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.

The Interaction Equivalency Theorem_20110805

1,876 views

Published on

Published in: Design, Education
  • Be the first to comment

The Interaction Equivalency Theorem_20110805

  1. 1. The Interaction Equivalency Theorem: Research Potential and Application in Teaching<br />Terumi Miyazoe, PhD<br />Tokyo Denki University<br />The Open University of Japan<br />Terry Anderson, PhD<br />Athabasca University<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />1<br />
  2. 2. Outline<br />Review of the Interaction Equivalency Theorem  <br />History of interaction in distance learning<br />The Modes of Interaction by Anderson and Garrison (1998) <br />The Interaction Equivalency Theorem by Anderson (2003) <br /> <br />Research on the Interaction Equivalency Theorem  <br />Meta-analysis by Bernard et al. (2010) <br />Empirical application by Miyazoe and Anderson (2010) <br />Discussions<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />2<br />
  3. 3. 2010 Publications<br />The Interaction Equivalency Theorem<br />Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 94- 104, available at http://www.ncolr.org/<br />Empirical Research on Learners’ Perceptions: Interaction Equivalency Theorem in Blended Learning<br />European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, available at http://www.eurodl.org/<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />3<br />
  4. 4. Interaction<br />Adefinition: <br />“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)<br />(At least) two agents<br />Reciprocity, mutuality <br />Human and nonhuman<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />4<br />
  5. 5. Three Types of Interaction (Moore, 1989)<br />The first systematic clarification of interaction in distance education having three essential components of: <br />learner–content, <br />learner–instructor, and<br />learner–learner interaction<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />5<br />
  6. 6. The Modes of Interaction by Anderson and Garrison (1998)<br />6<br />The CoI model<br />(Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000)<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />
  7. 7. Comparison<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />7<br />Multi-agents’ view points, including nonhuman agents<br />Others:<br />Learner-Interface (Hillman et al, 1994)<br />Learner-Environment<br />(Burnham and Walden, 1997)<br />Vicarious Interaction<br />(Sutton, 2000)<br />Learner’s view point<br />
  8. 8. The Interaction Equivalency Theorem by Anderson (2003)<br />Thesis 1. 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 />Thesis 2. High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, although these experiences may not be as cost- or time effective as less interactive learning sequences.<br />      <br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />8<br />
  9. 9. Thesis 1 Visualization<br />Quality<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />9<br />
  10. 10. Thesis 2 Visualization<br />Quantity<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />10<br />
  11. 11. Closed vs. Open Systems<br />Thesis 1: Closed system<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />11<br />
  12. 12. Closed vs. Open Systems<br />Thesis 2: Open system<br />A guest lecturer <br />Student forum discussions<br />Online resources<br />+<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />12<br />
  13. 13. Bernard et al. <br />Bernard, M. R., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289. <br />Bernard, M. R., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439. <br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />13<br />
  14. 14. Meta-analysis<br />A definition: Used to “summarize, integrate, and interpret selected sets of scholarly works in the various disciplines” (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p.2)<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />14<br />
  15. 15. Meta-analysis<br /><ul><li>Empirical research
  16. 16. Quantitative findings
  17. 17. Comparability
  18. 18. Coding
  19. 19. Comparison groups
  20. 20. Effect size</li></ul>Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />15<br />
  21. 21. Bernard et al. (2009)<br />Distance education courses<br />1985 - 2006 <br />6,000->77 studies <br />Interaction Treatment (IT) ≒Interaction dyad<br />Student-Student (SS)<br />Student-Content (SC)<br />Student-Teacher (ST)<br />Thesis 1 (Value/Importance) ≒Quality<br />Thesis 2 (Strength/Magnitude) ≒Quantity<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />16<br />
  22. 22. Bernard’s Main Findings <br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />17<br />
  23. 23. Bernard’s Summary<br />SS and SC>STfor both achievement and attitude <br />Combinations of SS+SC and ST+SCincrease achievement<br />Combination of SS+STand attitude items does not increase effectiveness. <br />-> Both Theses 1 and 2 are supported. <br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />18<br />
  24. 24. Doctoral Studies<br />Rhode (2008 January): Capella University<br />Self-paced online course for adult learners<br />ST + SC combination was the most valued<br />Equal value for ST and SC, but not SS interaction<br /> -> Consistent to Bernard’s study<br />Byers (2010 November): Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University<br />Self-paced online teacher professional development course<br />-> Support Thesis 1 (content is valued the most)<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />19<br />
  25. 25. The Theorem<br />Equivalency Theorem (Anderson, 2003)<br />Interaction Equivalency (Rhode, 2008)<br />Interaction Equivalency Theorem (Miyazoe and Anderson, 2010)<br />Equivalency of Interaction Theorem (Byers, 2010)<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />20<br />
  26. 26. Miyazoe and Anderson (2010)<br />N = 236 (four universities: 11 classes: four instructors)<br />Survey research<br />Perceptions about quality learning assurance interaction element <br />Quality learning ≒ Deep and meaningful learning experience<br />Experienced blended learning<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />21<br />
  27. 27. Six Patterns of Priority Order of Interaction Equivalency Theorem<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />22<br />
  28. 28. Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />23<br /><ul><li>Learning modes
  29. 29. Subject orientations</li></li></ul><li>Research Hypotheses<br />If Anderson’s theses are valid, <br />respondents will value one type of interaction over the others<br />they could rank the three interaction elements, having one to be the most valued than the other two and the second to be more valued than the third. <br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />24<br />
  30. 30. Learning Modes <br />25<br />*TSC: Teacher-Student-Content<br />Important<br />Unimportant<br />CST<br />Face-to-face<br />Blended<br />Online<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />
  31. 31. Subject Orientations <br />26<br />Important<br />Unimportant<br />Skill-oriented<br />Knowledge-oriented<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />
  32. 32. Terumi and Terry’s Findings<br />Students could name one interaction that was valued greater than the others.<br />Students could rank the order of priority for the three interactions. <br />-> Both Theses 1 and 2 are supported. <br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />27<br />
  33. 33. Presentation Summary<br />As regards to Anderson’s Interaction Equivalency Theorem, this presentation: <br />clarified its historical position<br />articulated its two core theses<br />supported its validity. <br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />28<br />
  34. 34. Discussions <br />Learning design<br />Exploration of different interaction designs in accordance with specific teaching and learning contexts<br />Different disciplinary knowledge may demand different interaction designs for highest effectiveness and efficiency<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />29<br />
  35. 35. Further Research<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />30<br />Further topics<br />Examination of cost and time issues<br />Determination of essential parameters<br />Meta-analysis since 2006<br />
  36. 36. Equivalency Theorem Website<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />31<br />URL: equivalencytheorem.info<br />
  37. 37. Thank you for your attention!<br />Your Comments/Questions Welcomed<br />t.miyazoe@mail.dendai.ac.jp<br />terrya@athabascau.ca<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />32<br />
  38. 38. Works Cited<br />Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore, & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 129-144). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. <br />Anderson, T., & Garrison, R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 97-112). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing. <br />Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230. <br />Bernard, M. R., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289. <br />Burnham, B. R., and Walden, B. (1997). Interactions in Distance Education: A report from the other side. Paper presented at the 1997 Adult Education Research Conference. Stillwater, Oklahoma. Retrieved May 30, 2004, from: http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/aerc/1997/97burnham.html<br />Byers, A. S. (2010). Examining learner-content interaction importance and efficacy in online, self-directed electronic professional development in science for elementary educators in grades three – six. (Doctoral Dissertation). The Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia, US. <br />Hillman, D., D. Willis, and C. N. Gunawardena. 1994. Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education 8 (2): 30-42.<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />33<br />
  39. 39. Works Cited (Cont’d)<br />Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta- analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. <br />Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010a). The interaction equivalency theorem. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 94-104, available at http://www.ncolr.org/<br />Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010b). Empirical research on learners’ perceptions: Interaction Equivalency Theorem in blended learning<br />European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, available at http://www.eurodl.org/<br />Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. <br />Rhode, J. F. (2008). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. (Doctoral Dissertation; AAT 3291462). Capella University. <br />Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. Interactional Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/603/1178 <br />Sutton, L. (2000). Vicarious interaction: A learning theory for computer-mediated communications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 24-28, 2000). ERIC Document No. 441 817<br />Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-26.<br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />34<br />
  40. 40. Further Research Topic<br />Perspective shifting<br />Thesis 3: Deep and meaningful formal teaching is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (teacher–student; teacher–content; teacher–teacher) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience.<br />Thesis 4: Deep and meaningful formal teaching and learning are supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (content–student; content–teacher; content–content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience. <br />Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin <br />35<br />

×