Interaction in distance education and online learning: using evidence and theory to improve practice

In a recent meta-analysis of distance and online learning, Bernard et al. (2009) quantitatively verified the importance of three types of interaction: among students, between the instructor and students, and between students and course content. In this paper we explore these findings further, discuss methodological issues in research and suggest how these results may foster instructional improvement. We highlight several evidence-based approaches that may be useful in the next generation of distance and online learning. These include principles and applications stemming from the theories of self-regulation and multimedia learning, research-based motivational principles and collaborative learning principles. We also discuss the pedagogical challenges inherent in distance and online learning that need to be considered in instructional design and software development.

[1]  Tracey C. Burns,et al.  Information and Communication Technologies in Elementary and Secondary Education: A State of the Art Review , 2002 .

[2]  D. Cook,et al.  Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. , 2008, JAMA.

[3]  Brent Muirhead.  Interactivity Research Studies , 2001, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[4]  R. Mason,et al.  Mindweave : communication, computers and distance education , 1989 .

[5]  L. Sutton.  The Principle of Vicarious Interaction in Computer-Mediated Communications , 2001 .

[6]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Learning and Instruction , 2007 .

[7]  John S. Daniel,et al.  Interaction and Independence: Getting the Mixture Right , 1979 .

[8]  Robert M. Bernard,et al.  How Does Distance Education Compare With Classroom Instruction? A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature , 2004 .

[9]  Robert A. Wisher,et al.  THE COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF WEB-BASED AND CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION: , 2006 .

[10]  M. Allen,et al.  Comparing Student Satisfaction With Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis , 2002 .

[11]  E. S. Conklin.  Human Motivation , 1932, The Journal of Religion.

[12]  Brent Muirhead,et al.  Enhancing Social Interaction in Computer-Mediated Distance Education , 2000, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[13]  Barbara Means,et al.  Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies , 2009 .

[14]  Philip C. Abrami,et al.  Media and Pedagogy in Undergraduate Distance Education: A Theory-Based Meta-Analysis of Empirical Literature , 2006 .

[15]  A. W. Bates,et al.  Interactivity as a Criterion for Media Selection in Distance Education. , 1990 .

[16]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  Learning With Computer-Based Learning Environments: A Literature Review of Computer Self-Efficacy , 2009 .

[17]  Nancy E. Perry.  Young children's self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. , 1998 .

[18]  Philip C. Abrami,et al.  Improving literacy and metacognition with electronic portfolios: Teaching and learning with ePEARL , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[19]  Börje Holmberg,et al.  Distance Education: International Perspectives , 1988 .

[20]  D. R. Garrison,et al.  Education at a distance : from issues to practice , 1990 .

[21]  M. Moore.  Editorial: Three types of interaction , 1989 .

[22]  Ellen D. Wagner,et al.  In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction , 1994 .

[23]  Richard F. Schmid,et al.  Technology’s effect on achievement in higher education: a Stage I meta-analysis of classroom applications , 2009, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[24]  H. E. King.  The Achievement Motive , 1977 .

[25]  Elizabeth G. Cohen,et al.  Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom , 1986 .

[26]  P. Pintrich.  A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in Learning and Teaching Contexts. , 2003 .

[27]  Y. Lou,et al.  Small Group and Individual Learning with Technology: A Meta-Analysis , 2001 .

[28]  Alfred Bork,et al.  Multimedia in Learning , 2001 .

[29]  Philip C. Abrami,et al.  On the nature of support in computer-supported collaborative learning using gStudy - January 17, 2009 , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[30]  T. Anderson.  Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction , 2003 .

[31]  P. Pintrich,et al.  Handbook of self-regulation , 2000 .

[32]  Robert Blomeyer,et al.  The Effects of Distance Education on K-12 Student Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. , 2004 .

[33]  P. Juler,et al.  Promoting interaction; maintaining independence: swallowing the mixture , 1990 .

[34]  J. W. Asher,et al.  A meta‐analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education , 2000 .

[35]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Evaluating Distance Education: Strategies and Cautions , 2000 .

[36]  Yoany Beldarrain.  Integrating Interaction in Distance Learning: A Comparative Analysis of Five Design Frameworks , 2008 .

[37]  Fons Jaspers,et al.  Interactivity or instruction?: a reaction to Merrill , 1991 .

[38]  D. Hickey,et al.  A comparative, sociocultural analysis of context and motivation. , 2001 .

[39]  E. Soloway,et al.  Creating a Framework for Research on Systemic Technology Innovations , 2004 .

[40]  A. Chickering,et al.  Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education , 1987, CORE.

[41]  E. Ramsden.  Group Process and Productivity , 1973 .

[42]  C. Fulford,et al.  Perceptions of Interaction: The critical predictor in distance education , 1993 .

[43]  Namsook Jahng,et al.  Student Achievement in Online Distance Education Compared to Face-to-Face Education , 2007 .

[44]  Philip C. Abrami,et al.  A methodological morass? How we can improve quantitative research in distance education , 2004 .

[45]  D. Cook.  The failure of e-learning research to inform educational practice, and what we can do about it , 2009, Medical teacher.

[46]  D. Keegan,et al.  Three Types of Interaction , 2013 .

[47]  K. Williams,et al.  Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing , 1979 .

[48]  A. Paivio.  Mental imagery in associative learning and memory , 1969 .

[49]  Rod Sims,et al.  Interactivity on stage: Strategies for learner-designer communication , 1999 .

[50]  B. Zimmerman.  Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. , 2000 .

[51]  Robert M. Bernard,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education , 2009 .

[52]  N. Webb,et al.  The Development of Students' Helping Behavior and Learning in Peer-Directed Small Groups , 2003 .

[53]  S. Brookfield,et al.  Developing Critical Thinkers , 1987 .

[54]  Kallen E. Tsikalas,et al.  Can Computer-Based Learning Environments (CBLEs) Be Used as Self-Regulatory Tools to Enhance Learning? , 2005 .

[55]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology , 1993 .

[56]  Allan A. Glatthorn,et al.  Learning in the Small Groups. , 1968 .

[57]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[58]  Yoany Beldarrain,et al.  Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration , 2006 .

[59]  P. Abrami,et al.  Implementing Computer Technologies: Teachers' Perceptions and Practices , 2006 .

[60]  B. Zimmerman.  Investigating Self-Regulation and Motivation: Historical Background, Methodological Developments, and Future Prospects , 2008, American Educational Research Journal.

[61]  Eva Mary Bures,et al.  Encouraging Self-Regulated Learning through Electronic Portfolios. , 2007 .

[62]  David W. Johnson,et al.  An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning , 2009 .

[63]  N. Webb.  Peer interaction and learning in small groups , 1989 .

[64]  M. Knowles.  The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy , 1970 .

[65]  Robert D. Hannafin,et al.  21st Century Education: A Reference Handbook , 2008 .