Interaction

Leah A. Sutton
EMC 703
Arizona State University
Spring, 1999
Types of Interaction
Interaction is the topic of much current research in distanceeducation.  There is much discussion about the definition ofinteraction as it is often confused with interactivity. Interactivity is a feature of the medium, which allows the user toexperience a series of exchanges with the technology. Interaction is a learning outcome.  Wagner (1994) definesinteraction as
reciprocal events that require at least two objects andtwo actions.  Interactions occur when these objects andevents mutually influence one another.  An instructionalinteraction is an event that takes place between a learner and thelearner‘s environment.  Its purpose is to respond to thelearner in a way intended to change his or her behavior toward andeducational goal. Instructional interactions have two purposes: tochange learners and to move them toward achieving theirgoals.  (p. 8)
The expansions of distance education and recent innovations intechnology have allowed for increasing interaction between andamongst learners and instructors.  Multiple studies haveconcluded that increased levels of interaction result in increasedmotivation, positive attitudes toward learning, higher satisfactionwith instruction, deeper, more meaningful learning, and higherachievement (Entwistle & Entwistle, 1991; Garrison, 1990; Hackman& Walker, 1990; Ramsden, 1988; Ritchie & Newbury, 1989;Schell & Branch, 1993; Wagner, 1994).
Distance educators have identified four types of interaction:learner-content, learner-instructor, learner-learner, andlearner-interface (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994; Moore,1989).  The interaction that takes place between the learner andthe content is probably the most basic of the four types ofinteraction.  The change we call learning takes place when thelearner interacts with the content.  The content can be in theform a text, radio, television, audiotape, videotape, and computersoftware.  Sometimes a learner only interacts with the contentof a course, never interacting with the instructor, other learners,or the interface.
Another type of interaction, learner-instructor, isìregarded as essential by many educators, and as highlydesirable by many learnersî (Moore, 1989, p. 2).  Theinstructor serves as an expert who plans the instruction to stimulatestudent‘s interests and motivate students.  Learner-instructorinteraction can vary from the instructor making a presentation ofinformation to multiple students at the same time to the instructorinteracting one-on-one with a student about an individualconcern.  It has been found that students who interactedregularly with their instructor and with other students were moremotivated and had better learning experiences (Garrison, 1990).
Historically, learner-learner interaction has not been a largepart of education.  Interaction has been limited tolearner-content and learner-instructor.  With the development ofdistance education technology, this type of interaction has becomepossible.  Learner-learner interaction can be ìanextremely valuable resource for learning, and is sometimes evenessentialî (Moore, 1989, p 4).
The fourth type of interaction that is unique to distanceeducation, learner-interface, was added to Mooreís (1989)three types of interaction by Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena(1994).  The authors describe the learner-interface interactionas the interaction that takes place between the learner and thetechnology.  Students must use the technology to interact withthe content, the instructor, and the other students.  In manydistance education classrooms, without learner-interface interaction,the other three types of interaction cannot take place.  Moore(1989) observed that the distance educators often limit themselves toone medium.  Often, the use of only one medium limits theincorporation of all three types of interaction.  Similarly,Kozma (1991) notes that there are certain attributes of the mediathat allow for interaction.  Educators should incorporate allthree types of interaction in all types of mediums.
Critique One: Learner-Learner Interaction
Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993).  Perceptions ofinteraction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.
A study by Fulford and Zhang (1993) explored the relationshipsbetween learnersí perceptions of interaction and theirsatisfaction with instruction in a distance education course. The findings in traditional classrooms indicate that high levels ofinteraction result in positive attitudes and higherachievement.  Motivation and attention levels were also higherwith increased interaction.  With distance education, non-verbalcues are not available, complicating interaction.  Afterdescribing many indicators of the need for interaction, theresearchers hypothesized that studentsí perceptions ofinteraction are important indicators of their satisfaction withinstruction.
The researchers list five clearly stated research questions. The context used to explore these questions was interactivetelevision. Through a questionnaire, the researchers quantitativelymeasured studentsí perceptions and satisfaction.  Theybriefly touch on the questionnaire‘s reliability but not on itsvalidity.  I am not convinced of the reliability and validity ofthe measures.  Recently, the authors published an article thatexamined the psychometric quality of the interaction and satisfactionmeasures (Sherry, Fulford, & Zhang, 1998).
The authors organized the discussion section according to the fiveresearch questions.  This format made the discussion easy toread and comprehend.  The researchers found that studentíperceptions of the interaction of the class as a whole had a greaterinfluence on their satisfaction with instruction than theirperceptions of their own interaction.  Although the authorsfocused on learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction, theirfindings indicate a fifth type of interaction, vicariousinteraction.  The authors found that ìpsychologicalinteractivity is predominantly vicarious in natureî (Zhang& Fulford, 1994, p. 64) but did not label this as a fifth type ofinteraction.  Vicarious interaction involves all four of thepreviously mentioned types of interactions.  A vicarious learnercan learn through other studentsí interactions with thecontent, instructor, other students, and interface.  I thinkthis is an important topic and would like to see more research inthis area.
Critique Two: Learner-Instructor Interaction
Sherry, A. C., Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1998). Assessing distance learners‘ satisfaction with instruction: Aquantitative and a qualitative measure.  The American Journalof Distance Education, 12(3), 4-28.
In a recent study by Sherry, Fulford, & Zhang (1998), theauthors examined the effectiveness of the interaction andsatisfaction measures they developed for a previous study (Fulford& Zhang 1993).  Although there are similar existingmeasures, they are time consuming and are not designed for distanceeducation.  The authors set out to create a new, more efficientmeasure of interaction designed specifically for distance educationcourses.  Interaction is measured by ìthe degree to whichthe instructional climate supports asking and answering questions andoffering opinions, as well as studentsí view of overall levelof interactionî (Sherry, Fulford, & Zhang, 1998, p.6).  In a second measure, students are interviewed to assessteaching effectiveness, using a process called Small GroupInstructional Diagnosis (SGID).  The researchers assessed theaccuracy, utility, feasibility, and propriety of the measures in twoseparate studies.
The interaction survey was the focus of the first study. This survey consists of fourteen items measuring overall interaction,learner-learner interaction, and learner-instructorinteraction.  The researchers found the survey internallyconsistent and stable over time.  The second study used contentanalysis and coding to analyze the responses to the three questionsabout the effectiveness of the SGID process.  In the SGIDprocess, a facilitator works with learners half way through thesemester to come up with a formative evaluation of instruction. This allows time for the instructor to make any necessarychanges.  The researchers found that the measure worked well toprovide formative feedback in distance education courses.
Critique Three: Learner-Interface Interaction
Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N.(1994).  Learner-interface interaction in distance education: Anextension of contemporary models and strategies forpractitioners.  The American Journal of Distance Education,8(2), 30-42.
Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) expanded on Mooreís(1989) list of three types of interaction and addressed an additionaltype of interaction: learner-interface interaction.  Theresearchers discuss the concept of interaction as it pertains todistance education and argue that emerging technologies in distanceeducation call for a fourth type interaction.  Learner-interfaceinteraction is defined and design recommendations arediscussed.  The researchers experimented with an orientationsession for a pilot distance education program, designed to teachstudents how to use the audiographics system and email.
According to the researchers, a one day orientation is notsufficient to address issues involving the technology used forcommunication.  Although the use of technology was necessary forthis course, students complained that the topic of technology did notmatch the content of the course.  I have also found the oppositewhere students only concentrate on the technology and areuninterested in the content.  The researcher proposed aprerequisite course that would provide a one-time orientation to thetechnologies used in distance education courses.  This wouldprovide an equal setting for participants in a distance educationcourse.
Critique Four: Learner-Content Interaction
Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1997).  Interactions inaudiographics teaching and learning environments.  TheAmerican Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 34-54.
Oliver and McLoughlin (1997) were interested in interaction indistance education courses taught using audiographics.  Researchhas indicated that interactivity in courses using this technology hasprimarily been in the form of class management involving interactionbetween the learner and the instructor and learner-contentinteraction.  These interactions are consideredìlow-level communicative exchanges lacking depth orinstructional purposeî (Oliver & McLoughlin, 1997, p.35).  The authors point out that ìAn important factor inthe instructional strategies used by teachers is the nature and formof the interactions upon which the teaching and learning isbasedî (p. 36).
The purpose of the research was to look at the types ofinteractivity that audiographic technology supports, how much theinstructors used interaction, and the impact interaction has oninstruction.  The authors used content analysis to code theinteractions.  This study confirmed previous finding thatteachers primarily use the technology for delivery of instruction andmanagement of the class despite its ability to support other types ofinteraction.
References
Anderson, T. D., & Garrison, D. R. (1995).  Criticalthinking in distance education: Developing critical communities in anaudio teleconference context.  Higher Education, 29(2),183-199.
Entwistle, N., & Entwistle, A. (1991).  Contrasting formsof understanding for degree examinations.  Higher Education,22, 205-227.
Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993).  Perceptions ofinteraction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.
Garrison, D. R. (1990).  An Analysis and evaluation of audioteleconferencing to facilitate education at a distance.  TheAmerican Journal of Distance Education, 4(3), 13-24.
Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B. (1990).  Instructionalcommunication in the televised classroom: The effects of systemdesign and teacher immediacy on student learning andsatisfaction.  Communication Education, 39, 196-206.
Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N.(1994).  Learner-interface interaction in distance education: Anextension of contemporary models and strategies forpractitioners.  The American Journal of Distance Education,8(2), 30-42.
Kozma, R. B. (1991).  Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.
Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1997).  Interactions inaudiographics teaching and learning environments.  TheAmerican Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 34-54.
Moore, M. (1989).  Editorial: Three types of interaction.The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2),1-7.
Ramsden, P. (Ed.), (1988).  Improving learning: Newperspectives.  London: Kogan Page.
Ritchie, H., & Newbury, T. J. (1989).  Classroom lecture/ discussions vs. live televised instruction: A comparison of effectson student performance, attitude, and interaction.  TheAmerican Journal of Distance Education, 3, 36-45.
Schell, N., & Branch, R. (1993).  The role ofconversation and culture in the systematic design ofinstruction.  Educational Technology, 23(8), 7-18.
Sherry, A. C., Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1998). Assessing distance learners‘ satisfaction with instruction: Aquantitative and a qualitative measure.  The American Journalof Distance Education, 12(3), 4-28.
Wagner, E. D. (1994).  In support of a functional definitionof interaction.  The American Journal of Distance Education,8(2), 6-29.