LEARNING

IN ONLINE ENVIRONMENTS

INTERFACE SOCIAL PRESENCE INTERACTION W/ PEERS supporting discourse COGNITIVE PRESENCE INTERACTION W/ CONTENT LEARNING setting climate selecting content TEACHING PRESENCE INTERACTION W/ INSTRUCTORS Relationships between Interactions and Learning in Online Environments (Adapted from Rourke, et al.'s (2001) Community of Inquiry Model)

Research Finding

Implications for Practice

Learning Effectiveness: Interaction with Content

Online discussion/learning may be more supportive of

experimentation, divergent thinking, exploration of multiple perspectives, complex understanding & reflection than F2F discussion.

(Parker and Gemino, 2001; Picciano, 2002)

Online discussion/learning may be less supportive of

convergent thinking, instructor directed inquiry & scientific thinking than F2F discussion.

(Parker and Gemino, 2001; Picciano, 2002)

Encourage experimentation, divergent thinking, multiple perspectives, complex understanding & reflection in online discussion through provocative, open-ended questions, modeling & support & encouragement for diverse points of view.

Develop grading rubrics for discussion participation that reward desired cognitive behaviors.

Develop initial course activities to encourage the development of swift trust.

Use other course activities to support these such as written assignments, one-on-one tutorials, small group collaboration & self-testing.

Develop grading rubrics for discussion participation that reward desired cognitive behaviors.

Contributed by Karen Swan, Kent State University,

Sloan-C Editor for Effective Practices in Learning Effectiveness

1

Learning Effectiveness: Interaction with Instructors

Teaching presence — design & organization, facilitating

discourse & direct instruction — is linked to student learning.

(Shea et al., 2003)

The quantity & quality of instructor interactions with students is linked to student learning.

(Jiang & Ting, 2000)

Ongoing assessment of student performance linked to immediate feedback & individualized instruction supports learning.

(Riccomini, 2002; Kashy, et al, 2003)

Highlight three elements of teaching presence in faculty development & provide examples of how to improve in each area.

Provide ongoing support for instructors in each of these areas.

Provide frequent opportunities for both public and private interactions with students.

Establish clear expectations for instructor-student interactions.

Provide timely & supportive feedback.

Include topic of instructor interaction in faculty development.

Automate testing & feedback when possible.

Provide frequent opportunities for testing & feedback. Develop general learning modules w/ opportunities for active learning, assessment & feedback that can be shared among courses &/or accessed by students for remediation or enrichment.

Learning Effectiveness: Interaction with Classmates

Learning occurs socially within communities of practice; there is greater variability in sense of community ratings among online courses than in F2F courses.

(Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Brown, 2001; Haythornthwaite, 2002; Rovai, 2002)

Verbal immediacy behaviors can lesson the psychological distance between communicators online; overall sense of social presence is linked to learning.

(Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Swan, 2003)

Student learning is related to the quantity & quality of

postings in online discussions & to the value instructors place on them.

(Jiang & Ting, 2000)

Design community-building activities.

Model the use of cohesive immediacy behaviors in all interactions with students.

Develop initial course activities to encourage the development of swift trust.

Address issues of community in faculty development. Develop initial course activities to encourage the

development of swift trust Model & encourage the use of verbal immediacy behaviors in interactions with students. Encourage students to share experiences & beliefs in online discussion.

Introduce social presence & verbal immediacy in faculty development.

Make participation in discussion a significant part of course grades.

Develop grading rubrics for discussion participation. Require discussion participants to respond to their

classmates postings &/or to respond to all responses to their own postings.

Stress the unique nature & potential of online discussion in faculty development.

Encourage & support vicarious interaction.

Require discussion summaries that identify steps in the knowledge creation process.

Use tracking mechanisms to reward reading as well as responding to messages.

Vicarious interaction in online course discussion may be an important source of learning from them.

Contributed by Karen Swan, Kent State University,

Sloan-C Editor for Effective Practices in Learning Effectiveness

2

Learning Effectiveness: Interaction with Course Interfaces

Interactions with course interfaces are a real factor in

learning; difficult or negative interactions with interfaces can depress learning.

(Hillman, et al., 1994; Hewitt, 2003)

Work with major platforms to improve interfaces to support learning.

Develop consistent interfaces for all courses in a program.

Provide orientations to program interfaces that help students develop useful mental models of them. Provide 24/7 support for students and faculty. Make human tutors available.

Explore new interfaces.

Make students responsible for sustaining discussion threads.

Make students summarize discussion threads. Require students to incorporate materials from the discussions in their assignments.

Present words in spoken form.

Use both words and pictures simultaneously. Avoid extraneous video & audio.

Do not add redundant on-screen text.

Begin presentations with descriptions of components & organization.

Return or signal both often.

Allow learners to control the pace of presentations.

Patterns of interaction in online discussion are as much dictated by the flagging of unread notes & display of individual messages as anything else.

(Hewitt, 2003)

Better transfer of learning from narration & animation presented simultaneously, in conversational style, with irrelevant elements & on-screen text eliminated.

(Mayer, 2001)

Better transfer of learning when components of concepts are addressed first, when organization is signaled, & when the pace of presentation is learner-controlled. (Mayer, 2001)

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, T., L. Rourke, D. R. Garrison & W. Archer. Assessing teaching presence in a computer

conferencing context. Seattle, WA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 2001.

2. Barry, M. & G. Runyan. A review of distance-learning studies in the U.S. military. The American

Journal of Distance Education 9(3): 37–47, 1995.

3. Benbunan-Fich, R. & S. R. Hiltz. Impact of asynchronous learning networks on individual and

group problem solving: A field experiment. Group Decision and Negotiation 8: 409–426, 1999.

4. Berge, S. L. Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational

Technology 15(1): 22–30, 1995. http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/teach_online.html.

5. Chang, K-E., Y-T Sung & S-K Chiou. Use of hierarchical hyper-concept maps in web-based

courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research 27(4):335–353, 2002.

6. Chickering, A., S. C. Ehrmann. Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE

Bulletin October: 3–6, 1996. http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html.

7. Clark, R. E. Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research 53(4):

445–459, 1983.

8. Coppola, N. W., S. R. Hiltz & N. Rotter. Becoming a virtual professor: pedagogical roles and ALN.

HICSS 2001 Proceedings, IEEE Press, 2001.

9. Danchak, M. M., J. B. Walther & K. Swan. Presence in mediated instruction: bandwidth, behavior,

and expectancy violations. Orlando, FL: Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning, 2001.

10. Eastmond, D. V. Alone but Together: Adult Distance Study through Computer Conferencing.

Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1995. Contributed by Karen Swan, Kent State University,

Sloan-C Editor for Effective Practices in Learning Effectiveness

3

11. Gunawardena, C. & F. Zittle. Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer

mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education 11(3): 8–26, 1997.

12. Gutl, C. & M. Pivec. A multimedia knowledge module virtual tutor fosters interactive learning.

Journal of Interactive Learning Research 14(2): 231–258, 2003.

13. Harasim, L. On-line Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. New York: Praeger, 1990.

14. Hawisher, G. E. & M. A. Pemberton. Writing across the curriculum encounters asynchronous

learning networks or WAC meets up with ALN. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 1(1): 1997.

15. Haythornthwaite, C. Building social networks via computer networks: creating and sustaining

distributed learning communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 16. Hewitt, J. How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads.

Journal of Educational Computing Research 28(1): 31–45, 2003.

17. Hillman, D. C., D. J. Willis & C. N. Gunawardena. Learrner-interface interaction in distance

education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practioners. The American Journal of Distance Education 8(2): 30–42, 1994.

18. Hiltz, S. R. The Virtual Classroom: Learning without Limits via Computer Networks. Norwood, NJ:

Ablex, 1994.

19. Hiltz, S. R., Y. Zhang, & M. Turoff. Studies of effectiveness of learning networks. In J. R. Bourne

and J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Volume 3 in the Sloan-C™ Series. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2002.

20. Hoadley, C. & R. D. Pea. Finding the ties that bind: tools in support of a knowledge-building

community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

21. Hunter, B. Learning in the virtual community depends upon changes in local communities. In K. A.

Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

22. Irani, T. Communication potential, information richness and attitude: A study of computer mediated

communication in the ALN classroom. ALN Magazine 2(1): 1998.

23. Janicki, T. & J. O. Liegle. Development and evaluation of a framework for creating web-based

learning modules: a pedagogical and systems approach. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 5(1): 2001.

24. Jiang, M. & E. Ting. A study of factors influencing students’ perceived learning in a web-based

course environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 6(4): 317–338, 2000. 25. Kashy, D. A., G. H. Albertelli, W. Bauer, E. Kashy & M. Thoennessen. Influence of non-moderated and moderated discussion sites on student success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 7(1): 31–36, 2003.

26. Keeton, M. T., B. G. Scheckley, J. Krecji-Griggs. Effectiveness and Efficiency in Higher Education

for Adults. Council on Adult and Experiential Learning. Chicago: Kendall-Hunt, 2002. 27. Kozma, R. B. Learning with media. Review of Educational Research 61:179–211, 1991.

28. Lave, J. & E. Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1990.

29. Levin, J. A., H. Kim & M. M. Riel. Analyzing instructional interactions on electronic message

networks. In L. Harasim (Ed.), On-line Education: Perspectives on a New Environment New York: Praeger, 1990.

30. Lin, C-H. Effects of computer graphics types and epistemological beliefs on students’ learning of

mathematical concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research 27(3): 265–274, 2002. 31. Mayer, R. E. Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

32. McClintock, R. The Educators Manifesto: Renewing the Progressive Bond with Posterity through

the Social Construction of Digital Learning Communities. New York: Institute for Learning Contributed by Karen Swan, Kent State University,

Sloan-C Editor for Effective Practices in Learning Effectiveness

4

Technologies, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1999. http://www.ilt.columbia.edu /publications/manifesto/contents.html.

33. Moore, M. G. Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education 3(2): 1–6, 19. 34. Nolan, D. J. & J. Weiss. Learning in cyberspace: an educational view of the virtual community. In

K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.) Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

35. Parker, D. & A. Gemino. Inside online learning: Comparing conceptual and technique learning

performance in place-based and ALN formats. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 5(2): –74, 2001.

36. Paulsen, M. P. Moderating educational computer conferences. In Berge, A. L. & M. P. Ollins (Eds.)

Computer-Mediated Communication and the On-Line Classroom in Distance Education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 1995.

37. Picciano, A. G. Developing an asynchronous course model at a large, urban university. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks 2(1): 1998.

38. Picciano, A. G. Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an

online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 6(1): 2002.

39. Poole, D. M. Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: a case study. Journal of

Research on Computing in Education 33(2): 162–177, 2000.

40. Renninger, K. A. & W. Shumar. Community building with and for teachers at the Math Forum. In

K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.) Building Virtual Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

41. Richardson, J. & K. Swan. An examination of social presence in online learning: students’

perceived learning and satisfaction. Seattle, WA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 2001.

42. Richardson J. & E. Ting. Making the most of interaction: what instructors do that most affect

students’ perceptions of their learning. College Park, MD: Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Asynchronous Learning. 1999.

43. Riccomini, P. The comparative effectiveness of two forms of feedback: web-based model

comparison and instructor delivered feedback. Journal of Educational Computing Research 27(3): 231–228, 2002.

44. Romiszowski, A. J. & E. Cheng. Hypertext’s contribution to computer-mediated communication: in

search of an instructional model. In Giardina, M. (Ed.) Interactive Multimedia Learning Environments. Berlin: Springer, 1992.

45. Rossman, M. Successful online teaching using an asynchronous learner discussion forum. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks 3(2): 1999.

46. Rourke, L., T. Anderson, D. R. Garrison & W. Archer. Assessing social presence in asynchronous

text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education 14(2): 2001.

47. Rovai, A. P. A preliminary look at structural differences in sense of classroom community between

higher education traditional and ALN courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 6(1): 2002.

48. Russell, T. L. The No Significant Difference Phenomenon. Montgomery, AL: IDEC, 1999.

http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/.

49. Scardamalia, M. & C. Bereiter. Computer support for knowledge-building communities. In T.

Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.

50. Shea, P. J., E. E. Fredericksen, A. M. Pickett & W. E. Pelz. A preliminary investigation of

“teaching presence” in the SUNY Learning Network. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.) Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction, 279–312. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2003.

51. Shea, P. J., A. M. Pickett, & W. E. Pelz. A follow-up investigation of “teaching presence” in the

SUNY Learning Network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 7(2): 61–80, 2003. Contributed by Karen Swan, Kent State University,

Sloan-C Editor for Effective Practices in Learning Effectiveness

5

52. Sutton, L. The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications.

International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 7(3): 223–242, 2001.

53. Swan, K. Virtual interactivity: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in

asynchronous online courses. Distance Education 22(2): 306–331, 2001.

. Swan, K. Immediacy, social presence, and asynchronous discussion. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore

(Eds.) Elements of Quality Online Education, Volume 3. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2002.

55. Swan, K. Learning online: current research on issues of interface, teaching presence and learner

characteristics. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.) Elements of Quality Online Education: Into the Mainstream, 63–79. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2004.

56. Swan, K. Learning effectiveness: what the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.)

Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction, 13–45. Needham, MA: Sloan-C, 2003.

57. Swan, K., P. Shea, E. Fredericksen, A. Pickett, W. Pelz & G. Maher. Building knowledge

building communities: consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research 23(4): 3–413, 2000.

58. Twigg, C. Innovations in Online Learning: Moving Beyond No Significant Difference. The Pew

Learning and Technology Program, 2000. http://www.center.rpi.edu/PewSym/mono4.html.

59. Vandergrift, K. E. The anatomy of a distance education course: a case study analysis. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks 6(1): 76–90, 2003.

60. Walther, J. Interpersonal effects in computer mediated interaction. Communication Research 21(4):

460–487, 1994.

61. Wenger, E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge

University Press, 1997.

62. Wu, A. Supporting electronic discourse: principles of design from a social constructivist perspective.

Journal of Interactive Learning Research 14(2): 167–184, 2003.

Contributed by Karen Swan, Kent State University,

Sloan-C Editor for Effective Practices in Learning Effectiveness

6