The Nature and Value of Interaction in Distance Education

The Nature and Value of Interaction in Distance Learning
Greg Kearsley, George Washington University, Washington, DC
One of the most important instructional elements of contemporary distance education is interaction. It is a widely held that a high level of interaction is desirable and positively affects the effectiveness of any distance education course. However, it is not clear from research or evaluation data that interaction does improve the quality of learning in most distance education programs. Furthermore, there is little attention to the cost/benefits of interaction in terms of preparation time versus instructional effects.
This article examines the theoretical and empirical basis for interactivity in distance education in the specific context of the Educational Technology Leadership program which is offered through Mind Extension University using a combination of instructional television and a computer bulletin board system.
What is Interactivity?
Interactivity is a complex variable that has many different facets. In terms of "classic" instructional theory, the significance of interaction is that it provides the means for learners to receive feedback (see Dempsey & Sales, 1994). In so far as feedback determines successful learning progress (through correction of mistakes or motivation), it can be argued that the more interaction provided, the better. In the context of traditional classroom teaching, Flanders (1970) made detailed studies of student-teacher interaction and concluded that increased interaction improved student achievement and attitudes towards learning.
Moore (1989) identified three types of interaction: student-content, student- teacher, and student-student. This fundamental distinction provides a basis for analyzing the relative significance of different types of interaction in a distance education program. Each type of interaction could have different effects on learners or the effectiveness of a course. In traditional classroom instruction, the focus has been on student-teacher interaction. On the other hand, in the development of self-study materials (especially computer-based), the focus has been on student-content interaction. Until recent interest in collaborative/cooperative learning and the use of computer networks, little attention was devoted to student-student interaction.
A further distinction needs to be made between immediate ("realtime") and delayed ("asynchronous") interaction. In traditional classroom teaching, interaction (student-teacher) is normally immediate. However, in distance education, interaction can be immediate with some media (e.g., teleconferences) or delayed with others (e.g., correspondence or computer networks). This distinction between delayed or immediate interaction is very significant because it determines the logistics and "feel" of the distance learning experience. In order to have immediate interaction, students must participate at a fixed time whereas with delayed interaction, participation is according to the student‘s schedule. So, distance education programs that involve delayed interaction provide more student control and flexibility. On the other hand, classes that involve immediate interaction often have a sense of excitement and spontaneity that is not present with delayed interaction.
Finally, it is important to note that individuals appear to differ in their propensity for interaction depending upon their personality, age or cognitive/learning styles. Students who are more self-directed or autonomous may want/need less interaction than others. In general, professionals and executives tend to prefer less interactivity, whereas young children tend to want a high level of interaction. So the effectiveness of interaction may vary across individuals or groups.
In summary, the concept of interaction, as it applies to distance learning, is more complicated than it has been treated in traditional instructional theory or classroom teaching. Interaction in distance learning needs to be differentiated according to content vs teacher vs student, immediate vs delayed, and types of learners.
Forms of interaction
The nature of interaction also varies with the type of media or delivery system used: written (typed), audio (voice), video (face-to-face), or tactile (response units). The classic form of interaction for correspondence study was written assignments and feedback; this still represents the main form of communication between student and teacher/tutor in most open university and independent study courses (although correspondence may now be sent by fax which dramatically speeds up the turnaround time). Computer mediated communication also represents a form of written interaction. However, while the communication is in typed form, the interaction is much more complex than traditional writing since messages can have many characteristics (e.g., public vs private, forwarding, file attachments) and can also be searched/edited/filed. Furthermore, a different style of written communication is required for network communication compared to traditional correspondence (e.g., Angell & Heslop, 1994).
Audio interaction is usually via a telephone or microphone. In the context of an audioconference, the instructor must structure and manage the discourse very skillfully in order to produce effective classes since there is a high potential for confusion, chaos or boredom otherwise. On the other hand, there is typically little, if any, preparation for the audio portion of a teleconference since this is primarily used to answer questions from the audience. The sound quality of audio interaction is always a consideration in audio/teleconferences; poor quality may significantly reduce the effectiveness of a program.
Video interaction is a relatively new phenomenon since two-way videoconferencing systems are just beginning to be commonly used. Clearly the quality of the transmission (determined by the transmission speed and frame rate) affects how people interact via video. Presumably other characteristics of the conferencing environment such as lighting, acoustics, room/seat layout, and decor, also affect interaction, but at the present time their impact is unknown.
Tactile interaction has not been widely explored, except in the context of student response units used with television classes. With these devices, students are able to respond on a keypad to questions posed by the instructor, who sees an immediate display of the responses on a computer screen. While this provides for a very limited form of interaction, it does provide a means for surveying all students at the same time (the equivalent of asking people to raise their hands in a traditional classroom). Other possible forms of tactile interaction include the use of a lightpen or mouse to draw or annotate in an audiographics system, the use of a joystick in a computer simulation/game to make selections, and the use of body motion sensors in a virtual reality system.
While we know a little about each of these different forms of interaction in the context of their most common usage, we don‘t know much about mixing and combining different modes of interaction. This is becoming an important issue in the age of multimedia systems which allow written, audio, video and tactile interaction.
Empirical Studies
While there are many studies that have investigated the effects of interactivity, few of these studies truly isolate the interactive component from other aspects of the distance learning activity, nor do they distinguish the different facets of interaction discussed above. It is not surprising, therefore, that the results of these studies are inconsistent and equivocal.
Some early studies of correspondence programs (e.g., Ahlm, 1972; Beijer, 1972) looked at the effects of adding telephone interaction with a tutor to courses. These studies indicated that the addition of the tutor made little difference in student achievement and that a only small proportion of students actually used the tutor. Of course, the nature and quality of the interaction provided by tutors could affect this finding. For example, Rekkeldal (1983) showed that the effectiveness of correspondence study was improved when feedback from tutors was provided in a more timely manner (see also Rifkind, 1992).
A popular issue has been the relative merits of "live" television (one way television with 2 way audio interaction) versus use of videotapes of the same classes without the interactive capability. Barker (1986) reports on a high school Spanish program delivered by live satellite television the first year and then in videotaped form the second year. Barker reports that the taped version without the capability for interaction was less effective. On the other hand, Speth, Poggio & Glasnapp (1991) did not find interaction to be a significant aspect of achievement in a satellite-delivered foreign language class. Similarly, Stone (1988) in assessing the value of interactive television versus videotapes in the context of graduate engineering, concludes that the interactivity did not make a significant difference.
The use of computer mediated conferencing for student and teacher interaction seems to have produced generally positive results (e.g., Harasim, 1990, Waggoner, 1992). While there are few quantitative analyses, student and teacher anecdotes indicate that computer networks allow a high degree of interaction among students and instructors. On the other hand, students and teachers sometimes report that the use of computers can be frustrating and introduce a lot of complexity to a course.
An issue of current interest is the relative merits of one-way video with two- way audio versus full two-way video. Studies have shown that the two-way video is more effective than the television plus audio format (e.g., Massoumian, 1989). But studies do not show if this is due to the capability for visual rather than audio feedback, the capability to respond more easily, or some other characteristic of videoconferences.
Research Issues
As the brief survey of research above illustrates, existing studies do not really address fundamental issues relating to interactivity. This includes:
(1) Is frequency of interaction in a course a meaningful measure?
(2) Is interaction more important for certain groups of learners than others (e.g., children vs adults)?
(3) Is interaction more critical in certain kinds of learning than others?
(4) Does interaction affect learning outcomes such as retention or transfer?
(5) Does interaction increase student comprehension/understanding?
(6) Does interactivity always improve learner satisfaction?
(7) What form of interaction is the most critical?
(8) Does/should the pattern of interaction change over a course/program?
In order to examine these issues, we need studies that isolate specific dimensions of interaction. We also need descriptive studies that provide a clear picture of interactivity as it currently exists in distance education courses. A recent doctoral study completed by one of our graduate students (Nichol, 1994) illustrates this latter category. Nichol collected videotapes of live television classes from a number of different distance education institutions and developed a rating system to classify the kind of interactions present in the classes as well as the nature of the teaching/learning activities. Nichol found that interaction between student and instructor was much more common than interaction among students, content or equipment. He also found that the amount of interaction increased as the complexity of learning increased, i.e., there was more interaction at an application level than memory tasks. One of the interesting questions raised by this study is the extent to which the results would the same for a different delivery system (e.g., audioconferencing or computer networks).
Creating Interaction
Even though there are many unanswered questions about interactivity, it is still possible to provide guidelines for improving the degree of interactivity in distance education. A variety of techniques for creating learner participation and generating discussions are recommended for teleconferences (e.g., Cyrs & Smith, 1990; Monson, 1978; Ostendorf, 1989) as well as methods for increasing learner involvement in learning materials (e.g., advance organizers, self-assessment exercises). There are extensive guidelines available for interactive media (e.g., Lochte, 1993; Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993). Almost all such recommendations emphasize that interactivity must be planned or it is unlikely to occur (or be meaningful). The idea that interaction must be explicitly designed in distance education courses seems a difficult concept for many instructors to accept or understand.
Furthermore, any efforts to increase interactivity involve development and teaching efforts which must be accounted for. Even simple forms of interaction can take considerable time to prepare and carry out. When course enrollments are large, there are cost/benefit tradeoffs to be considered in providing interactivity (Dillon, Gibson & Confessore, 1991). Unless there are clear-cut benefits to adding interaction to a course, designers and instructors are not likely to invest the time to do so. Alas, in the absence of empirical evidence about the effects of interactivity on learning, such benefits are not well established.
Finally. we need to consider that the perception of interactivity may be as important as actual interaction. Fulford & Zhang (1993) examined learner perceptions in a course delivered by instructional television. They found that the critical predictor of student satisfaction in the course was not the extent of personal interaction, but the perception of overall interaction. In other words, if students perceived that there had been a high level of student interaction in the course they were satisfied, regardless of how much interaction they had personally. This result suggests that the potential for interaction is an important design factor in distance education courses, even if most students do not take advantage of this potential.
A Case Study: The ETL/MEU program
The Educational Technology Leadership (ETL) program is a Master‘s degree offered through Mind Extension University (MEU). All courses in the program are taught by faculty of the George Washington University in Washington, DC and delivered by instructional television to students across the country who receive the classes via cable, satellite or videotaped format. In addition, all students are expected to use a computer bulletin board system (BBS) for completion of course assignments, exams, and discussions.
Interactivity occurs in two primary ways: telephone call-in during the television broadcasts (assuming that the student is watching the class live), and messages sent/received via the BBS. These are two very different forms of interaction. Telephone call-in allows students to provide and receive an immediate response to questions, whereas electronic messages involve delayed responses (1-2 days). Call-ins are strictly auditory interaction while computer messages are written/typed. Telephone call-ins are always public and usually student-teacher interaction; electronic messages can be private and are often student-student or student-content (i.e., databases or files). Finally, the occurrence of interaction via call-ins is restricted to weekly broadcast times but BBS interaction can occur anytime.
The cost/benefits of the two types of interaction are different as well. In order to provide the call-in capability, we have toll-free telephone lines and an audio technician to supervise the process. Each telephone call (5-10 minutes in duration) costs approximately $1 in toll charges and we typically have 15-20 calls per class; the labor costs of the audio technical are about $30 for a two hour class. So, we are spending about $50 per class to provide interaction via telephone call-in. Of course, this assumes the cost of purchasing a telephone bridge that allows multiple phone lines, and realtime broadcasting of the classes via satellite so live interaction is possible. This latter consideration amounts to an expense of $800 per class for satellite time that could be saved if the classes were broadcast on a delayed basis (or distributed on videotape) with no interaction possible.
The costs of providing interaction via the BBS amount to the telephone charges associated with a toll-free line, plus the costs of a person to manage the BBS ("sysop") and the one-time cost of the BBS software and hardware. If each student spends an average of 1 hour per week using the BBS, the total telephone costs per semester (about 15 weeks) are about $150 per student. Obviously, if students spend considerably more time on the BBS, or if class sizes are large, telephone costs can become appreciable. For this reason, we are encouraging students to obtain internet accounts with unlimited monthly usage options (the BBS has an internet gateway).
Responsibility for creating interactivity in the ETL program rests with the course instructors. In the case of the television broadcasts, faculty must build interactive sequences into their classes either in terms of simple question & answer sessions or more elaborate problem-solving or game activities. Similarly, in the case of the BBS, instructors must provide assignments and group activities that entail interaction. While the preparation time is not appreciable, the time required to conduct interactive segments and provide feedback can be significant. This is particularly a problem with the BBS because each message must be read and replied to. For example, if a class of 30 students completes an assignment and it takes the instructor 20 minutes to read and reply to each one, a total of 10 hours is required to provide feedback to all students. If the class enrollment is large or there are many interactive activities, this can present a tremendous load on the instructor.
We do not have any data that tells us how the two kinds of interaction (call-ins during broadcasts and BBS messages) affect student achievement. We do know from evaluation studies that both kinds of interaction are valued by students and contribute to their satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the ETL program. Some of our students receive the television classes in videotape form and hence are not able to participate live. These students often report that they feel less involved in the class than other students. Most students who call-in during broadcasts or who are very active on the BBS say that find the opportunity to interact with the instructors and their classmates to be one of the best features of our program. On the other hand, students who do not receive timely feedback on their online assignments from the instructors become very frustrated. So we feel that interactivity in the ETL program, when conducted properly by faculty, increases the motivation of students to complete courses.
Conclusions
It is difficult to make a cost/benefits evaluation of interactivity in the ETL program or in any distance education program. In the case of the ETL program, the direct costs of providing interaction are relatively modest: approximately $750 a course for the telephone call-ins during the television broadcasts and $150 per student for use of the BBS. The benefits are increased student involvement and satisfaction with the courses. However, there are many indirect costs associated with providing these interactive capabilities including the equipment needed and the expenses associated with satellite transmission or operating the BBS, as well as the instructor time required for their preparation and completion. If only the direct costs are considered, the benefits would seem to easily outweigh the costs; however, if all of items related to providing interactivity are taken into account, it may not be worthwhile. In the absence of evidence that interactivity has a significant effect on student achievement, it is not possible to make a better assessment. To make this determination, we need to conduct studies that measure the impact of different types of interactivity (e.g., telephone call-ins or BBS messages) on learning outcomes (i.e., comprehension, retention, transfer, etc.).
The cost/benefits of interactivity are likely to vary with different media, teaching strategies, type of learning, and groups of learners. For example, the costs of providing interaction via audioconferencing are relatively modest (i.e., telephone charges) but the possible benefits in terms of impact on learning are probably quite limited. On the other hand, creating interaction in a teleconference among individuals located at different sites could be quite expensive when the preparation time and satellite costs are taken into account. Some forms of interaction, such as simulations, games or case studies, are more complicated to create but may also have greater impact on learning. Finally some groups of learners (e.g., young children, teenagers, senior executives, engineers, foreign students) may be more or less inclined to interact, and may derive varying degrees of benefit from such interaction. Therefore, the value of interaction needs to assessed on a case by case basis for each distance education program.
References
Ahlm, M. (1972). Telephone instruction in distance education. Epistolodidactica, 2, 49-64.
Angell, D. & Heslop, B. (1994). The Elements of E-mail Style. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barker, B. (1986). Interactive satellite instruction: How rural schools benefit. Little Rock, AR: Annual Conference of the Rural Education Association.
Beijer, E. (1972). A study of students‘ preferences with regard to different models of two-way communications. Epistolodidactica, 2, 83-90.
Cyrs, T.E. & Smith, F.A. (1990). Teleclass Teaching: A Resource Guide (2nd Ed). Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University.
Dempsey, J.V. & Sales, G.C. (1994). Interactive Instruction and Feedback. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Dillon, C., Gibson, C., & Confessore, S. (1991). The economics of interaction in technology-based distance education. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Flanders, N.A. (1970). Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fulford, C.P. & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. Amer. J. Dist. Educ., 7(3), 8-21.
Harasim, L. (1990). Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. New York: Praeger.
Lochte, R.H. (1993). Interactive Television & Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Massoumian, B. (1989). Successful teaching via two-way interactive video. TechTrends, 34 (2), 16-19.
Monson, M.K. (1978). Bridging the Distance. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin- Extension.
Moore, M.G. (1989). Three types of interaction. Amer. J. Dist. Educ., 3 (2), 1-6.
Nichol, P. (1994). A Descriptive Study to Determine the Relationship Between the Nature of Student Interactivity and the Scheme for Learning in Courses Presented Over Live Television. Washington, DC: The George Washington University.
Ostendorf, V.A. (Sept/Oct 1991). Increasing interactivity in live satellite events. Teleconferencing News.
Rekkedal, T. (1983). Written assignments in correspondence education: Effects of reducing turn-around time. An experimental study. Distance Education, 4 (2), 231-252.
Rifkind, L.J. (1992). Immediacy as a predictor of teacher effectiveness in the instructional television classroom. Journal of Interactive Television, 1 (1), 31-40.
Schwier, R.A., & Misanchuk, E. (1993). Interactive Multimedia Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Speth, C., Poggio, J. & Glassnapp, D. (1991). Midlands Final Evaluation Report. Manhatten, KS: University of Kansas.
Stone, H. (1988). Variations in the characteristics and performance between on campus and video-based off-campus engineering graduate students. Journal of Continuing Higher Education., 36 (1), 18-23.
Waggoner, M. (1992). Empowering Networks: Computer Conferencing in Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.