Distance
Education
|
|
As more and more institutions offer Distance Learning classes, teachers will need to spend considerable time dealing with the process of adapting traditional classes in order to develop successful Distance classes. One of the key issues that must be addressed is interaction between teachers and students and among students. Naturally, teachers must provide a method for Distance Learning students to submit assignments and to ask questions. Beyond these basic concerns, interaction is necessary to enable students to discuss subject content and share ideas.
Experts in the field of Distance Learning generally
support the position that effective classes contain a high degree of interaction.
Those of use who have taught in college or public school settings know
all too clearly how dull some classes are when students don't participate
in class discussions. With the growth of Distance Education courses, it
is even more crucial that teachers address the issue of interaction.
Types of Interaction
Wagner (1994) defines instructional interaction as the events that take place and allow communication between the learner and the learner's environment. Collins and Berge (1996) state that "interacting with content means actively processing and combining this content with prior knowledge." Interaction is an active process which requires learners to do more than passively absorb information. Various types and levels of interaction exist in Distance Education courses. High levels of interaction are possible despite the physical separation of the instructor and the learners. Technologies which are available today allow a high degree of communication between the instructor and the learners and among the learners.
Synchronous communication occurs when teachers and learners communicate simultaneously using interactive video conferencing, audio conferencing, or chat rooms. Interactive video conferencing and two way audio conferencing allow students to ask questions and discuss topics in real time. Distance Education courses may include chat rooms as a component to allow students to communicate in real-time. Synchronous communication simulates traditional class discussion; however, learners do not always have the benefit of body language, gestures, or other social cues and communication occurs more slowly than in the classroom because of the necessity of typing and reading responses. If monitors are too small or poorly placed, teachers and students may not be able to see each other as well as they do in class. Instructors may need to provide structure to these exchanges if they wish to keep learners on task. In some instances, several conversations may take place at once, and some learners may feel overwhelmed trying to follow multiple threads and formulating their own responses.
Currently, online courses seem to be the predominant form of Distance Education delivery. Online courses are asynchronous, but they may incorporate synchronous components. Asynchronous discussion may include e-mail, discussion areas, listservs, or bulletin boards. Asynchronous communication is often a component of Internet courses because it allows learners to communicate with other class members whenever the learner has time to formulate an answer and respond. This is particularly helpful for class members who cannot take traditional classes due to work schedules, for students in other states or countries, and for students who do not normally take active roles in class discussions. Instructors may prompt discussion by creating assignments which require students to communicate with each other or by posting discussion topics which learners can comment on and respond to other class members' comments. If students are hesitant to actively engage in these discussions, instructors may require students to respond to other class members' comments or assign students to groups with shared interests to create a small cooperative group.
In Distance Education: A Systems View, Moore and Kearsley define interaction and discuss the importance of interaction in the learning experience. They divide interaction into three categories: Learner-content Interaction, Learner-instructor Interaction, and Learner-learner Interaction.
Learner-content Interaction
Learner-content Interaction which teachers need to generate is "the interaction the student has with the subject matter. . . . Every learner has to construct knowledge through a process of personally accommodating information into previously existing cognitive structures (Moore & Kearsley, p. 128). I would expect that most of us would take it for granted that students have to read the assigned textbooks. In many cases teachers have to develop strategies to motivate students to complete the required work. Whether in traditional classes or in Distance Learning classes, students have to interact with the material in order to gain anything from it. However, students are not always enthusiastic about some topics and may procrastinate before getting started with assignments. Teachers may need to integrate incentives or explicit requirements into lesson plans in order to prompt students to engage in learning activities. In Distance Learning classes, it may be crucial for teachers to clearly communicate the importance of completing assignments on schedule. (Hill; Dutch 1999)
Learner-instructor Interaction
Learner-instructor Interaction includes the methods/actions the instructor uses to motivate students and activate them to complete assignments. Instructors cannot simply upload text to the Internet or lecture during a video conference. "After the content has been presented . . . the instructors assist the students in interacting with it . . . they try to stimulate or at least maintain the students' interest in the subject and their motivation to learn" (Moore & Kearsley pp. 129-30).
Learner-learner Interaction
The third form of interaction is "interaction between one learner and other learners, alone or in group settings, with or without the realtime presence of an instructor" (Moore & Kearsley, p. 131). Students in my face to face classes generally express reservations about taking Distance Education because they feel that they will miss in class discussions and contact with an instructor. Student discussions are, of course, an important part of the learning process. Whether in a Distance Education class or a traditional class, students need to be encouraged or prompted to formulate their ideas and express them clearly.
Learner-technology Interaction
Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994) address a fourth type of interaction between the learner and the technology or technologies used in Distance Education courses. They argue that "a learner must use these intervening technologies to communicate with the content, negotiate meaning, and validate knowledge with the instructor and other learners." Instructors cannot assume that each learner will be familiar with the technologies which are used in a course or that the learners are comfortable with those technologies. In cases where learners are just becoming familiar with a new technology, there will often be a period of time in which they are hesitant and tentative until they acquire sufficient confidence to access the technology on a regular basis. This should be of particular concern to instructors since "the learner who is unskilled in interacting with the communication medium must dedicate the majority of his or her mental resources to retrieving the information" (Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena, 1994). Having to devote an inordinant amount of time to simply retrieving information may lead to frustration and certainly does not contribute to the learner mastering the information. In order to participate in class activities, learners will need to reach this comfort level. Once this comfort level is reached, learners can focus on the content and are more likely to participate in class activities and interact with the instructor and other class members.
The issue of user involvement with or avoidance of technology is a very real concern. (Bohlin; Mahmood & Medewitz, 1989; Rosen & Maguire, 1990) In studies of teacher avoidance of computers, Bohlin has shown that substantial numbers of teachers are uncomfortable with the technology. This research can be applied to the attitudes of learners. Howard and Kernan (1989) demonstrated a strong connection between negative attitudes and high anxiety to an individual's avoidance of computers. Bohlin (1998, 1999) points to several factors including "motivation, confidence, and perceptions of relevance" that effect attitudes toward using computers. In order for the learning experience to be successful and for learners to develop positive attitudes about computers or other learning technologies, instructors and course designers may need to address learner anxieties and build in activities which foster positive attitudes and allow learners to gain confidence (Banks & Havice, 1989; Bloom, 1985; Hackman & Walker, 1990; Winkle & Mathews, 1982).
Students generally express an interest in being able to discuss and share ideas with other members of class whether in traditional classes or in Distance Learning classes. Some students in Distance Learning classes have voiced their concerns about missing the classroom experience (Collins and Berge 1996; Corderoy and Lefoe 1997; Cummings 1998; Kearsley 1995).
One area that researchers have been exploring for some time now is learner motivation. This is a particularly crucial factor in learner success. Since some Distance Learning classes are self paced, instructors may not get a clear indication that a student is having difficulties or falling behind until well into the course. For learners to be successful, they must possess a high degree of self motivation. Studies indicate a strong relationship between interaction, positive attitudes about class work, and motivation (Fulford & Zhang, 1993; Hackman & Walker, 1990; Irani, 1998; Ritchie & Newbury, 1989; Wagner, 1994). If students derive a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction in Distance Learning classes, they are likely to want to continue and should expend the effort necessary not only to complete the course but to excel. Research by Fulford and Zhang indicates that "learners who perceive interaction to be high will have more satisfaction with the instruction than will learners who perceive interaction to be low."
Research indicates that properly designed courses
incorporating Distance Learning technologies can "facilitate interaction
among students and between the instructor and students, thus making distance
education more appropriate for the higher-level cognitive goals of college
and university education" (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff, 1995; Lauzon,
1992; Tuckey, 1993).
Online Communication
Distance Learning technologies like e-mail, discussion boards, and newsgroups provide excellent opportunities to enhance interaction in both Distance Learning and traditional classes. Among the possibilities, e-mail enables all the participants in a class to communicate brief messages, to participate in listservs, submit research projects, and to communicate with content experts (Arnold 1997; Berge and Collins 1995; Faulhaber & Moonen; Gottschalk, 1995). Students might use the postal service and telephones to accomplish the same thing, but e-mail is quicker and students can access their e-mail accounts at any time during the day wherever they have Internet access. It has been my experience that often when students leave telephone messages, we end up playing "phone tag" while trying to find a time that we can have a conversation.
Discussion boards can be of benefit to both teachers and students. Instructors may want to use this option to prompt discussion of issues related to course content. Discussion boards can provide an ideal method of posting questions related to specific content or issues to generate dialogue among learners. Students are also afforded the opportunity to practice their writing skills with the added benefit of having adequate time to formulate thoughtful responses (Chism; Englebardt). Both e-mail and discussion boards provide students with the opportunity to share information students can share information (Powers & Dutt, 1998; Funaro & Montell, 1999). An added benefit of using online discussions is that by "reading students' online postings, instructors can monitor students' level of understanding of the material, catch common misconceptions, and gauge student interest in particular topics" (Funaro & Montell, 1999). As instructors monitor discussions and determine where students need assistance, they can provide feedback to students. Chism
One of the uses of online discussion via discussion board and listserv that I have found most helpful is being able to continue discussions over a period of days or weeks. Students may find that class members' comments generate new ideas. Powers & Dutt (1998) used a newsgroup to allow students in elementary education classes "to continue discussion about course content. If ideas about class sessions came to mind after the class period, students had a vehicle in which to share their ideas." Students were able to extend discussions beyond the limits of the classroom in what some students found to be a less stressful environment. Students seem to have accepted the newsgroup as a useful addition and "did not view it as a complete substitution for class discussion." Funaro & Montell (1999) found that because "students' responses are posted publicly, they tend to respond to online assignments thoughtfully without requiring the instructor to engage in the time-consuming task of grading." Further, a newsgroup can provide "students with a space of their own where they can learn from each other" (Funaro & Montell, 1999).
While participating in listservs related to Distance Education, I have had opportunities to communicate with other students and with experts in the area. Given adequate time to organize, instructors might arrange for content experts to participate in class discussions. Guest lecturers can be included in interactive video conferences, discussion boards, or chat rooms enabling students to interact with content experts (Cotlar & Shimabukuro, 1995; Englebardt ).
Almost inevitably, classroom discussions seem to be dominated by a few students who enjoy talking and are not concerned about having everyone in class focused on them. There are always a few students who are either uncomfortable expressing their opinions or prefer to compose their thoughts before responding. Unfortunately, the discussion may move on before they are prepared to join in, and they may be left out. Such students may be penalized because they do not seem to be contributing to the discussion. (Chester and Gwynne,1998; Chism; Coombs, 1993; Creed,1996; Dutch, 2000; Funaro & Montell, 1999; Hettinger, 1995; Powers & Dutt, 1998; Schneider & Reinhart, 1998) Corderoy and Lefoe (1997) feel that one of the key issues for student success is dealing with these "silent students". They believe that ensuring "the students engage in the learning is closely related to the degree of interactivity fostered between students and their peers as well as between the students and the instructor. Success in the latter is dependent upon an instructors commitment to providing 'rapid feedback' to submitted tasks and posed questions as well as regular personal 'checking in' online." By integrating an asynchronous discussion board, discussions can be continued or extended outside of a face to face class, and those students who require more time to formulate responses will be able to contribute. In Distance Learning classes, discussion boards can approximate in class discussions, and teachers can design discussions so that everyone will be included (Chism; Funaro & Montell, 1999; McInerney, 1997; Rossman, 1999; Warschauer, 1996). Those students who wish to continue discussions can post questions on a discussion board for classmates or send questions to a listserv.
E-mail, discussion boards, and chat rooms can provide learners a way to develop a sense of community much like traditional classes and enable them to share information and create group projects (Chism; Collins and Berge, 1998; McAuley, 1995; Singletary and Anderson, 1995). This can be especially beneficial to learners in remote locations out of state or in other countries who will have no opportunities to meet with classmates. Meeting together either synchronously or asynchronously, whether "information is presented to students through lecture, textbook or supplementary readings, text or audiovisual material on a home page, it can be processed by students together through electronic discussion." Chism E-mail and discussion boards may be especially beneficial to students who do not readily participate in class discussions. (Combs, 1993; Hettinger 1995)
As more students around the world take Distance Learning classes, teachers will need to consider the difficulties foreign students will face. (Funaro & Montell, 1999) Whether Chinese students are enrolled in Distance Learning classes provided by the Open University or American students are taking classes from a university in Spain or France, communication for non native speakers may be slow at times. Asynchronous communication using e-mail and discussion boards will allow these students sufficient time to compose thoughtful responses. (Serhan, 1997)
For teachers, there is the additional benefit of not having to limit or end discussions due to time running out at the end of a period. Teachers often feel compelled to cut discussions short so that they can complete the scheduled material (Arnold, 1997; Chism; Dutch, 2000). Lohman (1984) argues that:
"the largest constraint on the use of discussion (in the college
classroom) is time" (p. 131). Too often, the end of a class period
terminates an insightful discussion. The asynchronous nature of
the Web-based course avoids this circumstance. This means that
a class discussion can go on indefinitely, or as long as two individuals
are willing to devote the time to continuing a dialogue. The Web-
based discussion differs from the conventional face-to-face discussion
in that more time may be spent reflecting on potential responses
(Fetterman, 1996). In the face-to-face discussion the response is,
by necessity, immediate. The Web-based format leaves a permanent
record and may be referred back to at appropriate points in a semester.
(qtd in Cummings,
1998)
Not being limited by time constraints has an
added benefit. In class discussions are not always able to explore issues
and topics in depth. (Chism;
Creed,
1996; Funaro
& Montell, 1999; Powers
& Dutt, 1998) Asynchronous discussions can be continued for several
days, and instructors can pose questions to prompt students to move in
unanticipated directions. (Powers,
1997) points out that instructors can use such discussions to "determine
levels of students’ understanding. Furthermore, an instructor-facilitated
discussion can give students a share of the responsibility of information
transmittal and feedback in the course." Simply having more time to organize
their thoughts may encourage students to compose more considered responses
(Funaro
& Montell, 1999).
Using the Web as a Medium for Student Work
One of the most promising aspects of using
the Internet is allowing students to post projects and papers for others
to read. On numerous occasions, students have asked what I wanted them
to do on a paper. What they are thinking is what will it take to
satisfy this instructor. They feel that they are writing to satisfy one
person, who will grade the assignment, so they focus on what will make
the instructor happy. By putting papers and projects on the Internet, students
should become more aware that they have an audience. Whether their work
is going to be read by members of the class or by thousands on the Internet,
students should more motivated. (Arnold,
1997; Berge
and Collins, 1995)
Self Assessment and Feedback
The Internet also provides opportunities for self assessment and feedback. Last year I started using Quizmaker at the University of Hawaii. I created a series of practice exams in the form of clickable forms so that students can gauge their own learning prior to the actual exam. Depending on the software used, online tests may be multiple choice, fill in the blank, short answer, or brief essays. Options include allowing the students to view the results or sending test results to the instructor's e-mail. Such software will not only allow students to test themselves, but teachers might want to include similar tests as part of the assessment process. Similar clickable forms can be used both during and at the end of courses to determine the level of student satisfaction and whether there are particular aspects of the course that present problems so that "rather than students having to wait until the end of the semester to criticize any aspects of a course, a form page provided for this purpose means that they can provide criticism at any time during the semester. The instructor can then make mid-course corrections or address the problems identified promptly" (Forinash, Rumsey, and Wisman, 1998).
Feedback seems to be an important element in
determining student satisfaction with Distance Learning. Rossman
(1999) states that in his experience online "learners need it and can not
seem to get enough. Feedback (or the lack thereof) is the most frequently
mentioned concern of online learners. To quote from learner online evaluations,
faculty who provide meaningful and frequent feedback are viewed as "excellent,"
"very good," "concerned" and "caring" while those who provide it superficially
or infrequently are viewed as "not very good," "poor," "unconcerned" and
"arrogant."
Limitations
As much promise as Distance Learning technologies have, there are potential problems which must be considered. The lack of visual clues in a Distance Learning class when using e-mail and discussion boards can present a problem for students and teachers since we are accustomed to reading gestures and body language as well as the verbal message. Collins and Berge (1998) point out that regardless "of the particular delivery mechanism, computer mediated communication is interaction stripped of social context cues and human 'presence', yet for learning to occur students and faculty must become familiar with the environment, and each other and be able to make both sense and meaning of the learning experienced they are engaged in."
Students must understand that they will be expected to treat each other with respect just as if they were in a face to face class. Since online classes will provide syllabi, project instructions, and lists of readings, some students may become confused or frustrated if instructions are not phrased carefully.
One point administrators and instructors should consider when Distance Learning classes are in the design stage is the instructors' familiarity with the technologies being used. Distance students who may not know the instructor may become discouraged if they feel that the instructor is not skilled in the use of the equipment. Students generally expect that instructors are more knowledgeable than the students in the class, and that should apply to the use of technology. (Chen, 1998) This may present an obstacle in the development of Distance Learning classes in situations where administrators have rushed to purchase and install equipment but have not provided adequate training for instructors to become comfortable with it. I have talked to a considerable number of teachers who have had a brief exposure to HTML for instance in a one time workshop. Not all feel confident enough to do more than create a class page on the Internet. So, in addition to not having sufficient time to develop a Web site, many haven't had training in how to integrate the technology with what they are already doing.
One problem that I have encountered with a few students is a hesitance to make full use of the available technologies. Although they may be accustomed to surfing the Internet, most students I have worked with have not taken an online class or even a course supplemented by Internet materials and haven't given much consideration to the Internet as an educational tool. (Dutch, 2000) Few that I've talked to actually know how to conduct an efficient online search. In addition, students may view online materials and assignments as extra work. As they have the opportunity to take Distance courses and as they become more comfortable using various technologies, students should overcome any hesitance to make use of the features those technologies offer.
There are, of course, students who do not have computers or Internet access at home, but they are less likely to take online classes. If schools provide computer labs, these students can use e-mail and will be able to visit internet sites. While it would be difficult to take an online class using computer lab facilities, it is possible. Fiber optics courses would not be as difficult for these students since they would generally have access to a Distance Learning classroom.
With any of these technologies, there will be occasional technical problems when the technologies do not work.
Some students feel that reading a large number of e-mails or responding to a discussion board takes too much of their time -- this may also be the case with supplementary readings instructors place on reserve.
Instructors need to be especially careful to
phrase instructions so that Distance learners will not misunderstand assignments.
Conclusion
As more learners choose Distance Learning as an option, interaction in Distance Learning classes will continue to be a topic of interest. Whether in a traditional class or in a Distance Learning class, generating a discussion isn't always easy. There always seem to be students who are reluctant to join in. The physical separation in Distance Learning classes can create a sense of isolation among learners which teachers need to address if the class is to be successful. Although some students may not be entirely enthusiastic about communicating with e-mail, discussion boards, or listservs, the asynchronous nature of such communication does provide substantial benefits by accommodating for different schedules and encouraging more thoughtful discussion.
Learners may be motivated by a number of factors including grades, self esteem, and a sense of learner control. My sense is that Distance Learners need rei>
Develop --
Electronic discussions can be used for processing ideas. Electronic discussions can be used as tutorials. Students can receive extra practice in skills needed in a course or can obtain study assistance. Chism
Electronic discussions can be used to further the communication skills of students. Such "process skills" as communication, critical thinking, and creative thinking cut across all content areas and can be approached through engaging students in electronic discussions. Chism
"electronic discussion featured language that
was both more formal and more complex that the the face-to-face discussion"
( Warschauer,
1996)
Printable
Version of this paper
Arnold, M. (1997). Using the web to augment teaching and learning
<http://www.curtin.edu.au:80/conference/ASCILITE97/papers/Arnold/Arnold.html> Feb. 8 1999.
Banks, M. J., & Havice, M. J. (1989). Strategies for dealing with computer anxiety: Two case studies.
Educational Technology, 24(1), 22-26.
Berge, Z. and Collins, M. (1995). Computer-Mediated communication and the online classroom in
distance learning <http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/1995/apr/berge.html> Sept. 16, 2000.
Bohlin, R. M. Avoiding computer avoidance. http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper35/paper35.html
Retrieved Nov. 5, 2000
Bohlin, R. M. (1999). The relationship of students' affect and behavior to computer performance. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Houston,
TX.
Bohlin, R. M. (1998). The affective domain: A model of learner-instruction interactions. 20th Annual
Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Paper Presentations at the 1998 Annual Convention of the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Bloom, A. (1985). An anxiety management approach to computer anxiety. Training and Development Journal.
39 (1), 90-94.
Chen, H. (1998). Interaction in distance education
<http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/disted/week2/7focushc.html> Sept. 16, 2000.
Chester, A. and Gwynne, G. (1998). Online teaching: Encouraging collaboration through anonymity
<http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol4/issue2/chester.html> Sept. 16, 2000.
Chism, N. Handbook for instructors on the use of electronic class discussion. Available:
<http://www.osu.edu/education/ftad/Publications/elecdisc/pages/home.htm> Oct. 24, 2000.
Collins, M. and Berge, Z. (1996). Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses
<http://penta2.ufrgs.br/edu/teleduc/wbi/flcc.htm> Sept. 16, 2000.
Coombs, N. (1993). Global Empowerment of impaired learners: Data networks will transcend both physical
distance and physical disabilities. Educational Media International, 30 (1), 23-25.
Corderoy, R. M. and Lefoe, G. (1997). Tips and secrets for online teaching and learning: An
inside view <http://www.curtin.edu.au/conference/ASCILITE97/papers/Corderoy/Corderoy.html>
Sept. 17, 2000.
Cotler, M. & Shimabukuro, J. N. (1995). Stimulating learning with electronic guest lecturing. In Z. L Berge &
M. Collins (Eds.). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom. (Vol. 3 : Distance Learning) (pp.
105-128). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Creed, T. (1996). Extending the classroom walls electronically
<http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~tcreed/techno3.html>
Cummings, J. A. (1998). Promoting student interaction in the virtual college classroom
<http://www.ihets.org/learntech/distance_ed/fdpapers/1998/52.html> Oct. 11, 1999.
Dutch, M. (2000). Motivating students to use technology
<http://cfcc.edu/dutch/MotivationPaper.htm>
Englebardt, S. P. Discussion Forums as a Learning Tool in a Graduate Course
http://horizon.unc.edu/projects/monograph/CD/Professional_Schools/Englebardt.asp
Englebardt, S. P. "Discussion Forums as a Learning Tool in a Graduate Course." In Technology Tools for
Today's Campuses, edited by James L. Morrison. University of North Carolina, 1997.
Forinash, K. Rumsey, W. and Wisman, R.. (1998). Interactive and collaborative uses of the web
<http://www.ihets.org/learntech/distance_ed/fdpapers/1998/46.html> Oct. 11, 1999.
Gottschalk, T. H. (1995). Strategies for teaching at a distance <http://www.uidaho.edu/evo/dist2.html>
Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom:
The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction.
Communication Education, 39, 196-206.
Harasim, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1997). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning
online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hettinger, G. (1995). Raising the level of debate: The effects of computer mediated communication on group
dynamics and critical thinking skills. Proceedings of the Annual National Convention of the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology. Anaheim, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383
300).
Hill, J. Enhancing student motivation <http://www.wpi.edu/~isg_501/motivation.html>
Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance
education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 8(2), 30-42.
Howard, G. S., & Kernan, M. M. (1989). Computer anxiety: Concepts and instruments. Unpublished
manuscript.
Irani, T. (1998). Communication potential, information richness and attitude: A study of computer mediated
communication in the ALN classroom <http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/vol2_issue1/irani.htm>
Oct. 4, 2000.
Kearsley, G. (1995). The nature and value of interaction in distance learning
<http://www.gwu.edu/~etl/interact.html> Sept. 12, 2000.
King, J. C. and Doerfert, D. L. Interaction in the distance education setting
<http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/SSU/AgEd/NAERM/s-e-4.htm> Sept. 12, 2000.
Lauzon, A.C. (1992). Integrating computer-based instruction with computer conferencing: An evaluation of a
model for designing online education. American Journal of Distance Education, 6(2), 32-46.
Lohman, J. (1984). Mastering the techniques of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McAuley, A. (1995). Out on the virtual frontier: Experience with CMC on Baffin Island. In Z. L Berge & M.
Collins (Eds.). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom. (Vol. 3 : Distance Learning) (pp.
139-148). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
McInerney, W. D. (1997). Learning to teach via the internet"
<http://www.ihets.org/learntech/distance_ed/fdpapers/1997/mcinerny.html> Oct. 11, 1999.
Mahmood, M. A. & Medewitz, J. N. (1989). Assessing the effects of computer literacy on subjects attitudes,
values, and opinions toward information technology: An exploratory longitudinal investigation using the linear
structural relations (Lisrel) model. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 20-28.
Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Powers, S. M. (1997). Using the medium to teach the media: Reflections and lessons learned
<http://www.ihets.org/learntech/distance_ed/fdpapers/1997/powers.html> Oct. 11, 1999.
Powers, Susan M. and Karen M. Dutt. (1998). Expanding Class Discussion Beyond the Classroom Walls, The
Moderator's Home Page. Available: http://web.indstate.edu/cimt/powers.html
Ritchie, H., & Newbury, T. J. (1989). Classroom lecture / discussions vs. live televised instruction:
A comparison of effects on student performance, attitude, and interaction. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 3(3), 36-45.
Rosen, L. D. & Maguire, P. A. (1990). Myths and realities of computerphobia: A meta-analysis. Anxiety
Research, 3, 175-191.
Rossman, M. H. (1999) Successful Online Teaching Using An Asynchronous Learner Discussion Forum
JALN, 3, Issue 2 http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol3_issue2/Rossman.htm
Serhan, D. (1997). Improving learner-instructor interaction and class participation of international students
through computer-mediated communication
<http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc703/Pages/ser10.htm> Sept. 16, 2000.
Schneider, P. & Reinhart, J. (1998) Creating More Effective Two-Way Audio and Video Distance Education
Environments: A Preliminary Examination.
<http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/~p-schne/research/environments_apa.html>
Singletary, T., & Anderson, H. (1995) Computer-mediated Teacher Induction. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins,
(Eds). Computer mediated communication and the Online Classroom (Vol. 2: Higher Education) (pp. 137-151),
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Sutton, L. A. (1999). Vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communication: Effects on achievement and
satisfaction <http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc703/leahf.html> Sept. 16, 2000.
Tuckey, C.J. (1993). Computer conferencing and the electronic white board in the United Kingdom:
A comparative analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 58-72.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 8(2), 6-29.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom.
CALICO Journal 13(2), 7-26. http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/web/faculty/markw/comparing.html
Winkle, L.
W., & Mathews, W. M. (1982). Computer equity comes of age. Phi Delta
Kappan, 63, 314-315.
Supplementary Readings
Abrahamson, C. E. (1998). Issues in interactive communication in distance education. College Student Journal,
32(1): 33-43.
Ahern, T. C., Peck, K., & Laycock, M. (1992). The effects of teacher discourse in computer-mediated
discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, 291-309.
Ahern, T. C. and Repman, J. (1994). The effects of technology on online education. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 26(4): 537-546.
Althaus, S. L. (1997). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with
online discussion. Communication Education, 46, 158-176.
Anderson, T. (1999) Interaction options for learning in the virtual classroom
http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/articles/disted/interact_options.cfm Oct. 31, 2000.
Baehr, Cj. (1995). Interactivity in distance learning: Connecting students, instructors and content. In C.
Olgren, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, 11, 11-16. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Barker, B. and Baker, M. (1995). Strategies to ensure interaction in telecommunicated distance learning.
Paper presented to Teaching Strategies for Distance Learning, 11th Annual Conference on Teaching and Learning,
Madison, Wisconsin. 17-23.
Barron, A. (1999). A teacher's guide to distance learning <http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/distance/>Oct. 11, 1999.
***Bauman, M. Online learning communities http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcc_conf97/pres/bauman.html
Beaudin B. P. (1999) Keeping Online Asynchronous Discussions on Topic
JALN Volume 3, Issue 2 http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/Vol3_issue2/beaudin.htm
***Berge, Z. (2000) The Role of the Online Instructor/Facilitator
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~mpc3/moderate/teach_online.html
alternate site http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/teach_online.html
Biner, P., Dean, R., and Mellinger, A. (1994). Factors underlying distance learner satisfaction with televised
college-level courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 1, 60-71.
Bonk, C. J. & Cummings, J.A. (1998). A dozen recommendations for placing the student at the center of
Web-based instruction. Educational Media International, 35(2), 82-89.
Brooks, D. W. (1997). Web-teaching: A guide to designing interactive teaching for the world wide web
(pp. 87-184). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Bruce, M. A. & Shade, R. A. (1995, Sept.). Effective teaching and learning strategies using compressed video.
Tech Trends, 18-22
Cashin, W. E., & McKnight, P. C., Improving Discussions. In Neff, R. A., & Weimer, M. (Eds),
Classroom Communication: Collected Readings for Effective Discussion and Questioning, Madison, Magna
Publications, 33-40, 1989.
Chute, A. G., Sayers, P. K., & Gardner, R. P. (2000) Networked Learning Environments
http://www.lucent.com/cedl/networked-learning.html
Cotler, M. & Shimabukuro, J. N. (1995). Stimulating learning with electronic guest lecturing. In Z. L Berge &
M. Collins (Eds.). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom. (Vol. 3 : Distance Learning) (pp.
105-128). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
DeVries, J. E. and Wheeler, C. The interactivity component of distance learning implemented in an art studio
course. <http://www.uiah.fi/~jdevries/intcomp.htm> Oct. 3, 2000.
Dillenbourg, P. and Schneider D.K. (1995). The conditions for effective collaborative learning
<http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/research/CMC/colla/iccai95_1.html>
Dowdall, R. J. (1996) Critical Instructional Issues -Interaction and Instruction
http://www.scc.losrios.cc.ca.us/~learnres/archives/lrccdtv96/ch5c.html
Duchastel, P. (1999) Information design for cyberspace
http://home.earthlink.net/~castelnet/info/cyberg99.html
***Eaton, M. Interactive features for HTML-based tutorials in distance learning programs
<http://www.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ausweb96/educn/eaton/paper.html>
Eysenck, M. Wl. (1979). Anxiety, learning, and memory: A reconceptualization. Journal of Research in
Personality, 13, 363-385.
Ekhaml, L. (1999). Tips for promoting collaboration and interactivity in online distance learning
<http://computed.coe.wayne.edu/Vol5/Ekhaml.html>
Ellsworth, J. H. (1995). Using computer-mediated communication in teaching university courses. In Z.L. Berge
and M.P. Collins (Eds.) Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom: Volume 1: Overview and
perspectives (p. 29-36). Cresskll, NJ: Hampton Press.
Espinoza, F. & Höök, K. An Interactive WWW Interface to an Adaptive Information System
http://www.sics.se/~kia/espinoza_hook.html
Faulhaber, P. & Moonen, B. E-mail
http://www.to.utwente.nl/ism/online95/campus/library/online94/chap3/chap3.htm
Fetterman, D. M. (1996). Videoconferencing on-line: Enhancing communication over the internet. Educational
Researcher, 25(4), 23-27.
Fulford, C. and Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance learning.
The American Journal of Distance Education, 7, 3, 8-21.
Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1997). Building interactivity into web courses: Is commercial groupware or
design with web tools the solution? <http://ideanet.nau.edu/~nauweb97/papers/gilbert/gilbert.html>Oct. 3, 2000.
Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and instructional
interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29-35.
Green, D. Encouraging Learning Dialogues Through the World Wide Web
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/uniserve/green.html
Gunawardena, C. N., Gibson, C. C., Cochenour, J. J., Dean, T., Dillon, C. L., Hessmiller, R., Murphy, K. L.,
Rezabek, L. L., & Saba, F. (1994). Multiple perspectives on implementing inter-university computer conferencing.
1994 Proceedings of the Distance Education Research Conference, pp. 101-117. College Station: Texas A&M
University, Department of Educational Human Resource Development.
Hall, B.W. 1993. Using e-mail to enhance class participation. PS, 26, 757-60.
Hara, N. & Kling, R. Students’ Distress with a Web-based Distance Education Course
http://www.slis.indiana.edu/CSI/wp00-01.html
Harris J. First Steps in Telecollaborations. Learning and leading with technology. November 1999.
Vol. 27 Number 3: 54-57. International Society for Technology in Education.
Harris J. Taboo topic no longer: Why telecollaborative projects sometimes fail. Learning and Leading with
Technology Vol. 27 Number 5 Feb. 2000: 58-61.
Harris J.Wetware: Why use activity structures? December-January 1997-98 "Mining the Internet" in
Learning and leading with Technology. International Society for Technology in Education.
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu?~jbharris...chitecture/Foundation/Weware.htm/ (incorrect URL)
Hirumi, A., & Bermudez, A. (1996). Interactivity, distance education, and instructional systems design
converge on the information superhighway. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(1), 1-16.
Horn, D. (1994). Distance education: Is interactivity compromised? Performance and Instruction, 33(9), 12-15.
Hughes, C., & Hewson, L. (1998). Online interactions: Developing a neglected aspect of the virtual
classroom. Educational Technology, 38(4), 48-55.
Inkrote, J. (2000). Introduction to distance learning research
<http://www.amigos.org/training/lessonone.html> Oct. 3, 2000
Jencius, M. (1999) Interactivity http://www.albrecht-jones.com/taskforce/theme2/
Jonassen, D.H. (1985). Interactive lesson designs: A taxonomy. Educational Technology, 25 (6), 7-17.
Jones, T. and Meyer, C. 1993. Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom.
San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Karaliotas, Y. (1998) Interactivity in the learning environment
<http://users.otenet.gr/~kar1125/iaction.htm>
Kaye, A. (1989). Computer-mediated communication and distance education. In R. Mason and A. Kaye (Eds.),
Mindweave: Communication, computers and distance education (pp. 3-21). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kearsley, G., Lynch, W. & Wizer, D. (1995) The Effectiveness and Impact of Computer Conferencing in
Graduate Education http://gwis.circ.gwu.edu/~etl/cmc.html
Kearsley, G. ( 1997) A Guide to Online Education http://gwis.circ.gwu.edu/~etl/online.html
Kerns, T. Designing collaborative projects for the internet."
<http://www.techlearning.com/db_area/archives/WCE/archives/kerns1.htm>
Kibby, M. (1999) Teaching and Learning On-line On-line Interaction
http://info.newcastle.edu.au/department/so/interact.htm
***Killion, J. Establishing community in a virtual classroom.
http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcc_conf97/pres/killion.html
Kinner, J. & Coombs, N. (1995). Computer access for students with special needs. In Z. L Berge & M.
Collins (Eds.). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom. (Vol. 1 : Overview and Perspectives)
(pp. 53-68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Kinzie, M. B. (1990). Requirements and benefits of effective interaction instruction: Learner control,
self-regulation and continuing motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development,
38(1), 5-21.
Krause, S. "How Will This Improve Student Writing?" Reflections on an Exploratory Study of Online and
Off-Line Texts http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/1995/may/krause.html
Computer-Mediated Communication Magazine / Volume 2, Number 5 / May 1, 1995 / Page 10
Lafuze, J. E., Osborne, R. E. & McDaniel, A. (1998). Closing the distance with technology:
Changing how we teach to meet student needs
<http://www.ihets.org/learntech/distance_ed/fdpapers/1998/19.html> Oct. 11, 1999.
Lempert, L. 1995. Electronic Support Groups. Technology Review, 98, 14-15.
Levine, T. K. (Ed.). (1992). Going the distance: A handbook for developing distance degree programs using
television courses and telecommunications technologies. Annenberg/CPB Project and PBS Adult
Learning Service.
Lohman, J. (1984). Mastering the techniques of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McAuley, A. (1995). Out on the virtual frontier: Experience with CMC on Baffin Island. In Z. L Berge & M.
Collins (Eds.). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom. (Vol. 3 : Distance Learning) (pp.
139-148). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
McComb, M. (1994). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses. Communication
Education, 43, 159-170.
McCroskey, J. C., & Andersen, J. F. (1976). The relationship between communication apprehension
and academic achievement among college students. Human Communication Research, 3, 73-81.
McHenry, L. and Bozik, M. Communicating at a Distance: A Study of Interaction in a Distance
Education Classroom. Communication Education, 1995, 44, 362-370.
McNames, P. A. (1998). Going the Distance with Distance Education
<http://www.ihets.org/learntech/distance_ed/fdpapers/1998/25.html> Oct. 11, 1999.
Mabrito, M. (1991). Electronic mail as a vehicle for peer response: Conversations of high- and
low-apprehensive writers. Written Communication, 8(4), 509-532.
Mantyla, K. April, 2000 "Interactivity in Distance Learning"
http://www.uwex.edu/disted/desien/2000/0004/focus.htm
Mason, R. (1991). Analyzing computer conferencing interactions. International Journal of
Computers in Adult Education and Training, 2/3, 161-173.
Murphy, K. L., Drabier, R., and Epps, M.L.. A constructivist look at interaction and collaboration via
computer conferencing. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 1998 4(213)
237.261: 238-261.
Murray, B.. (2000). Reinventing class discussion online
<http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr00/reinventing.html> May 23, 2000.
***Nash, S. S. & Dougherty, R. J. Developing Teamwork and Creativity in an Online Course
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/N/Susan.S.Nash-1/
Neal, L. (1997) Virtual Classrooms and Communities http://www.lucent.com/cedl/group97.html
Online Discussion (1997) http://www.unc.edu/courses/newchalk/archive/ncv1n7.html
Paulsen, M.F. (1995). Moderating educational computer conferences. In Z.L. Berge & M.P. Collins
(Eds.), Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom. Volume 3: Distance Learning (pp. 81-90).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Pemberton, A. & Zenhausern, R. (1995). CMC and the educationally disabled student. In Z. L Berge & M.
Collins (Eds.). Computer mediated communication and the online classroom. (Vol. 1 : Overview and Perspectives)
(pp. 60-82). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Pennell, R. (1996). Managing Online Learning
<http://www.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ausweb96/educn/pennell/paper.html> Sept. 17, 2000.
Pychyl, T. A., Clarke, D. & Abarbanel, T. (1999). Computer-mediated group projects: Facilitating collaborative
learning with the world wide web. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 138-141.
Roblyer, M. D. and Ekhaml, L. (2000). How interactive are YOUR distance courses? A rubric for assessing
interaction in distance learning <http://www.westga.edu/~distance/roblyer32.html>
Rohfeld, R.W. & Hiemstra, R. (1995). Moderating discussions in the electronic classroom. In Z.L Berge &
M.P. Collins (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication and the on-line classroom in distance education (vol. 3, pp.
91-104). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Romiszowski, A., & de Haas, J. A. (1989). Computer mediated communication for instruction: Using e-mail as
a seminar. Educational Technology, 29, (10), 7-14.
Santoro, G. M. (). What is the online classroom? In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins, (Eds). Wired together: The
online classroom in K-12, (Vol. 1. Overview and Perspectives.). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Schneider, D K. (1995). The World-Wide Web in Education
<http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/research/CMC/andrea95/andrea.html>Oct. 1, 2000.
Singletary, T., & Anderson, H. (1995) Computer-mediated Teacher Induction. In Z. L. Berge & M. P. Collins,
(Eds). Computer mediated communication and the Online Classroom (Vol. 2: Higher Education) (pp. 137-151),
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Sorensen, C. and Baylen, D. M. (1999). Interaction in interactive television instruction: Perception versus
reality <http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~sorensen/presentations/aera99.htm> Oct. 3, 2000.
Sorensen, C. K. and Baylen, D. M. Interacting, learning, and teaching at a distance: A case study
of a graduate research course. <http://www.eiu.edu/~mediasrv/iaectJournal/1998/06sorensen.htm>
Oct. 3, 2000.
Steinberg, S. Media and tutor-learner interaction in distance education
http://www.unisa.ac.za/dept/press/comca/202/demedia.html
Stirling, D. L. (1997). Interaction processes: Issues and factors
<http://www.stirlinglaw.com/deborah/stir5.htm> Oct. 3, 2000.
Sutton, D. (1997). Delivering a subject on the WWW while enhancing student discussion and communication
<http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw99_archive/aw99/proceedings/sutton/paper.html> Oct. 11, 1999.
Touchstone, S. J. L. and Anderson, E T. (1995). Interactive videoconferencing in distance education
<http://www.uidaho.edu/evo/dist11.html> Jan. 22, 2000.
van Niekerk, D. (1998). It’s about accessibility and interactivity in distance education materials, not about
activities! <http://www.workinfo.com/Sub_for_td/policies/distance.htm> Sept. 17, 2000.
Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. In Thomas E. Cyrs (ed.) Teaching and
Learning at a Distance: What It Takes to Effectively Design, Deliver, and Evaluate Programs, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective.
Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
***Wilson, C. (1998) Concerns of Instructors Delivering Distance Learning via the WWW
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/wilson13.html
***Young, J. R. January 28, 2000 Advice for the Online Instructor: Keep It Interpersonal
http://chronicle.com/free/v46/i21/21a04401.htm
Zhu, E. (1998). Leaning and mentoring:Electronic discussion in a distance learning course. In C.J. Bonk and
K.S. King, Eds. Electronic Collaborators. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bullen, Mark. (1998). Participation and Critical Thinking in Online
University Distance Education. Journal of
Distance Education/Revue
de l'enseignement à distance: 13 , 2
http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol13.2/bullen.html
Funaro, G. M. & Montell, F. (1999) Pedagogical Roles and Implementation Guidelines for Online Communication Tools ALN Magazine Volume 3, Issue 2 http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/Vol3_issue2/funaro.htm
Gilbert L. and Moore, D. R., Building Interactivity in Web Courses:
Tools for Social and Interaction, Educational
Technology, Vol. 38, No. 3, May-June, 1998.
Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
Interaction http://www.fgcu.edu/onlinedesign/interact.html
McIsaac, M. S. and Gunawardena, C. N. Distance Education
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/dechapter/index.html
McIsaac, M.S. & Gunawardena, C.N. (1996). Distance Education.
In D.H. Jonassen, ed. Handbook of research for
educational communications and technology:
a project of the Association for Educational Communications and
Technology. 403-437. New York: Simon &
Schuster Macmillan.
Murphy, K. L. (1996) Enhancing Interaction in Turkish Distance Education
http://disted.tamu.edu/writings/tdes97.html
Powers, Susan M. and Karen M. Dutt. Expanding Class Discussion Beyond
the Classroom Walls, The Moderator's Home Page (1998). Available: http://web.indstate.edu/cimt/powers.html
http://web.indstate.edu/cimt/powers.html
Schneider, P. &
Reinhart, J. (1998) Creating More Effective Two-Way Audio and Video Distance
Education
Environments: A Preliminary Examination.
http://www.outreach.uiuc.edu/~p-schne/research/environments_apa.html
Thompson, M. M. Factors Influencing Student Learning
Outcomes in Distance Education
http://www.lucent.com/cedl/facinfl.html
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal 13(2), 7-26. http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/web/faculty/markw/comparing.html
Karen Wilcox Annotated Bibliography: The Value of Interactivity
in Distance Learning
http://clem.mscd.edu/~aa/online/bibliography.htm
Role of Motivation in Web-Based Instruction http://www.tarleton.edu/~jkwheeler/motivation.pdf
Archives of Email list ICDE95-L http://www.ualberta.ca/~tanderso/icde95/
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration http://www.westga.edu/~distance/jmain11.html
Tools for Developing Interactive Academic Web Courses http://www.umanitoba.ca/ip/tools/courseware/model.html
Teaching Online http://www.e-learningcentre.co.uk/Library/teach.htm
Interactive Strategies http://umrtv.cee.umn.edu/UMITV/strat.htm
Printable Version of this paper
Created by Mitch Dutch Sept. 17, 2000. Last edited Dec. 7, 2000.