Understanding Interaction inWeb-Based Learning

Su-Tuan LuleeEDDE 801 Professor: Dr. Patrick FahyFeb. 2010

Why is interaction important?

Individual cognitive skills are developed in a social context

People must learn between people first, before they can learn inside themselves and allow the knowledge to become internalized. (Vygotsky)

Why is interaction important?

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)

In this presentation, What previous studies told us?

Two groups of studies Examining the outcomes and process of

Interaction Examining the structure of the network

Other factors: group size, technology… Implication for good practices

How can interaction theories benefit practices?

Learning achievement, choices, limitation…

Previous Studies

Two groups of studies (different focuses): Outcomes and Process of Interaction

5-dimension (Henri) 5-stage Model (Garrison) & cognitive presence IA framework (Gunawardena & Anderson) IPA (Bales)

Structure of Interaction Network Message Map (Levin et al.) TAT (Fahy) ENA (Shaffer et al.)

Henri’s 5-Dimension

(Henri, 1991)For analyzing the quality of computer-mediated communication

Henri’s 5-Dimension

Social dimension

Interactive dimension

Cognitive dimension

Meta-cognitive dimension

Participative dimension

5-Stage Critical Thinking Model

(Garrison, 1991)For assessing how learners develop critical thinking

5-Stage Critical Thinking Model

Problem identification

Problem definition

Problem exploration

Problem evaluation

Problem integration

Interaction Analysis model (IA)

(Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson, 1997)For assessing social construction of knowledge (in less or no instructor presence)

Interaction Analysis model (IA)

Sharing/Comparing

Dissonance

Negotiation/Co-construction

Testing Tentative Constructions

Statement/Application

Triggering event

Exploration

Integration

Resolution

Comparison Chart

The other two models focus on cognitive and meta-cognitive dimensions

Informal learningFormal learning

Cognitive Presence

Interaction Process Analysis (IPA)

Bales:- Social psychologist- IPA was for F2F

Complementary-paired categories

Message Maps Levin, Kim, & Riel (1990) Illustrating the interrelationships among the

messages submitted by participants

Message Maps

Transcript Analysis Tools (TAT)

Fahy, 2001 Examining the behaviors of participants Improve discriminant capability and

reliability by identifying 5 types of sentences (different modes of

interaction) A set of structural elements suggested by

social network theory

Transcript Analysis Tools (TAT)

Fahy, 2001 Examining the behaviors of participants Improve discriminant capability and

reliability by identifying 5 types of sentences (different modes of

interaction) A set of structural elements suggested by

social network theory

Transcript Analysis Tools (TAT)Sentence Types Communication Behaviors

Structure/Pattern Levels/Spread of “what are happening”

Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA)

Shaffer & et al. (2009) How to assess the ongoing interactions

(e.g., MUVE, epistemic games? Evidence-centered design Computer records learners’ work and

interaction (clicks) over time, assembled into the network graphs

code using predefined frame elements studied the forms of interaction network

graphs mathematically manipulate key variables,

base on a theoretical framework

Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA)

Shaffer & et al. (2009) How to assess the ongoing interactions

(e.g., MUVE, epistemic games? Evidence-centered design Computer records learners’ work and

interaction (clicks) over time, assembled into the network graphs

code using predefined frame elements studied the forms of interaction network

graphs mathematically manipulate key variables,

base on a theoretical framework

Ask expert; Get tools; Take note; Answer Q

Skills, values, etc.

Changes in:Relative Centrality &Distance between actions (bubbles)

Other Influential Factors

Group size Learning

styles Genders Technology

Other Influential Factors

Group size Learning

styles Genders Technology

The individual interaction decreased when the group size increased 20 is proper, 16 is the best,

class size for an online college course taught by a single instructor (Orellana)

5 and above are very unstable and rather quickly divided into subgroups in freely forming groups (James)

Other Influential Factors

Group size Learning

styles Genders Technology

Convergers (Kolb’s LSI) are most comfortable with the online network; Accomodators are less involved. (Fahy)

Independent learners are comfortable online (Gagne)

Web-based learning environment is reforming learning styles due to the limited interactive features provided by digital environment (Dede)

Other Influential Factors

Group size Learning

styles Genders Technology

Women contributed much lesser times & shorter average words per contributions (Herring)

Members of the minority gender shift their style in the direction of majority gender norms (Herring)

Women preferred for epistolary interaction while men preferred expository interaction (Fahy)

Other Influential Factors

Group size Learning

styles Genders Technology

Kozma & Clark debates Problems

Not enough emphasis on pedagogy and instructional design (Wiske)

less regard for learning theory and instructional theory (Clark)

lacking of studies in situated use of media (Garrison)

complexity of systems and interfaces (Fahy)

In this presentation, What previous studies told us?

Two groups of studies Examining the outcomes and process of

Interaction Examining the structure of the network

Other factors: group size, technology… Implication for good practices

How can interaction theories benefit practices?

Learning achievement, choices, limitation…

From Theory to Practice

Models as tools for assessing interactions

Address problems Identify opportunities for

improvement inducing structured creativity

(Fahy) Innovation as needed

One Interaction Fits All? Interactions Choices

Not all interaction are equally useful to every individual (Chen & Willits; Fahy)

The best interaction for a particular context is the interaction that has the right-mixed of interaction. (Anderson)

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)

Not all forms of interaction are equally valued by learners due to learner preferences. (Rhode)

The More Interaction The Better? Limits of interaction

human’s capacity for processing information: 7 (+-) 2

to focus attention and avoid distraction: limit the items to 7 (+-) 2

Reducing working memory load (text + audio/video)

instructor’s involvement in threaded discussions: 10% - 20%

(Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller; Simonson et al. )

Interaction = Achievement Interactions Really Improve

Learner Achievement? All three types of interaction have positive

impact on learner achievement Increasing the strength of interaction treatments

affects achievement outcomes Learner-content interaction showed higher

added values

(Bernard et al.)

Conclusions

Various approaches have been explored and a variety of options are available for designing interaction

Need for taking a mixed method in studying interaction

Call for research on interaction in action (Simulasive learning/gaming)

Summaries

Previous Studies Outcomes & Processes of Interaction

Henri, Garrison, Gunawardena, Bales Structure of Interaction Network

Levin, Fahy, Shaffer. Other Factors

Group size, learning styles, genders, Tech.

Implication for Good Practices Limitation, choices, etc.

Main References 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).

Bales, R. F. (1950). A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction. American Sociological Review, 15(2), 257-263.

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).

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.  

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).

ReferencesLevin, 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.  

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).

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.