• Save
Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009

on

  • 2,503 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
2,503
Views on SlideShare
2,499
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
  • 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