1.1 Overview of the problem

Computer-mediated communications (CMC) has become commonplace in education.  Because of the increased use of CMC in education, it is important that we have a better understanding of the psychology underlying the learning process in this environment.  Much of the current research in distance education has focused on the topic of interaction.  It is well established that interaction of any kind in face-to-face teaching greatly influences student satisfaction and achievement.  The primary difference between classroom teaching and distance education is the social separation of the participants resulting from the technology.  This special nature of the technology makes understanding, promoting, and maintaining interaction critical in CMC.  However, there is a limited amount of research on interaction specific to the technologies used in CMC.

Although computer-mediated environments allow multiple students to interact, certain social and psychological factors can often deter students from interacting.  It may not be necessary for students to interact overtly if they can observe the interaction of others.  It may be that such vicarious interaction enables passive learners to reap the benefits of interaction while maintaining control over whether or not they overtly interact.

    1.2  Brief summary of existing research

        1.2.1 Distance education

McIsaac and Gunawardena (1996) define distant education as "structured learning in which the student and instructor are separated by time and place" (p. 1).  Distance education has become an integral part of most colleges and universities.  Although numerous types of media are used in distance education, the improvements in CMC have allowed for synchronous and asynchronous communications not readily available in previous technologies.  Over the past decade, the focus of distance education has switched from individual learning, as in correspondence study, to social learning.  This change in focus mimics changes in teaching paradigms and innovations in technology.  Currently, students not only interact with their instructor, but they are able to and encouraged to interact with each other.  The teacher’s role has changed from a transmitter of information to a facilitator in an environment where learners can challenge ideas and where learners negotiate their own meaning through interactions with others.

        1.2.2 Computer-mediated communication

“Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is a generic term now commonly used for a variety of systems that enable people to communicate with other people by means of computers and networks” (Romiszowski & Mason, 1996, p. 438).  Examples include e-mail, computer conferencing, online chats, newsgroups, listservs, bulletin boards, and synchronous and asynchronous discussions.  The use of CMC in education has grown substantially over the past few years.  This is a direct result of both the innovations of the CMC technology and its unique characteristics.  CMC has come along way from its original asynchronous, text-based form.  What distinguishes CMC from other media used for communication is its synchronous and asynchronous, two-way communication capabilities.  In addition, CMC allows for adaptable and limitless interaction between all learners.

The way society is communicating is changing.  The innovative ways businesses use to communicate is often not that different from the media used in distance education.  Although this paper’s focus is on CMC in education it is important to note that the social, psychological, and technical skills students learn by using CMC can be extended to other areas of their lives.

        1.2.3 Interaction

We have known for some time that in a traditional classroom, high levels of interaction lead to high levels of achievement (McCroskey & Andersen, 1976; Ritchie & Newbury, 1989).  A cursory review of current literature revealed interaction as the most prevalent topic for research conducted in the field of distance education.  Interaction is frequently discussed in terms of four types of interaction: learner-content, learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-interface (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994; Moore, 1989).  In distance education, providing opportunities for interaction is essential for the success of the student.  Of particular importance is interaction between the instructor and students.  Other current topics include the benefits of interaction, the quantity of interactions, techniques for increasing interaction, and student’s perceptions of interaction. Improvement in interaction skills can compensate for the social interaction that is lost in the translation from face-to-face to distance instruction.  Bull, Kimball, and Stansberry (1998) found that more effective learning would occur if interaction occurs between the learners.  Jakupcak and Fishbaugh (1998) suggest that one-third to one-half of class time should be set aside for interaction.

    1.3 Purpose of the paper

In efforts to define and develop the phenomenon of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications, this study examines the relationship between achievement in the course (Achievement) and satisfaction with instruction (Satisfaction) and

• students’ perceived personal interaction (Perceived Personal),
• students’ perception of the class’ overall interaction (Perceived Overall),
• students’ actual personal interaction (Actual Personal), and
• the class’ actual overall interaction (Actual Overall).

H₁:  Perceived Personal is positively correlated with both Satisfaction and Achievement. r > 0

H₂:  Perceived Overall is positively correlated with both Satisfaction and Achievement. r > 0

H₃:  Actual Personal is positively correlated with both Satisfaction and Achievement. r > 0

H₄:  Actual Overall is positively correlated with both Satisfaction and Achievement. r > 0

H₅:  The relationship between Perceived Overall and Satisfaction is significantly stronger than the relationship between Perceived Personal and Satisfaction when the effects of Perceived Overall and Perceived Personal are partialled.  Satisfaction = b₀ + b₁(Perceived Overall)+ b₂(Perceived Personal) where b₁ > b₂

H₆:  The relationship between Perceived Overall and Achievement is significantly stronger than the relationship between Perceived Personal and Achievement when the effects of Perceived Overall and Perceived Personal are partialled.  Achievement = b₀ + b₁(Perceived Overall)+ b₂(Perceived Personal) where b₁ > b₂

Table 1: Hypotheses 1-8
 

	Perceived Interaction		Actual Interaction
	Personal	Overall	Personal	Overall
Satisfaction	H1	H2	H3	H4
Achievement	H1	H2	H3	H4

    2.1 Computer-mediated communication

        2.1.1 Social Boundaries and CMC

Educators and researcher often talk enthusiastically about CMC’s ability to overcome social boundaries, while others describe CMC as its own culture.  “Culture” has been described as “the patterns of behavior and thinking by which members of groups recognize and interact with one another.  These patterns are shaped by a group’s values, norms, traditions, beliefs, and artifacts” (Schell & Branch, 1993, p. 7).  As a group reacts to its environment, culture is formed.

Chester and Gwynne (1998) developed strategies, specifically the use of aliases, to assess a CMC learning community and to assist students who are hesitant to participate in CMC.  Through the exploration of student participation, this study examined the emergence of a community in a CMC learning environment.  Specifically of interest is the impact of enforced pseudonymity on teaching and learning.  The researchers found that the creation of aliases provides students with an opportunity for more active interaction in CMC.  Students reported that because they felt more confident, they contributed more in the CMC environment than they would have in a face-to-face course.  This was particularly true among the Asian students, one of which explained “that online there was no pressure to adhere to the scripts normally governing classroom behavior” (p. 5).  Students who reported feeling more comfortable interacting within their own cultural group in a traditional classroom formed relationships across boundaries when using CMC.  Issues of appearance and gender were not considerations of students communicating online.  This study is a great eye-opener to the impact of physical appearance, culture, and gender on learning interactions.  However, this comfort came with a price.  Students reported feelings of aggression and distrust for other students.

The SIDE model is a model of interaction via computers that argues that CMC actually reinforces group conformity and strengthens social boundaries.  Postmes, Spears, and Lea (1998) used the SIDE model to study the effect of CMC on social boundaries of the participants.  Although research has shown that CMC helps participants to move across social boundaries, it does not necessarily dissolve conformity to group norms and therefore builds social boundaries.  The SIDE model-based research suggests that social relations and stereotypes are not externally imposed, but in fact made up an important part of the individual.

        2.1.2 The psychology of CMC

CMC is often used in hopes that reluctant students will be encouraged to participate in discussions.  Cravener and Michael (1998) studied the relationship between the psychological characteristics of students in an undergraduate campus-based course and their selection of either face-to-face or CMC.  In this case, the term CMC refers solely to the use of asynchronous email.  The researchers were interested in determining to what extent students who were hesitant to participate in face-to-face discussions would use CMC as an alternative. The researchers were also interested in demographic information and the content of the communications.  Personal traits were measured using the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, and introversion was measured using Eysenck Personality Inventory.  Another measure was questions developed by the researcher to determine student’s proficiency with computers.  The researchers used a combination of factors to determine if the students would be hesitant to participate in a face-to-face discussion.  The researchers measured the transformation students made from being hesitant to communicate in face-to-face discussions to participating in CMC.  It was found that the same students who have a tendency to communicate in face-to-face discussions tended to participate in CMC discussions.

    2.2 Interaction

        2.2.1 Importance of interaction

Interaction is a prevalent topic in 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, however, 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 an educational goal.  Instructional interactions server two purposes: to change learners and to move them toward achieving their goals (Wagner, 1994, p. 8).

The expansions of distance education and recent innovations in technology have allowed for increasing interaction between and among learners and instructors.  Multiple studies have concluded that increased levels of interaction resulted 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).

        2.2.2 Student satisfaction and achievement

Numerous studies have examined the impact of interaction on student satisfaction.  Irani (1998) found that as interaction increased, students’ satisfaction and outcome in the course improved.  Hackman and Walker (1990) measured students perception of learning and satisfaction in a televised classroom.  The authors found that interactions in the classroom greatly influenced student’s perceived learning and course satisfaction.  Whether interaction has a direct impact on achievement or not, it is an important indicator of satisfaction with instruction.  Other findings indicate that while interaction does not have a direct impact on performance in a televised classroom, students who experienced high levels of interaction had positive attitudes about instruction (Ritchie & Newbury, 1989).  It may be that these positive attitudes influenced achievement or that those with a positive attitude were more likely to interact.

        2.2.3 Social presence

The distance in distance education is more than just the physical distance.  It includes the students’ perceived distance from their instructor.  Michael Moore developed the term transactional distance in 1980.  According to Moore (1991), transactional distance is “ . . . the physical separation that leads to a psychological and communications gap, a space of potential misunderstanding between the inputs of instructor and those of the learner” (p. 2).

Although there is transactional distance in face-to-face interactions, the distance becomes greater in distance education.  In distance education, there are varying levels of transactional distance.  Distance courses cannot rely on the same techniques used in face-to-face courses.  When there is little transactional distance, learners are said to have “social presence”.  In CMC, social presence is an important indicator of learner satisfaction (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997).

The amount of interaction that an instructor builds into the course can effect the perceived distance.  Moore (1991) refers to this interaction in terms of dialogue.  Transactional distance is highest when there is limited dialogue between students and teachers and when a course is highly structured or planned.  In this situation, students feel further away from their instructor than in a course involving more dialogue and less structure.  When dialogue between the instructor and the student increases, the course structure decreases because the instructor adapts to individual student needs (Saba & Shearer, 1994).

A study by Anderson and Garrison (1995a), used qualitative and quantitative methods to look at the effects of the design of distance education courses on learning.  The researchers divided students into two different instructional design groups that used the same technology for communication.  One group looked at the learners as members of a community where interaction was of importance, while the other group looked at learners as independent learners where interaction was not necessary.  The structure, as perceived by the students, had a greater influence on student learning than the actual structure.  Students in the group that was instructionally designed to develop a sense of community where interaction was important had a greater number of positive experiences.  This research shows the importance of providing for interactions in instruction and the insignificance of the medium used.  As Anderson and Garrison (1995a) state, “The challenge is to match instructional design to instructional purpose” (p. 42).

Building on Moore’s theory of transactional distance, Bunker, Gayol, Nti, and Reidell (1996) studied the relationships between dialogue, structure, and learner autonomy.  These factors were examined internationally in a distance education course that used audioconferencing for communication.  The researchers used a quasi-experimental design to measure the effects of four different structure changes on the amount and duration of dialogue between students separated physically and by language and culture.  The amount of interaction was affected when the instructors varied the levels of structure in both the questions and the amounts of time students were allowed to develop answers.  In the most structured of the four environments, specific sites were selected to address specific questions.  Learners were allowed time to prepare responses with small group discussions.  Contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis, native English speakers dominated these discussions.  The researchers hypothesized that in the less-structured model, native English speakers would dominate because non-native English speakers would not have the necessary time to develop answers in English.

Bischoff, Bisconer, Kooker, and Woods (1996) found that Moore's theory of transactional distance as applied to distance education can be extended to any educational setting.  In a study involving health professionals, the researchers explored student’s use of e-mail.  They concluded that the use of e-mail increased dialogue and decreased transactional distance.  The more structure the teacher provided, the fewer interactions between students.  Consequently, the amount of structure the instructor provides seems to play a large role in the success of a distance education course.  These elements give the learner and instructor control over the amount of transactional distance.

        2.2.4 Learner control

The term learner control is often used interchangeably with independence and autonomy.  The level of control learners have over their learning has been a common definition (Williams, 1996).  However, Daniel and Marquis (1979) describe learner control as learning activities where the learner does not interact.  Others argue that the mere separation of the learner from the instructor does not result in independence and that the learner can be physically separated from the instructor and not have independence (Brookfield, 1983).  For example, the learner does not have control over the content and method of learning in a highly structured course.  The concept of learner control involves allowing students to choose the content, method, medium, reward, assistance, feedback, quantity, pacing, sequencing, and difficulty of instruction (Chung, 1992; Friend & Cole, 1990; Kinzie, 1990; Merrill, 1984).  This concept has been discussed in terms of the traditional classroom for years.  More current research focuses on learner control in terms of computer-based instruction and distance education (Bayton, 1992; Garrison & Bayton, 1987; Williams, 1996).

Kinzie (1990) argues that “for learners to be effective, they must be able to make appropriate instructional choices based on effective learning strategies” and that “exercising control over one’s learning can be in itself a valuable educational experience” (p. 6).  However, this raises the question, Are learners who are given control capable of self-regulation?  Students must possess self-regulation skills in order to effectively exercise learner control (Kinzie, 1990).  Other attributes of successful learners include the value placed on learning and the commitment to learning.  For learners who are intrinsically motivated, the reward is learning.  These learner attributes are necessary for a learner to benefit from vicarious interaction.

Feelings of competence and self-efficacy are important for motivation in any educational setting.  Learners are naturally drawn to situations in which there is a promise of competence.  In distance education, motivation may be hindered because of a feeling of incompetence.  Learners who are not familiar with the technology used in distance education will feel incompetent.  Learners who do not know how to use the technology may benefit more if they are given less control over their environment while they are learning how to use the technology.  In addition, learners may not feel comfortable or confident in making the necessary decisions when given control over their learning.

Garrison and Bayton (1987) discuss control in terms of three dynamic factors: independence, power, and support.  The learner must have a balance between the three conditions.  Independence is the amount of freedom the learner has to make choices, power is whether or not the learner is able or willing to take responsibility over his or her learning, and support is the availability of resources to aid in learning.  The three dimensions were later expanded into three complementary factors: value orientation, access to resources, and flexibility of time (Bayton, 1992).

Moore (1994) argued that “learner autonomy should be the goal of distance education” (p. 2).  Most distance education environments are perfect for independent or autonomous learners. Adult learners are often autonomous learners.  They know “how to proceed through each of the instructional processes” (Moore, 1972, p. 81).  Autonomous learners are not entirely self-sufficient; they often need direction from the instructor.  Learners with high levels of ability and prior knowledge benefit more when given control than those with lower ability and prior knowledge (Gay, 1986; Shin, Schallert, & Savenye, 1994; Snow, 1980).  Hsin-Yih and Brown (1995) examined the relationships between learner control and learner characteristics such as ability and prior knowledge in procedural learning.  The findings suggest that instructors can allow learner control because students are capable of assessing their own learning and can determine when review is necessary.

The type of learner most likely to benefit from vicarious interaction in CMC is one who has good self-regulation skills, is intrinsically motivated, feels competent, is comfortable controlling his or her learning, possesses an internal locus of control, has high ability and prior knowledge, and is an autonomous learner.

        2.2.5 Communication apprehension

Students who experience communication apprehension are unable to communicate even if the course design provides for opportunities for interaction.  McCroskey and Andersen (1976) found that students who are anxious about communicating and do not interact, learn less and therefore score lower on achievement tests.  These findings suggest that an instructor cannot rely on students to voluntarily initiate interaction because those who experience communication apprehension will be at a disadvantage.  These students will do better in a more structured course or setting.

        2.2.6 Four types of interaction

Distance educators have identified four types of interaction: learner-content, learner-instructor, learner-learner, and learner-interface (Hillman et al., 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/or 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 “regarded as essential by many educators, and as highly desirable by many learners” (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 “an extremely valuable resource for learning, and is sometimes even essential” (Moore, 1989, p 4).

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 the learner and the content.  These interactions are
considered “low-level communicative exchanges lacking depth or instructional purpose” (Oliver & McLoughlin, 1997, p. 35).  The authors point out that, “An important factor in the instructional strategies used by teachers is the nature and form of the interactions upon which the teaching and learning is based” (p. 36).  The purpose of the research was to look at three things: (a) the types of interactivity that audiographic technology supports, (b) how much the instructors used interaction, and (c) 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.

Hillman et al. (1994) expanded on Moore ’s list of three types of interaction and addressed a fourth type of interaction that is unique to distance education: 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 this fourth type of interaction.  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.  The researchers experimented with an orientation session for a 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.  Conversely, it is often the case 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 enable the students to be on an equal level for participating in a distance education course.

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 and argues that educators should incorporate all three types of interaction in all types of mediums.

        2.2.7 Vicarious interaction

The findings in traditional classrooms indicate that high levels of interaction result in positive attitudes and higher achievement (Anderson & Garrison, 1995b).  Motivation and attention levels were also higher with increased interaction.  This increased interaction may be in the form of anticipated interaction (Yarkin-Levin, 1983) where every student does not necessarily interact.  Students are asked to think of a response, knowing that he or she may be called upon to respond.  This motivates students because it requires students to participate covertly and sometimes overtly in interactions.  The experience of anticipating an interaction is similar to that of a vicarious interaction.

With distance education, non-verbal cues are not available, complicating interaction.  A study by Fulford and Zhang (1993) explored the relationships between learners’ perceptions of interaction and their satisfaction with instruction in a distance education course.  After describing many indicators of the need for interaction, the researchers hypothesized that students’ perceptions of interaction are important indicators of their satisfaction with instruction.  The researchers used the context of interactive television to explore these questions.  Through a questionnaire, the researchers measured students’ perceptions and satisfaction.  It was found that student’ perceptions of the learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction of the class as a whole had a greater influence on their satisfaction with instruction than their perceptions of their own interaction.  The authors concluded that “psychological interactivity is predominantly vicarious in nature” (Zhang & Fulford, 1994, p. 64).

In a recent study by Sherry, Fulford, and Zhang (1998), the authors examined the effectiveness of the interaction and satisfaction measures they developed for the study mentioned above (Fulford & Zhang, 1993).  Although similar measures exist, they are time consuming and not designed for distance education.  The authors set out to create a new, more efficient measure of interaction designed specifically for distance education courses.  In a second measure, students are interviewed to assess teaching effectiveness or satisfaction, using a process called Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID).  The researchers assessed the accuracy, utility, feasibility, and propriety of the two measures in two separate studies.

The interaction survey consists of fourteen items measuring students’ perception of overall interaction, learner-learner interaction, and learner-instructor interaction.  The researchers found the survey internally consistent and stable over time.  This measure is further discussed in the methods section of this paper.

Content analysis and coding were used 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.

The current study argues for a fifth type of interaction, vicarious interaction.  Vicarious interaction incorporates all four of the previously mentioned types of interactions.  A vicarious learner can learn through other students’ interactions with the content, instructor, other students, and interface without overtly interacting.

    3.1 Research Design

Quantitative methods will be used to assess actual interaction and achievement.  Both quantitative and qualitative methods will be used to assess student perceptions of interaction and satisfaction with instruction.  Correlations between personal, overall, and actual interaction in the computer-mediated course will be identified using questionnaires.

    3.2 Participants

Participants in this pilot study will be graduate students from a summer session of EMC 598: Distance Education Theory and Practice at Arizona State University (Blocher, 1999).  This course lasts from July 6, 1999 to August 6, 1999.  This course was chosen because of its exclusive use of computer-mediated communication using Blackboard CourseInfo.  Blackboard CourseInfo provides distant students with asynchronous and synchronous learning environments through a password protected web page using a web browser.  Students can communicate with the instructor or with other students by sending email, conducting a chat, participating in a discussion, and working in groups.

    3.3 Measures

        3.3.1 Quantitative measures

An adaptation of a questionnaire developed by Sherry et al. (1998) will be used to measure perceived personal interaction and perceived overall interaction.  Interaction is measured by “the degree to which the instructional climate supports asking and answering questions and offering opinions, as well as students’ view of overall level of interaction” (Sherry et al., 1998, p. 6).  Student satisfaction with instruction will be measured with a six-point semantic-differential scale questionnaire (Fulford & Zhang, 1993).  Actual interaction will be measured by the total number of messages posted by each student.

        3.3.2 Qualitative measures

Both structured and non-structured interviews will be conducted with students and with the instructor.  Archived messages will be examined for additional insight into participants’ meaning.

    3.4 Procedures

To control for influences of time, the questionnaire will be administered twice during the semester: once towards the middle of the semester and once at the end.  The questionnaire will be administered through the Internet using Blackboard CourseInfo.

4. Chapter Four: Results and Analysis

    4.1 Description the findings

    4.2 Recommendations for future research

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

Anderson, T. D., & Garrison, D. R. (1995b). Transactional issues in distance education: The impact of design in audioteleconferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 27-45.

Bayton, M. (1992). Dimensions of "control" in distance education: A factor analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(2), 17-31.

Bischoff, W. R., Bisconer, S. W., Kooker, B. M., & Woods, L. C. (1996). Transactional distance and interactive television in the distance education of health professionals. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10(3), 4-19.

Blocher, J. M. (1999). EMC 598 Distance Education Theory and Practice, [Online]. Available:
http://asuonline.asu.edu/m_blocher/emc598/index.shtml [March, 1999].

Brookfield, S. D. (1983). Adult learners, adult education, and the community. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.

Bull, K. S., Kimball, S. L., & Stansberry, S. (1998). Developing interaction in computer mediated learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417 902)

Bunker, E., Gayol, Y., Nti, N., & Reidell, P. (1996). A study of transactional distance in an international audioconferencing course, [Online]. Available: http://www.coe.uh.edu/insite/elec_pub/html1996/01divers.htm#bunker.

Chester, A., & Gwynne, G. (1998). Online teaching: Encouraging collaboration through anonymity. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 4(2). [Online]. Available: http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol4/issue2/chester.html [February, 1999].

Chung, J. S. (1992, February). An advance toward instructional management: Prescriptive knowledge base of learner control. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 347 981)

Cravener, P. A., & Michael, W. B. (1998). Students use of adjunctive CMC. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Distance Education Conference, Texas A & M University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 684)

Daniel, J. S., & Marquis, C. (1979). Interaction and independence: Getting the mixture right. Teaching at a Distance, 14, 29-43.

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

Friend, C. L., & Cole, C. L. (1990). Learner control in computer-based instruction: A current literature review. Educational Technology, 47-49.

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.

Garrison, D. R., & Bayton, M. (1987). Beyond independence in distance education: The concept of control. The American Journal of Distance Education, 1(3), 3-15.

Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 225-227.

Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397-431.

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3).

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 if distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.

Hsin-Yih, S., & Brown, S. W. (1995). Learner-control: The effects on learning a procedural task during computer-based videodisc instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 22(3), 217-231.

Irani, T. (1998). Communication potential, information richness and attitude: A study of computer mediated communication in the ALN classroom. ALN Magazine, 2(1). [Online]. Available: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/vol2_issue1/irani.htm [January, 1999].

Jakupcak, J., & Fishbaugh, M. S. (1998). A horse of a different color: Distance education; making it effective. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417 894)

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.

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 6(2), 179-211.

McCroskey, J. C., & Andersen, J. F. (1976). The relationship between communication apprehension and academic achievement among college students. Human Communication Research, 3, 73-81.

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 (pp. 403-437). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. [Online]. Available: http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/dechapter [January, 1999].

Merrill, M. D. (1984). What is learner control? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298 905)

Moore, M. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1-6.

Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76-87.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. [Online]. Available: http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/ed32.html [February, 1999].

Moore, M. G. (1994). Editorial: Autonomy and interdependence. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 1-4.

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

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of Computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25(6), 689-715.

Ramsden, P. (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(3), 36-45.

Romiszowski, A. J., & Mason, R. (1996). Computer-Mediated-Communication. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: A project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 438-456). New York: Simon & Shuster Macmillan.

Saba, F., & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36-57.

Schell, N. P., & Branch, R. C. (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.

Shin, E. C., Schallert, D. L., & Savenye, W. C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students' learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology Research and development, 42, 33-46.

Snow, R. E. (1980). Aptitude, learner control, and adaptive instruction. Educational Psychologist, 15, 151-158.

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

Williams, M. D. (Ed.). (1996). Learner-control and instructional technologies. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Yarkin-Levin, K. (1983). Anticipated interaction, attribution, and social interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(4), 302-311.

Zhang, S., & Fulford, C. P. (1994). Are interaction time and psychological interactivity the same thing in the distance
learning television classroom? Educational Technology, 34(4), 58-64.