Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009

The Interaction Equivalency Theorem and its Implications in Blended Learning,[object Object],Terumi Miyazoe, PhD,[object Object],Tokyo Denki University,[object Object]

Presentation Outline,[object Object],Key concepts,[object Object],Interaction,[object Object],Interaction Equivalency Theorem,[object Object],Conceptualization ,[object Object],Research,[object Object],Method,[object Object],Results,[object Object],Implications,[object Object],Conclusion,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],2,[object Object]

Interaction: A definition,[object Object],Interactions are ,[object Object], “reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions. Interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence each other”,[object Object], Wagner (1994, p.8),[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],3,[object Object]

Modes of interaction,[object Object],Moore (1989): Three-part model of interaction,[object Object],learner-content,[object Object],learner-instructor,[object Object],learner-learner,[object Object],Anderson & Garrison (1998): Modes of interaction in distance education,[object Object],teacher-teacher,[object Object],content-content,[object Object],teacher-content,[object Object],Anderson (2003): (Interaction) Equivalency Theorem,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],4,[object Object]

Anderson & Garrison’s Interaction Theory Typology (1998),[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],5,[object Object]

Interaction Equivalency Theorem (Terry Anderson, 2003a),[object Object],Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student-teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience. ,[object Object],High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as cost or time effective as less interactive learning sequences. ,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],6,[object Object]

Thesis 1: Quality ,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],7,[object Object],(Miyazoe & Anderson, 2009),[object Object]

Thesis 2: Quantity ,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],8,[object Object],(Miyazoe & Anderson, 2009),[object Object]

Research questions,[object Object],Is it possible to quantify the preferred interaction element of teacher- student-content?,[object Object],Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the learners?,[object Object],Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the learning modes? ,[object Object],Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the content orientations?,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],9,[object Object]

Participants ,[object Object],Students of four universities,[object Object],Three in Tokyo n = 200 (University A, B, C),[object Object],One in Taipei n = 36 (University D),[object Object],Gender ratio: 64.3 % males, 36.4 % females,[object Object],Age: mostly 18 to 23 ,[object Object],Subjects: ,[object Object],English (Tokyo groups) ,[object Object],Japanese (Taipei groups),[object Object],Instructors: ,[object Object],One Japanese and one British (Tokyo groups),[object Object],Two Japanese (Taipei groups),[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],10,[object Object]

Crossover design,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],11,[object Object],Univ. A and B taught by Instructor A: a Japanese teaching English to Japanese,[object Object],Univ. C by Instructor C: a British teaching English to Japanese,[object Object],Univ. D by two Instructors D1 and D2: Japanese teaching Japanese to Taiwanese,[object Object]

Learning contexts,[object Object],Similarities ,[object Object],LMS-based blended learning,[object Object],Constant implementation of forum discussions*,[object Object],Foreign language learning,[object Object],Differences,[object Object],Blended learning exposure: 15 weeks (Univ. A and D), 30 weeks (Univ. B), 10 weeks (Univ. C),[object Object],English levels varying; highest with Univ. C, B, and A ,[object Object],Japanese levels varying from advanced to low-intermediate within Univ. D,[object Object],*For a data set with Univ. B, a blog was also included. ,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],12,[object Object]

Method ,[object Object],Instrument: Interaction Equivalency Theorem Indicator (Miyazoe, 2009) ⇒ to test Interaction Equivalency Theorem Thesis 1,[object Object],Comparative structure: ,[object Object],General perceptions,[object Object],Comparison between F2F vs. online modes,[object Object],Language vs. general education (underlying skill-oriented vs. knowledge-oriented),[object Object],Specific perceptions to the course they were taking in this study (⇒ blended learning),[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],13,[object Object]

Hypotheses,[object Object],If one of interaction is valued over the others, students could rank the three interaction elements, with the ranking one to be the most valued. ,[object Object],Customizing a course design of varied focus fitting the priority order could produce higher learning and least cost and time efficiently.,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],14,[object Object]

Implementation,[object Object],Fall 2007, winter 2007, spring 2008 ,[object Object],End of the course period,[object Object],Paper-and-pen format,[object Object],Informed consent for analysis and publication,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],15,[object Object]

Six patterns of interaction priority order ,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],16,[object Object]

Results 1: Traditional vs. Blended,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],17,[object Object]

Results 2: F2F vs. Online,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],18,[object Object]

Results 3: Skills vs. Content,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],19,[object Object]

Results 4: Instructor variable,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],20,[object Object]

Results 5: Age variable,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],21,[object Object],(age),[object Object],(age),[object Object]

Summary ,[object Object],Is it possible to quantify the preferred interaction element of teacher- student-content? ⇒Yes.,[object Object],Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the learners? ⇒Yes, and some patterns are recognized. There is not large difference between Japan and Taiwan. ,[object Object],Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the learning modes?⇒ Yes. F2F: teacher, online: content, blended: less teacher presence with higher student interaction,[object Object],Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the content orientations? ⇒ Yes. Language: human interaction, knowledge: teacher & content ,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],22,[object Object]

Implications ,[object Object],Interaction Equivalency Theorem ,[object Object],Thesis 1 (quality): seems yes,[object Object],Thesis 2 (quantity): seems yes but need more research,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],23,[object Object],(Miyazoe & Anderson, 2009),[object Object]

Limitations ,[object Object],Limited sample size,[object Object],Limited contexts,[object Object],Limited experience of learners,[object Object],More critical factors may be missing ,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],24,[object Object]

Further suggestions,[object Object],Testing the Interaction Equivalency Theorem Indicator under different contexts with a different pair of comparison,[object Object],⇒ more factors can be detected,[object Object],Pre-/post assessment to a specific learning mode and subject to improve the course design meeting the needs and expectations of the learners,[object Object],⇒higher effectiveness and higher efficiency (= cost and time),[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],25,[object Object]

References ,[object Object],Anderson, T. (2003a, October). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). ,[object Object],Anderson, T. (2003b). Modes of Interaction in Distance Education: Recent Developments and Research Questions. In D. M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 129-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ,[object Object],Anderson, T. D. & Garrison, R. D. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education (pp. 97-112). Madison, Wisconsin: Atwood Publishing.,[object Object],Garrison, R. D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. ,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],26,[object Object]

References (cont’d) ,[object Object],Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1990). A new framework and perspective. In D. R. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: From issues to practice (pp. 123-133). Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company. Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. ,[object Object],Miyazoe, T. , & Anderson, T. (2009). The Interaction Equivalency Theorem. MDE course paper. ,[object Object],Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.,[object Object],Wagner, E. D. (1994). In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-26. ,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],27,[object Object]

Thank you very much!,[object Object],15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland,[object Object],28,[object Object]

Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009

Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot(17)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked(6)

Similar to Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009

Similar to Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009(20)

More from Terumi Miyazoe (tell me, miya zoe)

More from Terumi Miyazoe (tell me, miya zoe)(7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded(20)

Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009