Contemporary distance education schools are striving to have the most effective educational programs that encourage a dynamic combination of being flexible, individualized, personally and professionally challenging. As distance education schools grow in popularity, distance educators and their learners are raising important instructional questions about the quality of these computer mediated educational programs. A vital academic question involves the social interaction that occurs during online class work. Educators are wondering whether the online format will provide adequate opportunities for genuine dialogue and social interaction that are vital elements in the learning process (Hobaugh, 1997).
The researcher offers a practical definition of interactivity that affirms the human dimension of this term. Interactivity involves participation by the learner in on-line communication between learners and with their class tutors. Additionally, interactivity among learners can be immediate (e.g. phone call) or a delayed personal encounter (e.g. discussion forum). The definition highlights the personal nature of sharing information during distance education classes. Naturally, learners interact with their course materials through reading their textbooks, journal and discussion forum comments from other learners and their tutors. The subject content provides an academic foundation for meaningful dialog within a distance education class (Muirhead, 1999; Muirhead, 2000).
Distance education literature frequently mentions the need for research into interactivity (McNabb, 1994; Sherry, 1996). The subject of interactivity has generated controversy among distance learning professionals who raise questions about the quality of on-line courses. The computer-mediated debate has occurred because many educators believe that interactivity is a vital element in the educational process. Wagner (1997) stated that “distance learning practitioners --- particularly instructors and program administrators --- seem to view interactivity as the defining attribute of contemporary distance learning experience” (p. 19). Critics usually stress that interactivity is the missing element or ingredient in distance education because classes lack the traditional face-to-face interactions. However, distance education supporters claim that contemporary on-line classes contain effective interactivity learning experiences. Simonson (1995) argued that educators must strive “…to make the experience of the distance learner as complete, satisfying, and acceptable as that of the local learner” (p. 12). In fact, proponents state that interactivity in distance education is just as good or even better than the traditional classroom (Wagner, 1997).
Harasim’s (1987) study on computer-mediated instruction examined two graduate education courses taught through the University of Toronto. The majority of students felt quite comfortable using computers prior to their distance education courses. Instructors provided two face-to-face training sessions and resource learning kits (e.g. course guides) to help the students prepare for the course. The students' responses to open-ended questions and casual remarks about the courses were very positive. Harasim (1987) found that students cited the following seven distinct advantages to on-line education:
"[a] increased interaction: quantity and intensity; [b] access to group knowledge and support; [c] democratic environment; [d] convenience of access: the `24 hour’ class; [e] user control over the learning interaction; [f] motivational aspect; and [g] text-based communication" (p. 124).
Harasim’s (1987) study found that students enjoyed the opportunity to freely share their ideas and direct the flow of on-line conversations. The student-centered learning environment provided a format to participate in on-line activities at their convenience. Harasim noted that “students reported more active participation and interaction and more effective learning in the on-line course than in classroom courses” (p. 133). It is interesting that the high level of student participation did create some problems. Students mentioned having problems with information overload due to the high volume of on-line responses. The discussions created confusion because they lacked focus, and students complicated the situation by brainstorming within their discussions. A second problem involved students being frustrated with the delayed responses to their on-line comments. Several students struggled with the absence of immediate reactions to their discussion contributions. One student related that “the most frustrating point in our present mode is delay in receiving feedback. One makes a comment and, where normally there would be immediate verbal and non-verbal response, now there is only silence. It is like speaking into a vacuum” (Harasim 1987, p. 130).
Davie (1988) investigated two graduate on-line education courses at the University of Toronto. The students worked on writing projects with partners and analyzed case studies in small groups. At the end of courses, students met with Davie and described their learning experiences. The 26 students expressed a high level of satisfaction with interaction with their teacher and course structure. Students commented favorably on their collaboration with other students. The students successfully completed their writing assignments by having effective strategies for doing group work. Students learned to plan cooperative writing activities and establish clear expectations for each student. Additionally, they enjoyed the convenience of working on their assignments at times that did not conflict with their family responsibilities.
Mason (1991) studied interactivity in a distance education class at the Open University in Great Britain. The investigation found that tutors played a major role in directing the on-line discussions. Instructors influenced the discussion process by encouraging new topics, sharing new material, and redirecting the conversation patterns. The project did find that student interactions were fostering learning by integrating personal experience into their class discussions and gaining insights (e.g. how others think) from other students. Yet, only one third of the students were actively engaged in providing and receiving on-line feedback. The study raised concerns that student interactions did not promote critical thinking opportunities to seriously examine course themes. Student discussion contributions were examined and organized into the following six categories of interactions:
[1.] Use of personal experience related to course themes
[2.] Reference to appropriate material outside the course package
[3.] Comments on others’ opinions, both students and tutors
[4.] Introduction of new issues for discussion
[5.] Students posing questions for the group
[6.] Tutors acting as facilitators. (Mason, 1991, p. 168)
Horn (1994) and McNabb (1994) discussed research studies on interactivity and raised questions about the quality and quantity of dialogue in computer-mediated courses. Genuine interactivity between tutor and student can be hindered by an assortment of educational problems. Students can be confused about the quality of their work when they have trouble contacting their teachers about their assignments, and their classes lack specific academic standards. The writers stressed the need for more research on the human dimension of distance education and argued that feedback is a vital element in the teaching and learning process.
Burge (1994) investigated two on-line graduate education classes using in-depth interviews with 21 master of education students and their two instructors. The interview results indicated that students had specific expectations of their on-line peers in the following four areas:
1. Participation - share different perspectives, demonstrate application of knowledge, risk sharing tentative ideas, and show interest in the educational experiences of other students.
2. Response - provide constructive feedback, respond to questions without being repetitive, be a dependable small group member, share positive remarks with others, and actively participate in relevant dialog.
3. Affective feedback - use students' names during course work, provide a sense of community or belonging to others, show patience, offer compliments, and encourage a learning atmosphere that is affirming and supporting.
4. Focused messaging - use concise on-line statements and avoid excessive messages that do not contribute to learning within the group.
Burge’s (1994) study did identify instructor behaviors that were considered vital to being effective distance educators. The first tutor competency involved being able to manage their class discussions. Instructors should develop a class structure and on-line teaching style that encourages creativity, reflective thinking, and self-directed learning. Teachers should operate as monitors who keep the class discussions focused (e.g. reduce idea fragments), moving at a good pace, and constructive. In fact, educators should reduce negative learning experiences by controlling (e.g. censuring their remarks) those who interfere with the class dialog. Additionally, study participants expected that instructors should play a vital role in assisting students. Burge (1994) related that instructors should support by “giving fast and relevant technical help, sending timely and individualized content-related messages and feedback, with, if possible, summaries of discussion and guidance about resources, and offering affective support (welcome, encourage, show empathy, role model support-giving” (p. 30-31).
Burge’s (1994) investigation did explore the strengths and weaknesses of computer-mediated education. Interviewees appreciated the flexibility in working in the discussion format that gave them the freedom to participate according to their schedule. Also, the interviewees enjoyed having the freedom to reflect on a topic before sharing with their classmates and instructor. Yet, the study participants expressed problems with their on-line educational experiences. For instance, several students noted class discussions were only relevant if students responded within a narrow time frame. Students who fell behind in their discussion postings sensed that they were missing opportunities for interacting with others. When students felt pressured to keep up with their classmates, that was complicated by information overload and fragmented discussions. Students had major problems handling the quantity of data generated during their course work (Wegerif, 1998). Students acquired coping strategies, such as filtering useful messages (e.g. using key words to identify ideas) and creating paper transcripts.
Burge’s (1994) research highlighted the interviewees' positive and negative experiences with peer interaction. Students enjoyed having others help them, sharing critical feedback, and observing a diversity of perspectives during their on-line course. The study participants cited having problems with other students during their group work and class discussions. Students expressed disappointment with fellow students who were not timely and relevant in their message postings. The affective and psychological dimension of distance education was an important part of their overall learning process. Students demonstrated a real need to make genuine connections with their peers and instructor.
Hallett and Cummings (1997) studied a small computer-mediated undergraduate course in educational psychology. The class utilized a Web-based environment that was created to promote authentic and interactive learning experiences. The instructor found that interactivity among students was a very illusive goal. Students did not post additional on-line comments beyond the required assignments because the work was not graded. Students had a negative view toward posting messages because they felt lost in cyberspace. The absence of visual cues and immediate instructor responses to their comments played a role in their negative perspectives. The experimental study revealed how achieving interactivity was a complex educational process influenced by a variety of learning factors.
Heath (1998) shared teaching experiences from an on-line undergraduate political and social philosophy course taught through the State University of New York. Students were expected to participate in on-line discussions and 15% of their course grade involved sharing meaningful and consistent comments. Students appreciated the teacher’s on-line interventions by offering prepared commentary and participating in the class dialog. Yet, students displayed a variety of participation levels and comments varied in quality. The irregular posting of comments by students had a negative impact on the class. As the semester progressed, student on-line participation declined and fewer comments were posted. Heath (1998) acknowledged that “even if the students in an on-line course possess strong motivation and good writing skills, there is still the matter of insuring that enough students are participating, thoughtfully, in the on-line discussions” (p. 13).
Cronje (1999) taught a graduate distance education class at the University of Pretoria. Study participants were working toward a master's degree in computer-assisted education. Students created their own support system by e-mailing classmates for help, however, two of the cooperative learning groups joined other groups because four of the students dropped out of the class. Cooperative work projects did provide a framework for students to develop deeper relationships with others, the on-line discussion groups operated successfully during the course, and students reported positive benefits (e.g. new network relationships).
Research studies on interactivity reveal that interactivity is a multidimensional entity that is dependent upon a variety of factors. For instance, students considered Reinhart’s (1998) contemporary on-line American history course a positive educational experience. Yet, the instructor felt that creating an interactive course environment was a very labor-intensive venture. Educators need significant amounts of time to develop on-line courses that provide real opportunities for good student-teacher dialog. Additionally, students must become more active and self-directed learners, which can be a major change for those who tend to be passive about their education (Kearney, 1997).
Adult students enjoy the flexibility of posting on-line because it enables them to conveniently study during the day and night. Obviously, students can procrastinate on their assignments because they have fewer teacher prompts and greater control over their learning. Therefore, students who are constantly late in posting their comments on-line can have a negative impact on interactivity. Distance education courses create a false sense of security for students who neglect studying because it is ôout of sight, out of mind” (Bourne, McMaster, Rieger, & Campbell, 1999).
The specific objectives of author’s study were: (a) to identify the graduate student’s attitudes toward interactivity (communication, participation, and feedback) with other on-line students; and (b) to identify the graduate student’s attitudes toward interactivity (communication, participation, and feedback) with their on-line instructors.
This research project was prompted by several important factors. A significant factor involved the important role interactivity plays in today’s computer-mediated educational programs. Also, on-line interactivity has the potential of enhancing the quality of distance education, while improving student interactivity to create a climate that supports cooperative learning, critical thinking activities, and meaningful tutor/student academic collaboration (Milheim 1995).
Unfortunately, interactivity has been a neglected topic and few qualitative research studies have addressed this vital issue (Hughes & Hewson, 1998). Interactivity information has been mainly generated by teacher anecdotes and case studies that indicate both the potential problems (e.g. social isolation) and promise (e.g. collaborative learning) of distance educational programs (Burge, 1994). Yet, educators believe that more descriptive studies are needed to acquire a more accurate picture of interactivity. Kearsely (1995) argued that more investigation into interactivity would help answer questions like, “does interactivity always improve learner satisfaction” (p. 4)?
Administrators and educators are not always sure how to devise relevant programs without having a more accurate profile of their adult students. Currently, there is only a limited amount of research on topics like interactivity among students and their tutors (Bullen, 1997). A major challenge for new distance learners involves being physically isolated from other students and their tutors. Graduate professors in a typical or traditional class setting implement a variety of teaching methods (i.e. brainstorming) by using numerous linguistic devices. Students acquire understanding of subject matter through class discussions and group projects that require students to listen and visually observe interpersonal communication cues, such as facial expressions. The absence of face-to-face, peer, or teacher interaction possibly leads to negative educational experiences because of social isolation and working in an apparently impersonal environment (Hughes & Hewson, 1998). Ultimately, a failure to address social interaction issues could lead to an increase in the drop-out rate among students.
Interactive research is needed to study the learning attitudes, perspectives, and educational needs of adults who are participating in computer-mediated graduate studies (Coldeway, 1989). A major premise of distance education involves viewing adult students as being capable of initiating and directing their own instructional activities with minimal assistance. Interactive learning is a dynamic multidimensional process that engages students in enriching forms of self-directed learning and collaboration. Kasworm and Bing (1992) related that “it reflects a unique developmental journey; adult learners `develop’ the skills, knowledge, and attitudes as they engage in increasingly advanced forms of self-direction. The maturation of self-directed learning should be viewed along a developmental continuum” (p. 3).
Distance education leaders must develop an instructional support system that provides effective assistance to adults who flounder without it. Administrators and graduate teachers realize that their student population has a diversity of educational needs, and that today’s students vary greatly in their ability to perform as self-directed students. For instance, some students lack confidence in their academic abilities and need more individual attention, while other adult students are highly autonomous and have different kinds of academic needs. Yet, effective instructional planning requires an accurate profile of adult learning needs. Often, the student’s perspective on interactivity has not been adequately addressed by contemporary research studies (Burge, 1994). In fact, Kearsely's (1995) research was an excellent example of educators who were raising important interactive issues that needed serious attention by researchers, such as “does/should the pattern of interaction change over a course/program” (p. 4)?
The study participants for this research endeavor were adult learners who had completed at least one computer-mediated graduate course and were listed in the directory in Capella University in October of 1998. Capella is a commercially operated distance education school that is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The researcher e-mailed a letter and survey to the Capella learners, and a total of 93 learners returned their surveys. Additionally, 15 learners completed the survey during two focused seminars that were held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in October of 1998. A total of 93 learners were study participants who indicated that 25 of them were in the master's degree programs and 66 were doctoral students. Only two learners did not indicate their degree program.
The two research questions of this study were: (a) what are the graduate student's attitudes toward interactivity (communication, participation, and feedback) with other on-line students; and (b) what are the graduate student's attitudes toward interactivity (communication, participation, and feedback) with their on-line instructors? In answer to the first question, the study identified 44 students (47.3%) who felt that classmates who were late posting their weekly on-line comments had a negative impact on dialog because a reduction in student contributions weakened the quality of discussion. In answer to the second question, the investigation found that 66 students (70.9%) had been offered or had received tutor assistance with their class work. A major overall conclusion of the study involved 84 students (90.3%) who related the importance of maintaining on-line communication throughout the course to enhance interactivity.
The three major findings became the primary themes for the project and revealed what a vital role communication plays in the teaching and learning process. Students are naturally concerned about classmates who are late posting on-line comments because it potentially reduces the quality of their dialog. In fact, some students even wanted their tutors to establish on-line participation guidelines that would set specific criteria in order for students to remain in class. Yet, the late posting issue highlighted a larger issue that, to enhance interactivity, both tutors and students must be active participants who are consistently involved in a relevant academic dialog. In the study, students clearly indicated that consistent on-line communication was the key to improving interactivity. Students wanted tutors who provide timely and relevant feedback on their discussion comments and term papers. The study did affirm that tutors were offering academic feedback to many students (66 = 70.9%) but there was a problem with tutors giving consistent feedback. Therefore, both tutors and students are experiencing some problems in computer-mediated education (Heath, 1998).
The research project did generate a number of student ideas on how to improve interactivity. In fact, my survey generated almost 50 pages (single spaced) of comments. Here are some of their suggestions.
1. Student accountability for keeping up with weekly discussions.
2. Tutors should create more intellectually challenging discussion questions.
3. Instructors being more active in their classes.
4. Integrating more group projects and chat sessions into online classes.
5. Tutors should promote more learner centered activities.
6. Students wanted more personalized contact with their tutors to humanize their classes (ex. e-mail comments that reveal the tutors personality).
7. Tutors need to post more open-ended online discussion questions.
8. Students expressed a need to have a greater influence on course direction.
9. Students wanted tutors who were teachable and were willing to learn from their others.
10. Students wanted tutors to offer constructive criticism on their posted online discussion comments. Students felt that the tutor feedback would help them verify if they knew the subject matter.
Future interactivity investigations could explore the following four areas: (a) conduct case studies on what factors promote interaction within group activities; (b) explore alternative teacher evaluation systems for professional development, such as Allen and Allen’s (1996) 2+2 format that promotes individuals using two compliments and two constructive criticisms in their evaluation dialogs (Simonson, 1997); (c) perform a content analysis of textual material produced during on-line discussions to investigate critical thinking and interactivity; and (d) compare and contrast interactivity attitudes between undergraduate and graduate on-line students.
Wagner (1994) encourages educators to investigate four instructional contexts of interactivity: learning theory, instructional theory, instructional design and instructional delivery. He challenges distance educators to avoid speculating about the role and impact of interactivity and pursue more rigorous studies that could provide more operationally sound definitions. In fact, Wagner (1994) believes that “…interaction functions as an attribute of effective instruction, while interactivity functions as an attribute of contemporary instructional systems, particularly those that use telecommunications technologies” (p. 7).
The study of computer-mediated interactivity highlights the importance of regular and relevant communication in distance education classes. Computer-mediated learning creates a unique set of opportunities and challenges for today’s students. Individuals can pursue advanced degrees that provide flexible student-centered instruction that helps them pursue academic goals. Yet, distance educators and administrators are concerned about the quality of human interaction in their schools. The study affirmed that students want to consistently communicate with their classmates and tutors, but the level of interactivity varied between students and their instructors.
The study highlighted the fact that on-line graduate education is an evolving entity that challenges both students and tutors to reflect on their respective roles and responsibilities. Students must develop their self-directed learning skills and adapt their communication habits to be effective in the on-line environment. Yet, educators play a vital instructional role that promotes consistent and relevant interaction between students and with their tutors.
Allen, D. (1997). Increasing participation in on-line courses and assessing on-line students. Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University.
Bourne, J. R.,
McMaster, E., Rieger, J. & Campbell (1999). Paradigms for on-line learning:
A case study in the design and implementation of an asynchronous learning
networks (ALN) course.,
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/issue2/assee.htm.
Bullen, M. (1997). A case study of participation and critical thinking in a university-level course delivered by computer conferencing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Burge, E. J. (1994). Learning in a computer conferenced contexts: The learners’ perspsective. Journal of Distance Education, 9 (1), 19-43.
Coldeway, D. O. (1989). Methodological issues in distance educational research. In M. G. Moore & G. C. Clark (Eds. ) Readings in principles in distance education, University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, 90-99.
Cronje, J. (1999).
Using the Internet to facilitate co-operative distance learning,
http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/rbo96.html.
Davie, L. E. (1988). Facilitating adult learning through computer-mediated distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2), 55-69.
Hallet, K. & Cummings, J. (1997). The virtual classroom as authentic experience: Colaborative, problem-based learning in a WWW environment. Competition-Connection-Collaboration: Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 103-107.
Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16 (2), 117-135.
Heath, E. F. (1998). Two
pints of cheer and a pint of worry: An on-line course in political and social
philosophy. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/vol2_issue1/wegerif.htm.
Hobaugh, C. F. (1997). Interactive strategies for collaborative learning. Competition-Connection-Collaboration: Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 121-125.
Horn, D. (1994). Distance education: Is interactivity compromised? Performance and Instruction, 33 (9), 12-15.
Hughes, C. & Hewson, L. 1998). Online interactions: Developing a neglected aspect of the virtual classroom. Educational Techonolgy, 38 (4,) 48-55.
Kasworm, C. E. & Bing, Y. (1992). The development of adult learner autonomy and self-directedness in distance education, Report No. CE 063 391, Springfield, VA: DYNEDRS. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355 453)
Kearney, T. (1997).
Self-directed learning at Algonguin College,
http://node.on.ca/tfl/integrated/fieldnotes/nuun2.html
Kearsely, G. (1995). The nature
and value of interaction in distance learning,
http://www.gwu.edu/-etl/interact.html
Mason, R. (1991). Analyzing computer conferencing interactions. International Journal of computers in Adult Education and Training, 2 (3), 161-173.
Milheim, W. D. (1995) Interactivity and computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24 (3), 225-233.
McNabb, J. (1994). Telecourse effectiveness: Findings in the current literature. TechTrends, 39 (4), 39-40.
Muirhead, B. (1999). Attitudes toward interactivity in a graduate distance education program: A qualitative analysis, Parkland, FL: Dissertation.com.
Muirhead, B. (2000).
Interactivity in a graduate distance education school. Educational
Technology & Society, 3 (1),
http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_1_2000/v_1_2000.html
Reinhart,
C. J. (1998). Reflections on learning and teaching at a
course at a distance: The America in the Sixties course. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks,
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/vol2_issue1/wegerif.htm
Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1 (4), 337-365.
Simonson, M. (1995). Does anyone really want to learn … at a distance? TechTrends, 40 (5), 12.
Simonson, M. R. (1997). Evaluating teaching and learning at a distance. In T. E. Cyrs. (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 87-94.
Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71, 19-26.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2), 6-29.
Wegerif, R. (1998). The
social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks,
http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/vol2_issue1/wegerif.htm
