A research report on Dr Terry Anderson's (2003) interaction equivalency theorem in blended learning in Japan and Taiwan. Learners' perceived needs for various types of interaction by different learning modes -- face-to-face (F2F) vs online vs blended learning -- learning contents are quantifiably presented.

1. The Interaction Equivalency Theorem and its Implications in Blended Learning Terumi Miyazoe, PhD Tokyo Denki University

2. Presentation Outline Key concepts Interaction Interaction Equivalency Theorem Conceptualization Research Method Results Implications Conclusion 15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland 2

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

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

5. Anderson & Garrison’s Interaction Theory Typology (1998) 15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland 5

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

7. Thesis 1: Quality 15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland 7 (Miyazoe & Anderson, 2009)

8. Thesis 2: Quantity 15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland 8 (Miyazoe & Anderson, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. Six patterns of interaction priority order 15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland 16

17. Results 1: Traditional vs. Blended 15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland 17

18. Results 2: F2F vs. Online 15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland 18

19. Results 3: Skills vs. Content 15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland 19

20. Results 4: Instructor variable 15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland 20

21. Results 5: Age variable 15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland 21 (age) (age)

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

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

24. Limitations Limited sample size Limited contexts Limited experience of learners More critical factors may be missing 15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland 24

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

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

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

28. Thank you very much! 15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland 28