I. Distance Teaching vs. Traditional Teaching
Moore and Kearsley (1996, 126-150) concluded that whatever the level of distance teaching organization, many factors make teaching a distance education course different from teaching in a traditional classroom. From the instructor's point of view, first, instructors might probably not see students' reaction to what an instructor is saying or doing. Second, the effectiveness of teaching is highly dependent on how well an instructor can use the technology involved. Third, instructors in distance education courses need to pay a lot of attention to students' feelings, especially their motivation. Forth, instructors must try especially hard to be encouraging, to give student confidence and opportunity to test the unfamiliar approach. Above all, instructors must get the students actively involved in the learning process. Yet another difference is that traditional classroom teaching is an individual endeavor, whereas in distance education instructors usually work closely with a number of different people in the development and delivery of the course. Most distance education courses involve collaboration with technical specialists, have a course manager to handles administrative details, and rely on tutors to perform many of the functions like discussing course content, providing feedback on progress, grading of assignments, helping student plan work, motivating student, answering administrative questions, supervising projects, teaching face-to-face seminars, keeping student records, intervening on behalf of student with the administration, and evaluation course effectiveness, etc.
Even though we could find all kinds of differences between distance teaching and traditional teaching, we could not compare the course effectiveness of the two in a general sense. We could not say one is definitely better than the other. Both approaches have its won advantages and disadvantages. They aim at different group of learning targets. Distance teaching seems to be more effective to independent, autonomous adult learners who prefer to control their own learning situations, while traditional teaching make children's learning more comfortable. However, one of the most important instructional elements of education is interaction. It is widely held that a high level of interaction is desirable and positively affects the effectiveness of any education course.
II. Types of Interaction
Moore 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. (Kearsley, 1995)
In addition, a fourth component of interaction was defined by distance education researchers as learner-interface interaction which takes into account the interaction that occurs when a learner must use intervening technologies to communicate with the content, negotiate meaning, and validate knowledge with the instructor and other learners (Hillman et al, 1994).
Besides, because of recent research in groupware, we see distance education moving from highly individulized forms of instruction as in correspondence education, to formats that encourage teaching students as a group and collaborative learning among peers. The groupware research indicates time and place are the two basic configurations when teams must cope with as they work. Teams or groups of people who work together on a common goal could deal with their work in the same place at the same time as in face-to-face meetings, and sometimes they must work apart in different places and at different times as in the use of asynchronous computer conferencing. They also need to handle two other variations: being in different places at the same time as in the use of telephones for an audio teleconference, and at the same place at different times as in workplaces, study centers or laboratories(McIsaac, & Gunawardena1996).. Based on these configurations, further distinctions need to be made between immediate ("real time") and delayed ("asynchronous") interaction, and same-place and different-place interaction. Delayed and different-place interaction provide more student control and flexibility, on the contrary, immediate and same-place interaction might have a sense of excitement and spontaneity.
In 1993 Acker and McCain made the following statements concerning the importance of interaction. They stated that " interaction is central to the social expectations of education in the broadest sense and is in itself a primary goal of the larger educational process and that feedback between learner and teacher is necessary for education to develop and improve" (Acker & McCain, 1993, p.11). Research by Baker (1995) indicated that interaction is important for a variety of types of learning, learner satisfaction, and persistence of distance students.
III. On-line Courses Review
The courses reviewed here in terms of their use of interaction are EMC523: Telecommunications for Instruction course and EMC703: Research in Educational Telecommunications. Both of them are Master's degree course offered through the Educational Media and Computers Program at Arizona State University. The courses are taught by faculty in the program and delivered by a combination of face-to-face instruction and online interaction. All the students are expected to use of the FirstClass conferencing system.
Interactions occurs in many ways in both class. At face-to-face meetings in the first and last three weeks, the focus is on student-teacher interaction. This is a same time, same place approach to create a visual and intimate environment to release the tense and isolated feelings that might frustrate distance learner. The immediate guide and support from the interaction between teachers and students could help build a natural social contact sense that is important for adult learners. While joining planed on-line discussions and chatting, the interactions either follow a synchronic or asynchronic approach at different places. Inter-learner, learner-content and individulized learner-instructor interaction are emphasized. Both private and public interactions might occur. This approach gives learners the freedom to take control of their activities in terms of time, space and partner/partners. The use of computer networks encourages cooperative learning. Learners could enjoy the immense feedback from their instructor, their tutor as well as from their peers. The sense of convenience, stimulation, and independence are all attributes as a result of the practice.
The two courses are good examples to design different interactions into a course. First, the time schedule is well designed to emphasis different interactions at different time. Second, the media selected take the consideration to meet the need of certain interaction. Third, the technology/deliver system selected is aimed at carry out multipurpose interactions.
IV. Conclusion
In addressing the differences between traditional teaching and distance teaching, the emphasis on different interaction practice is a noticeable issue. The demanding call for multipurpose interactions in distance education might result from the nature and characteristics of the learners it tends to serve. Consider the consumers of distance education share the same characteristics of being independent, and autonomous to prefer to control their own learning situations. The different-time, different-place interaction seems to be most promising.
1. Moore, M.G. & Kearsley, G. (1996) Distance Education: A systems View. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
2. Acker, S. R., & McCain, T. A. (1993). The contribution of interactivity and two-way video to successful distance learning applications: A literature review and strategic positioning. The Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
3. Baker, M. H. (1995). Distance teaching with interactive television: Strategies that promote interaction with remote-site students. Encyclopedia of Distance Education Research in Iowa. Research Institute for Studies in Education. College of Education. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Online
1. Kearsley, G. (1995) The nature and value of interaction in distance learning. Paper prepared for the Third Distance Education Research Symposium, May 18-21, 1995. [Online] Available http://www.gwu.edu/~etl/interact.html
2. 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. http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/dechapter/index.html
3. King, J. and Doerfert, D. (1995) Interaction in the distance setting. [Online] Available http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/SSU/AgEd/NAERM/s-e-4.htm
4. EMC 523: Telecommunications for Instruction http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc523/ 5. EMC 703 Research in Educational Telecommunications http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc703/