course, Mer Bleu.

An Interpretive Walk Through Mer Bleu originally appeared on Portable Learner on March 26th, 2006

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

Interaction in Distance Education originally appeared on Portable Learner on October 20th, 2003