Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009

1,670

Published on

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.

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Comment
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,670
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The Interaction Equivalency Theorem and its Implications in Blended Learning<br />Terumi Miyazoe, PhD<br />Tokyo Denki University<br />
  • 2. Presentation Outline<br />Key concepts<br />Interaction<br />Interaction Equivalency Theorem<br />Conceptualization <br />Research<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />2<br />
  • 3. Interaction: A definition<br />Interactions are <br /> “reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions. Interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence each other”<br /> Wagner (1994, p.8)<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />3<br />
  • 4. Modes of interaction<br />Moore (1989): Three-part model of interaction<br />learner-content<br />learner-instructor<br />learner-learner<br />Anderson &amp; Garrison (1998): Modes of interaction in distance education<br />teacher-teacher<br />content-content<br />teacher-content<br />Anderson (2003): (Interaction) Equivalency Theorem<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />4<br />
  • 5. Anderson &amp; Garrison’s Interaction Theory Typology (1998)<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />5<br />
  • 6. Interaction Equivalency Theorem (Terry Anderson, 2003a)<br />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. <br />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. <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />6<br />
  • 7. Thesis 1: Quality <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />7<br />(Miyazoe &amp; Anderson, 2009)<br />
  • 8. Thesis 2: Quantity <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />8<br />(Miyazoe &amp; Anderson, 2009)<br />
  • 9. Research questions<br />Is it possible to quantify the preferred interaction element of teacher- student-content?<br />Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the learners?<br />Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the learning modes? <br />Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the content orientations?<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />9<br />
  • 10. Participants <br />Students of four universities<br />Three in Tokyo n = 200 (University A, B, C)<br />One in Taipei n = 36 (University D)<br />Gender ratio: 64.3 % males, 36.4 % females<br />Age: mostly 18 to 23 <br />Subjects: <br />English (Tokyo groups) <br />Japanese (Taipei groups)<br />Instructors: <br />One Japanese and one British (Tokyo groups)<br />Two Japanese (Taipei groups)<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />10<br />
  • 11. Crossover design<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />11<br />Univ. A and B taught by Instructor A: a Japanese teaching English to Japanese<br />Univ. C by Instructor C: a British teaching English to Japanese<br />Univ. D by two Instructors D1 and D2: Japanese teaching Japanese to Taiwanese<br />
  • 12. Learning contexts<br />Similarities <br />LMS-based blended learning<br />Constant implementation of forum discussions*<br />Foreign language learning<br />Differences<br />Blended learning exposure: 15 weeks (Univ. A and D), 30 weeks (Univ. B), 10 weeks (Univ. C)<br />English levels varying; highest with Univ. C, B, and A <br />Japanese levels varying from advanced to low-intermediate within Univ. D<br />*For a data set with Univ. B, a blog was also included. <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />12<br />
  • 13. Method <br />Instrument: Interaction Equivalency Theorem Indicator (Miyazoe, 2009) ⇒ to test Interaction Equivalency Theorem Thesis 1<br />Comparative structure: <br />General perceptions<br />Comparison between F2F vs. online modes<br />Language vs. general education (underlying skill-oriented vs. knowledge-oriented)<br />Specific perceptions to the course they were taking in this study (⇒ blended learning)<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />13<br />
  • 14. Hypotheses<br />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. <br />Customizing a course design of varied focus fitting the priority order could produce higher learning and least cost and time efficiently.<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />14<br />
  • 15. Implementation<br />Fall 2007, winter 2007, spring 2008 <br />End of the course period<br />Paper-and-pen format<br />Informed consent for analysis and publication<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />15<br />
  • 16. Six patterns of interaction priority order <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />16<br />
  • 17. Results 1: Traditional vs. Blended<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />17<br />
  • 18. Results 2: F2F vs. Online<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />18<br />
  • 19. Results 3: Skills vs. Content<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />19<br />
  • 20. Results 4: Instructor variable<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />20<br />
  • 21. Results 5: Age variable<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />21<br />(age)<br />(age)<br />
  • 22. Summary <br />Is it possible to quantify the preferred interaction element of teacher- student-content? ⇒Yes.<br />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. <br />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<br />Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the content orientations? ⇒ Yes. Language: human interaction, knowledge: teacher &amp; content <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />22<br />
  • 23. Implications <br />Interaction Equivalency Theorem <br />Thesis 1 (quality): seems yes<br />Thesis 2 (quantity): seems yes but need more research<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />23<br />(Miyazoe &amp; Anderson, 2009)<br />
  • 24. Limitations <br />Limited sample size<br />Limited contexts<br />Limited experience of learners<br />More critical factors may be missing <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />24<br />
  • 25. Further suggestions<br />Testing the Interaction Equivalency Theorem Indicator under different contexts with a different pair of comparison<br />⇒ more factors can be detected<br />Pre-/post assessment to a specific learning mode and subject to improve the course design meeting the needs and expectations of the learners<br />⇒higher effectiveness and higher efficiency (= cost and time)<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />25<br />
  • 26. References <br />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). <br />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. <br />Anderson, T. D. &amp; 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.<br />Garrison, R. D., &amp; Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />26<br />
  • 27. References (cont’d) <br />Garrison, D. R., &amp; Shale, D. (1990). A new framework and perspective. In D. R. Garrison &amp; 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. <br />Miyazoe, T. , &amp; Anderson, T. (2009). The Interaction Equivalency Theorem. MDE course paper. <br />Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.<br />Wagner, E. D. (1994). In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-26. <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />27<br />
  • 28. Thank you very much!<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />28<br />

×