1. 1
Examining Human-Interaction in
On-Line Learning Environments:
Teaching Design On-Line
By
Lisa Lane
A Thesis Submitted in Candidacy for the
Degree of Master of Design in Interaction Design
The School of Design
Carnegie Mellon University
May 2000
3. 3
Preface
I would like to thank . . .
Karen Schnakenberg
Senior Lecturer in English & Professional Writing
Carnegie Mellon University English Department
Joseph Ballay
Professor and Chair of the Industrial Design Program
Carnegie Mellon University School of Design
Dan Boyarski
Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
Carnegie Mellon University School of Design
Malcolm McCullough
Visiting Associate Professor of Architecture and Design
Carnegie Mellon University Architecture Department
Ken Koedinger
Senior Research Scientist
Carnegie Mellon University Human-Computer Interaction Institute
Carnegie Mellon University School of Design
Faculty and Students
Karen Bernsten and the students of
Graduate Typography
4. 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
II. MARKET FORCES ENCOURAGING ON-LINE DISTANCE LEARNING:
ACCESSING KNOWLEDGE VIA THE INTERNET ...........................................................2
A Shift from the Classroom to Cyberspace .............................................................................3
Increasing Revenues
Accommodating New Audiences
Meeting the Needs of Business
Who, What & Where ...............................................................................................................7
A Logical First Step for On-Line Distance Learning
Who is Teaching Design On-Line
A Gap in the On-Line Learning Landscape
III. SURVEY DATAAND OBSERVATIONS .............................................................................15
Concerns Regarding Distance Learning and Interactivity.....................................................15
Instructor Survey Summary
Graduate Student Survey Summary
Survey Conclusions
Observation of Interactive Characteristics in a Face-to-Face Design Studio ........................19
Interactive Characteristic 1: Interactive Relationships
Interactive Characteristic 2: Gestures
Interactive Characteristic 3: Rhythm
Implications
The Importance of Community Building
IV. SUPPORT FOR BUILDING VIRTUAL INTERACTIVE ...................................................26
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Other Barriers: Addressing the Concerns of Faculty
Addressing Anxiety and Introducing Change
Building a Support System
V. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................33
Tables
1. On-Line Degree, Certificates and Courses ..............................................................................8
2. On-Line Design Courses .......................................................................................................13
3. Face-to-Face Design Studio Interactive Relationships..........................................................20
4. Course Content to Help Build Community ...........................................................................24
5. Professional Distance Education Personnel ..........................................................................31
6. 12-Step Development Process ...............................................................................................32
Figures
1. Bloom’s Learning Taxonomy ................................................................................................ 11
2. The Rising Cost of On-Line Distance Learning ....................................................................12
3. On-Line Design Course Content ...........................................................................................14
4. Conceptual representation of face-to-face design studio interaction.....................................23
Appendix
1. On-Line Design Course Content ...........................................................................................36
2. Instructor Surveys..................................................................................................................56
3. Graduate Student Surveys .....................................................................................................82
Works Cited ...................................................................................................................................96
5. I. INTRODUCTION
In today’s knowledge-based society, both corporations and individuals frequently argue that on-line
distance learning can provide a tremendous advantage for efficiently and effectively distributing
knowledge. However, many of the current on-line distance learning courses focus on simple
knowledge acquisition and lack the complex interaction characteristics needed to virtually replicate
the face-to-face classroom. In particular, it is the lack of interaction between instructors and students
that needs to be improved in order for on-line distance learning courses to move beyond their
current state and accommodate courses such as design that rely on extensive instructor and student
interaction with artifacts.
In order for on-line distance learning to move toward this new interactive state, we must consider
the effects this change can have on our faculty and make an effort to address various barriers
such as personal perceptions regarding effectiveness, cost of production (time, personnel and
equipment), and the lack of technical skills and time needed to develop virtual interactive
learning environments. This author proposes that if we eliminate these various barriers and
develop support systems and production processes to assist instructors and students during the
transition from face-to-face learning environments to virtual interactive learning environments,
we can enhance on-line distance learning courses and move toward the creation of virtual
interactive learning environments that closely replicate the face-to-face classroom experience.
As a means to understand and address these issues, this thesis explores the following questions:
— What are the interaction characteristics needed to replicate the face-to-face
design studio environment?
— What resources are necessary to support an instructor’s course conversion efforts?
— What are the advantages of teaching interaction design via an on-line distance
learning environment?
6. 6
II. MARKET FORCES ENCOURAGING ON-LINE DISTANCE LEARNING:
ACCESSING KNOWLEDGE VIA THE INTERNET
Elizabeth, an interactive design director, is interested in improving the
managerial skills of her project managers, but her organization has limited
resources to support professional development. Thus, she’s interested in
a cost-effective means of design management education.
Gerard, a first-year architectural graduate student, is interested in a course
about designing interactive learning environments. Due to a scheduling
conflict with a required face-to-face architectural studio course, however,
he is unable to register for both courses. He wishes there were an on-line
alternative for the interactive learning environments course.
Renee, a graphic designer, is interested in expanding her visual design
skill set to include interaction design. She’d like to continue working in
New York City while obtaining a masters degree in interaction design from
Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA. She wishes her learning
opportunities were not constrained by her geographic location.
As these examples illustrate, cost-effectiveness, scheduling conflicts and geographic constraints
can limit an organization’s or individual’s access to traditional education.1
These constraints,
however, are becoming theoretically less restrictive due to the Internet’s distance learning capabili-
ties. According to International Data Corporation in Farmington, Mass., approximately 1 million
students will participate in on-line distance learning courses in 1999, and this number is expected to
1
Kathleen Morris, “Wiring the Ivory Tower,” Business Week, 9 August 1999, 90.
2
7. 7
more than double by the year 2002 as organizations and individuals utilize the Internet to access
timely education in order to keep up with today’s fast-paced technological advancements.2
With this
expected increase in participation in on-line distance learning courses, universities—particularly
instructional design or interactive design programs—should want to consider offering courses that
specifically address issues regarding designing on-line distance learning courses and environments.
Similar to the Internet specialty area E-Commerce, On-line Distance Learning has the potential
to become the new “new thing” in Internet specialties.
A Shift from the Classroom to Cyberspace
Three major forces are working to promote the use of on-line distance learning:
1) A desire on the part of universities to increase revenue by expanding their existing student base
2) A need to accommodate new audiences including working adults and Generation-Yers
3) A need to provide the business world with college-educated employees who will function well
in a knowledge society and embrace lifelong learning
Increasing Revenues
In order to increase revenue, universities are exploring ways to expand their student base via on-line
distance learning.3
As Alison Peirce, Senior Director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton
Executive Education Program notes, “The University of Pennsylvania is an urban institution with
no room to physically expand. Distance education allows it to extend its grasp without a costly
expansion of its physical plant.”4
As Palloff and Pratt (1999) argue, “Institutions of higher learning
are, with increasing frequency, turning to the use of the Internet to deliver courses to students at a
distance, as well as to enhance educational programs that are delivered on campus.”5
Palloff and
Pratt (1999) also cite a 1997 U.S. Department of Education study that argues that, “about 90 percent
2
Morris, “Wiring the Ivory Tower,” 90.
3
Ibid.
4
Bill Zlatos, “Distance Learning Becoming More Popular,” Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 26 November 1999, sec. B, p. 2.
5
Rena M. Palloff and Keith Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1999), 3.
3
8. 8
of all higher education institutions with enrollments of ten thousand or more will be offering some
form of distance education in the fall of 1998.”6
By making education more accessible to a wider
student base through distance learning, universities have the potential to increase their revenues.
Accommodating New Audiences
University interest in new audiences or student bodies is interestingly matched by a growth in the
variety of students seeking college courses. Palloff and Pratt (1999) argue that this greater diversity
among the students who are choosing to attend school is also a factor in universities launching
on-line distance learning programs and note that, “Although colleges continue to attract 62 percent
of high school graduates onto their campuses immediately following graduation, larger numbers
of so-called nontraditional students, as defined by age and life situation, are seeking degrees.”7
In order to accommodate these changes in the student population, universities such as Stanford,
Columbia, New York University, and Wharton College at the University of Pennsylvania are either
a) joining forces with for-profit virtual university start-ups such as the University of Phoenix On-line
and Jones International to offer their on-line courses via these established virtual universities,
b) contracting with course conversion start-ups such as UNext, University Access or eCollege
to repackage university courses for on-line distance learning, or c) establishing their own distance
learning conversion centers and virtual universities to deliver university level courses on-line.
Additionally, at the state level, state schools in California, Florida and Maryland are targeting
working adults and hoping that utilizing the Internet for distance learning will also help to
accommodate the millions of Generation-Yers expected to hit campuses within the next 10 years.8
Offering courses on-line may actually prove to have an educational benefit for today’s youthful
Generation-Yers. As Palloff and Pratt (1999) argue, “Young children today are being weaned on
6
Palloff and Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace, xiii.
7
Ibid., 3. (See also, Peter Applebome, “The On-Line Revolution is Not the End of Civilizations as We Know It. But Almost.,”
New York Times, 4 April 1999, Education Life Supplement, p. 26)
8
Morris, “Wiring the Ivory Tower,” 90.
4
9. 9
interaction with various forms of media. Involved in everything from video games to the Internet,
our youth are coming to expect more active ways of seeking knowledge and entertainment. Adults,
including educators, however, are, for the most part, newcomers to this technological arena.
As a result, something of a technical generation gap is emerging. Writers examining this gap note
that the technological changes sweeping our culture have left education largely unchanged. A rift
has opened between how education is viewed and delivered in the classroom and how we are
beginning to obtain knowledge in our society. We have not yet begun to tap the power and potential
of technology in the educational arena.”9
Similarly, Sa’ ad Medhat, Director of Dubal Polytechnic, United Arab Emirates, states that, “Today’s
students, raised on television and the personal computer, want something different from education—
they appreciate the convergence of IT, communications and education, and expect the concept of
‘edutainment’ to be reflected in course delivery.”10
While this media-oriented approach to education
may work to attract the younger generation, it provides a challenge to both educators and students
of older generations who are accustomed to and experienced in less media-oriented methods of
education. Therefore, accommodations must be made for these educators and students in order to
successfully incorporate media-oriented methods into the classroom. Additionally, any effort to
move from classroom-based to on-line education must seek to determine and retain those interactive
components of the classroom-based approach that are integral to an effective curriculum.
Meeting the Needs of Business
In response to industry’s need for college-educated employees who can function well in a
knowledge society, various corporations and universities are providing just-in-time, just-in-place
educational programs via the Internet to take advantage of its ability to provide a cost-effective and
efficient means of distributing critical educational materials to employees and students worldwide.11
9
Palloff and Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace, 16.
10
Sa’ ad Medhat, “Educating in a Digital Future,” The Times Higher Education Supplement, 11 September 1998, 13.
11
Joseph Weber, “School is Never Out,” Business Week, 4 October 1999, 164.
5
10. 10
As Peter F. Drucker, the father of organizational management for nonprofit organizations, argues,
“Today knowledge has power. It controls access to opportunity and advancement.”12
In today’s
knowledge society, access to knowledge via the Internet is welcomed by business as a benefit
for knowledge workers and corporations worldwide who need to stay abreast of today’s fast-paced
technological developments in order to remain competitive.
With this shift to knowledge- and technology-based organizations, the world economy is experienc-
ing a drastic shift from capital investment to investment in intellectual capital.13
Moreover, this shift
has created both an increasing need for educated people or lifelong learners and, as Joseph Weber
of Business Week states, a need for these people to adjust to continually changing job demands.14
John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems Inc., echoes this idea when he notes that, “The New
Economy is heavy on intellectual capital. The sharing of knowledge is what really makes it go.
In the New Economy, you expect lifelong learning, not necessarily lifelong employment.”15
In light
of this New Economy, Palloff and Pratt (1999) argue that “Today’s academic institutions are in
transition. Much of the change we are seeing is due to economic pressures from mounting costs
and demands by the business world for graduates with the ability to function well in a knowledge
society.”16
Therefore, for corporations and individuals alike, the need to continually educate
themselves and obtain the latest knowledge has become paramount to business success.17, 18
In order to accommodate the need for knowledge sharing and lifelong learning, organizations
as diverse as Amazon, Unisys, General Electric and Federal Express are utilizing the Internet
to manage the documentation and distribution of corporate knowledge in order to advance
in meeting their strategic goals.19
This documentation and distribution of corporate knowledge,
generally referred to as knowledge management includes, for example, business strategies and
12
Peter Drucker Foundation Web site. Available from http://www.pfdf.org/; Internet; accessed 10 July 1999.
13
John Byrne, “The Search for the Young and Gifted,” Business Week, 4 October 1999, 112.
14
Weber, “School is Never Out,” 164.
15
Byrne, “The Search for the Young and Gifted,” 110-111.
16
Palloff and Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace, 3.
17
Weber, “School is Never Out,” 164.
18
Brian L. Clark, “Getting a Degree via Your PC,” Money.com, Fall 1998, 66.
19
Weber, “School is Never Out,” 165.
6
11. 11
the documentation and distribution of an organization’s best practices, which are often used to
train employees. Interestingly, organizations are also utilizing university-level instructional
expertise to educate their employees. Carnegie Mellon University, for example, has joined four
other well-respected institutions in developing business courses for a private company that will
distribute the business courses around the world.20
With all of these market forces encouraging the utilization of on-line distance learning, this author
was interested in discovering which educational facilities are offering on-line distance learning and
what types of courses are being offered.
Who, What & Where?
After searching for examples of on-line distance learning courses and viewing on-line distance
learning tours of sample courses, this author found that in general most university-level on-line
distance learning programs tend to take lecture/text-based courses from, for example, a business
school curriculum, and simply transfer the lecture information to the Internet adding the ability to
view videos of an instructor’s lectures and/or discuss the materials synchronously via on-line chat
or ansynchronously via E-mail or electronic bulletin boards (B-boards). Examples of programs
of this type are provided in Table 1. The widespread utilization of this modest on-line distance
learning format (on-line lecture notes and lectures with the addition of E-mail, B-boards and/or
Chat Rooms) is likely due to the limited need for instructor/student interaction and the straightfor-
ward instructional goals (i.e. students need only to individually master a particular body of
knowledge) in these lecture/text-based courses. Therefore, there is little negative impact with
regards to transitioning a lecture/text-based courses to an on-line distance learning format. T
ABL 1
20
Zlatos, “Distance Learning Becoming More Popular,” sec. B, p. 2.
7
12. 12
TABLE 1: ON-LINE DEGREES, CERTIFICATES AND COURSES
A sampling of some of the degrees, certificates and courses currently offered by real-life
and virtual universities (i.e. no physical campus exists).
UNIVERSITY ON-LINE DEGREES, CERTIFICATES AND COURSES OFFERED
Real-Life Universities
Carnegie Mellon21
Master of Software Engineering Program
Information Resource Management Certificate Program
(joint effort with Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs)
Master of Industrial Administration Program
Stanford22
Master of Electrical Engineering (MSEE) Telecommunications Courses
Electrical Engineering Certificate Programs
Courses:
Aeronautics and Astronautics
Biochemistry
Computer Science
Industrial Engineering & Engineering Management
Mechanical Engineering
University of Maryland Undergraduate courses:
University College23
Accounting
Behavioral and social sciences
Business and management
Communication studies
Computer and information science
Computer studies
English (B.A. only)
Environmental science
Fire science
Humanities (B.A. only)
Information systems management
Management studies
Paralegal studies
Psychology
Graduate Degrees:
Master of Business Administration (OMBA)
Master of Distance Education (OMDE)
Master of International Management (IMAN) with specialty tracks in:
International Commerce
International Finance
International Marketing
Master of Science in Computer Systems Management (CSMN) with specialty tracks in:
Applied Computer Systems
Database Systems and Security
Information Resources Management
Software Development Management
Master of Science in Environmental Management (ENVM)
Master of Science in Management (MSM) with specialty tracks in:
Accounting
Financial Management
Health Care Administration
Human Resource Management (continued)
21
Carnegie Mellon University Web site. Available from http://www.cmu.edu:80/home/education/education_distance.html;
Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
22
Stanford University Web site. Available from http://stanford-online.stanford.edu/; Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
23
University of Maryland University College Web site. Available from http://www.umuc.edu/prog/gsmt/gsmtdist/oldg.html;
Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
8
13. 13
TABLE 1: ON-LINE DEGREES, CERTIFICATES AND COURSES continued
UNIVERSITY ON-LINE DEGREES, CERTIFICATES AND COURSES OFFERED
Real-Life Universities (continued)
University of Maryland Master of Science in Management (MSM) with specialty tracks in
University College(continued) Interdisciplinary Studies in Management
Management Information Systems
Marketing
Not-for-Profit Management
Procurement and Contract Management
Dual M.S. in Management/Master of Business Administration
Master of Science in Technology Management (TMAN)
General Program:
Biotechnology Management
Systems Management
Master of Science in Telecommunications Management (TLMN)
Master of Software Engineering (MSWE)
New York University24
Certificate in Management Training (January 2000)
Virtual Universities
University of Phoenix25
Undergraduate Degrees:
Associate of Arts in General Studies
Bachelor of Science in Business / Accounting
Bachelor of Science in Business / Administration
Bachelor of Science in Business / Management
Bachelor of Science in Business / Project Management
Bachelor of Science in Business / Marketing
Bachelor of Science in Business / Information Systems
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology / Database Management
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology / Networks and Telecommunications
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology / Programming and Operating Systems
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology / Systems Analysis
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology / Web Management
Bachelor of Science in Nursing (Directed Study)
Graduate Degrees:
Master of Arts in Education (Directed Study)
Master of Arts in Organizational Management
Master of Business Administration
Master of Business Administration / Technology Management
Master of Business Administration / Global Management
Master of Science in Computer Information Systems
Master of Science in Nursing (Directed Study)
Doctorate Degrees:
Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership
Jones International26
Certificates:
Public Relations and Marketing
New Communication Technologies
Leadership and Communication Skills
Global Communication
Using the Internet in Education
Undergraduate Degrees:
Bachelor of Arts
Graduate Degrees:
Master of Arts
24
New York University Web site. Available from http://www.nyu.edu/pubs/wsn/99/10/20/NCoursesOnline.htm;
Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
25
University of Pheonix Web site. Available from http://online.uophx.edu/Default.asp; Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
26
Jones International Web site. Available from http://www.jonesinternational.edu/; Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
9
14. 14
A Logical First Step for On-line Distance Learning
According to Brahler, Peterson and Johnson (1999) from Washington State University, the
widespread utilization of this modest on-line distance learning format (on-line lecture notes and
lectures with the addition of E-mail, B-boards and/or Chat Rooms) is a logical and somewhat
inexpensive first step in transitioning a face-to-face course to an on-line distance learning format
since knowledge-based courses require less development time than courses with more complex
instructional goals such as improving a student’s creative or production skills or influencing a
student’s attitude with regards to a particular subject matter.27
Brahler, Peterson and Johnson (1999)
also argue that a direct link exists between knowledge, skill, and attitude instructional goals and
development costs: “Development time increases as the learning goals for the course materials
ascend Bloom’s learning taxonomy from knowledge to skill to attitude and as the technical
complexity of the computer work increases from basic, to intermediate, to high.”28
In other words, as instructional goals ascend Bloom’s learning taxonomy(see Figure 1 for an
explanation of Bloom’s learning taxonomy and its relationship to Brahler, Peterson and Johnson’s
research) —from knowledge to skill to attitude—the level of instructor/student interactivity
increases, thus creating an increased need to incorporate multimedia and collaborative technologies
to replicate this interaction in the on-line distance learning environment, thereby resulting in higher
development costs (see Figure 2 for a conceptual representation of this concept). In support of this
statement, Brahler, Peterson and Johnson (1999) argue that “One of the largest obstacles to produc-
ing multimedia-rich learning materials is cost. These materials are very resource-intensive to develop
because they require, time, personnel and equipment.”29
While these types of costs might be seen as
a hinderance to developing on-line instructional formats that go beyond lecture/text-based formats,
projected decreases in the cost of multimedia and collaborative technologies suggest these
27
C. Jayne Brahler, Nils S. Peterson and Emily C. Johnson, “Developing on-line learning materials for higher education:
An overview of current issues,” Educational Technology & Society, 11 March 1999; [periodical on-line]; available
from http://ifets.gmd.de/periodical/vol_2_99/jayne_brahler.html; Internet; accessed 19 April 1999.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
10
15. 15
I/S
I/S
I/S
technologies will become more widely available and accepted in the not too distant future. Thus the
cost to produce and implement (i.e. the development costs) multimedia-rich on-line distance learning
courses are likely to decrease eventually. With this decrease in development costs on the horizon,
a logical next phase in on-line distance learning will be to begin creating prototypes of multimedia-
rich interactive learning environments that can facilitate learning objectives more complex than
knowledge acquisition.
FIGURE 1: BLOOM’S LEARNING TAXONOMY
Bloom’s learning taxonomy explained.
The WestEd Distance Learning Resource
Network Web site describes Benjamin Bloom’s
1956 Learning Taxonomy as a classification
of the levels of intellectual behavior important
in learning. This classification, which developed
into a taxonomy, includes three overlapping
domains; the cognitive, psychomotor, and
affective—each of which can be expressed
through the interaction of media.30
The cognitive domain, shown here, is the
most-used of the domains, referring to six
knowledge structures—“from the simple recall
or recognition of facts, as the lowest level,
through increasingly more complex and abstract
mental levels, to the highest order which is
classified as evaluation”31
—it can be viewed
as a sequence of progressive contextualisation
of educational material.32
Brahler, Peterson and Johnson (1999), broadly
categorize Bloom’s knowledge structures into
three general instructional goals: knowledge,
skill and attitude* and argue that development
time and instructor/student (I/S) interactivity
increases as the instructional goals for the
course materials ascend Bloom’s learning
taxonomy. Furthermore, to reach each of the
three instructional goals they recommend
instructional design methods (i.e. mostly
presentational, problem-solving activities,
constructivist and open ended) for course
materials related to each grouping.
*Bloom classified attitude into the affective
domain of his learning taxonomy while Brahler,
Peterson and Johnson interpret attitude as a
constituent of the student’s capability to associate
and evaluate information.
30
WestEd: Distance Learning Resource Network Web site. Bloom’s Learning Taxonomy. Available from http://www.wested.org/tie/
dlrn/blooms.html; Internet; accessed 2 December 1999.
31
WestEd: Distance Learning Resource Network Web site. Bloom’s Learning Taxonomy.
32
James Atherton Web site. Bloom’s Learning Taxonomy. Available from http://websites.ntl.com/~james.atherton/learning/
bloomtax.htm; Internet; accessed 2 December 1999.
Bloom’s Learning Taxonomy (1956)
Cognitive Domain Instructional
Design of
course materials
$
Instructional
Goals
6. Evaluation: appraise, argue, assess,
attach, choose, compare, defend, estimate,
judge, predict, rate, core, select, support,
value, evaluate.
v
5. Synthesis: arrange, assemble, collect,
compose, construct, create, design,
develop, formulate, manage, organize,
plan, prepare, propose, set up, write.
v
4. Analysis: analyze, appraise, calculate,
categorize, compare, contrast, criticize,
differentiate, discriminate, distinguish,
examine, experiment, question, test.
v
3. Application: apply, choose, demonstrate,
dramatize, employ, illustrate, interpret,
operate, practice, schedule, sketch, solve,
use, write.
v
2. Comprehension: classify, describe,
discuss, explain, express, identify, indicate,
locate, recognize, report, restate, review,
select, translate.
v
1. Knowledge: arrange, define, duplicate,
label, list, memorize, name, order, recognize,
relate, recall, repeat, reproduce state.
$
$
Attitude
Skill
Knowledge
Constructivist,
open ended
Problem-solving
activities
Mostly
presentational
vvv
Brahler, Peterson and Johnson (1999)
11
16. 16
FIGURE 2: THE RISING COST OF ON-LINE DISTANCE LEARNING
Multimedia development costs in relation to Bloom’s learning taxonomy and Brahler, Peterson
and Johnson’s instructional goals (conceptual illustration).
The Rising Cost of On-Line Distance Learning
Who Is Teaching Design On-line?
If on-line courses that move beyond knowledge acquisition are few in number in general, they
are close to nonexistent in the field of design and other artifact-dependent fields (i.e. fields
that depend on the production of an artifact to illustrate the application and understanding of
specific principles). On-line distance learning courses that either specifically teach communication
design principles or teach courses in other artifact-based fields such as industrial design or
architecture are difficult to find. Of the few on-line sites devoted to design instruction that were
found (see Table 2), most were simply Web sites devoted to course information (i.e. syllabus,
assignments and schedule information, see Figure 3.1) or text-based course content supplemented
with communication capabilities such as E-mail and/or Chat Rooms.
MultimediaDevelopmentCosts
(time,personnelandequipment)
$
*Knowledge/
Comprehension
or
**Knowledge
$
*Application/
Analysis
or
**Skill
$
*Synthesis/
Evaluation
or
**Attitude
*Bloom’s Learning Taxonomy and
**Brahler, Peterson and Johnson’s Instructional Goals
12
17. 17
TABLE 2: ON-LINE DESIGN COURSES
A sampling of some of the real-life and virtual universities offering courses in design related fields.
UNIVERSITY ON-LINE COURSES OFFERED
Real-Life Universities
University of Connecticut33
Typography
University of Nebraska-Lincoln34
Advertising
Parson New School35
Certificate in World Wide Web Page Design
Virtual Universities
Sessions36
Certificates:
Intro to Graphic Design
Graphic Design I
Graphic Design II
Corporate Design
Digital Typography
Advertising Design
Logo Design
Digital Imaging Using Photoshop
Intro to Web Design
Web Design I
Web Design II
Information Design for the Web
Web Type Design
Independent Offerings
Christine Castigliano37
Foundations of Design and Typography
Notably, the Sessions Web site, listed in Table 2, provides a variety of courses in design for which
students can earn a certificate of completion. (Sessions expects to become an accredited educational
institution in last quarter of 2000.) In an interview with this author, Min Ye, head of registration
for Sessions, indicated that although Sessions offers a variety of courses in design, they too are
providing only a limited interactive educational experience for their instructors and students.
In addition to marketing, administrative, and course information, the Sessions Web site’s use of
communication capabilities is limited to E-mail, Chat Rooms and distribution lists (D-Lists),
and the site presents its course content in the form of text. Video lectures are not used in the
Sessions distance learning format, due to video’s technical complexity and the students’ inability
to utilize this technology.
33
University of Connecticut Typography Course Web site. Available from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/%7Efarmstro/276/typone.html;
Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
34
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Advertising Course Web site. Available from http://www-class.unl.edu/advt498/index.html;
Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
35
Parsons New School Web site. Available from http://www.dialnsa.edu/degcert3.htm; Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
36
Sessions Web site. Available from http://www.sessions.edu/; Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
37
Christine Castigliano Foundations of Design and Typography Web site. Available from http://home.sprintmail.com/%7Eccastigliano/
design_crs/contents.html; Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
13
18. 18
An integral aspect of design courses is the need for students to display their personally created
artifacts in an on-line format for instructor comment. While this need is provided via E-mail or Chat
Rooms, it seems that this virtual feedback is limited to the final stages of a project. This contrasts
markedly with the continuous interaction that normally takes place in a design classroom. This
limited exchange of feedback will most likely affect a students’ ability to self-critique in the future
because it is the continuous interaction between instructor and student which develops a students’
design sensibilities. For example, the University of Connecticut’s Typography Web site attempts to
allow for such interaction by actually posting assignment results (not the student’s design process)
(see Figure 3.2)38
, creating a virtual class portfolio. Similarly, the Sessions Web site incorporates
student portfolios (see Figure 3.3) in addition to student and instructor biographies (see Figure 3.4).39
This level of communication regarding the display of virtual portfolios and personal biographies,
is an important aspect of an on-line course. According to Palloff and Pratt (1999), this level of
communication assists in building a sense of community, which, in turn, affects a student’s level
of satisfaction in an on-line course. (The concept of building a sense of community in an on-line
environment will be covered in more detail in Part III: Data Collection, The Importance of
Community Building.) What is does not do, however, is replicate the design studio interaction or
allow for feedback during the design process.
FIGURE 3: ON-LINE DESIGN COURSE CONTENT
A sampling of on-line design course content. For more detail see Appendix 1: On-Line Design
Course Content.
Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4
Course syllabus Student work Student portfolio Instructor Biographies
38
University of Connecticut Typography Course Web site.
39
Sessions Web site.
14
19. 19
A Gap in the On-line Learning Landscape
Reviewing the results of this search for on-line distance learning courses, this author discovered a
gap in the on-line learning landscape—an absence of on-line courses that teach design in a virtual
interactive learning environment. As stated earlier, most on-line design courses are simply content in
the form of text and images displayed on the Internet. There is no sense of face-to-face studio-like
interaction via the Internet because these courses tend to not incorporate the variety of technologies
available to make distance learning truly interactive. The content of these sites is primarily static,
and there is little sense of life or a virtual learning community. In light of this finding, this author
believes that there is an immense opportunity for discovering what types of interactivity would be
required to create a virtual interactive learning environment in which to teach design. Furthermore,
the development of such interactivity could also be utilized to instruct students in similar artifact-
based fields such as industrial design, architecture, or writing.
III. SURVEY DATAAND OBSERVATIONS
Concerns Regarding Distance Learning and Interactivity
To understand the various aspects of transitioning from a face-to-face studio environment to a
virtual learning environment, the Carnegie Mellon School of Design instructors and graduate
students were surveyed. This population was chosen because they represent a small segment of the
potential users of a virtual interactive design studio and are involved in a program in which interac-
tion is a prime focus of the educational approach. Interview questions were developed for both
instructors and students to discover a) their level of familiarity or experience with on-line distance
learning, b) their level of interest in on-line distance learning, c) the ways in which instructors
currently interact or converse with students, and d) reasons for not participating in or offering
distance learning courses. The questions were distributed via an E-mail survey, which instructors
and graduate students completed on-line. The following two sections summarize their responses.
15
20. 20
Instructor Survey Summary
Of the 34 faculty members who received the E-mail survey, 9 responded, but two terminated the
survey after a few questions due to the length of the survey. (This low response rate indicates a
lack of knowledge or a lack of interest with regards to on-line distance learning.) Instructor’s
teaching experience ranged from 1 year to 36 years; courses taught included communication design,
industrial design, photography, design computing, and drawing. Communication with students
regarding expectations and performance was reported to be provided primarily in written form (e.g.
hard copy syllabus, project assignments, and written notes attached to assignments) and face-to-face
via individual or group critiques. Instructors described a very visual component to this communica-
tion that includes their continually providing visual examples of other design work and students
creating artifacts which are then critiqued in a group studio setting.
Instructors currently utilize communication devices such as sketches, printed documentation,
video, slides, direct display, Web sites and E-mail to communicate with students. Instructors feel
that equipment availability, individual technological knowledge, cost (time and equipment),
technology quality/failure rate, lack of personal initiative, lack of technical support and overly
complex software inhibit the adoption or use of new technologies into design instruction.
Instructors use E-mail ranging from once a week to several times a day to communicate with
colleagues and students. Only two of the seven instructors had ever visited a chat room and one
of the two did so only with the help of students; both do not consider themselves regular users.
Five of the instructors were familiar with distance education but had never taken a distance
education course. One of the instructors had indirectly participated in teaching a distance
education course, and one has written about and designed a virtual architectural design studio
which utilized technologies such as ftp, CU-SEE-ME, Avistar, PicturetTel, VRML and QuickTime.
Each of these two aforementioned instructors rated their experience with teaching in a distance
learning environment as poor due to technical difficulties and lack of experience with distance
learning technologies.
16
21. 21
Only three of the seven instructors who responded to the survey recall discussing on-line distance
learning with their colleagues, and all (except one instructor) are unaware of anyone in the Carnegie
Mellon School of Design actually in the process of developing an on-line distance education course.
Five of the instructors are concerned about the lack of human interaction that they believe on-line
distance education promotes. In addition, one instructor is concerned with the amount of time it will
take to develop an on-line course or to understand the new technology required. Lastly, most instruc-
tors were generally intrigued by the idea of on-line distance learning and cited remote access and
anytime, anyplace accessibility as intriguing features of on-line distance learning. However, only one
of the seven instructors expressed an interest in exploring the possibilities of offering an on-line
distance education design course. For more detail see Appendix 2: Instructor Surveys.
Graduate Student Survey Summary
Of the 25 graduate students who received the E-mail survey, 14 responded. Students use E-mail to
communicate with instructors and colleagues ranging from once a day to continuously. Eleven of
the students have visited a chat room—with visits ranging from a one-time only visit to four times
a week. Some of these students visit chat rooms once every few months, while others have never
returned due to lack of interest. Chat rooms visited included E-circles, Friend Factory, Six Degrees,
IRC (Internet Relay Chat), Virtual Places, The Palace, Microsoft Comic Chat and Worlds Away.
Ten of the students were familiar with distance education, but only one had actually taken an on-line
distance education course via the Internet. This student was just beginning the course when she
completed the survey, so it was difficult for the student to rate her experience. Eight of the students
were interested in participating in an on-line distance learning course. However, in answering the
open-ended survey questions, students listed costs, availability, and need as reasons that inhibit their
enrollment in on-line distance education courses. Students also feared that on-line distance learning
environments would present additional problems such as increased educational costs, increased time
requirements, ineffective instruction or lack of instructor/student interaction, and inefficient techni-
cal support. Students who completed the survey were intrigued by the following benefits of
17
22. 22
distance learning: scheduling convenience, access to well-known instructors, access to students
around the globe, and the ability to participate in a course on a self-paced basis. Regarding
technology, students would prefer to see proven technologies such as video, audio, chat, tactile
feedback, B-boards, gesture recognition and virtual white boards utilized in distance learning
environments. For more detail see Appendix 3: Graduate Student Surveys.
Survey Conclusions
The survey responses provided much insight and led this author to the following four conclusions:
1) The subject of on-line distance education in the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University
is ripe for exploration as there seems to be little to no activity or discussion.
2) Cost, instructional effectiveness, and technological stability are common concerns shared
by faculty members and graduate students. Even with these concerns, however, both groups
admit an interest in distance education.
3) Various time factors—lack of time, on-line course development time, a perceived increase
in class time—inhibit faculty members or graduate students from participating in such
a learning venue.
4) Both faculty and students believe that on-line distance education promotes a lack of
human interaction between instructor and student.
The concerns/conclusions above are echoed in Part IV: Support for Building Virtual Interactive
Learning Environments of this report, which provides greater depth regarding issues of anxiety,
support and development. Given that few respondents had any actual experience in a distance
learning environment, it would seem that the final conclusion—the lack of human interaction
between instructor and student—appears to be a perception based on vague ideas about what on-line
courses are like and what level of interactivity is possible in an on-line distance learning format.
It is this final conclusion that this author is proposing to study in greater detail through a design
project. This design project should help to determine if instructor/student interaction can be
successfully replicated in a virtual learning environment.
18
23. 23
Observation of Interactive Characteristics in a Face-to-Face Design Studio
In order to understand what kinds of instructor/student interaction would need to be replicated in
a virtual interactive learning environment, this author observed a face-to-face design studio which
focused on visual communication problems and solutions. Observation of this face-to-face design
studio, generally representative of design education, offers the possibility to develop general
observations relevant to the range of courses involving interaction related to the production of
artifacts. The class, which met for two hours twice a week, was observed for a period of four weeks.
The focus of the observation was to discover what types of interaction are present in a face-to-face
design studio. This author discovered three interactive characteristics that are integral parts of the
face-to-face design studio: 1) interactive relationships, 2) physical gestures, and 3) rhythm.
Interactive Characteristic 1: Interactive Relationships
M.G. Moore (1989) as cited in Hassenplug and Harnish (1998), categorized the interaction in
distance learning situations into three types:
1) Learner-content interaction
2) Learner-instructor interaction
3) Learner-learner interaction40
Later, in 1998, Hassenplug and Harnish adapted Moore’s three types to create the following
four categories to describe a participant’s distance learning experience in a two-way interactive
audio and video learning environment:
1) Student interaction with students at their own site and with students at other sites
2) Student and faculty interaction with each other
3) Student and faculty interaction with the technology (equipment)
4) Student and faculty interaction with the course content41
40
M.G. Moore, “Three Types of Interaction,” American Journal of Distance Education (3), 1989. 1-6.
41
Camille A. Hassenplug and Dorothy Harnish, “The Nature and Importance of Interaction in Distance Education Credit Classes at
Technical Institutes,” Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1998. 596.
19
24. 24
Reflecting on Moore’s and Hassenplug and Harnish’s models, this author’s observation of a
face-to-face design studio revealed various two-way interactive relationships. Significantly,
however, three-, four-, five-, and six-way variations (see Table 3) were also observed.
TABLE 3: FACE-TO-FACE DESIGN STUDIO INTERACTIVE RELATIONSHIPS
Face-to-face design studio interactive relationships.
Key: I=Instructor, S=Student, C=Content, T=Technology, A=Artifact, TS=Technical Support Staff
Two-way Three-way Four-way Five-way Six-way
I/S I/S/C I/S/C/T I/S/C/T/A I/S/S/C/T/A
S/S S/S/C S/S/C/T
I/C I/S/T I/S/C/A
S/C S/S/T S/S/C/A
I/T I/S/A
S/T S/S/A
I/A
S/A
I/TS
S/TS
In comparison, Both Moore’s and Hassenplug and Harnish’s models exclude an instructor/student
relationship with an artifact as well as the possibility for four-, five- and six-way interaction.
Although other possibilities for interaction may exist, this is an important distinction to recognize,
as the interaction with a personally developed artifact (meaning something created by an instructor
and/or student that is not considered part of the course content but an outcome of its influence)
is critical to design instruction. In design, the making of an artifact is how students demonstrate the
application and therefore their understanding of design principles. Furthermore, the interaction of
the instructor and other students with this artifact and each other while the artifact is being developed
over a specific period of time, helps a student understand how what he or she created will exist in
20
25. 25
relationship to others or, in other words, how people will interact with the artifact. This interactive
instructional method is what ultimately helps design students to internalize various design principles
and create successful design solutions, and it is what design instructors and students expect from
design courses.
The following description of class observations illustrates these specific interactive relationships:
In the initial class this author observed, the instructor distributed an assignment to
design a museum exhibit. She did so by distributing a three page document which
gave the assignment a specific context and subject matter. Students were given the
opportunity to ask clarifying questions to better understand the instructor’s
expectations (instructor/student/content interaction). Afterwards, students were
tasked with researching the subject matter and brainstorming solutions on an
individual basis (student/content, student/technology interaction). During the
next class students presented their ideas to the class in verbal form (instructor/
student, student/student, instructor/student/content interaction). A few classes
later students presented their ideas via hand-drawn sketches (instructor/student,
student/student, instructor/student/content, instructor/student/artifact interaction).
After the student’s ideas were more detailed, they began to utilize various soft-
ware programs to illustrate their ideas (student/technology interaction). Again
the students presented their ideas to the class (instructor/student, student/student,
instructor/student/artifact interaction). As their ideas were being finalized, some
students exchanged digital files of their work with the instructor for review
(instructor/student, instructor/student/technology/artifact interaction).
It is important to note that in the description above, various three-way interactions (e.g. between the
instructor, the student and an artifact), four-way interactions (e.g. between the instructor, the student,
other students and an artifact), five-way interactions (e.g. between the instructor, the student, other
students, content and an artifact), and six-way interactions (e.g. between the instructor, the student,
21
26. 26
other students, content, an artifact and technology) exist and are critically important to the design
education process. These more complex interactive models are what differentiate face-to-face and
on-line instruction for artifact-based fields from on-line instruction for knowledge-based fields. Both
Moore’s and Hassenplug and Harnish’s models only acknowledge two-way interaction and do not
account for this three-, four-, five-, and six-way interaction, all of which add to the complexity of
teaching design on-line. In addition to the absence of three-, four-, five-, and six-way interactive
relationships, both Moore’s and Hassenplug and Harnish’s models exclude other important aspects
of classroom interaction, specifically, gesture and rhythm.
Interactive Characteristic 2: Gestures
During the initial face-to-face design studio sessions, the second interactive characteristic this author
observed was that instructors and students utilized various physical gestures (i.e. eye contact, voice,
and hand gestures) to communicate. In subsequent sessions students added physical interaction with
artifacts such as books and the creation of white board sketches to further explain their ideas. At this
point the instructor/student/student interaction increased as students struggled to understand each
other’s ideas as well as expand upon them. In the next class students brought sketches with them that
represented their proposed solutions, and the instructor and students began to physically interact with
these sketches, pointing to specific parts of the sketch and actually modifying or creating additional
sketches to capture new ideas.
Interactive Characteristic 3: Rhythm
Finally, while observing these face-to-face design studio sessions, the third interactive characteristic
this author observed was a level of rhythmic interaction (see Figure 4 for a conceptual representation
of this concept). The following description of these observations illustrates this rhythmic interaction:
Prior to class the instructor and students spoke socially. The instructor then
signaled that class was beginning by greeting everyone. Various announcements
(regarding class assignments or field trips) were made by the instructor and
then students added other announcements. The instructor then reviewed what
was assigned during the previous class and asked for volunteers to speak about
22
27. 27
their progress. After some coaxing, a
student volunteered. The student
stated her progress and then entered a
dialogue with the instructor. After-
wards, other students either raised
their hands or made eye contact with
the instructor and simply began to
speak about their reflections on the
ideas expressed. Students continued
commenting until all students had expressed their feedback. Then the instructor
summarized and/or expressed new ideas or concerns providing further feedback
to the student. The instructor then again requested a volunteer and the process
began again. After all students had participated in expressing their ideas to the
class, the instructor announced what was expected for the next class and repeated
the announcements made at the beginning of the class. Afterwards, students
continued socializing and either left the classroom or requested to speak with the
instructor one-on-one.
Implications
These observations have important implications for the design of a virtual interactive learning
environment in which to teach design. According to the surveys and face-to-face design studio
observations that were conducted at Carnegie Mellon University, an effective on-line distance
learning environment will need to replicate the interactive characteristics of the face-to-face
design studio. Notably, due to their highly interactive nature, each of these three interactive
characteristics increases the level of technical complexity needed to design a virtual interactive
learning environment thereby increasing both the complexity of the development process and
production costs. While cost is admittedly a factor, the potential for decreased costs due to
advances in technology make it practical for this thesis to focus on what technologies will most
closely replicate instructor/student interaction not, how much this replication will cost.
Figure 4
Conceptual representation of face-to-face design studio interaction.
23
28. 28
In addition to using communication tools such as E-mail, B-boards and/or Chat Rooms, this author
believes that this replication of instructor/student interaction will most likely rely heavily on
collaborative technologies that allow for real-time video as well as audio and visual communication.
As Hassenplug and Harnish (1998) argue, using compressed video over high-speed (T-1) telephone
lines can provide a two-way interactive communications line which “allows a greater degree of
visual and verbal interactivity among participants than other forms of distance learning, such a
satellite courses.”42
The Importance of Community Building
In addition to the three interactive characteristics previously mentioned, another important
component of the virtual interactive learning environment is a sense of community. Although
community is thought of as something that develops primarily via human interaction,
Palloff and Pratt (1999) argue that text and content can be used to build community at the start
of a course. For example, a course site may include the variety of elements presented in Table 4,
each serving a community building function.43
TABLE 4: COURSE CONTENT TO HELP BUILD COMMUNITY
Course content to help build a sense of community.
Class Description Describes the goals and desired outcomes for the course as well as
expectations and policies in order to create a shared understanding.
Announcements These may pertain to specific technical solutions, class outings,
or local events that support the course content.
Course Schedule A list of assignments descriptions and their due dates.
Class Members A place for the instructor and students to introduce themselves and
indicate personal interests.
Learning Links Web sites that support or extend the course content.
Technical Support/Help A support system to assist both instructors and students.
42
Hassenplug and Harnish, “The Nature and Importance of Interaction in Distance Education Credit Classes at
Technical Institutes,” 591.
43
Palloff and Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace, 12.
24
29. 29
In addition to changes in the delivery method of course content—from a face-to-face format to
an on-line distance learning format—students as well as the instructor need to be prepared for the
differences this medium presents. For example, once instructors have chosen to transition to a
virtual interactive learning environment, they need to consider how to transition not only content
but conduct. In a face-to-face classroom, instructors naturally model conduct so that students will
understand what type of conduct is acceptable and what type is unacceptable.44
When transitioning to a distance learning environment, the conduct portion of the virtual learn-
ing equation may need to be explained in more detail via text. Much like the ways in which a
physician prepares a patient for surgery by explaining in detail what a patient should expect
and establishing a sense of trust and security, educating students about the changes they may
experience in advance will help them to realize that their feelings and frustrations are recognized
and understood. Furthermore, offering responsive technical support can help them through the
difficult times and decrease the student dropout rate.45
Palloff and Pratt (1999) argue that successful
learning communities embody the following features: honesty, responsiveness, relevance, respect,
openness, and empowerment.46
In addition to community building, each of the three interactive characteristics of the face-to-face
design studio illustrates how instructors educate and students learn in this face-to-face learning
environment. Furthermore, these descriptions illustrate what type of interactions need to be
incorporated and/or replicated in a virtual design studio in order for a virtual design studio to be
considered an effective alternative to the face-to-face design studio environment. Consistent with
the instructor and student surveys, Hassenplug and Harnish (1998) argue that “One of the factors
consistently identified in the literature on distance learning as being critical to the effectiveness
44
Palloff and Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace, 20.
45
Ibid., 12.
46
Ibid., 20.
25
30. 30
of learning, which relies on distance education technology, is the amount, type, and quality
of interaction between and among participants, particularly students and the instructor.”47
However, before students can interact in a virtual design studio, other barriers, primarily
the concerns of faculty, must be considered and addressed.
IV. SUPPORT FOR BUILDING VIRTUAL INTERACTIVE
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
Other Barriers: Addressing the Concerns of Faculty
According to the Carnegie Mellon School of Design instructor survey responses, in addition to
the lack of instructor/student interaction in a distance learning environment, other barriers—
the cost of production (time, personnel and equipment), the lack of technical skills, and time
needed to develop virtual interactive learning environments—would need to also be addressed
in order for the adoption of instruction in a distance learning environment to take place.
Interestingly, the Carnegie Mellon School of Design faculty’s concerns are consistent with
statements by Brahler, Peterson and Johnson (1999), who argue that the benefits of offering
courses on-line offer great promise to students who lack the ability to attend a university due
to scheduling conflicts, geographic constraints, or financial concerns. However, in order to be
successful, institutions must realize the effects this transition will have on their faculty and
provide support to aid in this transition.48
For instructors, understanding what will be expected
of them when they want to offer an on-line course can significantly reduce the fear, anxiety
and high costs associated with such a change as well as convince instructors to further consider
offering additional on-line courses.49
47
Hassenplug and Harnish, “The Nature and Importance of Interaction in Distance Education Credit Classes at
Technical Institutes,” 592.
48
Brahler, Peterson and Johnson, “Developing on-line learning materials for higher education: An overview of current issues.”
49
Ibid.
26
31. 31
Brahler, Peterson and Johnson (1999) bring to light the “unrealistic expectations” that university
administrations and the public often have that faculty should be capable of single-handedly
converting their own teaching materials into a multimedia-rich, computer-based format for distance
education and argue that universities as a whole need to explore the possibilities of providing
assistance to their faculty in order to successfully meet distance education goals.50
The shortcomings
associated with faculty attempting to convert their own materials are as follows:
1) Institutions do not generally provide faculty release time from other responsibilities
to allow for course conversion.
2) Faculty generally lack the comprehensive technical skills needed to develop
distance learning materials that both stimulate and accommodate the students needs.
3) Individual-developer approaches do not disperse capitalization cost among various
projects, thus further escalating development costs.51
These first two shortcomings were also raised in the Carnegie Mellon School of Design instructor
surveys. In light of these shortcomings, universities that want to begin the transition to offering
distance learning programs may want to first provide support to address these shortcomings because
without this support, faculty will most likely continue to offer their courses utilizing traditional
educational means and methods. The third shortcoming, regarding capitalization costs will be
addressed in more detail in Part IV: Support for Building Virtual Interactive Learning Environments,
Building a Support System.
Addressing Anxiety and Introducing Change
In addition to addressing the shortcomings noted above, universities must realize the anxiety
that a change of this magnitude creates for faculty and work to first support the visionaries or
50
Brahler, Peterson and Johnson, “Developing on-line learning materials for higher education: An overview of current issues.”
51
Ibid.
27
32. 32
early adopters, who may occasionally require technical support,52
and secondly educate and
support the laggards or skeptics53
, who may need extensive training and technical support
in order to transition to a virtual interactive learning environment.
Overall, it is important to understand, as Hassenplug and Harnish note, that in essence, “distance
learning removes the instructor from direct, immediate, physical contact with students, thereby
creating a learning environment and circumstances different from that typically experienced by
teachers and learners in traditional, face-to-face education settings. This separation by distance
means that interactions are mediated and altered by the technology used to connect host and remote
locations for learning. This separation by distance creates a unique challenge for teaching and
learning, one that requires different interactive skills and understanding by all participants.”54
Notably, this is a change for instructors who were most likely trained in a face-to-face setting
and view this face-to-face learning environment as necessary to appropriate design education.
Although some instructors may cling to established methods and resist change, the preference
for face-to-face interaction can have a number of possible sources, all of which need to be taken
seriously. It may, for example, simply reflect the instructor’s desire to use methods that he/she
has experience with and considers effective but it is also possible that instructors may continue
to utilize traditional methods due to a lack of information about how to incorporate new on-line
interactive options into their course. Finally, instructors may simply feel that these new on-line
methods of instruction can’t compete, replicate or support their course content.
According to Brahler, Peterson, and Johnson (1999), educating faculty members about the changes
they may incur when adopting distance learning as an educational method, as well as understanding
the process of distance learning course development or conversion, should help to create a more
stable and transformative environment.
52
Geoffrey A. Moore, Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers,
(New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), 33.
53
Ibid., 54.
54
Hassenplug and Harnish, “The Nature and Importance of Interaction in Distance Education Credit Classes at
Technical Institutes,” 592.
28
33. 33
As Hassenplug and Harnish (1998) note, “understanding how the technology of two-way interactive
audio and video classes changes, constrains, and redefines the nature of interaction among students
and between faculty and students is an essential first step in reexamining how teacher and learner
roles are changed by technology-mediated distance learning environments. It can also provide a
basis for making appropriate and effective adjustments that enhance, rather than detract from,
the learning experience in distance education.”55
This technological understanding can also help
to guard against negative impacts and avoid two problematic situations that can occur when
universities and faculty are not adequately prepared for the transition to on-line education.
For example, in cases where computer-based training completely replaces traditional classroom
laboratories, faculty members can be transformed into activity monitors who are tasked with moni-
toring the distance learning classroom activity, conversing with students via E-mail, B-boards, and
Chat Rooms, and continually updating the course content. In cases where computer-based training
supplements traditional classroom laboratories, faculty members can too frequently be burdened
with the double task of maintaining not only classroom activities but the distance learning environ-
ments as well. If the interaction is not planned well, these types of interaction can lead to an inordi-
nate amount of work for both faculty and students, and course effectiveness can suffer.56
Building a Support System
In light of existing barriers, anxiety, and the possibility of such negative outcomes, we must be
realistic about our expectations of adoption for this new on-line distance learning medium as each
technology alone requires an expert understanding of the technology in order to use it effectively—
and many of these new solutions will involve multiple technologies.
55
Hassenplug and Harnish, “The Nature and Importance of Interaction in Distance Education Credit Classes at Technical Institutes,”
592-593.
56
Brahler, Peterson and Johnson, “Developing on-line learning materials for higher education: An overview of current issues.”
29
34. 34
Palloff and Pratt (1999) argue that “As academic institutions are moving rapidly toward the use
of the Internet to offer courses and programs, as well as to develop virtual universities, instructors
must be trained and supported as they move into this arena. We cannot assume that all faculty,
regardless of how well they perform in the classroom, will be able to make this transition easily,
just as we cannot assume that all students will fare well.”57
Providing professional assistance for faculty and utilizing a tested development process in addition
to openly discussing the advantages and disadvantages of adopting on-line distance learning
technologies as an educational medium should help to alleviate fear and establish an environment
conducive to the efficient and professional production of effective on-line distance learning
courses. Furthermore, providing a professional and supportive environment for faculty reduces
capitalization costs and opens the door to additional course conversion or to the incorporation
of new instructional technologies into the face-to-face classroom.
For example, in order to more successfully promote distance learning as an educational
medium and disperse capitalization costs, Brahler, Peterson, and Johnson (1999) recommend
that universities consider the following two ideas:
1) Create a university center for distance education and employ professional distance
education personnel who will promote distance education technologies as well as educate,
train, and support faculty who are interested in offering their courses at a distance, and students
who are interested in participating in on-line distance learning courses. Table 5 presents
a proposed list of personnel for a university center for distance learning based on an initial
idea from Brahler, Peterson and Johnson but expanded to include other necessary personnel
based on this author’s readings and professional experience.
57
Palloff and Pratt, Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace, xvii.
30
35. 35
Initially, hiring professional distance education personnel may be costly. However, as a development
process is perfected and digital templates accumulate, the cost of offering distance learning courses
will most likely decrease.
2) Adopt and continually improve upon a development process.58
For an example of a development
process for distance learning course development or course conversion see Table 6.
TABLE 5: PROFESSIONAL DISTANCE EDUCATION PERSONNEL
A proposed list of personnel for the University Center for Distance Learning.
Personnel Responsibility
Director* Provide technical and pedagogical expertise
Pubic Relations Manager Communicate with administration, faculty and students
Project Managers* Coordinate projects and meet deliverables
Faculty/Domain Expert* Provide subject matter expertise
Content Developers/Writers Assist in writing course content
Instructional Designers Provide pedagogical expertise and implement design
Interaction Designers Provide user interaction expertise and implement design
Video and Audio Technicians Provide technical expertise
Student Technicians Provide implementation assistance
Technical Support Assistance Provide technical problem solving assistance
* Brahler, Peterson and Johnson’s initial personnel recommendations.
31
36. 36
TABLE 6: 12-STEP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
12-step process for distance learning course development or course conversion.59
Step 7: Courseware Integration
- Combine multimedia
- Implement modules in the electronic domain
Step 8: Electronic Storyboard Edit
- Edit content
Step 9: Rapid Prototype Test
- Pilot test on audience
- Establish deliver methods
Step 10: Adjustments and Mass Production
- Pilot test second generation prototypes on audience
- Incorporate adjustments and process to mass production
- Develop work flowcharts for organization of
mass production
Step 11: Full-Scale Implementation
Step 12: Upgrade & Maintain
- Complete formative and summative evaluations
- Incorporate changes
- Continually evaluate
- Continually address user support issues and
automate redundant responses
Step 1: Courseware Specification
- Specify target audience
- Determine need
- Determined technology accessibility issues for
developers and audience
Step 2: Scope of Project
- Define long term development
- Define proposed development
Step 3: Resource Summary
- Specify who will be needed to complete the project
- Specify equipment needed to complete the project
- Estimate time
Step 4: Content Development
- Outline course content
- Write instructional objectives
- Develop overall instructional design
- Select templates
Step 5: Storyboard Templates
Step 6: Rapid Prototype
- Include representation of each function
- Test feasibility and functionality
- Search for reuse items
58
Brahler, Peterson and Johnson, “Developing on-line learning materials for higher education: An overview of current issues.”
59
Ibid.
32
37. 37
Brahler, Peterson, and Johnson’s development process closely resembles many of today’s interactive
design development processes, which recommend the following phases: planning, development,
prototyping, technical and user testing, editing, implementation, upgrading and maintaining, all of
which are crucial to creating useful interactive systems.60
Utilizing this process should help universi-
ties move beyond the current state of on-line distance learning courses—which generally provide
knowledge acquisition only courses as opposed to courses that reach Bloom’s sixth classification of
evaluation—and create a setting conducive to discovering how the complex instructional interactions
of instructors and students can be replicated in an on-line distance learning environment.
V. CONCLUSION
Interaction designers can expect to be increasingly faced with the problem of designing for virtual
interactive learning experiences due to today’s knowledge-based society, business’ demand for
college-educated employees who embrace lifelong learning, and the increasing pressure for
“edutainment” to educate our youth. This author has attempted to bring to light the immense
opportunity for interaction design in the creation of on-line distance learning experiences, and the
support systems needed to take advantage of this opportunity.
As the need for on-line courses, corporate training, and “edutainment,” increase, so too will the
need for interaction designers (in addition to instructional technologist, instructional designers and
communications designers) who understand the realm of distance learning and effective interaction
design. In order to prepare interaction design students to design these learning environments, further
research to explore the possibilities of actually teaching design in an on-line environment is needed.
Teaching design via an on-line interactive distance learning environment can provide interactive
design students with the opportunity to develop critical assessment regarding the types of interaction
characteristics necessary to producing an effective on-line learning environment and experience.
60
Brahler, Peterson and Johnson, “Developing on-line learning materials for higher education: An overview of current issues.”
33
38. 38
Allowing interactive design students to interact in a virtual educational environment creates a space
where they can not only learn about interactive design but also learn to analyze their experience as a
user of a virtual educational environment. Additionally, virtual interactive learning environments can
be viewed as “virtual places” where learning not only takes place, but, where the process of learning
is recorded. The interactions and the outcomes of an on-line design course can be housed
in these virtual places, creating an immediate portfolio not only for students but for instructors and
distance learning researchers as well.
These virtual interactive distance learning environments create a special concern for the
interaction between instructor and student. Educating interactive design students to understand
this particular interactive concern via an actual on-line distance learning experience in a virtual
interactive design studio can greatly increase the student’s ability to design effective on-line
distance learning courses and environments.
Although not thoroughly inclusive, the interactive characteristics of the face-to-face design studio
can serve as an example of a complex learning environment in which all classifications of Bloom’s
learning taxonomy are encountered. Further research to discover how to technologically replicate
this level of interactive complexity in education can lead to better on-line distance learning
experiences as well as a more interactive internet in general.
Finally, as time has progressed, the distribution of knowledge has adopted well to newly discovered
communication mediums. From cave drawings, to stories, to film, we have tended to adopt these
new means of communication as tools to further distribute knowledge. We have discovered that
the adaptation of these various communication mediums improves our understanding of the
world around us, thereby increasing our ability to move beyond our current level of knowledge.
34
39. 39
The Internet, today’s newest communications medium, offers the ability to distribute knowledge
to the masses. How well we utilize this ability to communicate and distribute knowledge will
inevitably affect our future. As Lord Bacon, long ago asserted “the art of well-delivering the
knowledge we possess is among the secrets left to be discovered by future generations.”61
61
As quoted in Horace Mann’s, On the Art of Teaching, (Canada: Applewood Books, 1989), 15.
35
40. 40
WORKS CITED
Brahler, C. Jayne, Nils S. Peterson and Emily C. Johnson, “Developing on-line learning materials for
higher education: An overview of current issues,” Educational Technology & Society, 11
March 1999; [periodical on-line]; available from http://ifets.gmd.de/periodical/vol_2_99/
jayne_brahler.html; Internet; accessed 19 April 1999.
Byrne, John. “The Search for the Young and Gifted,” Business Week, 4 October 1999.
Carnegie Mellon University Web site. Available from http://www.cmu.edu:80/home/education/
education_distance.html; Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
Christine Castigliano Foundations of Design and Typography Web site. Available from http://
home.sprintmail.com/%7Eccastigliano/design_crs/contents.html; Internet; accessed 29
November 1999.
Clark, Brian L. “Getting a Degree via Your PC,” Money.com, Fall 1998.
Hassenplug, Camille A. and Dorothy Harnish, “The Nature and Importance of Interaction in
Distance Education Credit Classes at Technical Institutes,” Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 1998.
James Atherton Web site. Bloom’s Learning Taxonomy. Available from http://websites.ntl.com/
~james.atherton/learning/bloomtax.htm; Internet; accessed 2 December 1999.
Jones International Web site. Available from http://www.jonesinternational.edu/; Internet;
accessed 29 November 1999.
Mann, Horace On the Art of Teaching, (Canada: Applewood Books, 1989).
Medhat, Sa’ ad. “Educating in a Digital Future,” The Times Higher Education Supplement,
11 September 1998.
Moore, Geoffrey A. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to
Mainstream Customers, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1999).
Moore, M.G. “Three Types of Interaction,” American Journal of Distance Education (3), 1989.
Morris, Kathleen. “Wiring the Ivory Tower,” Business Week, 9 August 1999.
New York University Web site. Available from http://www.nyu.edu/pubs/wsn/99/10/20/
NCoursesOnline.htm; Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
Palloff, Rena M. and Keith Pratt. Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace, (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999).
Parsons New School Web site. Available from http://www.dialnsa.edu/degcert3.htm; Internet;
accessed 29 November 1999.
96
41. 41
Peter Drucker Foundation Web site. Available from http://www.pfdf.org/; Internet; accessed
10 July 1999.
Sessions Web site. Available from http://www.sessions.edu/; Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
Stanford University Web site. Available from http://stanford-online.stanford.edu/; Internet; accessed
29 November 1999.
University of Connecticut Typography Course Web site. Available from http://www.sp.uconn.edu/
%7Efarmstro/276/typone.html; Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
University of Maryland University College Web site. Available from http://www.umuc.edu/prog/
gsmt/gsmtdist/oldg.html; Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
University of Pheonix Web site. Available from http://online.uophx.edu/Default.asp; Internet;
accessed 29 November 1999.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Advertising Course Web site. Available from http://www-
class.unl.edu/advt498/index.html; Internet; accessed 29 November 1999.
Weber, Joseph. “School is Never Out,” Business Week, 4 October 1999.
WestEd: Distance Learning Resource Network Web site. Bloom’s Learning Taxonomy.
Available from http://www.wested.org/tie/dlrn/blooms.html; Internet; accessed 2 December
1999.
Zlatos, Bill. “Distance Learning Becoming More Popular,” Pittsburgh Tribune Review,
26 November 1999.
97
