Bannan-Ritland, B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication, elearning, and interactivity. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 161-179.
Perhaps this is a display of my ignorance about academic writing but the fact that it takes Bannan-Ritland 7 pages to explain the method that she used to create this overview of academic writings that relate to interaction (particularly finding a definition for the term) seems pretty counter-productive and makes for some rather turgid reading. (Given that it only took her a couple of paragraphs to explain that there is a fair degree of difference of opinion in the writings about the definition)
Once she gets going though it gets much better and some interesting ideas about the nature of interaction are covered.
“Interaction can be viewed as a function of:
- learners participation or active involvement
- specific patterns and amounts of communication
- instructor activities and feedback
- social exchange or collaboration
- instructional activities and affordances of the technology
She goes on to look at the papers that address each of these possible definitions and look at examples
Interactivity as defined by Active involvement by the learner
“the researchers concluded that students have specific goals for each interaction in an eLearning environment, including getting help or sharing information related to the content of the course, getting help on the technology, submitting homework and participating in discussion to exchange ideas of socializing”
The Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson (1997) model of knowledge construction “relies on an active view of knowledge construction by the learner that moves through five phases, including:
- sharing/comparing of information
- discovery and exploration of dissonance or inconsistency among ideas, concepts or statements
- negotiation of meaning and/or co-construction of knowledge
- testing and modication of proposed synthesis or co-construction
- phrasing of agreement, statements and applications of newly constructed meaning
Interactivity as defined by Patterns of Communication among learners/instructors
“Identifying the purpose of online messages as organizing, lecturing, humanizing or expressing opinions provided a detailed view of interaction patterns in an eLearning environment”
“Vrasidas and McIsaac (1999) explicitly and broadly defined interactivity as “reciprocal actions of two or more actors within a given context” (p. 25)… In addition, data on teacher and student views of interaction were collected, ultimately determining that multiple factors such as structure of course, class size, feedback and prior experience with CMC influence interaction”
“Synchronous communication was determined to be more interactive, demonstrating a type of discourse mimicking face-to-face interaction. Asynchronous communication was more constrained than synchronous but also more complex”
“Also in a small group context, Ahern and Durrington (1995-6) investigated the effects of anonymity and interaction in a computer-mediated discussion and found that anonymity promotes increased participation by students”
Interactivity defined as Instructor/Learner communication
“Mahesh and McIsaac (1999) operationalized interactivity as the dynamic of instructor-student communication and the actions of the instructor to encourage communication among students. Instructor time spent on these activities also provided an operational definition of interactivity in this study”
“These researchers concluded that eLearning is dependent on the personal and unique style of instructors and their activities in an online course as well as instructional and logistical factors”
Interactivity as Social, Cooperative or Collaborative Exchange
“…messages that asked questions, answered questions, provided support, clarified ideas, built consensus and contained social messages were interactive in nature. Asynchronous bulletin board conferencing provided more task-related messages and were more appropriate for self-reflection, while synchronous chat demonstrated more interactivity… and much less task-oriented communication”
Interactivity as a Range of Instructional Activities and Technologies
“Luetkehans (1999) determined that interactivity is most prominent in contexts where multiple strategies and activities, including instructor feedback, collaborative learning strategies and multiple technology mechanisms encourage student participation”
Bannan-Ritland moves on to examine the specific types of eLearning interactions identified in the literature
- learner-self
- learner-human (learner-learner, learner-instructor)
- learner-non-human
- learner-instruction
“structure, class size, feedback to students and participants prior experience with CMC are prominent variables related to interaction”
“teachers are more concerned about the level of participation and interaction with students in an eLearning course than a traditional one and… students stated that a lack of feedback from both instructors and their peers contributed to feelings of isolation and dissatisfaction with the course”
Bannan-Ritland identifies some gaps in the current research (or at least in the research she investigated)
“This review did not reveal any studies focusing on learner-non-human interactions, nor did the review reveal research that demonstrated the higher-level learner instruction interactions that incorporate a meta-level strategy or deliberate arrangement of events”
Some of the key findings that Bannan-Ritland drew from her review are that:
- high levels of interaction need to be modeled by the instructor for students
- a cooperative goal structure requiring students to interact with other students can promote interaction
- Asynchronous and synchronous forms of communication afford different instructional strategies
- instructor’s teaching style and background impacts course design, structure and level of interactivity implemented
- small groups using asynchronous communication demonstrate task-directed behaviour in problem solving
- instructors should expect to spend more time on an eLearning course than a traditional one
- sychronous discussions are highly interactive and demonstrate more student control
- asynchronous mode offers more complex language than synch and primarily demonstrated student responses to teacher requests
- instructor or subject matter expert needed to draw out new concepts
- pair advanced students as mentors to novices
- promote issue-based introductory questions allowing students to develop own ideas and thoughts.
The summary of all the research papers at the end – broken down by focus, types of interactions and conclusions is the most useful part of this as it is packed with good practical tips.
