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:
Technology |
Program Structure |
Course Structure |
Learner Characteristics |
Content |
Does the course platform support/include
opportunities to engage in learner to learner
interactions
Group arrangements, discussion boards, chat
rooms, document sharing areas
|
Is the Program structured by cohort, to support
sustained relationships among students?
Are students in a series of classes or a single,
isolated course for professional development |
Courses with predetermined curriculum vs
instructor developed
What are the requirements of the course (what is
graded) |
Need for flexibility (demographics of students)
Learning needs
Purposes of enrolling/participating in the
course
Various student abilities |
Nature of content may impact the opportunities
for learner-learner interaction |
Instructor feedback:
-
What avenues for providing feedback are
available to the instructor?
-
Am I promoting social/cognitive/teaching
presence through a variety of feedback styles?
-
Is the feedback timely? Substantive
(addressing content, specific issues with an
application, making connections to course and
program content)? Individualized? (relevant
and targeted to a specific learner)?
|
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.
Content |
Evaluation |
Comments |
1. The course content easily lends itself to
group assigned projects |
Y N U |
|
2. Learners likely have professional experience
relevant to this content area. |
Y N U |
|
Y N U |
|
Overall Comments on content: |
|
|
Course Structure |
Evaluation |
Comments |
1. The course content and structure is
pre-determined (not instructor developed) |
Y N U |
|
2. Interactive discussion is a requirement of
the course (e.g. requirement to discuss with
classmates) |
Y N U |
|
3. Group projects/work is a requirement of the
course |
Y N U |
|
Overall Comments on course structure: |
|
|
Program Structure |
Evaluation |
Comments |
1. The program/degree is a cohort based approach |
Y N U |
|
2. The course is within a program that includes
a series of courses (not an isolated, one-time
course) |
Y N U |
|
3. The overall goals of the program encourage
the development of collegial and collaborative
relationships among students |
Y N U |
|
Overall Comments on program structure: |
|
|
Technology |
Evaluation |
Comments |
1. The technology and course platform provide
multiple opportunities for learners to interact |
Y N U |
|
2. Group chat is possible |
Y N U |
|
3. Document sharing features are enabled |
Y N U |
|
4. Discussion boards are available and used |
Y N U |
|
5. Assignments to smaller groups is possible |
Y N U |
|
Overall Comments on technology: |
|
|
Learner Characteristics |
g-right: 5.4pt; padding-top: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in">
Comments |
1. The students are at a level of self-directed,
independent learning |
Y N U |
|
2. The students require flexibility in their
learning environment (e.g. balancing family &
work requirements) |
Y N U |
|
3. The students have been taught the skills to
interact effectively with one another to support
L-L interaction |
Y N U |
|
Overall Comments on student needs: |
|
|
Instructor Feedback |
Evaluation |
Comments |
1. The instructor creates mediated presence on
the course |
Y N U |
|
2. The instructor provides clear rules of
engagement and emphasizes the importance of L-L
interaction |
Y N U |
|
3. The instructor uses a combination of social,
cognitive and teaching presence as required to
support a community of inquiry |
Y N U |
|
4. The instructor provides timely feedback
|
Y N U |
|
5. The instructor provides feedback that
supports the needs of the students |
Y N U |
|
Overall Comments on instructor feedback: |
|
|
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--N lucks
out because I never thought to make this idea
explicit before.”
Here, the instructor pointed out that the
learner’s response was helpful, which may
prompt more learners to read that particular
posting more carefully. It may also promote
more thoughtful responses to one another as it
highlights the fact that each learner has
important insights to share. In terms of
measurable outcomes however, no further
postings from learners were made after this
instructor feedback. Possible explanations
include that the course structure requires
learners to only make three posting to meet
requirements; the posting was made near the
end of the course week and learners may have
already progressed to subsequent discussion
boards; learners may not have responded to
this specific posting, but it may have
encouraged increased activity on subsequent
discussion boards (though this hypothesis
seems unlikely after review of the remaining
discussion boards).
Course C.
a. Content. This course is offered by a small,
online university and is offered as both an
independent course that may be taken for continuing
education credit, or as part of a master’s degree
program in education. The course introduces students
to the proper evaluation of educational and
psychological tests and the correct interpretation
and use of test results.
b. Course structure. This course is offered
over a 16 week time period and is divided into six
sections. There are no set timelines for each
section, but the syllabus offers guidelines of
roughly one-two weeks for completion. At least one
post per section on an asynchronous discussion board
is a requirement for course completion. Learners
submit their work via upload through a designated
section of the course platform. No synchronous
learning tools are required. Although some Web links
and database searches are a part of the course, the
primary means through which information is delivered
is a textbook.
c. Program structure. This course is part of a
master’s degree program in education that consists
of twelve graduate courses. Although the courses are
designed to be taken one at a time, each over a
twelve-week period, flexible programming allows
students to complete the courses ahead of schedule
and move to the next course. Monthly start dates for
the courses are available.
d. Technology. The platform supports the use of
both synchronous and asynchronous discussion.
However, the course and program design requires only
one posting per section (in the reviewed course, six
postings for one course) on an asynchronous
discussion board. Learners submit work in a
designated assignment turn-in area on the course.
e. Learner needs. Learners in this course have
a bachelor’s degree, and most have completed at
least two or three previous courses in the program.
In addition to practicing teachers, related-services
providers (e.g. speech-language pathologists,
counselors) also enroll in this course.
f. Instructor’s Feedback. The focus on
independent and flexible progress in this program
tend to limit the opportunities for instructors to
engage more than one student at a time. For example,
at the time this review was conducted, three
students were enrolled in the course. However, each
of the three had different start and completion
dates, so that no two students were working on the
same section at the same time. Although the
instructor at one point drew attention to another
learner’s posting, the opportunity for the
instructor to support learner-learner interaction
was limited.
Summary of Reviews.
This review of courses highlights the need for a
more comprehensive look at the online learning
environment prior to making recommendations to
instructors on how to improve and increase
learner-learner interactions. For example, the
instructor for Course A has many tools at his
disposal, yet failed to intervene at a critical
juncture in the course (e.g. group discussion
boards). The instructor for Course B, however,
provides feedback and support that exemplifies many
of the best practice recommendations. However, the
course structure is such that learners are not
required to participate in peer editing, are only
required to respond to two classmates each week (and
that is all most do), and no synchronous or group
work is required. Even when synchronous discussions
were offered, learners did not participate. The
instructor for Course C is severely limited by both
course and program structure to support
learner-learner interaction. Even though the
technology of the course provides for synchronous
discussion, the format of the program and its
emphasis on flexibility to meet the needs of working
professionals restricts the possibilities for
learner-learner interaction or other forms of
collaborative learning.
For each course, if stronger learner-learner
interaction is a desired outcome, different courses
of action would be necessary. The instructor in
Course A might need to provide more feedback in the
group work areas. The instructor in Course B might
consider requiring a group project (if instructors
are given the latitude to make such course changes),
or restructuring the discussion board to promote
small group discussions. The instructor in Course C
remains limited by the program design. Therefore,
discussion at the program level to consider the
value of sacrificing flexibility in program design
for stronger learner-learner interaction may be
warranted.
Implications for Practice
This review highlights several challenges to
determining effective ways to improve interactions
among learners in the online setting. Arguably, the
main limitation is the difficulty in measuring these
interactions and the subsequent impact on learning.
One difficulty with measuring learner-learner
interaction is that our measurements are limited to
what is observable. For example, we may count the
number of times learners respond to one another. We
may assess the quality of a collaborative assignment
and compare it to that of an individually-completed
assignment. However, learners may benefit a good
deal from one another by reading each other’s
postings on the discussion board even if they choose
not to respond further. Additionally, learners may
benefit from viewing interactions between other
learners and the instructor. Focus groups,
questionnaires or interviews with learners could
provide important qualitative information on the
impact that the instructors have on supporting the
learners’ interaction with one another.
Another challenge to promoting learner-learner
interaction online is the consideration of its
unintended consequences. Online learning may attract
people who prefer to work independently; interacting
with the content and/or with the instructor may be
the preferred learning mode (Sharp & Huett, 2006).
One of the courses reviewed here provided such an
example, in that the university promotes a flexible
time schedule for completion given that the majority
of learners are working professionals. This
assessment tool can help clarify these issues for
further instructor, course and program development.
If however, online IHE’s and instructors hope to
promote and support stronger learner-learner
interaction, these reviews highlight important,
possible applications of the ecological assessment
tool that include:
ü
Instructors and faculty responsible for
program/outcomes assessment may use this tool to
conduct formative evaluations of their existing
programs.
ü
By evaluating the context of the course and program,
the instructor may find more effective ways to
increase learner-learner interaction. For example, a
request to a faculty chair to make synchronous chat,
group work, and/or peer editing a required
component of the course may lead to increased
learner-learner interactions more effectively than
if they were optional.
ü
A long term application of this tool could be
integration with learner evaluations to determine
which elements are most effective depending upon
degree, program and/or course structure. One
important element of online learning research is
that although a variety of models exist, there is no
delineation among practices that are effective for
different kinds of learners and content areas.
ü
Program chairs may use the tool to determine ways in
which the program and course structure may be varied
to support increased learner-learner interaction.
ü
As suggested by the Sharp & Huett (2006), learners
come to the online education experience with many
different needs. This tool may also be used to focus
more on the specific needs of the learners, and the
implications those needs carry for the instructor in
supporting stronger interaction. For example, an
instructor working with less-experienced and more
diverse learners, especially those for whom English
is not a first language and those who have had a
history of negative academic experiences, may use
different methods to promote learner-learner
interaction than an instructor working with learners
in advanced degree programs who have experience of
professional and collegial collaboration.
Although this assessment can provide a comprehensive
evaluation of the learning environment, challenges
to supporting learner-learner interaction remain. As
mentioned previously, online learners may value the
independent nature and flexibility of an online
program, and be unwilling to coordinate schedules to
collaborate and interact more with other learners.
An increased focus on collaboration to promote
learner-learner interaction may support strong
learning outcomes, but may do so at the risk of
detracting from some of the more practical
advantages offered by online education.
Another challenge to supporting learner-learner
interaction is that efforts to do so are difficult
to measure. Learner-learner interaction is to some
extent a latent variable, and measurements of the
construct will always be subject to a level of
interpretation. Typical measurements include
analysis (primarily counts) of discussion board
postings, correlations to student achievement, and
student self-report of satisfaction with
learner-learner interactions. The more elusive goal
of determining the long term effects of
learner-learner interaction by measuring subsequent
changes in behavior has yet to be realized. For
example, when the number of discussion board replies
to classmates increases from two to three, has
achievement increased commensurately?
Research that helps to clarify the variables,
behaviors and processes in which instructors engage
to support learning in an online environment is
important. Translating that research into practice
that completely addresses the constraints operating
on the instructor in a complex context is critical.
Though the work on this ecological assessment tool
is limited to a qualitative review of its
application, the principles, research and theories
on which it is based, may allow program developers,
course designers, and instructors to more clearly
target the variable of concern and devise
appropriate solutions to the development of stronger
learner-learner interactions.
Conclusion
Regardless of delivery method, the instructor’s role
in the education process is a critical determinant
of overall effectiveness. Additionally, a strong
research base supports the reliance on
learner-learner interactions, as well as cooperative
and collaborative learning to support higher learner
achievement. In an online environment, one of the
key challenges to effective course delivery is
providing venues for learners to interact with one
another. Instructors need to consider the
constraints under which they operate in order to
effectively gauge where and in what manner they can
support learner-learner interactions. Some of these
constraints include the content, course structure,
program structure, learner characteristics and the
technology. A comprehensive framework of the online
learning environment allows instructors and IHEs to
consider how best to support their learners and
support opportunities for stronger learner-learner
interactions.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant provided by
Walden University.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory.
New York: General Learning Press.
Boyer, E. (1991). The scholarship of teaching: From
"Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the
professoriate”. College Teaching, 39, 11-13.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. M. (1989). Guided,
cooperative learning and individual knowledge
acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),
Knowing and learning:
Essays in honor of
Robert Glaser
(pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chou, C. (2000).
Patterns of learner-learner interaction in distance
networks.
World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2000(1),
207-212. Retrieved August 10, 2006 from:
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true
Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good
educational practice. Harvard Educational Review,
66, 1-26.
Fulford, C. P. & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of
interaction: The critical predictor in distance
education. The American Journal of Research on
Distance Education, 7, 8-21.Garrison, D. R., &
Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st
century: A framework for research and practice.
London: Routledge Falmer.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000).
Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:
Computer conferencing in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87-105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001).
Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer
conferencing in distance education. American
Journal of Distance Education, 15, (1), 7-23.
Garrison, D. R. & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005).
Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning:
Interaction is not enough, The American Journal
of Research on Distance Education, 19(3),
133-148.
Glaser, R. (1990). The reemergence of learning
theory within instructional research. American
Psychologist, 45(1)
29-39.
Hillman, D C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C.
N. (1994).
Learner-Interface Interaction in Distance Education:
An Extension of Contemporary Models and Strategies
for Practitioners, The American Journal of
Distance Education, 8, 30-42.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000).
Quality online: Benchmarks for success in internet
based distance education. Washington, DC:
National Education Association
Ko, S. & Rossen, S. (2004). Teaching online: A
practical guide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
LaRose, R., & Whitten, P. (2000). Rethinking
instructional immediacy for web courses: A social
cognitive exploration. Communication Education,
49, 320-338.
Levin, S. R., Levin, J. A., & Chandler, M. (2001,
April). Social and organizational factors in
creating and maintaining effective online learning
environments. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Seattle, WA.
Loeding, B. & M. Wynn. (1999). Distance learning
planning, preparation, and presentation:
Instructors' perspectives. International Journal
of Instructional Media, 26(2), 181-182.
McCauley Jugovich, S. & Reeves, B. (2006). IT and
educational technology: What’s pedagogy got to do
with it? Educause Quarterly, 29 (4) Retrieved
December 1, 2006 from
http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm06/eqm0649.asp
Mezirow, J. (1998) On critical reflection. Adult
Education Quarterly, 48 185-98.
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 3 (2), p
1-6.
Orvis, K. L., & Lassiter, A. L. R. (2006).
Computer-supported collaborative learning: The role
of the instructor. In S.P. Ferris & S. H. Godar
(Eds.). Teaching and learning with virtual teams
(pp. 158–179). Hershey, PA: The Idea Group.
Reisetter, M. & Boris, G. (2004). What works:
Student perceptions of effective elements in online
learning, Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
5, 277-91.
Robinson, V. (1998). Methodology and the
research-practice gap. Educational Researcher, 27,
17-26.
Roblyer, M.D. & Wiencke, W. R. (2003). Design and
use of a rubric to assess and encourage interactive
qualities in distance courses. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 17, 77-98.
Russo, T. C. & Campbell, S. W. (2004). Perceptions
of mediated presence in an asynchronous on-line
course: Interplay of communication behaviors and
medium. Distance Education, 25, 215-232.
Sharp, J. H. & Huett, J. B. (2006). Importance of
learner-learner interaction in distance education.
Information Systems Education Journal, 4.
Retrieved August 10, 2006, from
http://isedj.org/4/46
Slavin, R. E. (1991).Synthesis of research on
cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48,
71-82.
US Distance Learning Association. (2004). Distance
Learning Link Program. Retrieved November 5, 2005,
from
http://www.usdla.org/html/resources/dllp.htm
Zhao, J. J., Alexander, M. W., Perreault, H. &
Waldman, L. (2003). Impact of information
technologies on faculty and students in distance
education. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal; v45 n1
17-33.
Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S.
(2005). What makes the difference? A practical
analysis of research on the effectiveness of
distance education. Teachers College Record, 107,
1836-1884.
|