Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009

2,092 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Technology, Education

Interaction Equivalency Theorem - 15th Sloan-C 2009

  1. 1. The Interaction Equivalency Theorem and its Implications in Blended Learning<br />Terumi Miyazoe, PhD<br />Tokyo Denki University<br />
  2. 2. Presentation Outline<br />Key concepts<br />Interaction<br />Interaction Equivalency Theorem<br />Conceptualization <br />Research<br />Method<br />Results<br />Implications<br />Conclusion<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />2<br />
  3. 3. Interaction: A definition<br />Interactions are <br /> “reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions. Interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence each other”<br /> Wagner (1994, p.8)<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />3<br />
  4. 4. Modes of interaction<br />Moore (1989): Three-part model of interaction<br />learner-content<br />learner-instructor<br />learner-learner<br />Anderson & Garrison (1998): Modes of interaction in distance education<br />teacher-teacher<br />content-content<br />teacher-content<br />Anderson (2003): (Interaction) Equivalency Theorem<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />4<br />
  5. 5. Anderson & Garrison’s Interaction Theory Typology (1998)<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />5<br />
  6. 6. Interaction Equivalency Theorem (Terry Anderson, 2003a)<br />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. <br />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. <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />6<br />
  7. 7. Thesis 1: Quality <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />7<br />(Miyazoe & Anderson, 2009)<br />
  8. 8. Thesis 2: Quantity <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />8<br />(Miyazoe & Anderson, 2009)<br />
  9. 9. Research questions<br />Is it possible to quantify the preferred interaction element of teacher- student-content?<br />Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the learners?<br />Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the learning modes? <br />Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the content orientations?<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />9<br />
  10. 10. Participants <br />Students of four universities<br />Three in Tokyo n = 200 (University A, B, C)<br />One in Taipei n = 36 (University D)<br />Gender ratio: 64.3 % males, 36.4 % females<br />Age: mostly 18 to 23 <br />Subjects: <br />English (Tokyo groups) <br />Japanese (Taipei groups)<br />Instructors: <br />One Japanese and one British (Tokyo groups)<br />Two Japanese (Taipei groups)<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />10<br />
  11. 11. Crossover design<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />11<br />Univ. A and B taught by Instructor A: a Japanese teaching English to Japanese<br />Univ. C by Instructor C: a British teaching English to Japanese<br />Univ. D by two Instructors D1 and D2: Japanese teaching Japanese to Taiwanese<br />
  12. 12. Learning contexts<br />Similarities <br />LMS-based blended learning<br />Constant implementation of forum discussions*<br />Foreign language learning<br />Differences<br />Blended learning exposure: 15 weeks (Univ. A and D), 30 weeks (Univ. B), 10 weeks (Univ. C)<br />English levels varying; highest with Univ. C, B, and A <br />Japanese levels varying from advanced to low-intermediate within Univ. D<br />*For a data set with Univ. B, a blog was also included. <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />12<br />
  13. 13. Method <br />Instrument: Interaction Equivalency Theorem Indicator (Miyazoe, 2009) ⇒ to test Interaction Equivalency Theorem Thesis 1<br />Comparative structure: <br />General perceptions<br />Comparison between F2F vs. online modes<br />Language vs. general education (underlying skill-oriented vs. knowledge-oriented)<br />Specific perceptions to the course they were taking in this study (⇒ blended learning)<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />13<br />
  14. 14. Hypotheses<br />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. <br />Customizing a course design of varied focus fitting the priority order could produce higher learning and least cost and time efficiently.<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />14<br />
  15. 15. Implementation<br />Fall 2007, winter 2007, spring 2008 <br />End of the course period<br />Paper-and-pen format<br />Informed consent for analysis and publication<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />15<br />
  16. 16. Six patterns of interaction priority order <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />16<br />
  17. 17. Results 1: Traditional vs. Blended<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />17<br />
  18. 18. Results 2: F2F vs. Online<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />18<br />
  19. 19. Results 3: Skills vs. Content<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />19<br />
  20. 20. Results 4: Instructor variable<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />20<br />
  21. 21. Results 5: Age variable<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />21<br />(age)<br />(age)<br />
  22. 22. Summary <br />Is it possible to quantify the preferred interaction element of teacher- student-content? ⇒Yes.<br />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. <br />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<br />Does the preferred interaction element assuring learning quality differ depending on the content orientations? ⇒ Yes. Language: human interaction, knowledge: teacher & content <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />22<br />
  23. 23. Implications <br />Interaction Equivalency Theorem <br />Thesis 1 (quality): seems yes<br />Thesis 2 (quantity): seems yes but need more research<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />23<br />(Miyazoe & Anderson, 2009)<br />
  24. 24. Limitations <br />Limited sample size<br />Limited contexts<br />Limited experience of learners<br />More critical factors may be missing <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />24<br />
  25. 25. Further suggestions<br />Testing the Interaction Equivalency Theorem Indicator under different contexts with a different pair of comparison<br />⇒ more factors can be detected<br />Pre-/post assessment to a specific learning mode and subject to improve the course design meeting the needs and expectations of the learners<br />⇒higher effectiveness and higher efficiency (= cost and time)<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />25<br />
  26. 26. References <br />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). <br />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. <br />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.<br />Garrison, R. D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />26<br />
  27. 27. References (cont’d) <br />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. <br />Miyazoe, T. , & Anderson, T. (2009). The Interaction Equivalency Theorem. MDE course paper. <br />Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.<br />Wagner, E. D. (1994). In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-26. <br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />27<br />
  28. 28. Thank you very much!<br />15th Sloan-C 2009 Orland<br />28<br />

×