ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

In a recent meta-analysis of distance and online learning, Bernard et al. (2009) quantitatively verified the importance of three types of interaction: among students, between the instructor and students, and between students and course content. In this paper we explore these findings further, discuss methodological issues in research and suggest how these results may foster instructional improvement. We highlight several evidence-based approaches that may be useful in the next generation of distance and online learning. These include principles and applications stemming from the theories of self-regulation and multimedia learning, research-based motivational principles and collaborative learning principles. We also discuss the pedagogical challenges inherent in distance and online learning that need to be considered in instructional design and software development.
Content may be subject to copyright.
InteractioninDistanceEducationandOnlineLearning:
UsingEvidenceandTheorytoImprovePractice
1
PhilipC.Abrami
2
,RobertM.Bernard,EvaM.Bures
3
,
EugeneBorokhovski&RanaTamim
4
CentrefortheStudyofLearningandPerformance
ConcordiaUniversity,Montreal,Quebec,Canada
'TheEvolutionfromDistanceEducationtoDistributedLearning'
2010ResearchSymposium
MemorialUnionBiddleHotel,Bloomington,Indiana
July20‐23,2010
Thisisdraftmaterialandshouldnotbequotedorcitedwithoutpermission.
Runninghead:Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning
1ThepreparationofthisarticlewasfacilitatedbygrantstoAbramiandBernardfromthe
SocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncil,GovernmentofCanadaandthe Fonds
QuébécoisdelaRecherchesurlaSociétéetlaCulture,ProvinceofQuébéc.
2PhilipC.Abrami,CentrefortheStudyofLearning&Performance,ConcordiaUniversity,
1455deMaisonneuveBlvd.W.,Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH3G1M8.E‐mail:
abrami@education.concordia.ca.Website: http://doe.concordia.ca/cslp/
3BuresisanAssistantProfessoratBishop’sUniversity,Lennoxville,QC.Canada.
4TamimisanAssociateProfessorisatHamdanBidMohammad e‐University,Dubai,UAE.
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning2
InteractioninDistanceandOnlineLearning:
UsingEvidenceandTheorytoImprovePractice
Abstract
Inarecentmeta‐analysisofdistanceandonlinelearning,Bernardetal.(2009)
quantitativelyverifiedtheimportanceofthreetypesofinteraction:amongstudents,
betweentheinstructorandstudentsandbetweenstudentsandcoursecontent.In
thispaperweexplorethesefindingsfurther,discussmethodologicalissuesin
research andsuggesthowtheseresultsmayfosterinstructionalimprovement. We
highlightseveralevidence‐basedapproachesthatmaybeusefulinthenext
generationofdistanceandonlinelearning.Theseincludeprinciplesand
applicationsstemmingfromthetheoriesofself‐regulationandmultimedialearning,
research‐basedmotivationalprinciplesandcollaborativelearningprinciples.We
alsodiscussthepedagogicalchallengesinherentindistanceandonlinelearningthat
needtobeconsideredininstructional designandsoftwaredevelopment.
Introduction
Thispaperprovidesuswithanopportunitytolookbackwardasawayoflooking
forward.Asreviewersofevidence,weconstantlyusethehistoricalrecordofevidenceto
summarizewhatisknown,tooffernewinsightsabouttheexistingevidenceandthento
suggestwhatmaylieaheadintheorizing,researchingandapplyingnewknowledge.
Distanceandonlinelearningprovideexcitingopportunitiesfornotonlyincreasingthe
reachofeducationandreducingitscost,but,mostimportanttous,forincreasingthe
qualityofteachingandlearning.Inlookingforward,wecombinetheresultsofourlatest
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning3
distanceeducationreviewwithsummariesofevidencefromotherareastosuggest
directionsforthefuture.
Thus,thispaperhastwointertwinedfoci.Oneisatthelevelofresearch,wherewe
willarguethatdistanceeducation(DE)andonlinelearning(OL)hasevolvedbeyond
simplecomparisonswithclassroominstruction.Theotherisatlevelofdesign,wherewe
will suggesthowtheoryandnewformsofevidencemayimproveinstructionalpractice.
TheResearchParadigmofthePast
Anexaminationofthequantitative/experimentalresearchliteratureofDEandOL
revealsaninordinatelylargeproportionofcomparisonswithclassroominstruction(CI).
Bernardetal.(2004)foundthat232suchstudieswereconductedbetween1985and2003.
Manyothershavebeendonesince2003.Whyisthisformofprimarystudysopopular?The
mostcynicalanswertothisquestionisthattheyareeasytoconduct,giventhatmany
universitiesandcollegeshaveroutinelyrunparallelformsofcourses,oneasa
conventional classroom‐basedsectionandtheotherasaDEsection.Fromalesscynical
perspective,theyaresometimesusedtojustify theviabilityofDEasanalternativeto
classroominstructiontoadministratorsandpolicymakers. Ifaskedthe secondquestion,
whetherresearchersinterestedinimprovingclassroominstructionwouldmakesimilar
comparisonswithDEandOL,the resounding answerwouldbe“no.”
Since2000,therehavebeenmorethat15meta‐analysesofthisliterature.Somehave
focusedonparticularpopulations,suchasK‐12students(e.g.,Cavanaughetal., 2004),
postsecondarystudents(e.g.,Jahng,Krug&Zhang,2007)andhealthcareprofessionals
(e.g.,Cooketal.,2008).SomehaveaddressedparticularformsofDE(telecourses,
Machtmes&Asher,2000;onlinelearning,U.S.DOE,2009;andWeb‐basedinstruction,
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning4
Sitzmannetal.2006)andsomehavelookedatspecificoutcomemeasuresbesides
achievement(satisfaction,Allenetal.,2002).Themeta‐analysisbyBernardetal.(2004)
lookedatallofthesepopulationfeaturesandalsoexaminedstudiesreportingdropout
statistics.Whathasbeentheoveralloutcomeofallofthisprimaryresearchandmeta‐
analyticactivitybaseduponit?
1. ThereisgeneralconsensusoftheeffectivenessofallformsofDE(includingonline
learningandWeb‐basedinstruction)comparedwithclassroominstruction.
2. ThereisgeneralconsensusoftheeffectivenessofonlinelearningandWeb‐based
instructioncomparedwithclassroominstruction.
3. Thereiswidevariabilityamongstudies,fromthosestronglyfavoringDEtothose
favoringCI,therebybringingintoquestionpoints1and2.
4. Thereisatendency forresearcherstodescribetheDE/OLconditioningreatdetail
whilecharacterizingtheCIconditionas“traditionalclassroominstruction,”thereby
diminishingtheopportunitytodescribeandcomparesalientstudyfeatures.
5. Comparativeprimaryresearch isplaguedwithavarietyofmethodologicalproblems
andconfoundsthatmakethemveryhardtointerpret.
6. ThereislittleelsetolearnaboutthenatureofDEorCIfromcomparativestudies.
TheNextGenerationofResearch
Morerecentadvancesintechnologyhaveincreasedthepower,flexibility,ubiquity
andeaseoflearningonlineandatadistance.Asoneconsequence,thereisliteratureinDE
andOL,albeitsmallbycomparisontotheDEvs.CIliterature,thatcomparesDEtreatments
“head‐to‐head.”Bernardetal.(2009)examinedthisliteraturefromtheperspectiveof
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning5
interactiontreatments(i.e.,conditionsofmediaand/orinstructionaldesignthatare
intendedtoincreasestudent‐student,student‐teacherandstudent‐contentinteraction).
AccordingtoCook(2009),itisstudiessuchasthesethatwillhelpusunderstand“…when
tousee‐learning(studiesexploringstrengthsandweaknesses)andhowtouseit
effectively(head‐to‐headcomparisonsofe‐learninginterventions).”Similarly,Bernardet
al.(2009)arguethatitisthroughdirectstudiesofDEandOLthat“…progresstoadvance
theoryandpracticewillbemadeasresearchersbegintoexaminehowinstructionaland
technologicaltreatmentsdifferbetweenDEconditions,notbetweenDEandCI”(p.1262).
Asearlyas2000,Clarkwasarguingthesamepoint,“Allevaluations[ofDE]should
explicitlyinvestigatetherelativebenefitsoftwodifferentbutcompatibletypesofDE
technologiesfoundineveryDEprogram”(p.4).
Thepastgenerationofstudies allowedforindirectcomparisonsofpedagogical
featuresacrossstudies,suchthat differentiating amongcriticalfeaturesisnevercertain
andmaybeexplainedbyahostofalternativefactors.Incontrast,thenextgenerationof
studiesshouldallowfor thedirectcomparisonofpedagogicalfeatures,suchthat
differentiatingamongcriticalfeaturesismorecertainandmaybeexplainedbyfewer
alternativefactors.
Furthermore,asBernardetal.(2009)demonstrateditisnotalwaysnecessaryfor
primary studiesofDEandOLtodirectlyaddressinstructionalvariablessuchasinteraction,
flexibility,technologyaffordance,etc.inorderforasystematicreviewtobeconducted.Itis
necessary,however,thataconceptualstructureorconstructbedevisedintowhichprimary
studiescanberationallyintegrated.Thatis,oneconstructmustbeidentifiedwithinwhich
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning6
theconditionsinstudiesthatrepresentdifferentoperationscanbeclassedtogetheror
organizedinsomemeaningfulwaysafterthefactbythe reviewer.
Butthesestudies,especiallyhighqualitystudies,stillrepresenttheminority.A
fundamentalshiftinthecultureofresearchpracticesandthequalityofreportingneedsto
occurtoenablesystematicreviewersandmeta‐analyststocometobroaderandmore
comprehensivegeneralizationsabouttheprocessesandconditionsunderwhichlearningis
bestsupportedinDEandOLcoursedesigns.Theseinclude:
· moreresearch thatcomparesatleastoneDE/OLtreatmenttoanotherDE/OLtreatment
withan emphasisonlearningandmotivationalprocesses;
· betterresearch designs(ifnotRCTs,designsthatatleastcontrolforselectionbias);
· morestudies acrossthegradelevels(k‐12)andinhighereducationsettingsofalltypes;
· better‐quality descriptions oftreatments andhowwelltheywereimplemented;
· better‐quality measures particularlymeasuresofstudentlearning,higherorder
thinkingandengagement;and
· betterqualityreporting,preferablytheinclusionoffulldescriptivestatistics.
Thisisahope,perhapsmorelikeaplea,forthefuture.Butthereismuchtobe
learnedalreadyfromstudiesthatdocompareDE/OLconditionsdirectly.Inordertodoso,
Bernardetal. (2009) usedMoore’s(1989)tripartiteconceptionofinteractioninDEand
Anderson’s(2003)morerecentexpansionontheconditionsthatencouragestudent‐
student,student‐teacherandstudent‐contentinteractiontoexamineboththemagnitude
andthestrengthofinteractiontreatments.
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning7
InteractioninDEandOL
TheDE/OL literatureis largelyunivocalabouttheimportanceofinteraction(Lou,
Bernard,&Abrami,2006;Anderson,2003;Sutton,2001;Muirhead,2001a,2001b;Sims,
1999;Wagner,1994;Fulford&Zhang,1993;Jaspers,1991;Bates,1990;Juler,1990;
Moore,1989; Daniel&Marquis,1979,1988;Laurillard,1997).Thisisbecauseofthe
integralrolethatinteractionbetweenstudents,teachers and contentispresumedtoplayin
allofformaleducation(e.g.,Garrison&Shale,1990;Chickering&Gamson,1987) and
becauseinteraction waslargelyabsentduringsomuchoftheearlyhistoryofDE(Nipper,
1989). Butisthereempiricalevidenceforthisclaimandwhatformsofinteractionare
best? Bernardetal.(2009)wereabletosynthesizetheevidenceinsupportofthisbeliefin
ameta‐analysisthatsummarizedfindingsfrom74empiricalstudiescomparingdifferent
modesofDEtooneanother.Theyfoundtheoverallpositiveweightedaverageeffectsizeof
0.38forachievementoutcomesfavoringmoreinteractivetreatmentsoverlessinteractive
ones.Theresultssupportedtheimportanceofthreetypesofinteraction:amongstudents,
betweentheinstructorandstudents and betweenstudentsandcoursecontent.
Typesof Interaction
Aninteractioniscommonlyunderstood as actionsamongindividuals,butthis
meaningisextendedheretoincludeindividualinteractionswithcurricularcontent.Moore
(1989)distinguishedamongthreeformsofinteractioninDE:1)student‐student
interaction,2)student‐teacherinteraction;and3)student‐content interaction.
Studentstudentinteraction referstointeractionamongindividualstudentsoramong
studentsworkinginsmallgroups(Moore,1989).Incorrespondencecourses,this
interactionisoftenabsent;infact,correspondencestudentsmaynotevenbeawarethat
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning8
otherstudentsaretakingthesamecourse.InlatergenerationsofDE,includingtwo‐way
video‐ andaudio‐conferencingandWeb‐basedcourses,student‐studentinteractioncould
besynchronous,asinvideoconferencingandchatting,orasynchronous,asindiscussion
boardsore‐mailmessaging.
Studentinstructorinteraction focusesondialoguebetweenstudentsandthe
instructor.AccordingtoMoore(1989),duringstudent‐instructorinteraction,theinstructor
seeks“tostimulateoratleastmaintainthestudent’sinterestinwhatistobetaught,to
motivatethestudenttolearn,toenhanceandmaintainthelearner’sinterest,includingself‐
directionandself‐motivation”(p.2).InDEenvironments,student‐instructorinteraction
maybesynchronoussuchasthroughthetelephone,videoconferencing and chats,or
asynchronoussuchasthroughcorrespondence,e‐mail and discussionboards.
Studentcontentinteraction referstostudentsinteractingwiththesubjectmatter
understudytoconstructmeaning,relateittopersonalknowledge,andapplyittoproblem
solving.Moore(1989)describedstudent‐contentinteractionas“…theprocessof
intellectuallyinteractingwiththecontentthatresultsinchangesinthelearner’s
understanding,thelearner’sperspective,orthecognitivestructuresofthelearner’smind”
(p.2).Student‐contentinteractionmayincludereadinginformationaltextsformeaning,
usingstudyguides,watchinginstructionalvideos,interactingwithmultimedia,
participatinginsimulations,orusingcognitivesupportsoftware(e.g.,statisticalsoftware),
aswellassearchingforinformation,completingassignments and workingonprojects.
ThePositiveImpactsofInteraction
TheresultsofBernardetal.(2009)confirmedtheimportance ofeachtypeof
interactiononstudentlearning.SeeTable1forasummaryoftheresults.Eachtypeof
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning9
interactionhadasignificantlypositiveaverageeffectsizerangingfrom+0.32forstudent‐
instructorinteractionto+0.49forstudent‐studentinteraction.
Table1.Weightedaverageachievementeffectsizesforcategoriesofinteraction.
(Bernardetal.,2009)
InteractionCategories NumberofStudies Average ES (adj.) StandardError
Student‐Student(SS) 10 0.49 0.08
Student‐Instructor(SI) 44 0.32 0.04
Student‐Content(SC) 20 0.46 0.05
Total 74 0.38 0.03
Notsurprisingly,themajorconclusionfromBernardetal.(2009)wasthatdesigning
interactiontreatmentsintoDEcourses,whethertoincreaseinteractionwiththematerial
tobelearned,withthe courseinstructor,orwithpeersimpactspositivelyonstudent
learning.Butarelargerandmoreconsistentlypositiveeffectspossible?Itmaybethatthe
presenceoftheinteractionconditionsinthereviewedstudiesfunctionedinexactlythe
waytheywereintended,sothattheestimatesoftheeffectswerefairlyaccurate.Butjust
becauseopportunitiesforinteractionwereofferedtostudentsdoesnotmeanthatstudents
availedthemselvesofthem,oriftheydidinteract,thattheydidsoeffectively. Thelatter
caseisthemorelikelyevent,sotheachievementeffectsresultingfromwell‐implemented
interactionconditionsmaybeunderestimatedinourreview.
Therefore,webelievethatwhatweidentifiedinBernardetal.(2009)istheimpactof
thefirstgenerationofinteractivedistanceeducation(IDE1),whereonlinelearning
instructionaldesignandtechnologytreatments allowedorenabledsomedegreeof
interactiontooccur.Inotherwords,inIDE1learnerswereabletointeractbutmaynot
havedonesooptimallygiventhequalityandquantityofinteractionsthatoccurred.These
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning10
interactionsmayhavebeenlimitedbyhowthecoursesusedintheresearchweredesigned
anddeliveredandlimitedbyhowtechnologymediatedlearningandinstruction.
Consequently,thenextgenerationofinteractivedistanceeducation(IDE2),or
purposeful,interactivedistanceeducation,shouldbebetterdesignedtofacilitate
interactionsthat aremoretargeted,intentional andengaging.Notonlywillweneed
knowledgetoolsandinstructionaldesignsthatdothiseffectively,butwewillalsoneed
researchthatvalidatesboththeunderlyingprocesses(e.g.,usingimplementationchecks
andmeasuresoftreatmentintegrity)aswellastheoutcomesofIDE2(e.g.,especially
measuresofstudentlearning).
TheNext Level ofInteractiveDistanceEducation(IDE2)
Onewaytoadvancethisnew,moreinteractive DEisviathedevelopmentof
specializedknowledgetoolsorcustomizedinstructionaldesigns. Ourunderstandingofa
knowledgetoolis thatofan educationalsoftwarethatscaffoldsandsupportsstudent
learning. Ifdesignedproperlyitdependsonandincorporatesbasicinstructionalprinciples
toenablepositiveoutcomes. Instructionaldesignisthepracticeofmaximizingthe
effectiveness,efficiencyandappealofinstructionandotherlearningexperiences.Effective
knowledgetoolsforIDE2shouldbebasedonsoundinstructionaldesignorallow
instructionaldesigntemplatestobeaddedtothem.
Beldarrain(2006)notesthat althoughemergingtechnologiesofferavastrangeof
opportunitiesforpromotingcollaborationinlearningenvironments,distanceeducation
programsaroundtheglobefacechallengesthatmaylimitordeterimplementationofthese
technologies. Beldarrain(2008), likeMoore(1989),believesthat instructionaldesign
modelsmustbeadaptedtointegratevarioustypesofinteractions,eachwithaspecific
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning11
purposeandintendedoutcome.Itisalsonecessarytochoosetheappropriatetechnology
toolsthatfostercollaboration,communicationandcognition.Furthermore,instructional
designmodelsmustanchorstudentinteractionintheinstructionalobjectivesand
strategiesthatcreate,supportandenhancelearningenvironments. Beldarrain(2008)
exploresfiveinstructionaldesignframeworksandassessestheireffectivenessin
integratinginteractionaspartofthedesignanddevelopmentphaseofDE.Shealso
providesliterature‐basedsuggestionsforenhancingtheabilityofthesedesignframeworks
tofosterstudent interaction.
Guided,focusedandpurposefulinteractiongoesbeyondwhetheropportunitiesfor
interactionexisttoconsiderespeciallywhyandhowinteractionoccurs.Whenstudents
consider why theyengageinlearningactivitiestheyarereflectingontheirmotivation
(fromtheLatinword“movere”meaningtomove)forlearningincludingtheenergyof
activityandthedirectionofthatenergytowardsagoal. Whenstudentsconsider how they
engageinlearningtheyareaddressingthestrategiesandtechniques forknowledge
acquisition.
EvidencebasedapproachestoIDE2
Wehighlightbelowseveralevidence‐basedapproachesusefulinthenextgeneration
ofIDE2.Theseincludeprinciplesandapplicationsfromthetheoriesofself‐regulation,
multimedialearning, motivation and collaborativelearning.Wealsodiscusschallengesin
integratingtheseprinciplesinIDE2.
SelfregulationPrinciples
OneimportantinterpretationofpurposefulinteractioninIDE2meanslearnerswill
beself‐regulated;theywillsetclear goalsanddevelopstrategiesforachievingthosegoals,
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning12
monitortheiractivity and reflectontheiraccomplishmentsusingbothselfandpeeror
teacherfeedback(Zimmerman,2000).Self‐regulatedlearnersareindividualswhoare
metacognitively,motivationally and behaviorallyactiveparticipantsintheirownlearning
(Zimmerman,2000).Amainfeatureofself‐regulatedlearningismetacognition,which
referstotheawareness,knowledge and controlofcognition.Thethreeprocessesthatmake
upmetacognitive self‐regulationareplanning,monitoring and regulating.Proponentsof
socio‐cognitivemodelsemphasizethattodevelopeffectiveself‐regulatedlearning
strategies,“studentsneedtobeinvolvedincomplexmeaningfultasks,choosingthe
productsandprocessesthatwillbeevaluated,modifyingtasksandassessmentcriteriato
attainanoptimalchallenge,obtainingsupportfrompeers and evaluatingtheirownwork”
(Perry,1998,p.716).
Thethreecyclicalphasesofself‐regulationincludebothmetacognitiveand
motivationalcomponents,providingthefoundationforbettersustainabilityoflearningand
skilldevelopment.Theforethoughtphaseincludestaskanalysis(goalsettingandstrategic
planning)andconsiderationofself‐motivationbeliefs(self‐efficacy,outcomeexpectations,
intrinsicinterest/valueandgoalorientation).Learnersneedtosetgoalsandmakeplansto
engagesuccessfullyinthetaskaswellastakestockoftheirownmotivationtowardthe
task.Thenextphase,theperformancephase,includesself‐control(self‐instruction,
imagery,attentionfocusingandtaskstrategies)andself‐observation(self‐recordingand
self‐experimentation).Learnersneedtoengageintheactivity,controllingtheirprocesses
and observetheirownperformance. Finally,theself‐reflectionphaseincludesself‐
judgment(self‐evaluationandcasualattribution)andself‐reaction(self‐satisfaction/affect
andadaptive‐defensiveresponses)(Zimmerman,2000).Herelearnersexaminethemselves
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning13
anddevelopmotivational‘responses’orreactions (SeeFigure1). Zimmerman(2008)
emphasizestheimportanceofdirectingfurtherresearchatthemotivationalaspectsofself‐
regulationandZimmermanandTsikalas(2005)discusshowstudentmotivationalbeliefs
needtobeanintegralpartofthedesignofeducationalsoftware.
Figure1.Zimmerman’s(2000)CyclicalModelofSelfregulation
Thoughthetermsaredifferent,distanceeducationhasemphasizedtheneedfor
studentstobeself‐directedandtolearnhowtolearn;historicallythisemphasiscomes
fromtheadultlearningliteratureasearlymodelsofdistanceeducationlargelycateredto
olderlearners.Thereisanemphasisonadultsdirectingtheirownlearninginamyriadof
waysfrommonitoringtheirprogresstosetting theirownlearninggoals.Knowles(1980)
PerformanceorVolitional
Control
Processesthatoccurduring
motoriceffortsandaffect
attentionandaction
Forethought
Influentialprocesses
thatprecedeefforts
toactandsetthe
stageforaction
SelfReflection
Processesthatoccur
afterperformance
effortsandinfluencea
person’sresponseto
thatexperience
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning14
outlinedsixkeyprinciplesofhisadultlearningtheory,twoofwhichaddressadultlearners’
self‐regulation:learnersneedtobeawareofthelearningprocesstobeundertaken,where
thatprocessleads(thelearningwhichwillbeachieved) and whythelearningisimportant;
theyalsoneedtobeself‐directedintheirlearning,takingownershipoverthemethodsand
goalsoflearning.Similarly,Brookfield(1995)discussesadultlearners’needstobeself‐
directed, asillustratedbysettingupgoals,findingrelevantresources and evaluatingtheir
ownprogress and theimportanceofsupportingadultsinlearninghowtolearn.Such
approacheshavebeencriticizedforplacingtoomuchemphasisontheindividual,ashas
theconceptofself‐regulation.HickeyandMcCaslin(2001) suggestthatreconciliationwith
more ofa socio‐constructivistperspectivewouldnotnecessarilyprohibittheconceptof
self‐regulation, butitwouldbeframedwithinthecontextoflearnersincreasingtheir
engagementincommunitiesofpractice.
Itispossibletocreateinstructionaldesignswithmanyofthefeaturesofself‐
regulationandtoembedthesedesignsastemplatesintoexistingtoolsfordistanceand
onlinelearning,especiallythose thatareintendedtosupportcomputerconferencing(e.g.,
FirstClass).Butknowledgetoolsareemerging, designed specifically topromotestudent
self‐regulationinblended,onlineanddistancelearningcontexts.ePEARL,anelectronic
portfolio software thatservestosupportlearningprocesses andencourageself‐regulated
learning,isonesuchtool(Abrami,Wade,Pillay,Aslan,Bures&Bentley,2008; Meyer,
Abrami,Wade,Aslan,&Deault,2010).
MultimediaLearningPrinciples
Researchonlearningfrommultimediahasleadtothedevelopmentofinstructional
designprinciplesbyMayer(2001,2008).Inaclassicexperiment,Paivio(1969)foundthat
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning15
subjectswhowereshownarapidsequenceofpicturesaswellasarapidsequenceofwords
andlateraskedtorecallthewordsandpictures,eitherinorderofappearanceorinany
ordertheywanted,werebetteratrecallingimageswhenallowedtodosoinanyorder.
Participants,however,morereadilyrecalledthesequentialorderofthewords,ratherthan
thesequenceofpictures.TheseresultssupportedPaivio'shypothesisthatverbal
informationisprocesseddifferentlythanvisualinformation.
Paivio’sdualcodingtheoryofinformationprocessing(1971,1986)givesweightto
bothverbalandnon‐verbalprocessing. Thetheorypositsthattherearetwocognitive
subsystems,onespecializedfortherepresentationandprocessingofnonverbal
objects/events(i.e.,imagery) and theotherspecializedfordealingwithlanguage.
Followingfromthispioneeringwork,Mayer(2001,2008)describesacognitive
theoryofmultimedialearningorganizedaroundthreecoreprinciples:a)dualchannels —
theideathathumanspossessseparatechannelsforprocessingvisualandverbalmaterial;
b)limited capacity — theideathateachchannelcanprocessonlyalimitedamountof
materialatanyonetime;andc)activeprocessing — theideathatdeeplearningdepends
onthelearner’scognitiveprocessingduringlearning(e.g.,selecting,organizing and
integrating).
AccordingtoMayer(2001,2008),thecentralchallengeofinstructionaldesignfor
multimedialearningistoencouragelearnerstoengageinappropriatecognitiveprocessing
duringlearningwhilenotoverloadingtheprocessingcapacityoftheverbalorvisual
channel.Accordingly,Mayer(2001,2008)summarizesaseriesofevidence‐based
principlesforthedesignofmultimedialearningtools.
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning16
Therearefiveprinciplesforreducingextraneousprocessingandthewasteof
cognitivecapacity,threeprinciplesformanagingessentialprocessingandreducing
complexity and twoprinciplesforfosteringgenerativeprocessingandencouragingtheuse
ofcognitivecapacity. Theseevidence‐basedprinciplesarelistedinTable2. Forexample,
thefiveprinciplesofforreducingextraneousprocessingincludecoherence,signaling,
redundancy,spatialcontiguity and temporalcontiguity.Alloftheseprinciplesareintended
tofocusthelearner’sattentionandprocessingofinformationandavoiddistractionsor
spuriousmentalactivityleadingtocognitiveoverload.
Byusingtheevidence‐basedprinciplesofmultimedialearning,interactionbetween
studentsandthecoursecontent,inparticular,willbeenhancedbygoingbeyondthemere
inclusionofinteractivemultimediainDEandOLcourses.Theseevidence‐basedprinciples
helpinsurethatlearningfrommultimediawillbemeaningful,maximizingthestorageor
constructionofknowledgeanditsretrieval.
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning17
Table2.Mayer’s(2001,2008)MultimediaLearningDesignPrinciples
FiveEvidenceBasedandTheoreticallyGroundedPrinciplesforReducing
ExtraneousProcessing
Principle Definition
Coherence Reduceextraneousmaterial
Signaling Highlightessentialmaterial
Redundancy Donotaddon‐screentexttonarrated
animation
Spatialcontiguity Placeprintedwordsnextto
correspondinggraphics
Temporalcontiguity Presentcorrespondingnarrationand
animationatthesametime.
ThreeEvidenceBasedandTheoreticallyGroundedPrinciplesforManaging
EssentialProcessing
Segmenting Presentanimationinlearner‐paced
segments
Pre‐training
Providepre‐traininginthename,
locationandcharacteristicsofkey
components
Modality Presentwordsasspokentextrather
thanprintedtext
Two EvidenceBasedandTheoreticallyGroundedPrinciplesforFostering
GenerativeProcessing
Multimedia Presentwordsandpicturesratherthan
wordsalone
Personalization Presentwordsinconversationalstyle
ratherthanformalstyle
Motivational DesignPrinciples
Motivationalprinciplesarealsoimportantinthedesignofeducationalsoftwareto
insureitisactivelyused.Inanenlighteningarticle,Fishman,Marx,Blumfield,Krajickand
Soloway(2004)acknowledgedthatfartoofewcognitively‐basedorconstructively‐
orientedknowledgetoolsareinwideuseinschoolsystems.Theprimaryusesof
educationaltechnologyremaindrillandpractice,wordprocessing and websurfing(Burns
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning18
&Ungerleider,2003),whereasthemosthelpfulforlearningappeartobetechnologiesthat
offerstudentsvariousformsofcognitivesupport(e.g., Schmid,Bernard,Borokhovski,
Tamim,Abrami,Wade,etal.,2009).Fishmanetal.(2004)claimthatweneedtounderstand
waystoencourageinstructorandstudent“buyin”oracceptanceofthevalueandpurpose
oftheinnovation.Wozney,VenkateshandAbrami(2006)usedexpectancytheoryto
explainteacherintegrationoftechnology.Expectationsofsuccess,theperceivedvalueof
outcomes,versusthecostsofadoptionwerekeyfactorsinexplainingteacheradoptionand
persistence.Finally,MoosandAzevedo (2009)summarizedevidenceonthepositive
associationbetweenstudents’computerself‐efficacybeliefsandlearningwitheducational
software.
Thesecommentsandfindingsaboutstudentandeducatormotivationandtheuseof
educationalsoftwareoverlap withmotivationalprinciplesforinstructionaldesignin
general.Pintrich(2003)providedfivemotivationalgeneralizationsand14instructional
designprinciplesthatareevidence‐based.Themotivationalgeneralizationsare:1)
adaptiveself‐efficacyand competencebeliefsmotivatestudents,2)adaptiveattributions
andcontrolbeliefsmotivatestudents,3)higherlevelsofinterestandintrinsicmotivation
motivatestudents,4)higherlevelsofvaluemotivatestudents and 5)goalsmotivateand
directstudents (SeeTable3.)
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning19
Table3.MotivationalGeneralizationsandDesignPrinciples(Pintrich,2003)
Motivational
generalization Designprinciple
Adaptiveself‐
efficacyand
competencebeliefs
motivatestudents
• Provideclearandaccuratefeedbackregardingcompetenceand
self‐efficacy,focusingonthedevelopmentofcompetence,expertise
and skill.
• Designtasksthatofferopportunitiestobesuccessfulbutalso
challengestudents.
Adaptive
attributionsand
controlbeliefs
motivatestudents
• Providefeedbackthatstressesprocessnatureoflearning,
includingimportanceofeffort,strategies and potentialself‐control
oflearning.
• Provideopportunitiestoexercisesomechoiceandcontrol.
• Buildsupportiveandcaringpersonalrelationshipsinthe
communityoflearnersintheclassroom.
Higherlevelsof
interestand
intrinsicmotivation
motivatestudents
• Providestimulatingandinterestingtasks,activities and
materials,includingsomenoveltyandvarietyintasksand
activities.
• Providecontent materialandtasksthatarepersonally
meaningfulandinterestingtostudents.
• Displayandmodelinterestandinvolvementinthecontentand
activities.
Higherlevelsof
valuemotivate
students
• Providetasks,material and activitiesthatarerelevant anduseful
tostudents,allowingforsomepersonalidentificationwithschool.
• Classroomdiscourseshouldfocusonimportanceandutilityof
contentandactivities.
Goalsmotivateand
directstudents
• Useorganizationalandmanagementstructuresthatencourage
personalandsocialresponsibilityandprovideasafe,comfortable
and predictableenvironment.
• Usecooperativeandcollaborativegroupstoallowfor
opportunitiestoattainbothsocialandacademicgoals.
• Classroomdiscourseshouldfocusonmastery,learning and
understandingcourseandlessoncontent.
• Usetask,reward and evaluationstructuresthatpromotemastery,
learning,effort,progress and self‐improvementstandardsandless
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning20
relianceonsocialcomparisonornorm‐referencedstandards.
Forexample,toencourageself‐efficacyandstudentcompetencybeliefsmeans
distanceand onlinecourseneedtobestructuredto:a)provideclearandaccuratefeedback
regardingcompetenceandself‐efficacy,focusingonthedevelopmentofcompetence,
expertise and skill;andb)offeropportunitiestobesuccessfulbutalsochallengestudents.
Tomaximizestudentsvaluesforlearningcoursecontentrequires:a)tasks,material and
activitiesthatarerelevantandusefultostudents,allowingforsomepersonalidentification
withschoolandthecontenttobelearned;andb)discoursethatfocusesontheimportance
andutilityofcontentandactivities.
Animportantreasontouseaknowledgetooloccurswhenlearnersareundertaking
large,novelordifficult tasksratherthantrivialorroutineones.Knowledgetoolsmaybe
bestsuitedtosituationswhenlearnershavetobeconscientiouslyengagedinlearning,
whentheoutcomeisimportant and/orwhentheprocessisbeingjudgedorevaluated.
Knowledgetoolsarealsosuitedtosituationswhentheoutcomeisuncertain and especially
whenstudenteffortmatters and/orwhenfailurehasoccurredpreviously.Oneideal
situationiswhereaknowledgetoolisintegratedintoinstruction,wherethetaskis
complexandnovel,wherethelearnerwantstodowellanddoingwellisimportant and
whenthestudentisnotcertainhowwells/hewilldobutbelievesthatpersonaleffortsto
learnwillleadtosuccess.
CollaborativeandCooperativeLearningPrinciples
Whenstudent‐to‐studentinteractionbecomestrulycollaborativeandlearnerswork
togethertohelpeachotherlearn,thebenefitsofinteractivitymaybelargest.Lou,Abrami&
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning21
d’Apollonia(2001)examinedtheeffectsoflearninginsmallgroupswithtechnologyand
reachedsimilarconclusions.
Louetal.’s(2001)studyquantitativelysynthesizedtheempiricalresearchonthe
effectsofsocialcontext(i.e.,smallgroupversusindividuallearning)whenstudentslearn
usingcomputertechnology.Intotal,486independentfindingswereextractedfrom122
studiesinvolving11,317learners.Theresultsindicatedthat,onaverage,smallgroup
learninghadsignificantlymorepositiveeffectsthanindividuallearningonstudent
individualachievement(average ES = +0.15),grouptaskperformance(average ES = +0.31)
and severalprocessandaffectiveoutcomes.Theeffectsofsmallgrouplearningwere
significantlyenhancedwhen:(a)studentshadgroupworkexperienceorinstruction;(b)
specificcooperativelearningstrategieswere employed;(c)groupsizewassmall(i.e.,two
members);(d)usingtutorialsorpracticesoftwareorprogramminglanguages;(e)learning
computerskills,socialsciencesandothersubjectssuchasmanagementandsocialstudies;
and(f)studentswereeither relativelylowinabilityorrelativelyhighinability.Whenall
thepositiveconditionsarepresent,especiallywhenstudieswerepublishedinjournals,
moderatepositiveeffectsofsocialcontext(average ES = +0.66)maybeexpected.
Louetal.(2001)suggestedthatpriorgrouplearningexperienceandtheteacher’suse
ofcooperativelearningstrategiesareimportantpedagogicalfactorsthatmayinfluence
howmuchstudentslearnwhenworkinginsmallgroupsusingtechnology.Explanationsof
groupdynamicssuggestthatnotallgroupsfunctionwell;forexample,groupsoftendonot
functionwellwhensomemembersexertonlyminimaleffort.Studentsneedpractice
workingtogetherongroupactivitiesandtraininginhowtoworkcollaboratively.
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning22
Experiencein groupworkmayenablememberstouseacquiredstrategiesforeffective
groupworkmoreeffectively.
Specificinstructionforcooperativelearningensuresthatstudentslearninginsmall
groupswillhavepositiveinterdependenceaswellasindividualaccountabilitythatare
essentialqualitiesofeffectivecooperativelearning(Abramietal.,1995).Positive
interdependenceamongoutcomes,means,orinterpersonalfactorsexistswhenone
student’ssuccesspositivelyinfluencesthechancesofotherstudents’ successes.According
toAbramietal.(1995)positiveinterdependencedevelopsalongacontinuumform
teacher‐structuredinterdependence,followedbystudentperceptionsofinterdependence,
leadingtostudentinterdependencebehaviors and culminatinginstudentinterdependence
values.
Individualaccountabilityamongoutcomes,means and interpersonalfactorsinvolves
twocomponents:1)eachstudentisresponsibleforhisorherownlearningand2)each
studentisresponsibleforhelpingtheothergroupmemberslearn.Likepositive
interdependence,individualaccountabilitydevelopsalongacontinuumfromteacher‐
imposedstructuretoaccountabilityasastudentvalue.
Recently,JohnsonandJohnson(2009)updatedtheirreviewoftheevidenceon
cooperativelearningnotingthattheresearchintheareahasbeenvoluminousnumbering
inexcessof1,200studies.Theyelaboratedontheimportanceofpositiveinterdependence
andindividualaccountabilitybutalso promotiveinteractions.Promotiveinteractionsoccur
asindividualsencourageandfacilitateeachother’sefforts toaccomplishthegroup’sgoals.
Promotiveinteractionischaracterizedby individuals:1)actingintrustingandtrustworthy
ways;2)exchangingneededresources,suchasinformationand materials and processing
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning23
informationmoreefficiently andeffectively;3)providingefficientandeffectivehelpand
assistanceto groupmates;4)beingmotivatedtostriveformutualbenefit; 5)advocating
exertingefforttoachievemutualgoals; 6)havingamoderatelevelofarousal,characterized
bylowanxietyandstress; 7)influencingeachother’seffortstoachievethegroup’sgoals;
8)providinggroupmateswithfeedbackinordertoimprove theirsubsequentperformance
ofassignedtasksandresponsibilities;9)challengingeachother’sreasoningand
conclusionsinordertopromotehigherqualitydecisionmakingandgreatercreativity;and
10)takingtheperspectivesofothersmoreaccuratelyandthusbeingbetterabletoexplore
differentpointsofview.
NoreenWebb(Webb,1989,2008;Webb&Mastergeorge,2006;Webb&Palincsar,
1996)hasexaminedextensivelywhatconstituteseffectivecollaborationintermsofhow
meaningfullearningisexchanged.Ineffectivecollaborationincludesprovidingcorrect
answerswithoutexplanation.Effectivecollaborationincludesgivingandreceiving
elaboratedexplanationswithafocusonencouragingunderstandinginothers.
Whendesigningonlineanddistancelearning,instructionaldesignersshouldconsider
thesefiveprinciples—positiveinterdependence,individualaccountability,promotive
interactions,elaboratedexplanationsandknowledgebuildingdiscourse.Thereareknowledge
toolsthatcanbedesignedtobetterscaffoldandsupportaspectsofcollaborativeandcooperative
learningormoregenerally,studenttostudentinteraction.Andtheymayalsobeusedtosupport
studenttocontentinteractionandstudenttoteacherinteractionaswell.
ChallengestoIDE2
Abrami(inpress)consideredseveralreasonswhylearnersdo notbetterutilizesome
knowledgetools.Thefirstisbasedontheprincipleofleasteffort.Eventhebeststrategic
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning24
learnersneedtobalanceefficiencyconcernswitheffectivenessconcerns,aswellasbalance
proximalgoalswithdistalones.Strategic learnersneedtofindthemiddlegroundbetween
howmuchtheycanlearnandhowwelltheycanlearn,orbetweenthequantityoflearning
andthequantityoflearning.
Second,strategiclearnersoftenhavetofindthebalancebetweenintrinsicinterests
andextrinsicrequirements.Frankly,thepostsecondarylearningsystemimposesitsown
restrictionsonstudents(e.g.,courserequirements)thatmaynotmakeeffortfulstrategies
uniformlyappropriate.
Third,decadesago,McClellandandAtkinsonillustrated theimpactnotonlyof
individualdifferencesinachievementstrivingsbuttheimportanceofperceivedoutcometo
learners’taskchoicesandpersistence.Yearslater,Weinershowedhowcausalattributions
fortaskoutcomesvariedamonglearners,thattheseattributionsaffectedthinking,
behaviorandfeelings and thatattributionsvarieddependingonsubjectiveestimatesofthe
likelihoodoffuturesuccessandlater,perceivedoutcome.
Whenweaskstudentstotakepersonalresponsibilityfortheirownlearning,wemay
createaninternalconflictforstudents.First,doesastudentbelieves/hecansucceedatthis
learningtask?Second,doesastudentbelievethatthistoolwillhelps/hesucceed?Third,
doesastudentwanttotakeresponsibilityforhis/herownlearning?WhileMcClellandand
Atkinson(e.g.,McClelland,Atkinson,Clark&Lowell;1953)showedthathighneed
achieversaredrawntomoderatelychallengingtasks,weknowthathighneedachievers
tendtoavoidtaskswhicharelowintheprobabilityofsuccess.Weinerandothers(e.g.,
Weiner,1980)showedthattherearemarkeddifferencesincausalattributionswhen
learnersperceivetheyhavesucceededversusfailed.Attributionalbiasmeanslearners
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning25
attributesuccesstointernalcausesandfailuretoexternalones.Defensiveattributionsfor
failure(e.g.,Ifailedbecausetheexamwastoohardormyteacherdidnothelp)helpprotect
alearner’ssenseofself‐efficacy(i.e.,keepalearnerfromconcludings/hefailedbecauseof
lackofability).
Therefore,theremaybesituationswhereincreasedpersonalresponsibilityfor
learningisnotalwaysbeneficialtoalearner’sachievementstrivings,causalattributions
and self‐efficacy.Thesesituationshavemostlytodowiththelearner’sperception ofthe
likelihoodoffuturesuccessand/orperceivedoutcome.Forexample,innovelorvery
demandingsituations,especiallyonesthatarehighinimportance,learnersmaywantto
avoidtakingresponsibilityfortheirlearning(andthelearningofothers)untilsuchtimeas
theyareconfidentofapositiveoutcome.Inotherwords,itislikelythatsomelearnerswill
returntheresponsibilityforlearningtotheinstructoror,moregenerally,theinstructional
deliverysystem,asacceptitthemselves.
Fourth,relatedtotheaboveistheimportanceofeffort‐outcomecovariation.
Productivelearnerscometobelievethattheireffortsatlearningleadtosuccessfullearning
outcomes.Theselearnerscometobelievethat“theharderandmorethatItry,the more
likelyIamtoachieve apositivelearningoutcome.” Theoppositebeliefiswhenalearner
believesthattheireffortsbearlittle,ifany,relationshiptolearningoutcomes.In
behavioralterms,thisislearningthatoutcomesarenon‐contingentonactions,called
learnedhelplessnessbySeligman(1975).Seligmandemonstratedthatafterexperiencing
thesenon‐contingencieslearnersmadealmostnoefforttoactevenwhenthecontingencies
werechanged.Thispassivity,eveninthefaceofaversivestimuli,isdifficulttoreverse.
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning26
Fifth,inordertoencourageactivecollaborationamonglearners,itisoftennecessary
attheoutsettoimposeexternalstructuresincludingindividualaccountabilityandpositive
interdependence.Thesestructuresinsurethat eachlearnerknowsthats/heisresponsible
forhis/herownlearningwithinagroupandthats/heisalsoresponsibleforthelearningof
others,respectively.Eventually,themeaningandvalueofthesestructuresbecome
internalizedandarenolongernecessarytoimpose(Abramietal.,1995).
However,notalltaskslendthemselvesequallywelltocollaborationorrequireteam
activityinthesamefashion.Steiner’stypologyoftasks(1972)presentsfourmajortask
types — additive,compensatory,disjunctive and conjunctive.Forexample,Steinerclaims
thatcertaintypesofdisjunctivetasks(e.g.,questionsinvolvingyes/nooreither/or
answers)providegroupperformancesthatareonlyequaltoorarelessthanthe
performanceofthemostcapablegroupmember. Incontrast,additivetasks,where
individualinputsarecombined,providegroupperformancesthatarealwaysbetterthan
themostcapablegroupmember. Cohen(1994)notedthattruegrouptasksrequire
resourcesthatnosingleindividualpossessesso thatnooneislikelytosolvetheproblem
withoutinputfromothers. Intheabsenceoftruegrouptasksandwhenindividual
accountabilityandpositiveinterdependenceareill‐structured,learningingroupsmaysee
areductioninindividualeffort,notanincrease,colorfullyreferredtoas“socialloafing”
(Latane,Williams&Harkin,1979). Indeed,Abramietal.(1995)summarized tenfactors
thatresearchshowedarerelatedtosocialloafing:size,equalityofefforts, identifiability,
responsibility,redundancy,involvement,cohesiveness,goals,heterogeneity and time.
Creatingactivitiesthataccountsfortheinfluenceofthesefactorsongroupproductivity
andindividuallearningisatallorder. Anditmaybemoredifficultinanelectroniclearning
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning27
environmentwhere,forexample,thereislessidentifiability(i.e.,individualcontributions
thatareclearlyidentified)andtaskswherethereismoreredundancy(i.e.,individualswho
believetheircontributionsarenotunique).
Tosummarize,thefollowingfactorsmaybeatworkinpreventingmorepervasive
andpersistentuseofknowledgetoolsbystudents:
· learnersdonotvaluetheoutcome(s)oflearningsufficientlytoincreasetheireffortsto
learn — it isnotsoimportanttodowell;
· learnersbelievethatgainsinlearningfromincreasedeffortareinefficient — ittakes
toomuchefforttodoalittlebitbetter;
· learnersdonotwanttobecomemoreresponsiblefortheirownlearning — itistoo
riskyunlesstheperceivedchancesofapositiveoutcome areincreased; and
· learnersbelievethatnovelapproachestolearning(useofunfamiliarknowledgetools)
increasethelikelihoodofpooroutcomes,notincreasethem — itisnotofinterest ortoo
risky because theydonotbelievethetoolwillhelpthem learn.
Therearewaystoovercomethesechallenges.Severalsuggestionsforfutureresearch
anddevelopmentfollow.
First,knowledgetoolsmustbestructuredsotheyincreasetheefficiencyoflearning
aswellastheeffectivenessoflearning. Assuch,instructionaldesignerspaymoreattention
to easeofuse asanoveralldesignobjective,wherelearnersneedevenmoreguidanceasto
whichfeaturestouse,howandwhen. Timeisonecriticalfactoranditmaybedealtwithin
numerouswaysincludingstructuringhowtoolactivitiesarecarriedout(e.g.,weekly)or
makingthempartoftheevaluationscheme.Simplicityofusemaybeimportant;avoiding
the additionoftimetolearnhowtousetechnologyattheexpenseoftimeneededtolearn
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning28
thecontent. Itwouldbeinterestingtoknownotonlywhetheruseofeachtoolresultednot
onlyinincreasedachievementbutalsointhelinkbetweenboththequalityandquantityof
useandlearninggains — aformofcost/benefitratio.
Second,studentsneedmoreguidanceabout whentouse thetoolandnotonly
whethertouseit. Thatis,thetoolshouldbeusedwhenalearningtaskisbothdifficultand
important. Adviceandfeedbackfrominstructorsmayhelp,aswellasqueriesand
suggestionsembeddedinthetool. Not everylearningtaskrequirestheuseofaknowledge
toolanditsuseprobablyvariesaccordingtotheskillsandinterestsofeachlearner.
Furthermore, evenwhenataskwarrantstheuseof atool,notall featuresofthetoolmay
needtobeused.Someexplanation,embeddedwithinthetool,regardingwhentousewhich
featurewouldalsobeuseful.
Third,likeanytool,physicalorcognitive,usersneed practice tousethetoolwelland
wisely.Youdon’tlicenseadriverafteroneday’spracticeoraskacarpenterapprenticeto
buildacabinetafterasingletimeusingabandsaw. Askingstudentstouseatool
voluntarilywhereperformanceandgradesmatterisstakingthedeckagainstenthusiastic
use. Requiringusemayamelioratetheproblembecauseitisfairtoeveryone.Nevertheless,
learnersmaynowfacethedualchallengeofnotonlylearningcomplexandchallenging
materialbutdoingsoinanovelandeffortfulway. Useof thetoolshouldbe “well‐learned”
andsecondnaturebeforeitbecomesarequiredpartofacourseorprogramofstudy. And
learnersmustbeconvincedthatthetoolhelpsthemlearn. Inthelatterregard,careful
attentionshouldbepaidtofeedbackfromstudentsandinstructorsonsuccessandfailures
stories,includingtheformerastestimonialsembeddedinthetool.
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning29
Fourth,cognitivetoolsandlearningstrategiesmayworkbestwhentheyarean
integralfeatureofacourseor programofstudyandnotanadd‐on. Thisisthetruemeaning
of technologyintegration orwhentheuseoftechnologyisnotseparatefromthecontentto
belearnedbutembeddedinit. Thisintegrationmayrequirethesamedegreeof
forethought,planningandgoalsettingonthepartofinstructorstoinsureeffectiveand
efficientstudentuse. Andinstructorsneedtrainingandexperiencewiththeuseoftoolsto
encouragescalabilityandsustainability.
Summary
TheresultsofBernardetal.(2009)confirmedtheimportanceofstudent‐student,
student‐contentandstudent‐teacherinteractionforstudentlearning.Thenextgeneration
ofinteractivedistanceeducation(IDE2)shouldbebetterdesignedtofacilitatemore
purposefulinteraction.Guided,focusedandpurposefulinteractiongoesbeyondwhether
opportunitiesforinteractionexisttoconsiderespeciallywhyandhowinteractionoccurs.
Whenstudentsconsiderhowtheyengageinlearningtheyconsider, orareprovidedwith,
thestrategiesandtechniquesforknowledgeacquisition. Wehighlightedseveralevidence‐
basedapproachesusefulinthenextgenerationIDE2. Theseincludeprinciplesand
applicationsfromthetheoriesofself‐regulationandmultimedialearning,research‐based
motivationalprinciplesandcollaborativelearningprinciples.
Selfregulatedlearningprinciples:
1. Includeaforethoughtphasethatinvolves taskanalysis(goalsettingandstrategic
planning)andself‐motivationbeliefs(self‐efficacy,outcomeexpectations,intrinsic
interest/valueandgoalorientation).
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning30
2. Providea performancephase that includesself‐control(self‐instruction,imagery,
attentionfocusingandtaskstrategies)andself‐observation(self‐recordingandself‐
experimentation).
3. Integratea self‐reflectionphase that includesself‐judgment(self‐evaluationand
casualattribution)andself‐reaction(self‐satisfaction/affectand adaptive‐defensive
responses).
Multimedia LearningPrinciples:
1. Reduceextraneousprocessingandthewasteofcognitivecapacity.
2. Manageessentialprocessingandreducingcomplexity.
3. Fostergenerativeprocessingandencouragetheuseofcognitivecapacity.
Motivationaldesignprinciples:
1. Encourageadaptiveself‐efficacyandcompetencebeliefs.
2. Promoteadaptiveattributionsandcontrolbeliefs.
3. Stimulatehigherlevelsofinterestandintrinsicmotivation.
4. Insurehigherlevelsof taskvalue.
5. Encouragethe identificationofgoals that motivateanddirectstudents.
6. Participate inacontextwhereknowledgeisvaluedandusedmotivatesstudents.
Collaborativeandcooperativelearningprinciples:
1. Structurepositiveinterdependencesuchthat onestudent’ssuccess positively
influencesthechancesofotherstudents’successes.
2. Highlightindividualaccountability inwaysthat eachstudentisresponsiblefor:a) his
orherownlearning; andb)helpingtheothergroupmemberslearn.
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning31
3. Insurepromotiveinteractionsoccur allowing individuals to encourageandfacilitate
eachother’sefforts toaccomplishthegroup’sgoals.
4. Maximizethelikelihoodthatstudentsgiveandreceive elaboratedexplanationswitha
focusonencouragingunderstandinginothers.
OvercomingChallengesto IDE2
1. Instructionaldesignersshouldpaymoreattentiontoeaseofuseasanoveralldesign
objective.
2. Studentsneedmoreguidanceaboutwhen,underwhatcircumstancesandforwhat
purposes, tousethetool.
3. Usersneedpracticetousethetoolwelland wisely.
4. Cognitivetoolsandlearningstrategiesmayworkbestwhentheyareanintegral
featureofacourse.
Bernardetal.(2009)establishedtheimportanceofstudent‐student,student‐content
and student‐instructorinteractioninonlineanddistanceeducationthatwecalledIDE1.
Foratrulynewgenerationofdistanceandonlinelearning (IDE2)tosucceedinachieving
theobjectiveofdeeperandmoremeaningfullearning,technologicaltoolsshouldmatchthe
bestofwhatmodernpedagogycanoffer — becomegenuinelyinteractivebyincorporating
fundamentalprinciplesderivedfrom cognitive,educational and socialscienceresearch.
Inthispaper,wehavearguedforchangestoprimaryquantitative/experimental
researchdesignsinDE/OLtoexaminealternativeinstructionaltreatments“head‐to‐head.”
WecanseenofutureimprovementstoDE/OLifcomparisonstoCIcontinuetoprevail.
Howfarwouldourunderstandingofautomotivetechnologyhaveprogressed,forinstance,
ifcars(i.e.,“horselesscarriages”)werestilldesignedasalternativestohorses?Secondly,
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning32
webelievethatDE/OLresearchanddevelopmentisstillinitsinfancywithregardstoour
abilitytoengineersuccessfulinteractionamongstudents,betweenteachersandstudents
andbetweenstudents andcontent.Here,wehaveaddressedseveraltheoretical
perspectivesthatshouldbeexploredmorefully,butwehavenotspecifiedhow
instructionaldesignandtechnologyapplicationsshouldconvergetoachieveamore
interactiveenvironmentforteaching andlearningatadistance.Achievingthatgoalisleft
tothecreativeandcollaborativeeffortsoffutureresearchers,designers,software
engineersandteachers.TogetherwecanexceedallpreviousexpectationsforDE/OL.
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning33
References
Abrami,P.C.(inpress). Onthenatureofsupportincomputer‐supportedcollaborative
learningusinggStudy. ComputersinHumanBehavior.
DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.007.
Abrami,P.C.,Chambers,B.,Poulsen,C.,DeSimone,C.,d'Apollonia,S.&Howden,J.(1995).
Classroomconnections:Understandingandusingcooperativelearning.Toronto,ON:
HarcourtBrace.
Abrami,P.C.,Wade,A.,Pillay,V.,Aslan,O.,Bures,E.,& BentleyC.(2008).Encouragingself‐
regulated learning through electronic portfolios. CanadianJournalonLearningand
Technology,34(3),93‐117.
Allen,M.,Bourhis,J.,Mabry,E.,Burrell,N.,Mattrey,E.,(2002).Comparingstudent
satisfactionwithdistanceeducationtotraditionalclassroomsinhighereducation:A
meta‐analysis. AmericanJournalofDistanceEducation,16(2),83‐97.
Anderson,T.(2003).Gettingthemixrightagain:Anupdatedandtheoreticalrationalefor
interaction. InternationalReviewofResearchinOpenandDistanceLearning, 4(2),9‐
14.
Bates,A.(1990,September). Interactivityasacriterionformediaselectionindistance
education. PaperpresentedattheAnnualConferenceoftheAsianAssociationof
OpenUniversities,Jakarta,Indonesia.(ERICDocumentNo.ED329245)
Beldarrain,Y.(2006).Distanceeducationtrends:Integratingnewtechnologiestofoster
studentinteractionandcollaboration. DistanceEducation,27(2),139‐153.
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning34
Beldarrain,Y.(2008).Integratinginteractionindistancelearning:Acomparativeanalysis
offivedesignframeworks.InC.Bonketal.(Eds.), ProceedingsofWorldConference
onELearninginCorporate,Government,HealthcareandHigherEducation2008 (pp.
1471‐1477).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.Retrievedfrom
http://www.editlib.org/p/29841.
Bernard,R.M.,Abrami,P.C.,Borokhovski,E.,Wade,A.,Tamim,R.etal.(2009). Ameta‐
analysisofthreeinteractiontreatmentsindistanceeducation. ReviewofEducational
Research,79(3),1243‐1289. DOI:10.3102/0034654309333844v1.
Bernard,R.M.,Abrami,P.C.,Lou,Y.,Borokhovski,E.,Wade,A.,Wozney,L.,Wallet,P.A.,Fiset,
M.& Huang,B.(2004).Howdoesdistanceeducationcomparewithclassroom
instruction?Ameta‐analysisoftheempiricalliterature. ReviewofEducational
Research3(74),379‐439.
Brookfield,S.(1995). Developingcriticalthinkers.SanFrancisco:Jossey‐Bass.
Burns,T.C.&Ungerleider C.S. (2002,published2003). Informationandcommunication
technologiesinelementaryandsecondaryeducation:Stateoftheartreview.
InternationalJournalofEducationalPolicy,Research,&Practice, 3(4),27‐54.
Cavanaugh,C., Gillan,K.J.Kromey,J.,Hess,M.&Blomeyer,R.(2004). Theeffectsofdistance
educationonK12studentoutcomes:Ametaanalysis.Naperville,IL:LearningPoint
Associates.
Chickering,A.W.,&Gamson,Z.F.(1987).Sevenprinciplesforgoodpracticein
undergraduateeducation. AAHEBulletin,39(7),3‐6.
Clark,R.E.(2000).Evaluatingdistanceeducation:Strategiesandcautions. QuarterlyReview
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning35
ofDistanceEducation,1(1),3‐16.
Cohen,E.G.(1994). Designinggroupwork:Strategiesfortheheterogeneous classroom. New
York:TeachersCollegePress.
Cook,D.A.(2009). Thefailureofe‐learningresearchtoinformeducationalpractice and
whatwecandoaboutit. MedicalTeacher,31(2),158‐162.
Cook,D.A.,Levinson,A.J.,Garside,S.,Duprasetal.(2008). Internet‐basedlearninginthe
healthprofessions:Ameta‐analysis. JournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation,
300(10),1181‐1196.DOI:10.1001/jama.300.10.1181.
Daniel,J.,&Marquis,C.(1979).Interactionandindependence:Gettingthemixtureright.
TeachingataDistance,15,25‐44.
Daniel,J.,&Marquis,C.(1988).Interactionandindependence:Gettingthemixright.InD.
Sewart,D.KeeganandB.Holmberg(Eds.) Distanceeducation:International
perspectives (pp.339‐359).London:Routledge.
Fishman,B.,Marx,R.W.,Blumfield,P.,Krajick,J.&Soloway,E.(2004).Creatinga
frameworkforresearchonsystemictechnologyinnovations. JournaloftheLearning
Sciences,13,43–76.
Fulford,C.P.&Zhang,S.(1993).Perceptionsofinteraction:Thecriticalpredictorin
distanceeducation. AmericanJournalofDistanceEducation,7(3),8‐21.
Garrison,D.R.,&Shale,D.(1990).Anewframeworkandperspective.InD.R.Garrisonand
D.Shale(Eds.), Educationatadistance:Fromissuestopractice (p.123‐133).
Malabar,FL:Krieger.
Hickey,D.&McCaslin,M.(2001).AComparative,socio‐culturalanalysisofcontextand
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning36
motivation.InS.Volet&S.Järvalä(Eds.), Motivationinlearningcontexts:Theoretical
advancementsandmethodologicalimplications (pp.33‐55).Elmsford,NY: Pergamon
Press.
Jahng,N.,Krug,D.,&Zhang,Z.(2007).Studentachievementinonlineeducationcompared
toface‐to‐faceeducation. EuropeanJournalofOpen,DistanceandELearning.
RetrievedFebruary21,2007from
http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2007/Jahng_Krug_Zhang.htm.
Jaspers,F.(1991).Interactivityorinstruction?AreactiontoMerrill. Educational
Technology,31(3),21‐24.
Johnson,D.W., Johnson,R.T.(2009). Aneducationalpsychologysuccessstory:Social
interdependencetheoryandcooperative learning. EducationalResearcher,368(5),
365‐379.
Juler,P.(1990).Promotinginteraction,maintainingindependence:Swallowingthemixture.
Open Learning,5(2),24‐33.
Knowles,M.S.(1980). Themodernpracticeofadulteducation:Frompedagogyto
andragogy. EnglewoodCliffs:PrenticeHall/Cambridge.
Latane,B.,Williams,K.,&Harkins,S.(1979).Manyhandsmakelightthework:Thecauses
andconsequencesofsocialloafing. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology, 37
(6),823‐832.
Laurillard,D.(1997). Rethinkinguniversityteaching:Aframeworkfortheeffectiveuseof
educationaltechnology. London:Routledge.
Lou,Y.,Abrami,P.C.,&d’Apollonia,S.(2001).Smallgroupandindividuallearningwith
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning37
technology:Ameta‐analysis. ReviewofEducationalResearch,71(3),449‐521.
Lou,Y.,Bernard,R.M.,&Abrami,P.C.(2006).Mediaandpedagogyinundergraduate
distanceeducation:Atheory‐basedmeta‐analysisofempiricalliterature.
EducationalTechnologyResearch&Development,5(2),141‐176.
Machtmes,K.&Asher,J.W.(2000).Ameta‐analysisoftheeffectivenessoftelecoursesin
distanceeducation. AmericanJournalofDistanceEducation,14(1),27‐46.
Mayer,R.E.(2001). Multimedialearning.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Mayer,R.E.(2008).Learningand instruction (2nded).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Merrill
Prentice‐Hall.
McClelland,D.C.,Atkinson,J.W.,Clark,R.A.,&Lowell,E. L.(1953) TheAchievementmotive.
NewYork:Appleton‐Century‐Crofts.
Meyer,E.,Abrami,P.C.,Wade,A.,Aslan,O.,&Deault,L.(2010).Improvingliteracyand
metacognitionwithelectronicportfolios:TeachingandlearningwithePEARL.
Computers&Education,55(1),84‐91. From
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.005
Moore,M.G.(1989).Threetypesofinteraction. AmericanJournalofDistanceEducation,
3(2),1‐6.
Moos,D.C.,&Azevedo,R.(2009). Learningwithcomputer‐basedlearningenvironments: A
literaturereviewofcomputerself‐efficacy. ReviewofEducationalResearch,79(2),
576‐600.
Muirhead,B.(2001a).Enhancingsocialinteractionincomputer‐mediateddistance
education. USDLAJournal,15(4).RetrievedOctober4,2005,from
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning38
http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/APR01_Issue/article02.html
Muirhead,B.(2001b).Interactivityresearchstudies. EducationalTechnology&Society,
4(3).RetrievedOctober4,2005,from
http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_3_2001/muirhead.html
Nipper,S.(1989).Thirdgenerationdistancelearningandcomputerconferencing.InR.
Mason&A.Kaye(Eds.), Mindweave:Communication,computersanddistance
education (pp.63–73).Oxford,England:PergamonPress.
Paivio,A.(1969).Mentalimageryinassociativelearningandmemory. Psychological
Review,76(3),241‐263.
Paivio,A.(1971). Imageryandverbalprocesses. NewYork:Holt,Rinehart and Winston.
Paivio,A.(1986). Mentalrepresentations:Adualcodingapproach. Oxford.England:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Perry,N.E.(1998).Youngchildren'sself‐regulatedlearningandcontextsthatsupportit.
JournalofEducationalPsychology,90,715‐729
Pintrich,P.R.(2003).AMotivationalscienceperspectiveontheroleofstudentmotivation
inlearningandteachingcontexts. JournalofEducationalPsychology,95(4), 667‐686.
Schmid,R.F.,Bernard,R.M.,Borokhovski,E.,Tamim,R.,Abrami,P.C.,WadeA.,Surkes,M.A.,
&Lowerison,G.(2009). Technology’seffectonachievementinhighereducation:a
StageImeta‐analysisofclassroomapplications. JournalofComputing inHigher
Education 21,95‐109.
Seligman,M.E.P.(1975). Helplessness:Ondepression,development and death.SanFrancisco:
W.H.Freeman.
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning39
Sims,R.(1999).Interactivityonstage:Strategiesforlearner‐designercommunication.
AustralianJournalofEducationalTechnology,15(3),257‐272.RetrievedMay5,
2005,from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet15/sims.html
Sitzmann,T.,Kraiger,K.,Stewart,D.,&Wisher,R.(2006).Thecomparativeeffectivenessof
web‐basedandclassroominstruction:Ameta‐analysis. PersonnelPsychology,59(3),
623‐664.
Steiner,I.D.(1972). Groupprocessandproductivity.Orlando,FL:AcademicPress.
Sutton,L.A.(2001).Theprincipleofvicariousinteractionincomputer‐mediated
communications. InternationalJournalofEducationalTelecommunications,7(3),
223‐242.RetrievedMarch14,2005,from
http://www.aace.org/dl/files/IJET/IJET73223.pdf
U.SDepartmentofEducation,OfficeofPlanning,Evaluation and PolicyDevelopment
(2009). Evaluationofevidencebasedpracticesinonlinelearning:Ametaanalysisand
reviewofonlinelearningstudies, Washington,D.C.
Wagner,E.D.(1994). Insupportofafunctionaldefinitionofinteraction. TheAmerican
JournalofDistanceEducation,8(2),6‐29.
Webb,N.M.(1989).Peerinteractionandlearninginsmallgroups. InternationalJournalof
Educational Research,13,21–40.
Webb,N.M.(2008).Learninginsmallgroups. InThomasL.Good(Ed.), 21stCentury
Education:A reference handbook (pp.203‐211).ThousandOaks,CA: Sage
PublicationsInc..
Webb,N.M.&Mastergeorge,A.M.(2006). The developmentof students’helping behavior
Interactionindistanceeducationandonlinelearning40
and learningin peer‐directed small groups. CognitionandInstruction, 21(4),361–
428.
Webb,N.M.,&Palincsar,A.S.(1996).Groupprocessesintheclassroom. In D.Berliner&R.
Calfee(Eds.), Handbookofeducationalpsychology (pp.841–873).NewYork:
Macmillan.
Weiner,B.(1980). Humanmotivation.NewYork:Holt‐Rinehart,&Winston.
Wozney, L.,Venkatesh,V.,&Abrami,P.C.(2006).Implementingcomputertechnologies:
Teachers'perceptionsandpractices. JournalofTechnologyandTeacherEducation,
14(1),173‐207.
Zimmerman,B.J.(2000). Attainingself‐regulation:Asocialcognitiveperspective.In
M.Boekaerts&P.R.Pintrich(Eds.). Handbookofselfregulation (pp.13–39).New
York:AcademicPress.
Zimmerman,B.J.(2008).Investigatingself‐regulationandmotivation:Historical
background,methodologicaldevelopments and futureprospects. American
EducationalResearchJournal,45(1),166‐183.
Zimmerman,B.J.,&Tsikalas,K.E.(2005).Cancomputer‐basedlearningenvironments
(CBLEs)beusedasself‐regulatorytoolstoenhancelearning? Educational
Psychologist,40(4),267‐271.
... Although flexibility in learning is highly appreciated to address needs for the contemporary student population (e.g., work at least part-time and have families), it equally increases the risks of a student failing to complete their education programs (Cárdenas-Robledo & Peña-Ayala, 2019). For example, it is well-established that fully online and self-pace education programs require strong skills for self-regulated learning to assure success (Abrami et al., 2011). Moreover, students in fully online learning can often experience isolation, weak social integration, and simply lose the pace of their studies (Dawson, 2008). ...
... Although the courses offer a recommended schedule of a range of tasks defined in the coursework, students in such courses typically studying part-time and, thus, can have a greater degree of flexibility to organize their learning. While being very flexible, self-paced learning can increase potential risks for the success of students, given that it may impose greater expectations for students in terms of time management and self-regulated learning (Abrami et al., 2011). There has been a considerable amount of research to understand student retention in distance and online learning and to evaluate the efficacy of different interventions (Tresman, 2002;Nichols, 2010;Simpson, 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
To address the demands of modern education and increase flexibility, many higher education institutions are considering self-paced education programs. However, student retention is yet a widely recognized challenge faced in self-paced education. While many studies have examined the potential of the use of data about student interaction with learning technologies to predict student success, studies that focus on self-paced education are scarce. To address this gap in the literature, this paper reports on the findings of a study that has investigated the performance of a well-known deep learning technique i.e., Long Short-term Memory (LSTM), in the prediction of students at risk of failing a course offered in a self-paced mode of online education. The study has utilized a freely accessible Open University Learning Analytics Dataset comprising 22,437 students with 69% pass, and 31% failed instances. The deep LSTM shows the highest predictive power to classify between pass and fail students, compared to all other alternatives by achieving an accuracy of 84.57%, precision of 82.24% and recall of 79.43%. Interestingly, with only first five weeks of course activity log data used for training, the receiver operating characteristic based diagnostic accuracy of the LSTM algorithm is achieved up to 71%, that outperforms almost all other conventional algorithms - despite trained on the complete dataset collected for the entire duration of the course i.e. up to 38 weeks. Furthermore, this study has also employed a shapely additive explanation model to identify the most important predictors of student retention, e.g., assessment submission and attempted quizzes. This approach is essential in order to increase the interpretability of deep learning techniques and, thus, increase their potential to generate actionable insights.
... Les enseignants et les enseignantes ne savent pas toujours comment combiner le matériel avec une application appropriée pour soutenir leur enseignement. Abrami et al. (2011) soulignent l'importance de l'utilité et de la pertinence du contenu, des activités et des tâches pour les élèves afin de permettre une identification personnelle avec l'école et le contenu à apprendre. La simplicité d'utilisation est également importante afin d'éviter d'ajouter du temps pour apprendre à utiliser la technologie au détriment du temps nécessaire pour l'apprentissage du contenu. ...
Article
Full-text available
Cet article rend compte des résultats d’une enquête par questionnaire réalisée auprès de 51 étudiantes et étudiants inscrits à l’hiver 2021 dans quatre programmes de formation du Cégep de la Gaspésie et des Îles. Une revue des écrits scientifiques décrit d’abord les besoins des personnes apprenantes en contexte de formation à distance, notamment en lien avec la motivation, les interactions à distance et les environnements numériques d’apprentissage. La méthodologie de l’enquête est exposée. Les résultats de l’enquête sont présentés. Une discussion s’engage entre les données récoltées et les écrits scientifiques au regard des caractéristiques des étudiants et des étudiantes et de leurs relations avec les personnes enseignantes, le milieu scolaire et les modes d’apprentissage. Deux aspects de la solidarité numérique en action sont mis en évidence : l’accessibilité à des formations qualifiantes et l’engagement à la réussite éducative. En conclusion est rappelée l’importance des initiatives porteuses de solidarités comme celle du soutien aux personnes apprenantes en contexte numérique.
... Research suggests 85% of students recommend online learning as being better than traditional learning methods. The virtual sphere of education offers students the opportunity to learn through various resources (e-books, videos, journals) and learn through their preferred learning style (Abrami et al., 2011). ...
Article
Full-text available
The COVID’19 Pandemic created a major shift in the education delivery system, from the traditional classroom to E-learning for schools and universities. From the many subjects, language learning has been pursued by students and individuals as recreation. People have adopted various online mediums for learning their preferred languages. Educational institutes have embraced applications like Microsoft Teams and Zoom to maintain an effective learning environment for the students. With the development of distance learning technologies, examining the effectiveness of these resources used for teaching has sparked an interest in researchers and educators. This present study seeks to (a) Understand student's perception towards e-learning languages via video conferencing platforms and (b) Identify pros and cons of distance learning technology for teaching dialects. For the purpose of this research, a mixed method research design was employed through an online questionnaire designed for school and university students. This study also carefully reviews existing literature on various aspects of language and distance learning. This research aims to establish concrete evidence to support online learning of languages as a new teaching approach. As a solution, this paper encompasses a conceptual framework that is an AI-based prototype, an extension for video conferencing platforms and learning management systems. Future researchers should explore solutions for resolving challenges shared through this paper.
... In the age of modern technologies, online teaching means teaching via the Internet. Modern online teaching is conducted through an application or an educational platform, and each of them has different capabilities (Abrami et al., 2011). As a "virtual-place classroom" where, by using the Internet, the teaching process takes place remotely, the platform for online teaching is a service that enables educational institutions, teachers and students to access and learn via computer. ...
Article
The aim of the paper is to examine the opinion of teachers about the representation and limitations of the application of collaborative learning in online teaching of mathematics. The survey conducted on a sample selected from the population of primary school teachers in R. Serbia (N=116), and data were collected about cooperative learning in online mathematics classes. The results showed that the majority of teachers apply group work, and less often online teaching. They believe that it is possible to organize collaborative learning in online mathematics classes in lower grades, but that there are certain limitations in the realization of this way of teaching. A small number of them have realized such activities through online classes.
... The two types of communities identified in the ACE framework as sources of support for student engagement are (a) the personal community and (b) the course community. While the personal community consists of families, friends, and other associates outside of the school environment that exists beyond the timeframe of the course [18,23,25], course communities include actors embedded within a course, including teachers, peers, and administrators [17,18,26]. These course community actors are temporary, existing only during the allotted time of the course. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this paper, we examine how universities can evaluate the level of support they provide to help their students with affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement in their online and blended learning experiences. Additionally, it identifies what types of supports help students engage academically and what barriers hinder their online engagement. Using a survey instrument sent to university students (n = 1295), we conducted a mixed-methods analysis to understand better how students feel the institution supports their online engagement and what barriers they experience. To accomplish this, we addressed the following research questions: (1) How do students feel the institution supports their academic engagement for online and blended learning (including affective, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions)? and (2) What are the barriers to student academic engagement for online and blended learning at the institutional level? We used the Academic Communities of Engagement (ACE) framework as a lens for understanding the types of support institutions should provide in online and blended learning programs. While our descriptive statistics revealed that students might not distinguish the types of support they receive, the qualitative findings suggested they need more behavioral support. Our results also showed that 31% of students reported they experienced three or more barriers to their learning, which should be addressed when considering institutional support elements.
... Skills-oriented courses like these can be successfully taught that in a hybrid format with little difference in student end-ofsemester performance (Friedman and Friedman, 2011), and by many educational outcomes, performance in hybrid courses can even exceed F2F courses (Means et al., 2010). Furthermore, unlike fully online courses, students will still be able to have the humanized experience of interaction with their peers and the instructor in person (Bernard et al., 2009;Means et al., 2010;Abrami et al., 2011). ...
Article
Full-text available
Though foundational knowledge and technical skills are frequently and rightfully emphasized in biology curricula, transferrable skills, including writing, are under-prioritized to the detriment of biology graduates and to the scientific field. In an effort to target this gap, we designed assessments in online paleontology and evolution courses to foster critical analysis, synthesis, and written communication skills among students. This article describes model writing assignments for a variety of college courses at different levels and for different audiences. For example, appropriate analysis and comparison of major texts like Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection can be approached by students in general education courses as well as upper-level science students within their major. In another assignment, upper-level science students write to assess the effectiveness of novel characters in phylogenetic systematics. Last, we describe an assignment that introduces students to paleoecological interpretation to develop expository writing skills for scientists and non-scientists alike.
... But there are also limitations, such as inadequate interaction (İşman, 2011;Yüksel, 2002). However, for some, mutual interaction in distance education is extremely important (Abrami et al., 2011;Bouhnik & Marcus, 2006;Kumtepe et al., 2019). In addition to this, the finding that the socioeconomic status of the family has a negative impact on educational activities in rural areas has largely been supported by a great number of studies (Anlimachie & Avoada, 2020;Çiftçi & Çağlar, 2014;Gelbal, 2008;Kanagawa & Nakata, 2008;Kılıç ve Haşıloğlu, 2017;Yağan Güder, 2019;Yar Yıldırım, 2021;Yazıcı, 2021). ...
Article
This study investigates the distance learning experiences of rural teachers during Covid-19 pandemic. The study employed phenomenological qualitative research design. In the study, 8 classroom teachers working in rural areas of Malatya province in eastern Turkey participated in the 2020-2021 academic year. Research data was collected through semi-structured interviews using ZOOM videoconferencing. The research results show that teachers pleaded for more positive experiences, even though negative experiences were more dominant. It further reveals that they did everything they could to boost the disadvantaged students’ motivation. Positive experiences are classified under three sub-headings. First of all, students have borderless access to information on virtual platforms. Secondly, they learn to express themselves and follow the rules in online environments. Thirdly, they improve research skills and expose to repeating experiences. Negative experiences, on the other hand, are grouped under two categories, i.e., the problems caused by ”individual and family“ and ”physical conditions". These findings suggest several courses of action for future researches.
Chapter
The research describes the e-learning online platforms such as MS Teams, BigBlueButton, Zoom and Rostov State Transport Online University which have the same characteristics of the content and functions for conducting the scientific conferences, designing the project, working in a team and consequently, providing educational process. The purpose of this research paper is to analyze different e-learning platforms, to compare their functions, to underline pros and cons of distant learning and to survey the students` online platform preferences. At the development of the distance technologies and appearance of the online platforms, the aim for teaching staff is to organize the educational process using e-learning online platforms as the additional tool for different purposes. Moreover, there are many questions related to methods of measuring online learning effectiveness, as it provides an opportunity for continuous learning and improvement of the professional activities. Convincingly, the education system is changing and developing according to the human needs. The application of the most suitable MS Teams, BigBlueButton, Zoom and Rostov State Transport Online University platforms for implementing the educational process and mastering the necessary competencies is considered in this paper. The benefits and drawbacks of using them in the educational process are described.
Article
The objective of this study was to outline the education reform approaches which could implement during online teaching and learning activities. The approaches consisted with online teaching, online mentoring /student induction programmes, online examinations and online guest lectures/webinars. The approaches practiced, were discussed in activity 1 to 7 in the methodology section. In addition, the outcome assessed using 4Rs model for reflection and PDCA cycle at the results and discussion section. In conclusion, this study showed that the approaches implemented assist to improve the interaction of the students.
Article
span>The word interactive, when used to described computer based learning resources, has tended to imply better experiences, more active learning, enhanced interest and motivation. But despite the investment in productions to date, this interactive condition has not been consistently realised. Although the surge in internet based communications and collaborative learning activities has extended the opportunities for human-human communication, the complexity of learner-computer interactivity has yet to be fully unravelled. This paper examines the relationship between the independent learner and computer based learning resources, which continue to be integral to educational delivery, especially in the training sector. To place interactivity in context, the first part of the discussion focuses on the major dimensions of interactivity and the different ways they have been characterised in computer based learning environments. These dimensions demonstrate the many ways that interactivity can be interpreted and the critical role that design and development plays in creating effective interactive encounters. The second part of the paper reviews the way storytelling structures and narrative have been promoted as effective strategies for enhancing comprehension and engagement in computer based learning applications. The way in which the interactivity and narrative are linked becomes critical to achieving this outcome. Extending the use of a narrative within interactive media to include elements of performance and theatre, the third part of the discussion proposes that by conceptualising the learner as actor, a form of learner-designer communication can be established. Integrating this approach with elements of conversational and communication theory provides a context in which the learner-computer interface is transcended by that of learner and designer. Enabling this form of communication with the independent learner is suggested as a means to enhance computer based learning environments.</p
Article
For hundreds of years verbal messages - such as lectures and printed lessons - have been the primary means of explaining ideas to learners. In Multimedia Learning Richard Mayer explores ways of going beyond the purely verbal by combining words and pictures for effective teaching. Multimedia encyclopedias have become the latest addition to students' reference tools, and the world wide web is full of messages that combine words and pictures. Do these forms of presentation help learners? If so, what is the best way to design multimedia messages for optimal learning? Drawing upon 10 years of research, the author provides seven principles for the design of multimedia messages and a cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In short, this book summarizes research aimed at realizing the promise of multimedia learning - that is, the potential of using words and pictures together to promote human understanding.
Article
This study examined the behaviors and experiences of students who needed assistance while working in peer-directed small groups on mathematics problems and the processes that helped or hindered their learning. Students in 4 seventh-grade classes worked in heterogeneous small groups throughout a 3-week unit on operations with decimal numbers. Analyses of the transcripts of audiotapes of students' verbal interaction and their posttest performance confirmed previous research showing that students who learned how to solve the problems received high-level help during group work and, subsequently, correctly solved group-work problems without further assistance. Extending previous findings, this study also showed that the following help-seeking behaviors were important determinants of successful posttest performance: asking for specific explanations instead of calculations or answers or general admissions of confusion, persistence in seeking explanations and modification of help-seeking strategies, and application of the help received to the problem at hand. Important help-giving behaviors included providing explanations with verbally labeled numbers and continued explaining instead of resorting to descriptions of numerical procedures. This article discusses possible reasons for the patterns of help seeking and help giving found here and makes suggestions for further research to improve the quality of helping behavior in collaborative groups.
Article
Extracts available on Google Books (see link below). For integral text, go to publisher's website : http://www.elsevierdirect.com/product.jsp?isbn=9780121098902
Chapter
Publisher Summary There is considerable agreement about the importance of self-regulation to human survival. There is disagreement about how it can be analyzed and defined in a scientifically useful way. A social cognitive perspective differs markedly from theoretical traditions that seek to define self-regulation as a singular internal state, trait, or stage that is genetically endowed or personally discovered. Instead, it is defined in terms of context-specific processes that are used cyclically to achieve personal goals. These processes entail more than metacognitive knowledge and skill; they also include affective and behavioral processes, and a resilient sense of self-efficacy to control them. The cyclical interdependence of these processes, reactions, and beliefs is described in terms of three sequential phases: forethought, performance or volitional control, and self-reflection. An important feature of this cyclical model is that it can explain dysfunctions in self-regulation, as well as exemplary achievements. Dysfunctions occur because of the unfortunate reliance on reactive methods of self-regulation instead of proactive methods, which can profoundly change the course of cyclical learning and performance. An essential issue confronting all theories of self-regulation is how this capability or capacity can be developed or optimized. Social cognitive views place particular emphasis on the role of socializing agents in the development of self-regulation, such as parents, teachers, coaches, and peers. At an early age, children become aware of the value of social modeling experiences, and they rely heavily on them when acquiring needed skills.
Article
This article examines why cognitively oriented technology innovations, designed to foster deep thinking and learning, have not become widespread in K−12 schools. We argue a key reason is that most design-based research does not explicitly address systemic issues of usability, scalability and sustainability. This limitation must be overcome if research is to create usable knowledge that addresses the challenges confronting technology innovations when implemented in real-world school contexts. This is especially important in an era when political forces push schools away from the cognitively rich, inquiry-oriented approaches espoused by the Learning Sciences. We suggest expanding our conception of design-based research to include research on innovations in the context of systemic reform as a potential solution to the problem. To that end, we introduce research questions and issues arising from our own experiences with a technology-rich innovation in the context of a systemic reform initiative as a starting point in the creation of an expanded design-based research agenda. These questions and issues have important implications for both the continued viability of research on technologies for learning and on the future of technology use in schools that stems from such research.