basic principles of interaction for learning in web based environment
DESCRIPTION
This is a study on interaction theory prepared for EDDE 804, Ed. D. in Distance Education at Athabasca University, Canada.TRANSCRIPT
Understanding Interaction inWeb-Based Learning
Su-Tuan LuleeEDDE 801 Professor: Dr. Patrick FahyFeb. 2010
Why is interaction important?
Individual cognitive skills are developed in a social context
People must learn between people first, before they can learn inside themselves and allow the knowledge to become internalized. (Vygotsky)
Why is interaction important?
Anything new [should be] based on what is already known. (Anderson)
What have others done?
What did they find?
What do they recommend?
What can I use?
(Fahy)
In this presentation, What previous studies told us?
Two groups of studies Examining the outcomes and process of
Interaction Examining the structure of the network
Other factors: group size, technology… Implication for good practices
How can interaction theories benefit practices?
Learning achievement, choices, limitation…
Previous Studies
Two groups of studies (different focuses): Outcomes and Process of Interaction
5-dimension (Henri) 5-stage Model (Garrison) & cognitive presence IA framework (Gunawardena & Anderson) IPA (Bales)
Structure of Interaction Network Message Map (Levin et al.) TAT (Fahy) ENA (Shaffer et al.)
Henri’s 5-Dimension
(Henri, 1991)For analyzing the quality of computer-mediated communication
Henri’s 5-Dimension
Social dimension
Interactive dimension
Cognitive dimension
Meta-cognitive dimension
Participative dimension
5-Stage Critical Thinking Model
(Garrison, 1991)For assessing how learners develop critical thinking
5-Stage Critical Thinking Model
Problem identification
Problem definition
Problem exploration
Problem evaluation
Problem integration
Interaction Analysis model (IA)
(Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson, 1997)For assessing social construction of knowledge (in less or no instructor presence)
Interaction Analysis model (IA)
Sharing/Comparing
Dissonance
Negotiation/Co-construction
Testing Tentative Constructions
Statement/Application
Triggering event
Exploration
Integration
Resolution
Comparison Chart
The other two models focus on cognitive and meta-cognitive dimensions
Informal learningFormal learning
Cognitive Presence
Interaction Process Analysis (IPA)
Bales:- Social psychologist- IPA was for F2F
Complementary-paired categories
Message Maps Levin, Kim, & Riel (1990) Illustrating the interrelationships among the
messages submitted by participants
Message Maps
Transcript Analysis Tools (TAT)
Fahy, 2001 Examining the behaviors of participants Improve discriminant capability and
reliability by identifying 5 types of sentences (different modes of
interaction) A set of structural elements suggested by
social network theory
Transcript Analysis Tools (TAT)
Fahy, 2001 Examining the behaviors of participants Improve discriminant capability and
reliability by identifying 5 types of sentences (different modes of
interaction) A set of structural elements suggested by
social network theory
Transcript Analysis Tools (TAT)Sentence Types Communication Behaviors
Structure/Pattern Levels/Spread of “what are happening”
Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA)
Shaffer & et al. (2009) How to assess the ongoing interactions
(e.g., MUVE, epistemic games? Evidence-centered design Computer records learners’ work and
interaction (clicks) over time, assembled into the network graphs
code using predefined frame elements studied the forms of interaction network
graphs mathematically manipulate key variables,
base on a theoretical framework
Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA)
Shaffer & et al. (2009) How to assess the ongoing interactions
(e.g., MUVE, epistemic games? Evidence-centered design Computer records learners’ work and
interaction (clicks) over time, assembled into the network graphs
code using predefined frame elements studied the forms of interaction network
graphs mathematically manipulate key variables,
base on a theoretical framework
Ask expert; Get tools; Take note; Answer Q
Skills, values, etc.
Changes in:Relative Centrality &Distance between actions (bubbles)
Other Influential Factors
Group size Learning
styles Genders Technology
Other Influential Factors
Group size Learning
styles Genders Technology
The individual interaction decreased when the group size increased 20 is proper, 16 is the best,
class size for an online college course taught by a single instructor (Orellana)
5 and above are very unstable and rather quickly divided into subgroups in freely forming groups (James)
Other Influential Factors
Group size Learning
styles Genders Technology
Convergers (Kolb’s LSI) are most comfortable with the online network; Accomodators are less involved. (Fahy)
Independent learners are comfortable online (Gagne)
Web-based learning environment is reforming learning styles due to the limited interactive features provided by digital environment (Dede)
Other Influential Factors
Group size Learning
styles Genders Technology
Women contributed much lesser times & shorter average words per contributions (Herring)
Members of the minority gender shift their style in the direction of majority gender norms (Herring)
Women preferred for epistolary interaction while men preferred expository interaction (Fahy)
Other Influential Factors
Group size Learning
styles Genders Technology
Kozma & Clark debates Problems
Not enough emphasis on pedagogy and instructional design (Wiske)
less regard for learning theory and instructional theory (Clark)
lacking of studies in situated use of media (Garrison)
complexity of systems and interfaces (Fahy)
In this presentation, What previous studies told us?
Two groups of studies Examining the outcomes and process of
Interaction Examining the structure of the network
Other factors: group size, technology… Implication for good practices
How can interaction theories benefit practices?
Learning achievement, choices, limitation…
From Theory to Practice
Models as tools for assessing interactions
Address problems Identify opportunities for
improvement inducing structured creativity
(Fahy) Innovation as needed
One Interaction Fits All? Interactions Choices
Not all interaction are equally useful to every individual (Chen & Willits; Fahy)
The best interaction for a particular context is the interaction that has the right-mixed of interaction. (Anderson)
Equivalence Theorem of Interaction: as long as one of the three forms of interaction is at a high level, the other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated (Anderson)
Not all forms of interaction are equally valued by learners due to learner preferences. (Rhode)
The More Interaction The Better? Limits of interaction
human’s capacity for processing information: 7 (+-) 2
to focus attention and avoid distraction: limit the items to 7 (+-) 2
Reducing working memory load (text + audio/video)
instructor’s involvement in threaded discussions: 10% - 20%
(Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller; Simonson et al. )
Interaction = Achievement Interactions Really Improve
Learner Achievement? All three types of interaction have positive
impact on learner achievement Increasing the strength of interaction treatments
affects achievement outcomes Learner-content interaction showed higher
added values
(Bernard et al.)
Conclusions
Various approaches have been explored and a variety of options are available for designing interaction
Need for taking a mixed method in studying interaction
Call for research on interaction in action (Simulasive learning/gaming)
Summaries
Previous Studies Outcomes & Processes of Interaction
Henri, Garrison, Gunawardena, Bales Structure of Interaction Network
Levin, Fahy, Shaffer. Other Factors
Group size, learning styles, genders, Tech.
Implication for Good Practices Limitation, choices, etc.
Main References Anderson, T. (2003b). Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated
and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).
Bales, R. F. (1950). A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction. American Sociological Review, 15(2), 257-263.
Fahy, P., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001b). Patterns of Interaction in a Computer Conference Trascript. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1).
Garrison, D. R. (1992). Critical Thinking and Self-Directed Learning in Adult Education: An Analysis of Responsibility and Control Issues. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(3), 136-148.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1998). Transcript Analysis of Computer-Mediated Conferences as a Tool for Testing Constructivist and Social-Constructivist Learning Theories. In Proceeding of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning (14th) (pp. 139-145).
ReferencesLevin, J. A., Kim, H., & Riel, M. M. (1990). Analyzing Instructional
Interactions on Electronic Message Networks. In Harasim, L. (ed.), Online Education, Perspectives on a New Environment (pp. 185-213). New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svaronvsky, G. N., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E., et al. (2009). Epistemic Network Analysis: A Prototype for 21st Century Assessment of Learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2).
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.