Twitter’s clouds are an interesting branding choice for a service that asks us to squeeze our thoughts into tiny 140-character installments. Clouds, like tweets, are so much more than they appear to be. They are open to interpretation. We see things in clouds, in their shapes, in their movements, that have nothing at all to do with their physical embodiment as water drops. I’ve never seen a cloud that didn’t look like something else:

Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud, that’s almost in shape of a camel?
Polonius: By th’ mass, and ’tis like a camel, indeed.
Hamlet: Methinks, it is like a weasel.
Polonius: It is backed like a weasel.
Hamlet: Or like a whale.
Polonius: Very like a whale.

Now, some of us may see more than others, but we are all relentless meaning makers. The world around us is not a given, as they say, but rather it is constructed. In Twitter that construction relies on 140-character building blocks. Tweets, like clouds, are suggestions, intimations, that drift by, and sometimes they project the deeper concerns of the follower who reads them. I’ve never seen a tweet that didn’t look like something else. For example:

Observe the signs: the lone tweet, the extended time lapsed since posting, no followup, the default avatar. The tone is confident and crotchety, methinks. It suggests that, against their better judgment, the author fell victim to the peak of inflated expectations, then, at mid-tweet, with better judgment restored, fell into the trough of disillusionment. The ballistic progression through the stages of the hype cycle hints at long-time expertise, long enough for evolved cynicism, brief enough to have sustained hope. Could this be an abandoned eduTwitter account? If tweets are like clouds, this one says there is rain is in the forecast. Stay out of the rain it warns. If you are serious about technology-supported learning environments (and I am! Iam!), then Twitter is all wet.

Of course, I grant you, some of us may see more in these tweets than others.

TheMime’s twitter style is more detached, but equally jaded. The author tweets a single ellipse, and only an ellipse, every couple of days. They have been doing this since November, and have attracted over 5,000 followers.* The tone is whimsical, the delivery reliable. You may hope for more, they suggest, and you will get more … of the same. More of the same? Oh yes, I know this pattern. It is the one that seems to emerge whenever educators start to use digital technologies in their practice. The pattern looks something like this:

Most digital technologies are originally developed for or adapted by researchers or commercial interests. But it is fair to say that teachers and trainers are among the most enthusiastic and innovative adopters. We all want to embrace the promise to enhance the experiences of our students or improve learning outcomes. Many of us share our experiences. The online literature about the use of digital technologies in education is bursting with enthusiastic accounts of what was done, why it was done, how it worked, what impact it had on students, and what challenges it posed for teachers. In fact, this generosity formed my expectations about Twitter long before I set up an account. But read more closely, and you will see that much of the discussion is not about anything new or transformational; rather it is about the recurrent, persistent issues in education. There are notable exceptions, but most of these experiments with digital technologies feel as if they are just that—simple experiments with technology. These are our ellipses. Some important aspects remain mostly unchanged: the underlying design of the curriculum, the purposes and means of assessing, and the imbalance of power between teacher/trainer/facilitator and student/trainee/learner. There are reasons, of course, why we do not capitalize on the potential of digital technologies to change the relationship between students and learning. Still, I can’t help but feel somewhat disheartened that potentially transformational technologies are often used in somewhat predictable ways.

If tweets are clouds, is the long term forecast is overcast and unchanged? I turned to the twittersphere for fellowship and forecast. Is there anything new under the sun?, I tweeted. Apparently yes, says Dave Ferguson:

What appeals to me about digital technologies is that they throw into contrast any differences of opinion we may hold about their use. Variations in the pattern become immediately evident. For example, I don’t think I’ve ever been inclined to compare technologies and clouds before Twitter. Doing so reveals my underlying constructivist assumptions about education and I how go about achieving them. Tweets are like clouds. In 140 characters or less, I can see established paradigms and am free to interpret alternative views. That’s a lot of transformational power packed into an edutweet, and that’s where I see sun peaking behind the clouds.

* And more now that TheMime has been featured on Boing Boing. If you still have doubts that tweets are ideal fodder for meaning making, check out the comments.

140 Characters Or Less originally appeared on Portable Learner on March 12th, 2009

I’ve written a complete book review (as opposed to these little book notes) in The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 7, No 1 (2006).

Web-based Distance Education for Adults originally appeared on Portable Learner on June 5th, 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