• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
 

Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009

on

  • 2,445 views

A research report on Dr Terry Anderson's (2003) interaction equivalency theorem in blended learning in Japan and Taiwan. Learners' perceived needs for various types of interaction by different ...

A research report on Dr Terry Anderson's (2003) interaction equivalency theorem in blended learning in Japan and Taiwan. Learners' perceived needs for various types of interaction by different learning modes -- face-to-face (F2F) vs online vs blended learning -- learning contents are quantifiably presented.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,445
Views on SlideShare
2,441
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
0
Comments
1

2 Embeds 4

http://www.slideshare.net 3
http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009 Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009 Presentation Transcript

    • The Interaction Equivalency Theorem and its Implications in Blended Learning
      Terumi Miyazoe, PhD
      Tokyo Denki University
    • Presentation Outline
      Key concepts
      Interaction
      Interaction Equivalency Theorem
      Conceptualization
      Research
      Method
      Results
      Implications
      Conclusion
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      2
    • Interaction: A definition
      Interactions are
      “reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions. Interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence each other”
      Wagner (1994, p.8)
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      3
    • Modes of interaction
      Moore (1989): Three-part model of interaction
      learner-content
      learner-instructor
      learner-learner
      Anderson & Garrison (1998): Modes of interaction in distance education
      teacher-teacher
      content-content
      teacher-content
      Anderson (2003): (Interaction) Equivalency Theorem
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      4
    • Anderson & Garrison’s Interaction Theory Typology (1998)
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      5
    • Interaction Equivalency Theorem (Terry Anderson, 2003a)
      Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student-teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience.
      High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as cost or time effective as less interactive learning sequences.
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      6
    • Thesis 1: Quality
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      7
      (Miyazoe & Anderson, 2009)
    • Thesis 2: Quantity
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      8
      (Miyazoe & Anderson, 2009)
    • Research questions
      Is it possible to quantify the preferred interaction element of teacher- student-content?
      Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the learners?
      Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the learning modes?
      Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the content orientations?
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      9
    • Participants
      Students of four universities
      Three in Tokyo n = 200 (University A, B, C)
      One in Taipei n = 36 (University D)
      Gender ratio: 64.3 % males, 36.4 % females
      Age: mostly 18 to 23
      Subjects:
      English (Tokyo groups)
      Japanese (Taipei groups)
      Instructors:
      One Japanese and one British (Tokyo groups)
      Two Japanese (Taipei groups)
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      10
    • Crossover design
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      11
      Univ. A and B taught by Instructor A: a Japanese teaching English to Japanese
      Univ. C by Instructor C: a British teaching English to Japanese
      Univ. D by two Instructors D1 and D2: Japanese teaching Japanese to Taiwanese
    • Learning contexts
      Similarities
      LMS-based blended learning
      Constant implementation of forum discussions*
      Foreign language learning
      Differences
      Blended learning exposure: 15 weeks (Univ. A and D), 30 weeks (Univ. B), 10 weeks (Univ. C)
      English levels varying; highest with Univ. C, B, and A
      Japanese levels varying from advanced to low-intermediate within Univ. D
      *For a data set with Univ. B, a blog was also included.
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      12
    • Method
      Instrument: Interaction Equivalency Theorem Indicator (Miyazoe, 2009) ⇒ to test Interaction Equivalency Theorem Thesis 1
      Comparative structure:
      General perceptions
      Comparison between F2F vs. online modes
      Language vs. general education (underlying skill-oriented vs. knowledge-oriented)
      Specific perceptions to the course they were taking in this study (⇒ blended learning)
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      13
    • Hypotheses
      If one of interaction is valued over the others, students could rank the three interaction elements, with the ranking one to be the most valued.
      Customizing a course design of varied focus fitting the priority order could produce higher learning and least cost and time efficiently.
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      14
    • Implementation
      Fall 2007, winter 2007, spring 2008
      End of the course period
      Paper-and-pen format
      Informed consent for analysis and publication
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      15
    • Six patterns of interaction priority order
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      16
    • Results 1: Traditional vs. Blended
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      17
    • Results 2: F2F vs. Online
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      18
    • Results 3: Skills vs. Content
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      19
    • Results 4: Instructor variable
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      20
    • Results 5: Age variable
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      21
      (age)
      (age)
    • Summary
      Is it possible to quantify the preferred interaction element of teacher- student-content? ⇒Yes.
      Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the learners? ⇒Yes, and some patterns are recognized. There is not large difference between Japan and Taiwan.
      Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the learning modes?⇒ Yes. F2F: teacher, online: content, blended: less teacher presence with higher student interaction
      Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the content orientations? ⇒ Yes. Language: human interaction, knowledge: teacher & content
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      22
    • Implications
      Interaction Equivalency Theorem
      Thesis 1 (quality): seems yes
      Thesis 2 (quantity): seems yes but need more research
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      23
      (Miyazoe & Anderson, 2009)
    • Limitations
      Limited sample size
      Limited contexts
      Limited experience of learners
      More critical factors may be missing
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      24
    • Further suggestions
      Testing the Interaction Equivalency Theorem Indicator under different contexts with a different pair of comparison
      ⇒ more factors can be detected
      Pre-/post assessment to a specific learning mode and subject to improve the course design meeting the needs and expectations of the learners
      ⇒higher effectiveness and higher efficiency (= cost and time)
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      25
    • References
      Anderson, T. (2003a, October). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).
      Anderson, T. (2003b). Modes of Interaction in Distance Education: Recent Developments and Research Questions. In D. M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 129-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
      Anderson, T. D. & Garrison, R. D. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education (pp. 97-112). Madison, Wisconsin: Atwood Publishing.
      Garrison, R. D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      26
    • References (cont’d)
      Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1990). A new framework and perspective. In D. R. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: From issues to practice (pp. 123-133). Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company. Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
      Miyazoe, T. , & Anderson, T. (2009). The Interaction Equivalency Theorem. MDE course paper.
      Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
      Wagner, E. D. (1994). In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-26.
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      27
    • Thank you very much!
      15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland
      28