Content uploaded by Atsusi Hirumi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Atsusi Hirumi on Feb 02, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
A framework for analyzing, designing and sequencing
planned elearning interactions
Atsusi “2c” Hirumi, Ph.D.
University of Houston–Clear Lake
Reference
Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing and sequencing planned e-learning
interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141-160.
Abstract
Published taxonomies for classifying distance learning interactions give educators valuable
insights into the nature and range of potential interactions that may be used to facilitate
elearning. However, existing taxonomies neither depict the relationship between, nor provide
practical guidelines for planning or managing a comprehensive set of interactions necessary to
achieve a specified set of objectives. This article posits a three-level framework for classifying
elearning interactions. It illustrate how the framework may be used to (a) design and sequence
elearning interactions (b) analyze planned interactions to reduce the need for costly revisions,
and (c) organize research on interactivity and elearning to help interpret findings and guide
future studies.
A framework for analyzing, designing and sequencing
planned elearning interactions
In traditional face-to-face (f2f) classrooms, key interactions that affect learners’ attitudes
and performance often occur spontaneously in real-time. Good instructors interpret students’
body language, answer questions, clarify expectations, facilitate activities, promote discussions,
elaborate concepts, render guidance, and provide timely and appropriate feedback as they present
content in an clear and engaging manner. It is the ability to initiate and facilitate such
interactions that often distinguishes a good instructor from a bad one. During elearning,
communications are predominately asynchronous and mediated by technology. Opportunities to
individualize instruction and help learners’ interpret content information based on spontaneous
verbal and non-verbal cues are confined. Key interactions that occur in real-time f2f
environments must be carefully planned and sequenced as an integral part of elearning.
Various frameworks have been published for identifying and classifying distance learning
interactions that may be grouped into four basic categories, including communication, purpose,
activity and tool-based taxonomies. Moore (1989) posits what may be the most widely known
communications-based framework, defining the sender and receiver of three basic interactions:
student–student, student–teacher and student–content. Student-student interactions occur
“between one learner and another learner, alone or in group settings, with or without the real-
time presence of an instructor” (Moore, 1989, p. 4). Student-teacher interactions attempt to
motivate and stimulate the learner and allow for the clarification of misunderstanding by the
learner in regard to the content. Student-content interactions are defined as a process of
“intellectually interacting with content to bring about changes in the learner’s understanding,
perspective or cognitive structures” (Moore, 1989, p. 2).
With the increasing use of computer-based delivery systems, Hillman, Willis and
Gunawardena (1994) argue convincingly for a forth class of communication-based interaction
(student-interface). The interface acts as the point or means of interaction, between the learner
and the content, instructor, fellow learners or others. It includes learners’ use of electronic tools
and navigational aids as well as the layout of text and graphical elements.
Several authors posit additional classes of communication-based interactions. For
example, Carlson and Repman (1999) define learner-instructional interactions as those between
the learner and the content that traditionally utilize strategies such as questioning, feedback and
clarification, and control of lesson pace and sequence to facilitate learning. They further
delineate social interactions as personal attempts to modify or enhance the quality of the
instructional interaction by interpreting body language, promoting a sense of comfort, and
developing class management routines. Northrup and Rasmussen (2000) stress the importance of
closing communication loops and distinguish feedback from interactions with instructional
materials, defining a total of four classes including student-to-student, student-to-instructor,
student-to-instructional materials, and student-to-management (feedback) interactions. Mortera-
Gutierrez and Murphy (2000) remind us that we must also consider interactions from the
instructor’s perspective, extending the basic communication categories to include instructor-
facilitator, instructor-peers, instructor-support staff and technical personnel, and instructor-
organization interactions.
Alternative approaches codify interactions by purpose. For example, Hannafin (1989)
posits five basic functions for computer-based interactions (a) confirmation, (b) pacing, (c)
inquiry, (d) navigation, and (e) elaboration. With the emerging use of telecommunication
technologies, Breakthebarriers.com (2001) identifies nine basic purposes, including (a)
synchronous communication, (b) asynchronous communication, (c) browsing and clicking, (d)
branching, (e) tracking, (f) help, (g) practice, (h) feedback, and (i) coaching. To guide the
selection of online instructional strategies and tactics, Northrup (2001) proposes five interaction
attributes (or purposes): (a) to interact with content, (b) to collaborate, (c) to converse, (d) to help
monitor and regulate learning (intrapersonal interaction), and (e) to support performance.
“Activity-based” interactions or interactivities are designed to stimulate active learning
and the development of learning communities. For example, Bonk and Reynolds (1997) delimit
three categories of interactivities based on a wide range of literature on learning and instruction,
including critical thinking, creative thinking, and cooperative learning interactivities. Similarly,
Harris (1994a, 1994b, 1994c) posits three classes, describing a variety of interactivities
associated with information searching, information sharing, and collaborative problem solving.
Still others, such as Bonk and King (1998) take a “tools-based” approach, focusing on the
capabilities afforded by various telecommunication technologies to facilitate elearning
interactions. They delimit five levels (a) electronic mail and delayed-messaging tools, (b) remote
access and delayed collaboration tools, (c) real-time brainstorming and conversation tools, (d)
real-time text collaboration tools, and (e) real-time multimedia and/or hypermedia collaboration
tools.
The current frameworks provide valuable insights into the nature and range of
interactions that may be used to facilitate elearning. However, they neither illustrate the
relationship between, nor provide practical guidelines for sequencing elearning interactions to
facilitate achievement of specified objectives. Within a lesson, when is it important for instructor
to contact the student? When should students interact with other students, with content
information or with external resources? When should students be given the opportunity branch,
receive help, practice or feedback? How should each of these interactions be designed? What
tools should be used to facilitate each interaction? This article seeks to help distance educators
answer these questions by proposing a framework that delineates the relationship between
fundamental communication-based interactions and by illustrating how the framework may be
used to analyze, design and sequence planned elearning interactions.
Proposed Framework
The framework posits three basic, interrelated levels of interactions that may be planned
as an integral part of elearning (Figure 1).
________________________
Figure 1 About Here
________________________
Level I interactions occur within each individual learner. Level II interactions occur
between the learner and human and non-human resources. Level III interactions delineate an
elearning strategy; a set of Level II interactions that are designed and sequenced to stimulate
Level I interactions.
The description of each level is given from the learner’s viewpoint. This is not to say that
the instructor’s perspective (Montera-Gutierrez & Murphy, 2000) and other views are
inconsequential. Rather, attention is placed here on the learners and their requirements in
accordance with learner-centered approaches to instructional design, as discussed by Berge (in
this issue) and others (e.g., APA, 1993; Dillion & Zhu, 1997).
Level I: Learner-Self Interactions
Learner-self interactions occur within each individual learner. They include both the
cognitive operations that constitute learning as well as metacognitive processes that help
individuals monitor and regulate their learning.
The specific cognitive operations that occur within an individual depend on the
instructional designer’s epistemological beliefs. A behaviorist may recognize that some learner-
self interactions occur, but chooses not to pay particular attention to them (e.g., Skinner, 1969).
A behaviorist would concentrate solely on Level II and Level III interactions and how they
reinforce or weaken particular behaviors. For someone who believes in information-processing
theories of learning, key learner-self interaction may include sensory memory, selective
attention, pattern recognition, short term memory, rehearsal and chunking, encoding, long-term
memory and retrieval (Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1968). Development constructivists (e.g., Piaget,
1971; Burner, 1974) would key on learner-self interactions that result from adaptations to the
environment which are characterized by increasingly sophisticated methods of representing and
organizing information. In contrast, social constructivists would focus on learner-self interactions
that occur when individuals interact with their social and cultural environment (Vygotsky, 1978).
The proposed framework does not adhere to any particular learning theory or epistemology.
However, the type of Level I (learner-self) interactions the designer ascribes to are important
because they affect the selection of Level III interactionand the design and sequencing of Level
II interactions as detailed latter in this article.
Studies identifying the characteristics of self-regulated learners underscore the
importance of distinguishing learner-self as a primary level of elearning interactions. Learners
are self-regulated to the degree that they actively participate metacognitively, motivationally and
behaviorally in their learning (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). Self-regulated learners take
responsibility for their own learning, initiate efforts to acquire desired skills and knowledge
(Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1988), access metacognitive strategies and take steps to correct
learning deficiencies (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1995), activate, alter and sustain learning
(Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986) and to plan, organize, monitor, and evaluate their learning
processes (Corno, 1994; Hagen & Weinstein, 1995; Zimmerman & Paulsen, 1995).
Due to relatively constrained nature of learner-instructor and learner-learner interactions
in an online environment, self-regulation may be particularly important for distance learners.
Self-regulated learners may have a substantially greater potential for success in distance
education than those who have relatively poor self-regulatory skills because they may not need
as much prompting from an instructor or help from other learners to monitor, regulate and
otherwise facilitate their learning. Fortunately, self-regulation may be learned and instruction
may be designed to compensate for possible deficiencies (c.f. Ley and Young, 2001; Northrup,
2001; Corno & Randi, 1999; Butler & Winne, 1995; Iran-Nejad, 1990).
Level II: Learner-Human and Non-Human Interactions
Level II interactions occur between the learner and other human and non-human
elearning resources and are designed to stimulate Level I interactions. Six classes of Level II
interactions are presented based on a framework for comparing instructional strategies posited by
Reigeluth and Moore (1999). For this paper, brief descriptions of Level II interactions are given
to delimit each category. References to related literature are provided if further details are
desired.
Learner-Instructor Interactions. Learner-instructor interactions are defined as student or
instructor initiated communications that occur before, during and immediately after instruction.
Moore (1989) characterizes learner-instructor interactions as attempts to motivate and stimulate
the learner and allow for the clarification of misunderstanding by the learner in regard to the
content. A recent study of distance educator competencies reveals seven key learner-instructor
interactions: (a) to establish learning outcomes/objectives; (b) to provide timely and appropriate
feedback; (c) to facilitate information presentation; (d) to monitor and evaluate student
performance; (e) to provide (facilitate) learning activities; (f) to initiate, maintain and facilitate
discussions; and (g) to determine learning needs and preferences (Thach & Murphy, 1995).
Literature on feedback is further examined because it is vital to learner-instructor interactions
(Northrup, in this issue; Northrup & Rasmussen, 2000) and elemental to both behavioral and
cognitive theories of learning.
Bangert-Downs, Kulik, Kulik, and Morgan (1991) assert that:
…any theory that depicts learning as a process of mutual influence between learners and
their environments must involve feedback implicitly or explicitly because, without
feedback, mutual influence is by definition impossible (p. 214).
Feedback compares actual performance to set standards (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). It
informs learners of the accuracy of their responses to instructional questions (Cohen, 1985;
Kulhavy, 1977) and may be used to (a) increase response rate or accuracy, (b) reinforce correct
responses to prior stimuli, or (c) change erroneous responses (Kulhavy & Wager, 1993). In
networked environments, telecommunication technologies are expanding feedback options.
Immediate and delayed feedback may provide learning guidance, lesson sequence advisement,
motivational messages, critical comparisons and information about answer correctness and
timeliness (Hoska, 1993). At minimum, feedback is essential during elearning for closing
message loops (Yacci, 2000; Northrup & Rasmussen, 2000), informing learners that
communications are complete (Berge, 1999; Liaw & Huang, 2000; and Weller, 1988, as cited by
Northrup, 2001). An extensive review of feedback research (Mory, 1996) and a textbook on
instructional feedback methods (Dempsey & Sales, 1993) yield further insights into the design of
this essential learner-instructor interaction.
Learner-Learner Interactions. Learner-learner interactions occur “between one learner
and another learner, alone or in group settings, with or without the real-time presence of an
instructor” (Moore, 1989, p. 4). Typically, such interactions ask learners to work together to
analyze and interpret data, solve problems and share information, opinions and insights. They are
designed to help groups and individuals construct and apply targeted skills and knowledge.
Assigning individuals to groups does not mean that they will work collaboratively
(Johnson & Johnson, 1994). Considerations for effective learner-learner interactions are similar
in traditional classroom environments and elearning environments (e.g., group size, group goals,
individual roles and responsibilities, group and individual accountability, contact information,
communications, grading). The challenge lies in planning and coordinating such interactions
during elearning.
Much has been written about learner-learner interactions, including, but not limited to
literature on cooperative learning (Slavin, 1987) and social constructivism (e.g., Jonassen, 1995,
1994, 1991; Piaget, 1971; Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1974; von Glasersfeld, 1989a, 1989b; Rorty,
1991). A meaningful analysis that includes implications of such work for the design of learner-
learner interactions goes beyond the purposes of this paper. Those interested in additional
information on the planning, management and facilitation of learner-learner interactions are
referred to the works of Chih and Corry and Berge (in this issue) among others (e.g., Bonk and
Reynolds, 1997; Harris, 1994a; 1994b; 1994c).
Learner-Other Human Interactions . Learner-other human interactions utilize the potential
for telecommunication technologies to break down the barrier of classroom walls and enable
learners to search for, access, acquire and apply a wealth of information from a variety of
external resources. Increasing numbers of online courses ask learners to review external web-
sites, as well as to communicate with others outside of class to promote knowledge construction
and social discourse (e.g., Bonk & King, 1998). Such interactions include exchanges with
teaching assistants, mentors, and subject matter experts as well as student and academic support
staff.
Some argue that certain attitudes and behaviors must be modeled during face-to-face
interactions with real people in real-time and thus, elearning is not appropriate. In such cases, it
is essential to keep in mind that just because a course or training program is put online, not all
interactions must occur online. Distance learners may be asked to visit a designated facility and
work with subjects and certified personnel. Thinking that f2f interactions must occur between
students and the instructor of record can be somewhat egocentric. Suitable interactions may be
arranged between learners and other experts as a required component of counseling, humanities
and education programs for example. The key lies in distilling the nature of and designing such
experiences.
Accrediting agencies, such as Southern Association of Colleges (SACS), also remind us
that distance learners must be afforded the same services provided to local students. During the
design of elearning programs, educators must consider how distance learners will be able to
contact and garner support and services from staff, such as librarians, advisors and counselors.
The pervasive use of computer technology also makes ready, if not immediate access to technical
support staff essential during elearning.
Learner-other human interactions may occur online or face-to-face depending on the
location and configuration of the learners and the other human resources. They may be planned
as an integral part of a lesson or learners may be given random access from within or outside of
the elearning program. The key is to provide ready access to the expertise, supports and services
necessary to enter, navigate and complete the educational or training system in a user-friendly
fashion.
Learner-Content Interactions. Learners–content interactions occur when learners’ access
audio, video, text and graphic representations of the subject matter under study. While it seems
only logical to assume that media matters (e.g., what I hear, I forget; what I see, I remember;
what I do, I understand), research suggests otherwise. Media selection guides, such as those
proposed by Reiser and Gagné (1983) indicate that video and graphics (or more specifically,
interactions with simulations or real objects) are critical when teaching psychomotor skills and
may have a significant impact when trying to affect learner attitudes (e.g., modeling).
Furthermore, if sensory discriminations (visual, tactile, auditory) are a required part of learning
(e.g., music education), specific medium or a combination of media is required during
instruction. However, comprehensive reviews of media comparison research conclude that use of
media, in general, has minimal effects on student learning (Clark, 1994a, 1094b). Research
reviews, focusing on distance learners, yield similar results (Russell, 1993, 1999). It appears that
instructional design has a greater impact on student achievement than the media used to deliver
the content.
There are some practical criteria to consider when designing learner-content interactions.
First, are the plug-ins and other software applications necessary to read various multimedia file
formats readily available to learners? The use of Flash, Java, ReadAudio, ReadVideo and other
specialized multimedia programs require updated Web browsers that may be difficult for novice
computer users to configure. Second, is the expertise necessary to generate the desired
multimedia resources available on staff or are funds available to outsource such development
requirements? Third, how durability are the multimedia resources? If multimedia is used to
communicate content information that is highly volatile, it may not be practical to continuously
update and revise the files. Finally, what is the return on investment for creating such files?
Creating and maintaining multimedia content costs a lot more than text. Is the resulting affect on
student attitudes, learning or performance worth the price?
Learner-Interface Interactions. When a computer acts as the primary delivery mechanism,
its interface serves as the principal point or means of interaction with the content, instructor,
learners and the larger community. Attention must be place on how the interface enables learners
to manipulate electronic tools, access information, interpret visual elements and complete goal
oriented tasks. Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994) suggest that the extent to which a
learner is proficient with a specific medium correlates positively with the success the learner has
in extracting information from the medium. Metros and Hedberg (in this issue) also point out that
poor interface design can place high cognitive demands upon the learner that may take their
attention away from the subject matter at hand. Learners cannot deal with content information if
they are unable to use the interface. Learners’ must possess the skills necessary to operate the
delivery system before they can be expected to successfully interact with human and non-human
resources.
Norman (1988) suggests that mental models form as users’ interpret the interface’s
perceived action and its visible structure. Then, as the model develops, it serves as the basis for
understanding the interface, predicting its future behavior, and controlling its actions. The
development of an effective mental model may be facilitated by instructional activities or tools
that help the learner become familiar with the interface (e.g., in-class exercises, orientation
sessions, technology credit courses, help screens or job aides).
The design of engaging learner-interface interactions is discussed in detail by Metros and
Hedberg (in this issue). In short, key factors include (a) learners’ mental model that enable him
or her to become proficient in interacting with the mediating technology, (b) learners’
understanding of specific communication protocol associated with the delivery system to
transmit and receive information, and (c) learners’ potential fear of (or anxiety with) working
with the technology. Gillani and Relan (1997), Jones and Farquhar (1997) among others (c.f.,
Neilsen, 1993) posit additional guidelines for Web interface design.
Learner-Environment Interactions. Learner-environment interactions occur when learners
manipulate tools, equipment or other objects outside of the computer interface during elearning.
As noted earlier, not all elearning interactions have to occur online. Learners may be sent a
package of manipulatives, field equipment or laboratory instruments and asked to use them as an
integral part of elearning. Learners may also be required to seek or travel to specific locations to
gather, observe and otherwise inspect materials, complete activities or participate in planned
events to achieve specified learning objectives.
For example, gaining technical or problem-solving skills by interacting with highly
specialized and sophisticated equipment may be necessary aspects of science, aerospace and
engineering courses or training programs. In such instances, distance learners may be asked to go
to a remote facility and work with an experienced scientist or engineer. Albeit, such interactions
may be difficult to manage at a distance, but when necessary, they can be arranged.
Like planning complex learner-other human interactions, the keys are to: (a) clearly
define the required learning outcomes and identify when such experiences are essential for the
achievement of those outcomes; (b) careful plan and coordinate the interactions so that learners
readily understand what is expected of them and why it is important for them to interact with
their environment; and (c) integrate the event with other interactions and embed them within a
sound instructional strategy to optimize the experience and ensure learners reach the specified
objectives and achieve the greatest return from time and effort invested on arranging such
learner-environment interactions.
Level III: Learner-Instruction Interactions
Learner-instruction interactions consist of a series of events (or elearning strategy) that
are necessary to achieve a defined set of objectives. Level III interactions are considered a meta-
level that transcend and serve to organize Level II interactions. Like Driscoll’s (1994) definition
for instruction, Level III interactions involve a deliberate arrangement of events to promote
learning and facilitate goal achievement. Learner-instruction interactions are differentiated from
Level II and Level I interactions to illustrate how theoretically grounded instructional strategies
may be used to help distance educators design and sequence planned elearning interactions.
Educators often fail to ground their designs in research and theory (Bonk & King, 1998;
Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, and Perry, 1995). While there is no
substitution for practical experience, difficulties occur when elearning strategies are based solely
on past practices. Without sufficient time, training or support, educators have little choice but to
rely on what they know best (i.e., teacher–directed methods). The problem is that key
interactions are not often planned as an integral part of traditional classroom teaching materials
because instructors typically facilitate such interactions in real-time based on their expertise and
intuition. As a result, key interactions necessary to stimulate elearning are frequently missing
when traditional classroom materials are posted online to promote elearning.
So, how does learner-instruction interactions help guide the design and sequencing of
Level II interactions? A cursory review of literature on teaching methods reveals a number of
research-based, theoretically grounded instructional strategies (Figure 2).
––––––––––––––––––––––––
Figure 2 About Here
Each of the events associated with an instructional strategy may be considered an
interaction; a transaction that occurs between the learner and other human or non-human
resources. Educators can select an instructional strategy, based on the learning objectives, learner
characteristics, context and their epistemological beliefs and use the events to design key
interactions and the strategy to sequencethe interactions. The application of a grounded
instructional strategy gives educators a foundation for planning and managing a comprehensive
series of elearning interactions necessary to achieve a set of objectives based on a combination of
research, theory and practical experience.
Applying the Framework
Three specific applications illustrate the utility of the proposed framework for (a)
designing and sequencing elearning interactions, (b) analyzing the frequency and quality of the
planned interactions; and (c) analyzing and organizing research on interactivity and elearning.
Designing and Sequencing eLearning Interactions
Figure 3 lists six steps for designing and sequencing elearning interactions based on the
proposed framework.
––––––––––––––––––––––––
Figure 3 About Here
The steps result in an instructional treatment plan that is then used as a foundation for
generating flowcharts, storyboards and vertical and horizontal prototypes. Specific guidelines for
applying the initial five steps within the context of an overall systematic design process are
detailed in Hirumi (in press). An example is provided here to illustrate how the framework may
be used to design and sequence elearning interactions, as well as to analyze the planned
interactions (Step 6).
Table 1 depicts an instructional treatment plan created by a professor during a two-day
workshop on designing and sequencing elearning interactions. The lesson is designed for
undergraduate engineering students. The terminal objective is to write and present a feasibility
report. The professor selected a WebQuest as the Level III interaction (or elearning strategy)
because one of the goals of the module is to engage students in searching the WWW for
scholarly articles in their field. Students are to synthesize the information from at least 5 sources
into their feasibility report. A WebQuest seemed to be the most appropriate instructional strategy
for integrating such an assignment.
________________________
Table 1 About Here
________________________
Column 1 lists the key events associated with the WebQuest model (Dodge and Bober, in
this issue). Column 2 provides a short description of how the professor plans to operationalize
each of the events online. Italicized words represent the actual text that is to go online, plain text
provides basic descriptions and underlined words indicate links to additional information or
resources. Column 3 identifies the type of interaction associated with each event based on the
classes of Level II interactions posited by the proposed framework. Column 4 denotes the
specific telecommunication tools that were selected to facilitate each interaction. At this stage, an
analysis of the planned interactions prior to flowcharting, storyboarding or prototyping may
reduce potential time wasted developing and programming instructional materials that may not
be well designed.
Analyzing Planned eLearning Interactions
After generating a preliminary draft of an instructional treatment plan, an analysis can
help determine the appropriateness of the planned interactions for learners and the instructor. A
planned interaction analysis is particularly important during the design phase of the systematic
process to reduce or eliminate the need for costly revisions after program development or
implementation.
Web-based courses with greater interactions can be more complicated to use (Gilbert and
Moore, 1998). For novice distance learners or anxious computer users, such complexity may lead
to confusion, frustration, inadequate performance and eventual drop out. Berge (1999) also notes
that the overuse or misuse of interactions can lead to frustration, boredom, and overload.
Students may become dissatisfied if they perceive online interactions as meaningless busy work.
Too many interactions can also make it difficult for learners to discern the relative importance of
content information and each interaction. Too many interactions may also overwhelm the
instructor. A common concern expressed by educators is that it takes far more time and effort to
manage the communications that occur during elearning than during traditional classes. Two
potential causes for such overload are (a) too many planned learner-instructor interactions, and
(b) poorly designed interactions that require considerable clarification, explanation and
elaboration.
Table 2 represents a planned interaction analysis completed during the workshop of the
sample treatment plan.
________________________
Table 2 About Here
________________________
Column one lists each type of interactions specified in the treatment plan. Column two
denotes the frequency of each type of interaction. Column three provides a brief description of
the quality or nature of the interaction and column four specifies any required revisions in design
or factors to consider during development.
An analysis of each class of planned interactions contained in the sample treatment plan
reveals several key factors that warrant further deliberation. To begin with, the frequency of
learner-content interactions emphasizes the importance of the user interface, suggesting that
resources spent conducting usability tests, such as heuristic and scenario-based evaluations
(Neilson, 1993) during development may be worthwhile.
Moving to the second category of planned interactions listed in the analysis, eight
learner-instructor interactions may be far too many for the instructor to manage. For each
interaction, the instructor must acknowledge receipt of the initial communication, save and track
relevant documents and messages, review each learner’s work and then generate and provide
timely and meaningful feedback. If you take into account the total amount of effort required to
manage each interaction, multiple that by the total number of students registered for the course
and consider that the treatment plan represents just one unit in an entire course, it becomes
readily apparent that eight learner-instructor interactions are far too many for the instructor to
manage. In such cases, it may be helpful to group two or more interactions together to reduce the
total number of interactions that must be handled by the instructor. Other options include
grouping students to reduce the total number of assignments that must be reviewed by the
instructor, eliminating some interactions or further automating the interaction so that
preprogrammed responses are provided based on users’ input.
The third category of planned interactions includes five learner-learner interactions that
may be too much for learners, particularly in light of the number of planned learner-instructor
interactions. During the workshop, the professor noted that students completed similar learner-
learner interactions in her face-to-face course as defined in her treatment plan. However, bear in
mind that in traditional classroom settings, such interactions occur through speaking and
listening, two modes of synchronous communications that take far less time and effort than
reading and writing, which are the predominate forms of communication during elearning.
Similar tactics for reducing the investment necessary to complete learner-instructor interactions
are recommended here with one exception–grouping students. Since communications are
predominately asynchronous, group work can take considerably more time and energy than
individual assignments. Messages must be posted or sent directly to team members who must
then access, organize, interpret and respond to the communications. If there are differences in
opinion, an additional series of asynchronous communications may be required to reach group
consensus prior to formulating a group response. Group processes may be facilitated through
synchronous communications (e.g., chat), but such meetings may be difficult to schedule,
particularly if team members live in different time zones. Therefore, to reduce learner-learner
interaction requirements, it was suggested that the professor consider either grouping the
interactions (e.g., requiring learners to share and discuss problem and purpose statements as two
parts of one online activity) or eliminating one or more interaction.
An analysis of third class of interactions specified in the treatment plan denotes two
learner-other human interactions, potential interactions with a librarian and planned interactions
with other professors. Such interactions are important to keep in mind during development and
implementation. Librarians must be informed of such potential interactions with enough led time
to allocate sufficient resources so that they can respond in a timely fashion. The participation of
other professors must also be solicited far enough in advance to ensure sufficient numbers and so
they can properly plan for and address learner inquiries.
Analysis of the fourth class of interactions contained in the treatment plan identifies
resources that must be made readily accessible to learners. In this case, the professor must make
sure that all learners have ready access to a library and can obtain the course textbook and related
journal articles in a suitable manner. Such considerations are also required in traditional on-
campus classes. However, making sure that distance learners can readily access required
resources may take additional time and noting such requirements during the design phase of the
systematic process may help facilitate implementation.
Too few, too many or poorly designed interactions can result in both learner and
instructor dissatisfaction, inadequate learning and insufficient performance, requiring additional
time, effort and expertise to revise instruction; resources that could have been spent on other
projects. Improved interface design (Metros and Hedberg, in this issue) and the evolution of
better Web course authoring and delivery tools may eventually make the technical aspects of
online interactions transparent to learners. However, until such improvements are realized,
educators must keep in mind that frequency does not equal quality (Northrup, 2001). Analysis of
planned elearning interactions specified in initial drafts of instructional treatment plans can help
educators correct potential problems prior to programming as well as identify key factors to
consider during development and implementation. Planned interaction analysis of prototypes and
existing coursework may also be conducted to increase the overall effectiveness of elearning
materials.
Analyzing and Organizing Research
In addition to guiding the design and sequencing of elearning interactions, the proposed
framework may be used to analyze and organize research on interactivity and elearning.
Several articles contained in this issue are examined to demonstrate how the framework
may be used to analyze related research. For instance, Berge stresses the importance of aligning
objectives, instruction and assessment and the significance of evaluation and feedback (essential
elements of Level III design). Berge also discusses how learner-learner, learner-instructor and
learner-content interactions (three Level II interactions) may be applied to facilitate active,
interactive and reflective elearning and promote knowledge construction (Level I interactions).
In comparison, Metros and Hedberg focus on interactions between the learner and the interface
(Level II) and discuss how graphical interfaces may be designed to support constructivist views
of learning (Level I). Chih and Corry discuss how social presence (Level II human interactions),
technology (Level II non-human interactions) and instruction (Level III interactions) influence
the development of elearning communities. Their refined model also highlights the importance
of community learning and suggests that it may be useful to add considerations for community-
self interactions as a new form of Level I interaction.
Further analysis of the articles contained in this issue reveals several trends:
1. As noted by Bannon-Ritland (in this issue), studies typically do not focus on one type
of interaction. Investigators usually concentrate on one category and discuss its affect
on others.
2. Few studies address Level III interactions. Of the eight articles included in this issue,
Berge and Chih and Corry allude to certain aspects of learner-instruction interactions;
a comprehensive set of interactions (or elearning strategy) that comprise an
instructional unit designed to achieve a specified set of objectives.
3. None of the articles contained in this issue directly address learner-other or learner-
environment interactions as defined by the framework.
Bannan-Ritland uses the proposed framework to analyze trends in research in her
comprehensive review of literature, further illustrating the utility of the framework for analyzing,
organizing and guiding research on interactivity and elearning.
Summary
Key interactions that can affect student attitudes and performance must be carefully
designed and delivered as an integral part of elearning. While various taxonomies reveal a
plethora of interactions that may be used to facilitate elearning, relatively little has been done to
synthesize related literature on, delimit the relationships between and provide practical
guidelines for planning and managing elearning interactions.
This article presents a three-level framework for analyzing, designing and sequencing
elearning interactions. Level I interactions consist of cognitive and metacognitive operations that
occur within each learner’s mind and is distinguished to further emphasize the importance of
self-regulation. Level II includes six classes that are divided into human and non-human
interactions (i.e., learner-instructor, learner-learner, learner-other human, learner-content,
learner-interface and learner-environment). Level III (learner-instruction) interactions are viewed
as a meta-level. Learner-instruction interactions provide educators with a set of events (an
elearning strategy) that may be based on research and theory to provide a grounded approach to
designing and sequencing Level II and stimulating Level I interactions.
A higher education example illustrated how the framework may be used to analyze
planned elearning interactions. Additional guidelines for applying the framework to design and
sequence elearning interactions are described by Hirumi (in press). This article focused on how
the framework may be used to analyze the frequency and quality of planned interactions during
design and development to reduce the need for costly revisions after programming and to
enhance the overall elearning experience. Similar analysis may be conducted to optimize the
design and sequencing of planned interactions in existing elearning materials. Finally, several
articles contained in this issue were analyzed to illustrate how the proposed framework may be
used to analyze, organize and guide research on planned elearning interactions.
The creation of modern elearning programs requires research and the development of
new design methods that fully utilize the capabilities of telecommunication technologies and the
potential they afford collaborative and independent learning (Bates, 1990; Mason & Kaye, 1990;
Soby, 1990). While the effectiveness of the proposed framework has been demonstrated in
several practical situations (e.g., workshops and in the design of secondary, undergraduate and
graduate elearning coursework), much work is left. Further study is required to provide empirical
evidence for its utility and to optimize the design and sequencing of planned elearning
interactions.
References
American Psychological Association. (1993). Learner-Centered Psychological
Principles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED371994).
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its
control processes. In K. Spence and J. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation
(Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.
Bates, A. W. (1990). Third generation distance education: The challenge of new
technology. Paper presented at the XV World Conference on Distance Education, Caracas,
Venezuela. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 332 688).
Bangert-Downs, R. L. Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The
instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 218-
38.
Bednar, A., Cunningham, D. J., Duffy, T., & Perry, D. (1995). Theory in practice: How
do we link? In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., pp.
100-112). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Berge, Z. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary Web-based learning. Educational
Technology, 39(1), 5-11.
Bonk, C. J. & King, K. (1998). Computer conferencing and collaborative writing tools:
Starting a dialogue about student dialogue. In C. J. Bonk & K. King (Eds.), Electronic
Collaborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse (pp.
3-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Bonk, J. C. & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist,
and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk & K. S.
King (Eds.), Electronic Collaborators: Learning-Centered Technologies for Literacy,
Apprenticeship, and Discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bonk, C. J. & Reynolds, T. H. (1997). Learner Centered Web Instruction for Higher-
order thinking, teamwork, and apprenticeship. In B. Khan (Ed.). Web-Based Instruction (pp.
167-178), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Breakthebarriers.com (2000). What is interactivity? Retrieved March 02, 2001, from
http://www.breakthebarriers.com/hottopic.html.
Bruner, J. (1974). Beyond the information given. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Bulter, D. L., & Winnie, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-81.
Carlson, R. D., & Repman, J. (1999). Web-based interactivity. WebNet Journal, 1(2), 11-
13.
Clark, R.E. (1994a). Media and method. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42, 7-10.
Clark, R.E. (1994b). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 42, 21-29.
Cohen, V. B. (1985). A reexamination of feedback in computer-based instruction:
Implications for instructional design. Educational Technology, 25(1), 33-37.
Corno, L. (1994). Student volition and education: Outcomes, influences, and practices. In
D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self regulation of leaning and performance: Issues and
educational applications (pp. 229-254). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Corno, L. & Randi, J. (1999). A design theory for classroom instruction in self-regulated
learning? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory (Vol. II) (pp. 293-318), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Dempsey, J. V. & Sales, G. C. (1993). Interactive Instruction and Feedback. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Dillion, A. & Zhu, E. (1997). Designing web-based instruction: A human-computer
interaction perspective. In B. Khan (Ed.). Web-based instruction (pp. 221-224). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA:
Paramount Publishing, Inc.
Gillani, B. B. & Relan, A. (1997). Incorporating interactivity and multimedia into Web-
based instruction. In B. Khan (Ed.). Web-based instruction (pp. 231-237). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
Gilbert, L. & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into Web courses: Tools for
social and instructional interactions. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29-35.
Hagen, A. S. and Weinstein, C. E. (1995). Achievement goals, self-regulated learning and
the role of classroom context. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding self-regulated learning (pp.
43-56). San Francisco: CA: Jossey Bass.
Hannafin, M. J. (1989). Interaction strategies and emerging instructional technologies:
Psychological perspectives. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 18(3), 167-179.
Harris, J. (1994a, February). People-to-people projects on the Internet. The Computing
Teacher. 48-52.
Harris, J. (1994b, March). Information collection activities. The Computing Teacher. 32-
36.
Harris, J. (1994c. April). Opportunities in work clothes: Online problem-solving project
structures. The Computing Teacher. 52-55.
Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J. & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction
in distance education: an extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
Hirumi, A. (2002). Designing and sequencing elearning interactions: A grounded
approach. International Journal on E-Learning. 1(1), 19-27.
Hoska, D. M. (1993). Motivating learners through CBI feedback: Developing a positive
learner perspective. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive Instruction and Feedback
(pp. 105-32). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Iran-Nejad, A. (1990). Active and dynamic self-regulation of learning processes. Review
of Educational Research, 60, 573-602.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Simulation and gaming: Fidelity, feedback and
motivation. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive Instruction and Feedback (pp.
133-57). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Jonassen, D.H. (1995, June). An instructional design model for designing constructivist
learning environments. World Conference on Educational Media, Graz, Austria.
Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model.
Educational Technology, 34(4), 34-37
Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a philosophical
paradigm shift? Educational Technology: Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Jones, M. G. & Farquhar, J. D. (1997). User interface design for Web-based instruction.
In B. Khan (Ed.). Web-based instruction (pp. 239-244). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications, Inc.
Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research,
47(1), 211-32.
Kulhavy, R. W. & Wager, W. (1993). Feedback in programmed instruction: Historical
context and implications for practice. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive
Instruction and Feedback (pp. 2-20). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Ley, K., & Young, D. B. (2001). Instructional principles for self regulation. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 93-105.
Liaw, S. & Huang, H. (2000). Enhancing Interactivity in Web-based Instruction: A
Review of the Literature. Educational Technology, 40(3), 41-45.
Piaget, J. (1971). Genetic epistemology. New York: W.W. Norton.
Mason, R., & Kaye, T. (1990). Toward a new paradigm for distance education. In L. M.
Harasim (Ed.), On-line education: Perspectives on a new environment (pp. 15-30). New York:
Praeger.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
Mortera-Gutierrez, F. & Murphy, K. (2000). Instructor interactions in distance education
environments: A case study. Concurrent session presented at the annual distance education
conference sponsored by the Texas A&M Center for Distance Education, Austin, TX January.
Mory, E. H. (1996). Feedback Research. In D. Jaonassen (Ed.). Handbook of research for
educational communications and technology (pp. 919-956). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster
Macmillan
Neilson, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: AP Professional.
Norman (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York, NY: Basic books, Inc.,
pp. 151-158.
Northrup, P. (2001). A framework for designing interactivity in Web-based instruction.
Educational Technology, 41(2), 31-39.
Northrup, P. T. & Rasmussen, K. L. (2000). Designing a web-based program: Theory to
Design. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology, Long Beach, CA: February 2000.
Piaget, J. (1971). Genetic epistemology. New York: W.W. Norton.
Reigeluth, C. M. & Moore, J. (1999). Cognitive education and the cognitive domain. In
C. M. Reigeluth (ed.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory (Volume II) (pp. 51-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Reiser, R. A. and Gagné, R. M. (1993). Selecting media for instruction. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Russell, T. L. (1999). The “no significant difference” phenomenon: A comparative
research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education. Raleigh: North Carolina
State University Office of Instructional Telecommunications.
Russell, T. L. (1993). The “no significant difference” phenomenon as reported in
research reports, summaries and papers. Raleigh: North Carolina State University Office of
Instructional Telecommunications.
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies in reinforcement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning and the cooperative school. Educational
Leadership, 47, 14-25.
Soby, M. (1990). Traversing distances in education: The PortaCOM Experiment. In A.
W. Bates (Ed.), Media and technology in European distance education. Proceedings of the
EADTU workshop on media, methods and technology (pp. 241-247). Milton Keynes, England:
The Open University for EADTU.
Thach, E. C. & Murphy, K. L. (1995). Competencies for Distance Education
Professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 57-79.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989a). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching.
Syntheses, 80, 121-140.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989b). Constructivism in education. In A. Lewy (Ed.), The
international encyclopedia of curriculum (pp. 31-32). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weller, H. G. (1988). Interactivity in microcomputer-based instruction: Its essential
components and how it can be enhanced. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 28(2), 23-
27.
Yacci, M. (2000). Interactivity demystified: A structural definition for distance Education
and intelligent computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 40(4), 5-16.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1995). Self-monitoring during collegiate
studying: An invaluable tool for academic self-regulation. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding
self-regulated learning (pp. 13-28), San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Zimmermen, B. J. & Paulsen, A. S. (1995). Self-monitoring during collegiate studying:
An invaluable tool for academic self-regulation. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding self-
regulated learning (pp. 13-28). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model
of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview
for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research
Journal, 23, 614-628.
Level II
Level I
Learner-Instruction Interactions
Learner-Self Interactions
Learner-
Instructor
Learner-Human Interactions Learner-Non-human Interactions
Learner-
Interface
Learner-
Content Learner-
Environment.
Learner-
Learner Learner-
Other
Level III
,
Figure 1. Three levels of planned elearning interactions
Nine Events of Instruction
1. Gain Attention
2. Inform Learner of Objective(s)
3. Stimulate Recall of Prior Knowledge
4. Present Stimulus Materials
5. Provide Learning Guidance
6. Elicit Performance
7. Provide Feedback
8. Assess Performance
9. Enhance Retention and Transfer
Student-Center Learning
1. Set Learning Challenge
2. Negotiate Learning Goals and Objectives
3. Negotiate Learning Strategy
4. Construct Knowledge
5. Negotiate Performance Criteria
6. Assess Learning
7. Provide Feedback (Steps 1-6)
8. Communicate Results
Jurisprudential Inquiry
1. Orientation to the Case
2. Identifying the Issues
3. Taking Positions
4. Exploring the Stance(s), Patters of
Argumentation
5. Refining and Qualifying the Positions
6. Testing Factual Assumptions Behind
Qualified Positions
Simulation Model
1. Orientation
1.1 Present topic of simulation
1.2 Explain simulation
1.3 Give overview
2. Participant Training
2.1 Set-up scenario
2.2 Assign roles
2.3 Hold abbreviated practice
3. Simulation Operations
3.1 Conduct activity
3.2 Feedback and evaluation
3.3 Clarify misconceptions
3.4 Continue simulation
4. Participant Debriefing
4.1 Summarize events
4.2 Summarize difficulties
4.3 Analyze process
4.4 Compare to the real world
5. Appraise and redesign the simulation
Direct Instruction
1. Orientation
1.1 Establish lesson content
1.2 Review previous learning
1.3 Establish lesson objectives
1.4 Establish lesson procedures
2. Presentation
2.1 Explain new concept or skill
2.2 Provide visual representation
2.3 Check for understanding
3. Structured Practice
3.1 Lead group through practice
3.2 Students respond
3.3 Provide corrective feedback
4. Guided Practice
4.1 Practice semi-independently
4.2 Circulate, monitor practice
4.3 Provide feedback
5. Independent Practice
5.1 Practice independently
5.2 Provide delayed feedback
Experiential Learning
1. Experience – Immerse learner in
“authentic” experience.
2. Publish – Talking or writing about
experience. Sharing thoughts and
feelings.
3. Process – Debrief: Interpret published
information, defining patterns,
discrepancies and overall dynamics.
4. Internalize – Private process, learner
reflects on lessons learned and
requirements for future learning.
5. Generalize – Develop hypotheses, form
generalizations and reach conclusions.
6. Apply – Use information and knowledge
gained from lesson to make decisions and
solve problems.
Inquiry Learning
1. Confrontation with the Problem
1.1 Explain inquiry procedures
1.2 Present discrepant event
2. Data Gathering - Verification
2.1 Verify nature of objects and
conditions
2.2 Verify the occurrence of the
problem situation
3. Data Gathering - Experimentation
3.1 Isolate relevant variables
3.2 Hypothesize and test casual
relationships
4. Organizing, Formulating and Explanation
- Formulate rules or explanations
5. Analysis of inquiry process - Analyze
inquiry strategy and develop more
effective ones.
Inductive Thinking
1. Concept Formation
1.1 Enumeration and listing
1.2 Grouping
1.3 Labeling, Categorizing
2. Interpretation of Data
2.1 Identify critical relationships
2.2 Explore relationships
2.3 Make inferences
3. Application of Principles
3.1 Predicting consequences
3.2 Explaining predictions
3.3 Verifying predictions
Problem-Based Learning
1. Starting a New Problem
1.1 Set problem
1.2 Describe requirements
1.4 Assign tasks
1.5 Reason through the problem
1.6 Commitment to outcome
1.7 Shape issues and assignment
1.8 Identify resource
1.9 Schedule follow-up
2. Problem Follow-Up
2.1 Resources used
2.2 Reassess the problem
3. Performance Presentation(s)
4. After Conclusion of Problem
4.1 Knowledge abstraction and
summary
4.2 Self-evaluation
Figure 2. Sample outlines of grounded instructional strategies
Step 1 – Identify essential experiences that are necessary for learners to achieve
specified goals and objectives (optional);
Step 2 – Select a grounded instructional strategy (Level III interaction) based on
specified objectives, learner characteristics, context and epistemological
beliefs;
Step 3 – Operationalize each event, embedding experiences identified in Step 1
and describing how the selected strategy will be applied during
instruction;
Step 4 – Define the type of Level II interaction(s) that will be used to facilitate
each event and analyze the quantity and quality of planned interactions;
and
Step 5 – Select the telecommunication tool(s) (e.g., chat, email, bulletin board
system) that will be used to facilitate each event based on the nature
of the interaction.
Step 6 – Analyze materials to determine frequency and quality of planned elearning
interactions and revise as necessary.
Figure 3. Six step process for designing and sequencing elearning interactions
Table 1. Sample instructional treatment plan based on WebQuest strategy
Event
Description
Interaction(s)
Tools
Introduction
Present students with series of questions
to establish context, need for learning
and guide completion of proceeding task.
Ask learners to post message describing
reports they have seen and/or written that
work.
Learner-Content
Learner-Instructor
Learner-Learner
WWW
BBS
Task
End products:
feasibility report
oral debriefing report
Learner-Content
WWW
Process
1. Identify topic
Learner-Content
Learner Instructor
WWW
Email/BBS
2. Perform research
Learner-Content
Learner-Environment
Learner-Other
(Librarian)
WWW
Go to Library
Online Library
3. Generate problem statement
Learner-Content
Learner-Learner
Learner-Instructor
WWW
BBS/Stu. Pres.
BBS/Mail/Stu. Pres.
4. Identify options
Learner-Content
WWW
5. Select criteria
Learner-Content
WWW
6. Write communication purpose
Learner-Content
Learner-Learner
WWW
BBS/Stu. Pres
7. Write report body
Learner-Content
WWW
8. Conduct peer reviews
Learner-Content
Learner-Learner
BBS/Stu. Pres/Email
9. Write final report
Learner-Content
Learner-Instructor
WWW
Stu./email
10. Present debriefing
Learner-Content
Learner-Learner
(Synchronous)
Learner-Instructor
WWW
Audiobridge, Chat,
Desktop
Video/Audio
Conferencing, Video
(Asyn).
Resources
In addition to the information provided
as links from each of the steps listed
above, here are a series of resources that
may help you complete your task.
Engineering professors
Galileo (online library)
Engineering and scholarly journals
Product Websites
Textbook
Handouts
Sample reports
Learner-Content
Learner-Other
(Professors)
Learner-Environment
(Textbook)
WWW
F2F, email, phone
Purchase (F2f, or
online)
Evaluation
The following evaluation criteria will be
used to evaluate your work and to
determine completion of your task.
Grading Rubric for Report
Grading Rubric for Debriefing
Learner-Content
Learner-Instructor
WWW
Email (feedback
templates)
Conclusion
Learner to prepare and submit journal
Learner-Content
WWW
entry reflecting on experience.
Learner-Instructor
Email
Table 2. Planned interaction analysis of sample treatment plan
Interaction
Quan.
Quality
Design Decision
Learner-Content
21
1 lesson overview page that provides description
of and links to information about intro., task,
process, resources, evaluation, and conclusion.
Detailed descriptions of how to complete each of
the 10 tasks associated with the process.
Links to 7 resources
2 Detailed evaluation rubrics
Description of how to prepare and submit journal
entry.
Interface very
important to test prior
to official course
delivery.
Learner-Instructor
8
Ask learner to post message
Review and provide feedback on topic
Review and provide feedback on problem
statement
Provide guidance on writing final report
Provide guidance on preparing debriefing
Assess and provide feedback on final report
Assess and provide feedback on debriefing
Review and provide feedback on journal entries.
Far too many
interactions to manage.
Need to review and
revise by grouping two
or more interactions,
grouping students,
eliminating or further
automating
interactions).
Learner-Learner
5
Share short description of previously seen or
written reports.
Share and discuss problem statements.
Share and discuss purpose statements
Conduct peer reviews of reports
Participate and share comments on debriefings
Maybe too much, need
review and pay
particular attention
during testing
Learner-Other
2
Contact Librarian
Contact other Professors
Need to ensure
Librarian prepared,
need to ensure ready
access to other
professors.
Learner-Environment
3
Go to Library
Acquire and read Textbook
Acquire and read journal articles
Need to ensure ready
access to library
resource and textbook
