Basic principles of interaction for learning in web based environment

1,768 views

Published on

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

Published in: Education
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,768
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Basic principles of interaction for learning in web based environment

  1. 1. Understanding Interaction in Web-Based Learning <ul><li>Su-Tuan Lulee </li></ul><ul><li>EDDE 801 Professor: Dr. Patrick Fahy </li></ul><ul><li>Feb. 2010 </li></ul>
  2. 2. Why is interaction important?
  3. 3. <ul><li>Individual cognitive skills are developed in a social context </li></ul><ul><li>People must learn between people first, before they can learn inside themselves and allow the knowledge to become internalized. (Vygotsky) </li></ul>Why is interaction important?
  4. 4. 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)
  5. 5. In this presentation, <ul><li>What previous studies told us? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Two groups of studies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Examining the outcomes and process of Interaction </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Examining the structure of the network </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other factors: group size, technology… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Implication for good practices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How can interaction theories benefit practices? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning achievement, choices, limitation… </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Previous Studies <ul><li>Two groups of studies (different focuses): </li></ul><ul><li>Outcomes and Process of Interaction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5-dimension (Henri) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5-stage Model (Garrison) & cognitive presence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IA framework (Gunawardena & Anderson) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IPA (Bales) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Structure of Interaction Network </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Message Map (Levin et al.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TAT (Fahy) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ENA (Shaffer et al.) </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Henri’s 5-Dimension (Henri, 1991) For analyzing the quality of computer-mediated communication
  8. 8. Henri’s 5-Dimension <ul><li>Social dimension </li></ul><ul><li>Interactive dimension </li></ul><ul><li>Cognitive dimension </li></ul><ul><li>Meta-cognitive dimension </li></ul><ul><li>Participative dimension </li></ul>
  9. 9. 5-Stage Critical Thinking Model (Garrison, 1991) For assessing how learners develop critical thinking
  10. 10. 5-Stage Critical Thinking Model <ul><li>Problem identification </li></ul><ul><li>Problem definition </li></ul><ul><li>Problem exploration </li></ul><ul><li>Problem evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Problem integration </li></ul>
  11. 11. Interaction Analysis model (IA) (Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson, 1997) For assessing social construction of knowledge (in less or no instructor presence)
  12. 12. Interaction Analysis model (IA) <ul><li>Sharing/Comparing </li></ul><ul><li>Dissonance </li></ul><ul><li>Negotiation/Co-construction </li></ul><ul><li>Testing Tentative Constructions </li></ul><ul><li>Statement/Application </li></ul>
  13. 13. Triggering event Exploration Integration Resolution Comparison Chart The other two models focus on cognitive and meta-cognitive dimensions Informal learning Formal learning Cognitive Presence
  14. 14. Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) <ul><li>Bales: </li></ul><ul><li>- Social psychologist </li></ul><ul><li>IPA was for F2F </li></ul>C omplementary-paired categories
  15. 15. Message Maps <ul><li>Levin, Kim, & Riel (1990) </li></ul><ul><li>Illustrating the interrelationships among the messages submitted by participants </li></ul>
  16. 16. Message Maps
  17. 17. Transcript Analysis Tools (TAT) <ul><ul><li>Fahy, 2001 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Examining the behaviors of participants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve discriminant capability and reliability by identifying </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>5 types of sentences (different modes of interaction) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A set of structural elements suggested by social network theory </li></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Transcript Analysis Tools (TAT) <ul><ul><li>Fahy, 2001 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Examining the behaviors of participants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve discriminant capability and reliability by identifying </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>5 types of sentences (different modes of interaction) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A set of structural elements suggested by social network theory </li></ul></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Transcript Analysis Tools (TAT) Sentence Types Communication Behaviors <ul><ul><li>Structure/Pattern Levels/Spread of “what are happening” </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) <ul><li>Shaffer & et al. (2009) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How to assess the ongoing interactions (e.g., MUVE, epistemic games? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence-centered design </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Computer records learners’ work and interaction (clicks) over time, assembled into the network graphs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>code using predefined frame elements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>studied the forms of interaction network graphs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>mathematically manipulate key variables, base on a theoretical framework </li></ul></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) <ul><li>Shaffer & et al. (2009) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How to assess the ongoing interactions (e.g., MUVE, epistemic games? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence-centered design </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Computer records learners’ work and interaction (clicks) over time, assembled into the network graphs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>code using predefined frame elements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>studied the forms of interaction network graphs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>mathematically manipulate key variables, base on a theoretical framework </li></ul></ul></ul>Ask expert; Get tools; Take note; Answer Q Skills, values, etc. Changes in: Relative Centrality & Distance between actions (bubbles)
  22. 22. Other Influential Factors <ul><li>Group size </li></ul><ul><li>Learning styles </li></ul><ul><li>Genders </li></ul><ul><li>Technology </li></ul>
  23. 23. Other Influential Factors <ul><li>Group size </li></ul><ul><li>Learning styles </li></ul><ul><li>Genders </li></ul><ul><li>Technology </li></ul><ul><li>The individual interaction decreased when the group size increased </li></ul><ul><ul><li>20 is proper, 16 is the best, class size for an online college course taught by a single instructor (Orellana) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>5 and above are very unstable and rather quickly divided into subgroups in freely forming groups (James) </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Other Influential Factors <ul><li>Group size </li></ul><ul><li>Learning styles </li></ul><ul><li>Genders </li></ul><ul><li>Technology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Convergers (Kolb’s LSI) are most comfortable with the online network; Accomodators are less involved. (Fahy) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Independent learners are comfortable online (Gagne) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>W eb-based learning environment is reforming learning styles due to the limited interactive features provided by digital environment (Dede) </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Other Influential Factors <ul><li>Group size </li></ul><ul><li>Learning styles </li></ul><ul><li>Genders </li></ul><ul><li>Technology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Women contributed much lesser times & shorter average words per contributions (Herring) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Members of the minority gender shift their style in the direction of majority gender norms (Herring) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Women preferred for epistolary interaction while men preferred expository interaction (Fahy) </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Other Influential Factors <ul><li>Group size </li></ul><ul><li>Learning styles </li></ul><ul><li>Genders </li></ul><ul><li>Technology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Kozma & Clark debates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Problems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not enough emphasis on pedagogy and instructional design (Wiske) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>less regard for learning theory and instructional theory (Clark) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>lacking of studies in situated use of media (Garrison) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>complexity of systems and interfaces (Fahy) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  27. 27. In this presentation, <ul><li>What previous studies told us? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Two groups of studies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Examining the outcomes and process of Interaction </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Examining the structure of the network </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other factors: group size, technology… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Implication for good practices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How can interaction theories benefit practices? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning achievement, choices, limitation… </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. From Theory to Practice <ul><li>Models as tools for </li></ul><ul><li>assessing interactions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Address problems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify opportunities for improvement </li></ul></ul><ul><li>inducing structured creativity (Fahy) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Innovation as needed </li></ul></ul>
  29. 29. One Interaction Fits All? <ul><li>Interactions Choices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not all interaction are equally useful to every individual (Chen & Willits; Fahy) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The best interaction for a particular context is the interaction that has the right-mixed of interaction. (Anderson) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not all forms of interaction are equally valued by learners due to learner preferences. (Rhode) </li></ul></ul>
  30. 30. The More Interaction The Better? <ul><li>Limits of interaction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>human’s capacity for processing information: 7 (+-) 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to focus attention and avoid distraction: limit the items to 7 (+-) 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reducing working memory load (text + audio/video) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>instructor’s involvement in threaded discussions: 10% - 20% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>( Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller; Simonson et al. ) </li></ul>
  31. 31. Interaction = Achievement <ul><li>Interactions Really Improve Learner Achievement? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All three types of interaction have positive impact on learner achievement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increasing the strength of interaction treatments affects achievement outcomes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learner-content interaction showed higher added values </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Bernard et al.) </li></ul></ul>
  32. 32. Conclusions <ul><li>Various approaches have been explored and a variety of options are available for designing interaction </li></ul><ul><li>Need for taking a mixed method in studying interaction </li></ul><ul><li>Call for research on interaction in action (Simulasive learning/gaming) </li></ul>
  33. 33. Summaries <ul><li>Previous Studies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Outcomes & Processes of Interaction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Henri, Garrison, Gunawardena, Bales </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Structure of Interaction Network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Levin, Fahy, Shaffer. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other Factors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Group size, learning styles, genders, Tech. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Implication for Good Practices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Limitation, choices, etc. </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. Main References <ul><li>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). </li></ul><ul><li>Bales, R. F. (1950). A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction. American Sociological Review , 15 (2), 257-263. </li></ul><ul><li>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). </li></ul><ul><li>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.   </li></ul><ul><li>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). </li></ul>
  35. 35. References <ul><li>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.   </li></ul><ul><li>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). </li></ul><ul><li>Wagner, E. D. (1994). In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction. American Journal of Distance Education , 8 (2), 6-29.   </li></ul>

×