Designing for Interactivity in Online Learning Spaces

1
Designing for Interactivity in OnlineLearning
Spaces

• Pat Anderchek
• Faculty Liaison, e-Learning
• CTLR

2
During this session

Please comment, ask, interject, question at any
time!
3
Introductions

• Introduce Your Partner
• Previous Experiences
• Goals for attending
• Specific questions regarding interactivity
  and online learning spaces?

4
Today we will endeavour to link
Experiences Thoughts
Assumptions Theory
Oh my! Challenges
Roles Next steps
5
Technology is a Resource!

Bad teaching technology expensive bad
teaching
6

If you dont know where you are going, technology
will not help you get there. or If you are
headed in the wrong direction, technology wont
help get you to the right place.
7
We suggest that when you begin online learning
that you
8
Start small and grow
9

The opposite applies to designing for
interactivity, quality education/learning
requires high levels of interaction by learners
10
e-Learning

• is about the
• learning
• not about the
• e'

11
Goal of Integration

• improved learning
• interactivity

12
E-Learning Adoption

• Web-facilitated
• Web-enhanced

13
Hopefully

• Blended or Mixed-Mode

The most effective in terms of increased
grades. (Dziuban, Hartman Moskal, 2005)
14
Maybeeventually?

• Online

• Entire course is delivered online

15
Interaction
It is not It is reciprocal events that
require at least two objects and two actions.
Interactions occur when these objects and events
mutually influence one another (Wagner
1994)
16
Types

• Learner-Learner Interaction

17
Types

• Educator-Learner Interaction

18
Types
3. Learner-Content Interaction

19
F2F Classroom

• Think about your various experiences in the F2F
  classroom, both as an educator and maybe as a
  learner.
• Consider each of the three areas
• 1. Learner-Learner interaction
• 2. Educator-Learner interaction
• 3. Learner-Content interaction
• What made the experiences positive or negative
  for you?

20
e-Learning

• Your experiences with the online environment, as
  an educator and as a learner in these three
  areas.

• 1. Learner-Learner interaction
• 2. Educator-Learner interaction
• 3. Learner-Content interaction
• What made these experiences positive or negative
  for you?

21
What words come to mind?

22
Constructive learning
Individualized
Active/engaged
Relevant
Authentic assessment
Words Like
Repetition
Anchored
Challenging
Safe opportunities
Feedback rich
Learning focused
Organized
Learner control responsibility
23
Good Practice (Chickering Gamson)

• Encourages contact between students and faculty
• Develops reciprocity and cooperation among
  students
• Encourages active learning
• Gives prompt feedback
• Emphasizes time on task
• Communicates high expectations
• Respects diverse talents and ways of learning

24
Assumptions
Interaction has always been valued in education,
has the greatest impact on learning is a
crucial component to all forms of education,
including e-Learning

• move from passive to active learners
• learn with greater meaning
• move from surface to deeper learning
• have a greater retention of learning

25
Deep Meaningful Learning
Learner
Interactions
Content
Educator
Learner
Personal Application Value
26
Challenges as Educators?
27
Resources
Class size
Learner diversity
Workload
Learner preferences
Challenges
Costs
Choosing technology
Time
Authentic assessments
Design development support
Safe opportunities
28
Solution
Technology provides the opportunity to change
learnereducator learner-learner interaction
into enhanced forms of learner-content
interactions which meets a diversity in learner
needs preferences
29
Online Interaction
In partners Describe ways in which technology
can increase the level of interactivity in each
area. 1. Learner-Learner interaction 2.
Educator-Learner interaction 3. Learner-Content
interaction

30
Online presentations
LMS
Email
Blogs Wikis
CMC or discussion forums
Collaborative/active learning spaces
Online Interactivity
Media
Group based projects
Video streaming
Games
Simulations
Problem-based learning
Moderator of discussions
Self-tests, quizzing tools
Podcasting
31
Finally
Research does not support the finding that
learning in one medium is superior in all ways
to learning supported via other media.
(Anderson, 2006) Yet we tend to believe F2F
is superior (Fahy, 2006)
32
Old World vs. New World
33
Getting the Mix Right (Terry Anderson)

• Difficult to get the mixture right between
  independent study and interactive learning
  strategies and activities.
• We are unlikely to find a perfect mix that
  meets all learner and institutional needs across
  all curricula and content.

34

• Significant costs
• are associated
• with high levels of interaction
• in all 3 domains.

35
Andersons Theorem
Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported
as long as one of the three forms of interaction
(studentteacher student-student
student-content) is at a high level. The other
two may be offered at minimal levels, or even
eliminated, without degrading the educational
experience. (p. 4)
36

• High levels of more than one of these
• three modes will likely provide
• a more satisfying educational experience, though
  these experiences
• may not be as cost or time effective
• as less interactive
• learning sequences.

37
Equivalency Theory

• As an educator you can substitute
• one type of interaction for one of the others (at
  the same level) with little loss in
• educational effectiveness thus the label of an
• equivalency theory
• (p.5)

38
Deep Meaningful Learning
Learner
Interactions
Content
Educator
Learner
Personal Application Value
39
Learner
Educator
Interactions
Content
Learner
40

Learner
Interactions
Educator
Learner
Content
41
Learner
Interactions
Educator
Learner
Content
42
Effective Efficient
Given the costs associated with high levels of
interactivity in all three areas this theorem can
act as a guide for educators developing
e-Learning spaces that are both effective
efficient in meeting diverse learning needs.
(p.5)

43
Reflections

1. What is your vision of your learning space in 5
   years?
2. What strategies do you employ to facilitate
   interactivity in the learning process?
3. Think of your online learning spaces and rank
   accordingly.
4. How high is your level of interactivity in each
   of the 3 areas?

44
Reflections

1. Are their cost effective ways to increase how you
   facilitate interactivity in each of the 3 domains
   so that your general interactivity score is
   higher?
2. In which area can you reduce the level of
   interactivity subsequently increase the level
   of interactivity in another domain?
3. Consider using this equivalency theory in your
   F2F courses, blended delivery in your program
   structure delivery.

45
Conclusion

• We cant continue to increase the level of
  interactivity in every domain in every course
• Effective implementation of technology can change
  learnereducator and learner-learner interaction

46

Creation

• enhanced forms of learner-content interactions
• more
• flexible effectivelearning spaces

47

________________________
Questions comments?
________________________
48

References
Anderson, T, (2003) Getting the mix right again
An updated and theoretical rationale for
interaction, The International Review of Research
in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 4, No 2
(2003), ISSN 1492-3831, retrieved Oct 30,
2006, from http//www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/
article/view/149 Chickering, A. Gamson, Z.
(1989). Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, March,
pp. 3-7. retrieved December 4, 2006 from
http//honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/Fac
DevCom/guidebk/teachtip/7princip.htm Fahy, P.,
(2006). Online Teaching in Distance Education and
Training, Athabasca University, Study Guide
retrieved October 1, 2006 from
http//cde.lms.athabascau.ca/mod/resource/view.php
?id1060 Roblyer, M. D. Ekhaml, L. (2000). How
interactive are your distance courses? a rubric
for assessing interaction in distance learning,
retrieved November 15, 2006, from
http//www.westga.edu/distance/roblyer32.html Un
iversity or West Georgia, Online Course
Checklist, retrieved Dec 1, 2006 from
http//www.westga.edu/7Edistance/vista/checklist/
checklist.html Hartman, J, Moskal, P, and
Dziuban, C (2004) Preparing the academy of today
for the learner of tomorrow, Educating the Net
Generation, retrieved September 2, 2006 from
http//www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101f.pd
f
49
________________________
Presentation Content Construction Pat
Anderchek, 2006
________________________