Introduction

Many theories of adult learning maintain that knowledge is actively constructed through interactions with other learners. Such theories contend that an important element in the learning process is the level and quality of interaction that occurs within a learning community (Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Moore, 1989). Through interactions, learners create new meanings, critically reflect on stated assumptions, and negotiate new learning through consensus (Mezirow, 1998). These concepts of learning are grounded in social learning theory which contends that cognitive processes experienced and observed in social settings are then internalized by individuals (Bandura, 1977; Glaser, 1990). Social learning occurs when a group exposes a learner to new understandings that challenge, extend and complement their current conceptualizations (Glaser, 1990). Examples of instructional models based on social learning theories include collaborative learning (Slavin, 1991) and reciprocal teaching (Brown & Palinscar, 1989). Within both of these instructional models, learning is developed and negotiated through the instructor-facilitated interactions among learners. A key requirement to support learning according to such models is a high level of learner-learner interaction within the instructional environment. A strong body of research supports instructional approaches that promote learner-learner interaction (e.g. cooperative learning; learning communities) as a means of improving student achievement.

At the same time, an increasing number of adult learners are turning to online institutions of higher education (IHE) for advanced degrees and continued professional development. Over 2.5 million people engaged in some form of online learning in the last few years (US Distance Learning Association, 2004). Recent meta-analyses on the effectiveness of online as compared with face-to-face education have confirmed what has been called the “no significant difference” finding (Zhao, Lei, Yan, Lai & Tan, 2005). This finding implies that when other variables such as the quality of instructor, content materials and course design are held constant, online learning can be as effective as face-to-face education. Despite this finding, there has long been recognition that online learning is subject to one significant, potential shortcoming: the lack of face-to-face interaction, “real-time” dialogue, and opportunities for discussion, which may limit the development of true learning communities.

As the number of learners engaging in online education increases, the available literature to recommend best practices to promote stronger learner-learner interaction is growing. As online education first developed, the focus for instructors was on how to use the technology to transition traditional courses to the online format. Increasingly, best practices for instructors of online courses focus on sets of recommendations to enhance learner outcomes. Typically, these recommendations are oriented to a particular aspect of interaction based on Moore’s (1989) extended framework, to include learner-instructor; learner-learner; learner-content; learner-interface interactions. For example, one recommendation provided to instructors to support stronger learner-learner interactions is to assign learners to small groups in which they can collaborate on group projects (Ko & Rossen, 2004).

Emerging literature identifies some promising practices for instructors to improve the way in which they support learner-learner interaction (see for example, Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Ko & Rossen, 2004; Orvis & Lassiter, 2006). Essentially, these practices focus on the instructor’s role in providing feedback, responding to student inquiries, and providing clear expectations for participating in group work. Other recent areas of focus in the research literature include collaborative and cooperative learning on-line as a way to promote strong learner-learner interaction.

Educational practices, however, are formed and maintained within the context of constraints and these constraints must be understood to propose relevant solutions (Robinson, 1998). Online learning programs operate under a variety of different structures (Zhao et al, 2005). The growth of such a myriad of offerings reflects not only advances in technology, but also the increased need for adults to have more flexibility over the learning process. Online universities are generally populated by non-traditional learners who balance professional, family and social obligations with the requirements of their continuing education. A growing body of literature suggests that some learners highly value the independent and self-directed nature of online learning, and place less value on learner-learner interactions such as collaborative group work (Reisetter & Boris, 2004; Sharp & Huett, 2005). Such findings suggest that a blanket approach to improving online education, such as increasing learner-learner interactions may not be warranted, and that a more comprehensive, individualized understanding of the factors that contribute to positive online learning experiences is needed.

Identifying and understanding problems in education and developing solutions based on research typically focus on one particular aspect of a problem. When promising solutions are discovered, the hope is that the practice will find its way to educational institutions through a variety of models for replicating these innovations (Robinson, 1998). However, many educational innovations fail when the practice is brought to scale, in part because they are adopted without considering the context in which stakeholders operate (Elmore, 1996). Online instructors and learners operate within a complex environment in which many aspects can have a direct impact on the instructor’s ability to facilitate learner-learner interactions. Although specific recommendations such as assigning learners to small groups are important in that they provide guidance to direct the actions of an instructor based on research, distance education programs vary a great deal in content, delivery methods, and learner characteristics (Zhao et al., 2005). These variables, as well as the desired learning outcomes play a role in the design, implementation and ultimately, the effectiveness of various instructional practices. By examining these variables in context, an integrated approach to evaluating the learning context can be incorporated as a fundamental part of instructor development so that the instructor can make appropriate decisions about how to increase learner-learner interaction (Roblyer & Wiencke, 2003; Zhao et al, 2005).

Instructors may improve the level of facilitation by incorporating a more global review of the context in which they operate so they can tailor their actions in ways that address their unique situations. This implies that instructors need to be more reflective about the environment in which they teach if their

attempts to facilitate increased learner-learner interactions are to be successful. The constraints that influence an instructor’s ability to effectively facilitate learner-learner interactions may be viewed as a two-tiered system that includes the initial and ongoing faculty development and training the instructor receives, followed by the subsequent course delivery and online environment in which the instructor works.

In summary, both theory and research support the importance of collaborative learning and learner-learner interactions. An increased number of learners are turning to online education for personal and professional development, and the nature of the online environment poses significant challenges to the development of learning communities. Instructors of online courses typically receive little training in how to engage in practices that promote the development of online learning communities, and for some learners, collaboration with other learners may actually detract from the elements of online education that they most highly value. These conclusions led us to ask and investigate the following question: Can an ecological assessment allow an instructor to examine the online learning environment in order to determine how to create opportunities for learner-learner interaction?

An Ecological Assessment

Instructors operate within complex systems that place different types of constraints on their actions and require a broad lens through which they can thoroughly represent the particular constraints under which they operate. When instructors engage in reflective activities that include critical assessments of the learning environment, they can improve their teaching practices in ways that respond to In Moore’s seminal writing (1989), the focus on learner-learner interaction was related to a course where the objective was to teach learners how to interact effectively with one another. Similarly, many programs require students to begin with an introductory course that not only teaches them the basics of navigating online courses, but also devotes energy towards promoting collegial relationships. These courses will likely lend themselves well to support learner-learner interaction, and given these objectives, the instructor will come to the course with this orientation. Courses that are focused heavily on content or acquiring a skill such as a statistics/research methods course, may have less focus on learner-learner interaction, and the instructor may focus more on presenting the content in ways that support learner understanding. For example, in a research methods course, learner-content and learner-instructor interactions may take precedence over learner-learner interactions.

      2. Course Structure. In general, instructors operate under two different course structures, those with predetermined content, applications and requirements; and those in which the instructor is responsible for meeting objectives but is free to design the course as he/she considers appropriate. Instructors with more latitude over course structure can use the principles for effective learner-learner interaction and implement these procedures at their discretion. Instructors who operate under existing requirements and procedures will need to evaluate the tools at their disposal and consider how they might help develop/promote learner-learner interactions.

      3. Program Structure – Learners in an online environment tend to require more time to develop trust, cohesion and shared cognition than those in face-to-face courses (Orvis & Lassiter, 2006), which can determine both the amount and quality of learner-learner interactions. Programs that are degree oriented and assign and maintain cohorts throughout the life of the program will likely have stronger avenues through which learner-learner interactions can be sustained. When online courses occur outside the realm of a program structure (e.g. single professional development courses; students in a degree program not progressing as a cohort) students will not have the benefit of long-term interactions and the instructor will have to devote more energy to develop trust and cohesion early on for learners. 

      4. Technology. Technological enhancements in online learning delivery systems have greatly increased the potential for increasing communications, and specifically, connecting learners with other learners (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). Nevertheless, many distance education programs still rely on few or a single medium (generally text based) for course delivery, thus limiting these potentials (Moore, 1989). An instructor rarely has control over the technology available, although she may have control over the elements of a platform (e.g. discussion board, group chat, audio streaming, video/web conferencing) if designing her own course. Recognizing that face-to-face components are often not feasible, tools such as video-conferencing and other synchronous communication tools can effectively create social organizations (Levin, Levin & Chandler, 2001). A recent survey on actual use and preference for technology found that high percentages of instructors do not always use technological tools that can support stronger social networks (Zhao et al, 2003). Even when the technology is present and used however, this is no guarantee that the instructor uses it effectively (Loeding & Wynn, 1999).

      5. Learner Characteristics and Needs. Demographics of online universities typically show that the student population consists of non-traditional learners who balance full-time careers, families, and social obligations with the requirements of their continuing education. The flexibility that an asynchronous and self-directed approach to learning provides is highly regarded, and these learners may neither understand nor appreciate the value that increased learner-learner interactions can provide (Reisetter & Boris, 2004).

      Other factors include the age, expertise and motivation of the learner (Moore, 1989). Achievement outcomes in distance learning compared to face-to-face learning have been shown to vary depending upon the education level of the learner (Zhao et al, 2005). Learners may not feel confident to express their views and/or to challenge one another’s ideas. Because writing is the medium of choice in conveying thoughts in an online environment, a learner with poor writing skills may also be reluctant to contribute to group discussions. Learners with less expertise may feel they have less to contribute than those with more expertise. Finally, research on cooperative learning has consistently demonstrated the need for learners to have clear understandings of the roles they play within the larger group, and what the expectations for fulfilling those roles are. Learners with experience in collaborative learning may be more ready to continue this type of interaction, whereas novice learners may require more support.

      6. Instructor engagement and feedback. Arguably, the instructor’s most direct role in facilitating learner-learner interaction comes from the quantity and quality of feedback he or she provides. In a recent meta-analysis examining factors that account for effective online course delivery, instructor involvement was the most significant moderator among all the identified factors (Zhao, et al., 2005). Interactions between the teacher and students have been found to affect the quality of student experiences and learning outcomes in online education (Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2000).

While issues of timeliness, tone, and medium (e.g. response on discussion board, emails, announcements) are generally discussed and modeled as issues in faculty training, increasingly, there is an understanding that the quality of the feedback provided has significant impact on developing strong learning communities, in which learner-learner interactions are valued and encouraged. To achieve these desired learning outcomes, the instructor must assume a role that is both structured and systematic, so that the level of communication promotes a community of inquiry (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). Instructors establish presence through their feedback, in ways that support both the social and cognitive development of individual learners and the course as a whole. When instructors can provide timely, substantive and individualized feedback they help support the development of a community of inquiry (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005).

Based on the review of literature and the factors identified, the author has developed a comprehensive representation of the issue of increasing learner-learner interaction (see Table 1). Essentially, the model outlines the constraints under which an instructor operates and demonstrates the need for a complete representation of these constraints to develop effective solutions.

Table 1. Problem Demand: Increase Learner-Learner Interaction in an Online Education environment.

Constraints on Solution:

Solutions: Depending upon the outcome of the analysis, different solutions may be warranted
Consequences: Is learner-learner interaction always the ultimate goal? To what end do we sacrifice other needs/elements?

Using this representation as a foundation, the author developed an ecological assessment tool to guide online instructors through the process of evaluating the context in which he or she operates, identify those variables that impact the ability to develop learner-learner interactions, and subsequently, develop solutions tailored to specific needs. The ecological assessment provides instructors with a structured means of evaluating the specific constraints that either support or detract from opportunities for learner-learner interactions, and is presented in Table 2.

The purpose of this qualitative study was to refine and consider how this assessment might be applied to faculty development training opportunities and ongoing faculty/program evaluations.
 

 Table 2. Ecological assessment tool.

Methods

Participants. Three instructors from two different institutions of higher education (IHE) participated in this study. These IHEs include a large (approximately 24,000 students), online university offering graduate level degrees; and a smaller (approximately 4000 students) university offering undergraduate and graduate degrees in online only programs. Within these IHEs, faculty development chairs were asked to identify instructors who had more than one year of experience teaching online. Instructors were asked permission to allow the author access to their courses to determine how an ecological assessment might provide insight as to how instructors could improve the quality of learner-learner interactions.

Procedures. Using the ecological assessment tool (Table 2), the course site was reviewed by the author to determine how effective it might be in informing appropriate courses of action for improving learner-learner interactions.

Results

To facilitate review, a summary of findings for the three courses is provided. The individual reviews highlight the type of information that was collected with the assessment. Following the individual reviews, findings are summarized across courses.

Individual Course Reviews

Course A

     a. Content: This course is an introductory course for a master’s program in public policy at a large, online university. This 12-week, six credit course introduces students to the university and the Master of Public Administration (MPA) program. The course also prepares students to use the learning platform as well as internet tools, e-mail, web browsers, and techniques of online communication. In addition, skills important for success in graduate education, including a) self- management, b) application of APA writing style, c) use of the online library system, d) scholarly writing, e) ethical applications, and f) critical thinking skills are introduced and applied.

     b. Course Structure: 12 week, weekly threaded discussion, individual assignments and one group assignment with a group discussion area. The goal of the assignment was to create, refine and post a group response on a particular policy question. The discussion area was to be used for group discussion, consensus building and drafting, revising and editing the group statement.

     c. Program Structure: A sequential, cohort master’s program requiring 52 credits of core courses with an option for specialization. Program completion is estimated at 24 months.

     d. Technology: The platform used can support asynchronous discussion boards, a document sharing section, and live chat sessions for the whole class or individual groups (no synchronous participation was required for successful completion).

     e. Learner Needs: This program has an open enrollment policy (e.g. no GRE is required). For this particular program, learners must have a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution, and professional experience for admission. The majority of students are non-traditional, working professionals.

     f. Instructor Feedback: Instructors can give feedback on the discussion board, in an announcements section, on individual applications, via email, and through chat sessions. A specific look at the discussion board designed for group discussion found that the group discussion pages had no instructor input. There were several groups who posted one learner’s initial discussion as their final work with no editing, revision or discussion about the topic. Postings other than the one learner’s response to the actual prompt included primarily procedural questions (e.g. When is an assignment due?). Further scrutiny of the course showed that this instructor posted numerous announcements (averaging three per week), and posted numerous, but brief replies to discussion boards in other places on the course.      

Course B

  a. Content: The course is designed to help teachers plan and manage their literacy classroom as they implement the concepts and strategies they have learned throughout a master’s degree program at a large online university. This course covers planning, organizing, and managing a balanced literacy program. It examines flexible grouping for differentiated instruction, incorporating literacy across the curriculum, integrating technology, working with parents and paraprofessionals, and pacing instruction.

  b. Course Structure: Eight-week course, with a weekly threaded discussion where learners are required to respond to the initial discussion question and then to two of their classmates (on average, students had three responses each week, only one of fifteen students posted an average of four responses), weekly individual assignments are submitted via a dropbox. The instructor scheduled two voluntary opportunities for synchronous discussion during the eight-week course.

  c. Program Structure: A sequential, cohort master’s program consisting of ten courses.

  d. Technology: The platform used can support asynchronous discussion boards, a document sharing section, and live chat sessions for the whole class or individual groups (no synchronous participation was required for successful completion of this course).

  e. Learner Needs: Learners in this course have a bachelor’s degree, teacher certification, and have successfully completed nine previous courses in the program. The majority are current classroom teachers.

  f. Instru for peer editing applications, but no learners used this opportunity. A specific example of feedback provided on the regular discussion board to promote and encourage learner-learner interaction includes:

“I often read helpful responses. N's to B is helpful, respectful, and instructional. As I read it, I knew that I was learning and that others would learn from N, too.

Some day, I hope to hear that a lot of you are teacher-educators as well as teachers. Here is a model response that shows how to do this well. I have read others that are just as wonderful