Interactions in distance education:
A report from the other side.
Byron R. Burnham
Associate Dean, Learning Resources Program
Utah State University
Beth Walden
Doctoral Candidate
Utah State University
Abstract: This observational study investigated the kinds of interactions among and between students, instructors, the media, and the environment in distance education courses. In addition to confirming the interaction types reported in the literature, learner-environment interaction was documented. Interaction chains, interaction objects, and interaction subjects were described.
Introduction
To date research about adult learners at a distance has focused primarily on learners' motivations, persistence, and satisfaction (Baker and Platten, 1988; Coggins, 1988; Egan, et al., 1992; and Wilkes and Burnham, 1991). Some researchers have employed standardized measurement instruments (Biner, Dean, and Mellinger, 1994; Coggins, 1988; Dille and Mezack, 1991; Pugliese, 1994; and Wilkes and Burnham, 1991). All of these studies and many others (Burge and Howard 1990, Dille and Mezack 1991, Garrison, 1990; Pugliese, 1994) have employed a survey methodology. Anderson and Garrison (1995) are exceptions in that they first employed a survey method and then followed up with class observations and interviews. The gathered data have generally been the result of self-reports which have been interpreted from an outsider's perspective. While we may know and understand a great deal about who distance education students are, what motivates them, and how well they enjoy their experiences, we do not know much about what happens in a learning situation where the teacher is not present.
The Study
We conceptualized the distance education setting as being
comprised of methods (distance education, or the way learners are
organized in society), techniques (teaching procedures, or the
way in which subject matter is introduced to learners) and
devices (equipment, or the things we used to assist us in
providing instruction). Using the framework that Verner (1962)
introduced over 30 years ago. Burnham and Seamons (1987) updated
it to accommodate electronic distance education. Figure I
provides a representation of a learning situation where methods
and techniques are enabled by devices by bringing learners in
contact with instructors and subject matter content (Stubbs and
Burnham, 1990). Devices in this framework can range from the most
modern technological device (the latest computer) to the oldest
(the book or other written source of information).
In essence we were studying a new method of education which called for an open stance toward the research problem. As a result we chose a qualitative approach to data collection and analysis. We did, however, have a priory questions that we wanted answered, the essence of positivistic research.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the behaviors of the learners from the "other side" of distance education - the students' perspectives. The research questions were "what interactions do learners at a distance exhibit that influence their learning, what events prompt and end such behavior, and what observable outcomes result?" By answering these questions through careful observation, problems attendant to other forms of data collection in distance education were avoided. An example of such problems include the incorrect interpretation of apparently positive course evaluations. These often confuse very positive attitudes toward access to higher education courses with negative attitudes about having to study using this method. Another purpose of this study was to further investigate the phenomenon labeled parallel learning (Burnham, 1994) which is sociological in nature as contrasted to learning which is psychological in nature.
Methodology
Data gathering was done at the points of delivery and the interpretation of the data was done by someone engaged in the course work. One of the limitations to studying distance education in this manner means that our generalizations are limited. However, one of the strengths of the study is that we have a much more complete picture of the learning environment than careful measurements of limited constructs can produce. We also have an opportunity to enhance established constructs and to suggest new ones. However, gathering data in this fashion presented problems of travel and scheduling for a single researcher.
Role of researcher
Because data for this study were to be collected at the
receive site we decided that the researcher should gather data as
unobtrusively and covertly as possible so as not to influence the
actions of either the learners or the instructors. The data
collection was done while the researcher was enrolled in and
attended several distance education courses. This meant that she
had to participate in class discussions (both those instigated by
instructors and those generated from other sources), take tests,
and otherwise appear as much like a student as possible. A
problem that confronted the researcher was establishing the line
she would not cross on the continuum from being a detached
observer to "going native." Opportunities to go native
were plentiful and included instructor bashing, working on
projects, and socializing with learners outside of the classroom
situation.
Ethics
Because the data were collected by covert observation there
was some concern about the ethics of such actions. These concerns
were minimized by approval from the university's Institutional
Review Board (IRB). Additionally, the public nature of
instruction offered by a public university helped assure that
this research approach was not unethical. While faculty may have
had concerns, data collection was not focused on their
behaviors. Finally, all names and other identifying clues
were eliminated to preserve anonymity of the individuals
observed.
Administrative clearance
In addition to approval from the IRB, and perhaps more
difficult, permission was obtained from the university Admissions
and Records Office for the researcher to register for the
distance education courses so that she might appear as a typical
university student. She was successful in registering for all
course work as an auditing student and then after the courses
concluded any reference to the courses were removed from the
researcher's transcript of credits. The Dean of Continuing
Education was very cooperative in helping the field researcher
gain access to courses and sites.
The research environment
The technology system that was in place while we gathered
data was an audio-graphic, two-way interactive system that
recently had a major upgrade in its capacity just prior to the
study. A two-way audio/graphic system allows the instructor to
transmit static graphical images from the origination site to the
receive sites. Two-way audio allows any one person to talk with
all other parties at the same time. Participants must either push
a mic button to talk or they can leave the mic key open.
The classes
Course work for the research was carefully selected using a
number of dimensions: time of day, number of students, location
of receive site, academic level, subject matter, and the number
of sessions per week. Courses were selected to offer a wide
variety of circumstances as possible to maximize the probability
of different kinds of interactions begin observed.
Data collection
Data were collected through participant observation. Using
the same observer at each site and course eliminated the problem
of calibrating different observers to the same standard. However,
in so doing, the chances for biased, subjective data gathering
were increased. This problem was minimized by gathering as much
information about as many variables as possible.
Field notes were made during class sessions and backed up with audio recordings. Taping the sessions at the remote site is rather common among students and did little or nothing to inhibit student interactions. Making field notes during the session was also easily done as students are typically taking notes during class periods.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was performed by constantly reviewing the field
notes and then breaking them into discrete components of
interaction. These components were then categorized as to the
kind of interactions identified in the literature. The research
team criticized the placement of the interaction components and
finally a group of graduate students were used to check the
categorization by the researchers.
Findings
Types of interaction
The behaviors of the students in distance education settings
was described by the types of interactions described in the
literature. Moore (1989) and an et al. (1994) described
learner-teacher, learner-content, learner-learner, and
learner-media interactions in distance education environments.
This study found that the definitions currently cited in the
literature were helpful to a degree, but lack the richness of the
interactions that occur in the field.
A fifth interaction, learner-environment was encountered. This is defined as a reciprocal action or mutual influence between a learner and the learner's surroundings that either assists or hinders learning.
The relative frequency of the of interaction types varied with the kinds of circumstances that might have triggered the events. For example, the failure of the technology would trigger interactions with the media on the part of the learners to correct the problem. If an instructor was unclear about directions or descriptions, then students would interact with one another in order to clarify the ambiguity.
An important finding of this study, in addition to the confirmation of the various types of interaction and the discovery of yet a fifth kind, is the notion that interactions have objects (things learners interact with or that influence the learner) and subjects (things that the interactions are about). These two elements can and should play an important part of any classification of interactions.
Another finding is that interactions themselves are trigger events for yet other interactions. This "chaining" of interactions filled much of class time. We do not know about the patterns and sequences of interaction chains. This is a promising area for further research because it offers promise for even deeper understandings of distance education.
Parallel learning
The learning environment in distance education is a dynamic one.
Parallel Learning is defined as the acquisition of content taking
place concurrently with but independently from the delivery of
instruction. Students can and do acquire content independently of
instructors in any kind of learning method, however, in a
distance education setting such behaviors are distinctly
observable because they usually involve other students at the
receive site. Triggering mechanisms provoke interactions. For
example, if an instructor is boring, confusing, or irrelevant
students will engage one another about the subject matter at hand
while ignoring the instructor. At some point they are brought
back into the instructional stream by the behavior of the
instructor or some other event.
Learning partnerships and groups
Learners form partnerships and groups on their own. The basis
for these groups is either instrumental need or prior
associations. For example, students will consistently ask certain
students questions about how to perform certain tasks or
questions about when materials are due. Some students form
friendships that last over a term and into succeeding terms of
study. The learning groups are more than coincidental and
informal; they are purposive.
Implications
The implication of this research demonstrates that the distant education learning environment is a dynamic one which differs substantially from the traditional face to face environment. It creates an environment where the characteristics of adult learners can and do exhibit themselves in powerful ways. This has direct implications for the design of instruction. Teachers must acknowledge that they have less control in distance education settings than they do in a face to face setting. Perhaps scheduled queries and directive tasks can help keep students involved in the stream of instruction. Or, alternately, instructors may want to place more responsibility on the learner for content acquisition and processing to take advantage of naturally occurring parallel learning and learning partnerships.
References
Anderson T. D. and Garrison, D. R. (1995) Transactional issues in distance education: The impact of design in audioteleconferencing. The American Journal of Distance Education. 9 (2) 27-45.
Barker, B.O., & Platten, M.R. (1988) Student perceptions on the effectiveness of college credit courses taught via satellite. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2 (2).
Biner, P.M., Dean, R.S. & Mellinger, A.E. (1994). Factors underlying distance learner satisfaction with televised college-level courses. The American Journal of Distance Education 8 (1) 60-71.
Burnham, B.R. (1994). A systematic view of distance education evaluation: Finding our bearings. A paper presented at the Tenth Research Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison WI.
Burnham, B. R. & Seamons, R. A., (1987). Exploring the landscape of electronic distance education. Life Long Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research. 10, 8-11.
Burge, E.J. & Howard, J.L (1990). Audio-conferencing in graduate education: A case study, The American Journal of Distance Education 4 (2) 3 -13.
Coggins, C.C. (1988). Preferred learning styles and their impact on completion of external degree programs. 7he American Journal of Distance Education 2 (1) 25-37.
Dille, B. & Mezack, M. (1991). Identifying predictors of high risk among community college telecourse students. The American Journal of Distance Education 5 (1) 24-35.
Egan, M.W., Welch. M., Page, B., & Sebastian, J. (1992) Learners' perceptions of instructional delivery systems: Conventional and television. 7he American Journal of Distance Education 6 (2) 47-55.
Even, M J. (1987). An Adult instructional model, in Kelvins, Chester, ed. Materials and Methods in Adult and Continuing Education. pp 270-277. Kleven Publications, Los Angeles.
Garrison, D.R. (1990). An analysis and evaluation of audio teleconferencing to facilitate education at a distance, The American Journal of Distance Education 4 (3) 13 -24.
Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, E.J. and Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education 8 (2) pp. 30-42.
Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: a neglected species. Gulf Publishing Company: Houston.
Moore, M.G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education 3 (2). pp. 1-60.Pugliese, R.R. (1994). Telecourse persistence and psychological variables. The American Journal of Distance Education 8 (3) 22-39.
Stubbs, S.T. & Burnham, B.R (1990). An instrument for evaluating the potential effectiveness of electronic distance education systems. American Journal of Distance Education 4 (3) 25.37.Verduin and Clark, (1991). Distance education: the foundations of effective practice. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA. p. 157.Verner, C. (1962). A conceptual scheme for the identification and classification of processes. Adult education association of the USA. Washington, D. C.
Wilkes, C.W. & Burnham,- B.R. (1991) Adult learner motivations and electronic distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 5 (1) 43-50._
[Home] [Search] [Conference Proceedings] [Back] [Top]