Types of Interaction

Interaction is the topic of much current research in distance education.  There is much discussion about the definition of interaction as it is often confused with interactivity.  Interactivity is a feature of the medium, which allows the user to experience a series of exchanges with the technology.  Interaction is a learning outcome.  Wagner (1994) defines interaction as

reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions.  Interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence one another.  An instructional interaction is an event that takes place between a learner and the learner's environment.  Its purpose is to respond to the learner in a way intended to change his or her behavior toward and educational goal. Instructional interactions have two purposes: to change learners and to move them toward achieving their goals.  (p. 8)

The expansions of distance education and recent innovations in technology have allowed for increasing interaction between and amongst learners and instructors.  Multiple studies have concluded that increased levels of interaction result in increased motivation, positive attitudes toward learning, higher satisfaction with instruction, deeper, more meaningful learning, and higher achievement (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, and learner-interface (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994; Moore, 1989).  The interaction that takes place between the learner and the content is probably the most basic of the four types of interaction.  The change we call learning takes place when the learner interacts with the content.  The content can be in the form a text, radio, television, audiotape, videotape, and computer software.  Sometimes a learner only interacts with the content of a course, never interacting with the instructor, other learners, or the interface.

Another type of interaction, learner-instructor, is ìregarded as essential by many educators, and as highly desirable by many learnersî (Moore, 1989, p. 2).  The instructor serves as an expert who plans the instruction to stimulate student's interests and motivate students.  Learner-instructor interaction can vary from the instructor making a presentation of information to multiple students at the same time to the instructor interacting one-on-one with a student about an individual concern.  It has been found that students who interacted regularly with their instructor and with other students were more motivated and had better learning experiences (Garrison, 1990).

Historically, learner-learner interaction has not been a large part of education.  Interaction has been limited to learner-content and learner-instructor.  With the development of distance education technology, this type of interaction has become possible.  Learner-learner interaction can be ìan extremely valuable resource for learning, and is sometimes even essentialî (Moore, 1989, p 4).

The fourth type of interaction that is unique to distance education, learner-interface, was added to Mooreís (1989) three types of interaction by Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994).  The authors describe the learner-interface interaction as the interaction that takes place between the learner and the technology.  Students must use the technology to interact with the content, the instructor, and the other students.  In many distance 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 to one medium.  Often, the use of only one medium limits the incorporation of all three types of interaction.  Similarly, Kozma (1991) notes that there are certain attributes of the media that allow for interaction.  Educators should incorporate all three types of interaction in all types of mediums.

Critique One: Learner-Learner Interaction

Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993).  Perceptions of interaction: 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 relationships between learnersí perceptions of interaction and their satisfaction with instruction in a distance education course.  The findings in traditional classrooms indicate that high levels of interaction result in positive attitudes and higher achievement.  Motivation and attention levels were also higher with increased interaction.  With distance education, non-verbal cues are not available, complicating interaction.  After describing many indicators of the need for interaction, the researchers hypothesized that studentsí perceptions of interaction are important indicators of their satisfaction with instruction.

The researchers list five clearly stated research questions.  The context used to explore these questions was interactive television. Through a questionnaire, the researchers quantitatively measured studentsí perceptions and satisfaction.  They briefly touch on the questionnaire's reliability but not on its validity.  I am not convinced of the reliability and validity of the measures.  Recently, the authors published an article that examined the psychometric quality of the interaction and satisfaction measures (Sherry, Fulford, & Zhang, 1998).

The authors organized the discussion section according to the five research questions.  This format made the discussion easy to read and comprehend.  The researchers found that studentí perceptions of the interaction of the class as a whole had a greater influence on their satisfaction with instruction than their perceptions of their own interaction.  Although the authors focused on learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction, their findings indicate a fifth type of interaction, vicarious interaction.  The authors found that ìpsychological interactivity is predominantly vicarious in natureî (Zhang & Fulford, 1994, p. 64) but did not label this as a fifth type of interaction.  Vicarious interaction involves all four of the previously mentioned types of interactions.  A vicarious learner can learn through other studentsí interactions with the content, instructor, other students, and interface.  I think this is an important topic and would like to see more research in this area.

Critique Two: Learner-Instructor Interaction

Sherry, A. C., Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1998).  Assessing distance learners' satisfaction with instruction: A quantitative and a qualitative measure.  The American Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 4-28.

In a recent study by Sherry, Fulford, & Zhang (1998), the authors examined the effectiveness of the interaction and satisfaction measures they developed for a previous study (Fulford & Zhang 1993).  Although there are similar existing measures, they are time consuming and are not designed for distance education.  The authors set out to create a new, more efficient measure of interaction designed specifically for distance education courses.  Interaction is measured by ìthe degree to which the instructional climate supports asking and answering questions and offering opinions, as well as studentsí view of overall level of interactionî (Sherry, Fulford, & Zhang, 1998, p. 6).  In a second measure, students are interviewed to assess teaching effectiveness, using a process called Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID).  The researchers assessed the accuracy, utility, feasibility, and propriety of the measures in two separate 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-instructor interaction.  The researchers found the survey internally consistent and stable over time.  The second study used content analysis and coding to analyze the responses to the three questions about the effectiveness of the SGID process.  In the SGID process, a facilitator works with learners half way through the semester to come up with a formative evaluation of instruction.  This allows time for the instructor to make any necessary changes.  The researchers found that the measure worked well to provide 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: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners.  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 additional type of interaction: learner-interface interaction.  The researchers discuss the concept of interaction as it pertains to distance education and argue that emerging technologies in distance education call for a fourth type interaction.  Learner-interface interaction is defined and design recommendations are discussed.  The researchers experimented with an orientation session for a pilot distance education program, designed to teach students how to use the audiographics system and email.

According to the researchers, a one day orientation is not sufficient to address issues involving the technology used for communication.  Although the use of technology was necessary for this course, students complained that the topic of technology did not match the content of the course.  I have also found the opposite where students only concentrate on the technology and are uninterested in the content.  The researcher proposed a prerequisite course that would provide a one-time orientation to the technologies used in distance education courses.  This would provide an equal setting for participants in a distance education course.

Critique Four: Learner-Content Interaction

Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1997).  Interactions in audiographics teaching and learning environments.  The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 34-54.

Oliver and McLoughlin (1997) were interested in interaction in distance education courses taught using audiographics.  Research has indicated that interactivity in courses using this technology has primarily been in the form of class management involving interaction between the learner and the instructor and learner-content interaction.  These interactions are considered ìlow-level communicative exchanges lacking depth or instructional purposeî (Oliver & McLoughlin, 1997, p. 35).  The authors point out that ìAn important factor in the instructional strategies used by teachers is the nature and form of the interactions upon which the teaching and learning is basedî (p. 36).

The purpose of the research was to look at the types of interactivity that audiographic technology supports, how much the instructors used interaction, and the impact interaction has on instruction.  The authors used content analysis to code the interactions.  This study confirmed previous finding that teachers primarily use the technology for delivery of instruction and management of the class despite its ability to support other types of interaction.

References

Anderson, T. D., & Garrison, D. R. (1995).  Critical thinking in distance education: Developing critical communities in an audio teleconference context.  Higher Education, 29(2), 183-199.

Entwistle, N., & Entwistle, A. (1991).  Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations.  Higher Education, 22, 205-227.

Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993).  Perceptions of interaction: 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 audio teleconferencing to facilitate education at a distance.  The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(3), 13-24.

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.

Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994).  Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners.  The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.

Kozma, R. B. (1991).  Learning with media.  Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.

Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1997).  Interactions in audiographics teaching and learning environments.  The American 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: New perspectives.  London: Kogan Page.

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, 36-45.

Schell, N., & Branch, R. (1993).  The role of conversation and culture in the systematic design of instruction.  Educational Technology, 23(8), 7-18.

Sherry, A. C., Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1998).  Assessing distance learners' satisfaction with instruction: A quantitative and a qualitative measure.  The American Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 4-28.

Wagner, E. D. (1994).  In support of a functional definition of interaction.  The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-29.