• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Basic principles of interaction for learning in web based environment
 

Basic principles of interaction for learning in web based environment

on

  • 771 views

This is a study on interaction theory prepared for EDDE 804, Ed. D. in Distance Education at Athabasca University, Canada.

This is a study on interaction theory prepared for EDDE 804, Ed. D. in Distance Education at Athabasca University, Canada.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
771
Views on SlideShare
771
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

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

    Basic principles of interaction for learning in web based environment Basic principles of interaction for learning in web based environment Presentation Transcript

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