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 don’t know where you are going, technology will not help you get there. or If you are headed in the wrong direction, technology won’t 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. Maybe…eventually? 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 Learningfocused 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 Educator Content Learner Personal Application & Value

26. Challenges as Educators?

27. Resources Classsize Learner diversity Workload Learnerpreferences Challenges Costs Choosingtechnology Time Authenticassessments Design & development support Safe opportunities

28. Solution Technology provides the opportunity to change learner–educator & 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. Significant costs are associated with high levels of interaction in all 3 domains.

34. Anderson’s Theorem “Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student–teacher; 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)

35. “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.”

36. 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)

37. Deep & Meaningful Learning Learner Interactions Educator Content Learner Personal Application & Value

38. Learner Educator Interactions Content Learner

39. Learner Interactions Educator Learner Content

40. Learner Interactions Educator Learner Content

41. 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)

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

43. Reflections • 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? • In which area can you reduce the level of interactivity & subsequently increase the level of interactivity in another domain? • Consider using this equivalency theory in your F2F courses, blended delivery & in your program structure & delivery.

44. Conclusion • We can’t continue to increase the level of interactivity in every domain in every course • Effective implementation of technology can change learner–educator and learner-learner interaction

45. Creation enhanced forms of learner-content interactions & more flexible & effectivelearning spaces

46. ________________________ Questions & comments? ________________________

47. 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/FacDevCom/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?id=1060 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 University 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.pdf

48. ________________________ Presentation Content & Construction Pat Anderchek, 2006 ________________________