The Impact of Various Communication Tools on Interaction in Online Learning: A Comparitive Study

1. The Impact of Various Communication Tools on Interaction in Online Learning: A Comparitive Study Ray Pastore MahnazMoallem Florence Martin

2. Introduction • Research on online learning continues to support the importance of dialogue or interaction between the teacher and students and among students for advancing the learning process and for internalizing the learning • The emergence of the newer web synchronous conferencing tools permits high level interaction • Eluminate Live; Wimba Live, WebEx, Saba Centra, Adobe Connect, Cisco Telepresence

3. Introduction • Two communication methods (i.e. synchronous and asynchronous) are being used • synchronous instruction brings teacher and students together simultaneously in virtual spaces • Asynchronous instruction is delivered without any specific timing and uses communication tools such as e-mail and discussion boards

4. Purpose of this Study • Analyze various communication tools & methods to find out how they influence the learning process, learning outcomes, learner motivation, self-regulation & satisfaction • Identify factors that compensate for the absence of live interaction in online asynchronous environment & vice versa • Identify factors that can be accounted for deeper and higher quality of learning • Assess the impact of various communication methods on problem-solving skills (deep learning process), collaborative learning, learner motivation & self-regulation

5. Framework

6. Social and Cognitive Presence • Social presence is defined as the “degree of salience of the other person in the (mediated) interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal relationships” (Short, et. al., 1979, p. 65). • Asynchronous Communication - Limited with regard to nonverbal & vocal communication • Text-based discussion – inability to transmit vocal and non-verbal cues causes it to be less immediate, less intimate or colder and less personable experience

7. Immediacy and Intimacy • Immediacy refers to physical & verbal behaviors that reduce psychological and physical distance (Mehrabian,1971) • Intimacy is a function of eye contact, physical proximity, topic of conversation.Changes in one function will produce compensatory changes in the others (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). • Interaction is likely to be unpleasant if behavior cannot be altered to allow an optimal degree of intimacy

8. Collaboration and Co-construction • From a socio-cultural perspective, the core of meaningful interaction is the concept of collaboration & co-construction. • In order to build a learning community, meanings are to be jointly constructed as learners modify, confirm or discard their original ideas through hearing others points of views and referring to others’ experiences (Bakhtin, 1981; Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner, 2001; Golden, 1986).

9. Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning • From a constructivist perspective, self-regulated learning is defined as • “an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their own learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment” (Perry & Smart, 2002, p. 741). • Researchers argue that the asynchronous and virtual nature of online learning provide better learning environment for learners to be self-directed and to take responsibility for their learning (e.g., Garrison, 2003). • Learner's self-motivation increases as a result of self-regulatory attributes and self-regulatory processes in online learning (Eom, Wen& Ashill, 2006).

10. Technology and Task Complexity • Characteristics of the technology tools can improve or hinder efficient delivery of instruction (Alavi & Leidner, 2001) • The impact of different technology characteristics to present information and for communication may depend on task complexity (Tan & Benbasat, 1990; Tractinsky & Meyer, 1999) • Skehan and Foster (2001, p. 196) state that “task difficulty has to do with the amount of attention the task demands from the participants. Difficult tasks require more attention than easy tasks

11. Research Questions

12. Design of the Study

13. Participants • Three different graduate level courses (three units each) in the Instructional Technology program • Two courses in spring 2011 & one course in fall 2011 • A total of 24 graduate students participated in the study (18 students (13 & 5) participated in the spring and 16 in fall 2011) • For synchronous delivery modules while all students used Synchronous Virtual Rooms to communicate with each other & the instructor during live interaction, some were also physically present in the classroom & had an opportunity to see each other face-to-face & distance students through video feeds

14. Data Collection Method • Qualitative Data Sources • Student profile & learning & thinking styles survey results. • Students’ communications during collaboration problem solving tasks • Students’ products of learning (solutions to the problem solving tasks) & results of modules’ quizzes • Responses to reflective questions • Instructor’s logs & reflections • Quantitative Data Sources • Student motivation and self-regulation skills (prior to and after the intervention) • Social presence, immediacy & intimacy & satisfaction surveys

15. Procedure - Asynchronous • Students were assigned to readings and other instructional materials (e.g., instructors’ lecture notes and multimedia materials) a week earlier. • Students used module’s problem-solving team assignment to collaborate in completing the assignment. • A small group discussion area was created for each team as they worked on their team assignments. • A large group discussion forum was created to provide opportunity for interaction among all students and with the instructor. • Students were instructed not to meet synchronously & just use asynchronous tools to communicate & to complete their team assignments even if they were in close proximity with each other. • Student teams submitted & published their assignments to other groups to review and comment. • The instructor also provided written feedback and comments on students’ team products and collaboration process.

16. Procedure - Synchronous • Students were assigned to readings and other instructional materials (e.g., instructors’ lecture notes and multimedia materials) a week earlier. • During live/synchronous class meeting, students participated in large group discussion &/or a demonstration with lecture facilitated by the instructor followed by breaking out into small teams • Teams were assigned to collaborate in completing module’s problem-solving assignment during live & synchronous team meeting • Students were offered to continue team discussion in their designated virtual rooms to follow up on live or synchronous class & team discussion • Students were instructed not to meet asynchronously & just use synchronous tools to communicate & to complete their team assignments • The instructor also reviewed students’ responses to collaborative team activity & offered feedback during synchronous or live meeting • In addition to oral comments the instructor also provided written feedback on teams’ products & collaboration process.

17. Procedure: Mixed Methods • Students were assigned to readings and other instructional materials (e.g., instructors’ lecture notes and multimedia materials) a week earlier. • Student teams were instructed to begin discussing & collaborating with their team members on module’s problem-solving assignment using a small group discussion in the forum area. • A large group discussion forum was created to provide opportunity for interaction among all students and with the instructor before live & synchronous class discussion. • During live and synchronous class meeting, students participate in large group discussion and/or a demonstration with lecture facilitated by the instructor. • The large group discussion was followed by breaking out into teams to complete team assignment a& present it for both peers’ and instructor’s review & comments. • The instructor also reviewed students’ responses & collaborative process and offered feedback during synchronous or live meeting. • In addition to oral comments the instructor also provided written feedback on teams’ products & collaboration process.

18. Example Problem Solving Activity Suppose that you notice that every day in June from 5:00 PM until 5:30 PM many of the fish in a pond that you own come to the surface of the water and leap into the air. You are afraid that something is wrong. There is very little such activity at other times of the day or other months of the year. Identify the system that you would analyze to find out why the fish behave as they do and to decide what, if anything, needs to be done about the situation. Briefly describe the components that you would include. Defend your decision in writing.

19. Sample Instructor’s Feedback “Pay attention to your own argument. Something in the pond that the fish eat. If so, then some activities are happening in the pond.” “These are great questions, but don’t you have to use the systems view to first define the system, its components, subsystems and super system and then begin analyzing the system? “What is the system? Do we know what is the system before defining it? Did you think “fish” was the targeted system or “fish pond” was your targeted system?”

20. Analysis • Constant comparison method were used to analyze different data sources for questions by cross-case grouping of answers • Statistical analysis was conducted for survey data • Data from various sources were triangulated & cross checked

21. ResultsFactors emerged impacting interaction, student learning & satisfaction

22. ResultsFactors emerged impacting interaction, student learning & satisfaction

23. ResultsFactors emerged impacting interaction, student learning & satisfaction

24. ResultsFactors emerged impacting interaction, student learning & satisfaction

25. ResultsFactors emerged impacting interaction, student learning & satisfaction

26. ResultsImpact of various communication tools & methods on Motivation & self Regulation • Categories analyzed in survey: • Intrinsic, • Extrinsic, • Task Value, • Control of Learning • Beliefs, • Self-efficacy, • Self-regulation • Likert Scale – 1-7 • Overall, student motivation & self-regulation did not show any significant difference across three different modes of communication.

27. ResultsImpact of various communication tools & methods on Motivation & self Regulation

28. ResultsImpact of various communication tools & methods on Motivation & self Regulation

29. ResultsImpact of various communication tools & methods on Motivation & self Regulation

30. ResultsImpact of various communication tools & methods on Social Presence • Categories • Affective • Interactive • Cohesive • Overall, students rated social presence for the mixed approach significantly higher compared with asynchronous and synchronous approach. • Likert Scale – 1-5 • The instructor’s presence was rated high in all three communication modes.

31. ResultsImpact of various communication tools & methods on Social Presence

32. Discussion and Conclusion • Trends in the data – Mixed->Synchronous->Asynchronous for self regulation, motivation, satisfaction, and social presence data • Overall – mixed methods appears to bring out the advantages of each type while limited the disadvantages associated with them • PBL and instructors role in results • Importance of social presence regardless of medium of delivery • Importance of immediate feedback • Importance of the richness of the media in communication • Importance of using variety of tools and techniques

33. References • Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Research commentary: Technology-mediated learning: A call for greater depth and breadth of research. Information Systems Research, 12(1), 1-10. • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, M. Holquist, ed., C. Emerson and M. Holquist, Trans., University of Texas Press, Austin. • Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378-411. • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000). Critical theory in text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education, The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. • Golden, R. (1986). "Representing causal schemata in connectionist systems." In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Amherst, MA. pp. 13-22. • Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent Messages. Wadsworth, Belmont, California.

34. References • Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons. • Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.) Cognition and second language instruction. (pp. 183-205) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Tan, J .K. H., & Benbasat, I. (1990). Processing of graphical information: A decomposition of taxonomy to match data extraction tasks and graphical representations. Information Systems Research, 1(4), 416-439. • Tractinsky, N., & Meyer, N. (1999). Chartjunk or goldgraph? Effects of presentation objectives and content desirability on information presentation. MIS Quarterly, 23(3), 397-420.

35. Questions? • Contact Information: • Ray Pastore: pastorer@uncw.edu • Florence Martin: martinf@uncw.edu • MahnazMoallem: moallemm@uncw.edu • Presentation can be found at: • http://raypastore.com/wordpress/2011/11/aect-virtual-classrooms-presentation