The integration of interaction on distance-learning courses

of 53

The integration of interaction on

distance-learning courses

of 53

Abstract Interactive media such as email and online conferencing are increasingly used to

provide distance learners with opportunities for interaction. These media are not always

integrated within courses to meet the needs and objectives of students, staff and

institution. In some circumstances they impede learning. This study investigates how

students on distance-education courses are affected by the use of interactive media and

by the levels of interaction and integration built into the course design.

Data were collected from students on two distance-learning courses at the British Open

University, using asynchronous email communication over several days or weeks to

carry out epistolary interviews. Other sources of data were the open-ended responses

from a survey of Open University students which was administered by a related study

of the integration of interaction, informally known as the Mellon Project.

My study provides an evidence-based analysis of some effects of the integration of

interaction on distance-education courses. It contains grounded accounts of different

types of interaction on such courses. These reveal the importance of face-to-face

interaction for distance students, showing how they use their daily contacts to supply

face-to-face course-related interaction, and how course designers can support these

strategies. The accounts also reveal students’ problems with self-presentation when

using conferencing software and their exaggerated sense of the negative characteristics

of themselves and others online. These accounts challenge previous assumptions that

computer-mediated communication commonly results in an idealisation of the other.

The data supports seven strategies for the effective integration of interaction in distance

education. Course designers are recommended to incorporate students’ reasons for

communication, recognise the role of interaction in motivating students, give students

control over their learning, allow time for interaction, encourage students to find

mentors, utilise the affordances of the media and create positive social presence.

of 53

Contents Chapter 1: Aims and objectives 5

Introduction 5

Dissertation structure 6

Chapter 2: Literature review 8

Interactive media 9

Effects of interaction 10

Interaction, learning and teaching 13

Integration 14

Evaluating integration 15

Conclusion 16

Chapter 3: Choice of research design and methods 17

Case studies 17

Epistolary interviews 19

Supplementary data 21

Ethics 21

Chapter 4: Collecting and analysing the data 23

Epistolary interviews: sampling 23

Epistolary interviews: method 24

Course Experience Survey 26

Course material 27

Data analysis 27

Chapter 5: Interpreting the data 29

Levels of interaction 29

Levels of integration 30

Students’ perceptions of interactive media 32

Students’ perceptions of interaction 32

Accounts of interaction: face to face 34

Accounts of interaction: FirstClass 34

of 53

Accounts of interaction: problems with FirstClass 35

Accounts of interaction: time, place and community 38

Accounts of interaction: student initiated 39

Integration of interaction 41

Integration of interaction: B300 41

Integration of interaction: E124 43

Chapter 6: Findings 46

Incorporate students’ reasons for communication 46

Recognise the role of interaction in motivating students 46

Give students control over their learning 47

Allow time for interaction 47

Encourage students to find mentors 47

Utilise the affordances of the media 47

Create positive social presence 48

Strengths and limitations of this research 48

Future research 49

Conculsion 49

Bibliography 51

Appendices 1-5 (not published on Knowledge Network)

of 53

Chapter 1: Aims and objectives

Introduction

Educational establishments worldwide are making increasing use of interactive media

such as email and online conferencing in the design of courses. These media are

employed in a variety of ways which have been shown to affect outcomes for students.

Some courses take advantage of increased storage capacity or the capacity to link to

information-rich resources, while others employ the media’s interactive potential.

Unfortunately, these uses of interactive media are not necessarily integrated with the

needs and objectives of course, students, staff or institution. These design variations

affect how the media are used, how students learn and study; they also affect

institutions’ infrastructure and the roles of instructors and other staff.

The research presented here begins by examining what is meant by interaction,

integration and interactive media, and why it is useful to study these in the context of

education. It then uses two case studies to investigate the research question:

How are students on distance-education courses affected by the use of

interactive media and by the levels of interaction and integration built into

the course design?

This research is part of a larger study, known as the Mellon Project. This study, funded

by the Teaching and Technology Program of the Andrew Mellon Foundation, is

investigating the impact of interaction and integration in computer-mediated teaching in

higher education. To do this it draws upon student surveys, interviews with course team

staff and analysis of pre-existing data relating to student retention, assignment

submission and credit achievement. As this primarily quantitative data only provides

evidence of some aspects of students’ experience, case studies are being used to reveal

more about the impact of interaction and integration on students and on their

perceptions of their learning experience. The studies presented here are two of these.

Working within a pre-existing research project has many advantages. Research

parameters had been identified, much of the relevant literature had been located, the

concepts of interaction and interactivity in computer-mediated learning environments

of 53

had been studied (Godwin, 2005) and substantial amounts of quantitative data were

available for secondary analysis. However, there are also disadvantages. The courses

chosen for study had to be selected from a limited range, and differed in many ways

other than their integration of interaction. The Mellon Project neglected face-to-face

interaction, which my study found to be very important. While my study examined the

use of interactive media, the Mellon Project’s research design focused on computer-

mediated interaction.

The aims and design of my research are necessarily related to those proposed in Mary

Thorpe’s research design for the Mellon Project (Appendix 1). They focus on one

aspect of that research – students’ subjective experience of interaction and integration.

The aims of my research are:

• To investigate students’ perceptions of interaction on two distance-education

courses.

• To investigate students’ perceptions of the use of interactive media on these

courses.

• To investigate levels of interaction and integration on these courses.

A review of the literature suggests that students’ perceptions of the quality of courses

are not greatly influenced by the degree to which interaction is included in the course,

nor by the use of interactive media. Instead, perceptions of course quality are

influenced by the degree to which interaction has been integrated into the course

design. My research tests these hypotheses, and has the following objectives:

• To produce grounded accounts of different types of interaction on distance-

education courses.

• To produce an evidence-based analysis of some effects of the integration of

interaction on distance-education courses.

• To provide evidence to support the Mellon Project’s recommendations about

effective strategies for the use of computer-based teaching in distance-education

courses.

Dissertation structure

Chapter 2 presents an overview of relevant literature and defines key terms. Chapter 3

describes the choice of methods and of cases, the data collection methods employed for

of 53

the research and the reasons for their use. Chapter 4 details how the data were collected

and analysed and includes information about sampling and coding. Chapter 5 explains

how the data were interpreted, with reference to the literature examined earlier and the

research aims and objectives. Finally, Chapter 6 summarises the research findings and

their implications.

of 53

Chapter 2: Literature review The terminology used to refer to computer-related media is various and inconsistent.

ICT or C&IT, information and communication technology, IT, learning technology and

new technology are often used interchangeably. The research design for the Mellon

Project shifted between ICT, IT and computer-mediated technologies. Earle (2002)

discussed the term ‘instructional technology’, noting that it ‘encompasses the broader

processes of teaching and learning [but] the prevailing public perspective incorporates

instructional technology as a synonym for computer technology’ (p6). He identified this

as a problem which had led to a focus on hardware at the expense of effective

pedagogy.

While ‘technology’ emphasises the hardware, ‘information technology’ foregrounds

potential for information storage and access. Sims et al. (2002) found that much online

educational material merely reproduces printed materials and does not represent online

learning, which they conceptualised as:

an environment that integrates collaboration, communication and engaging

content with specific group and independent learning activities and tasks. If

content materials and learning activities are to be placed online, then

significant levels of thought must be placed on the very nature of the

medium and the underlying implications for teaching and learning. (p138)

Thus they placed integrated interaction at the heart of online learning.

Participants in the ESRC seminar series The implications of networked learning for

higher education (2002) argued for an increased focus on interaction, stating that the

educational task of higher education:

is best achieved through a pedagogy based on constructionist views of

knowledge which requires students to engage with ideas and develop skills

and capabilities within a scholarly community where knowledge is actively

constructed and framed as provisional, and where future learning through

research is an aspiration. (p2)

of 53

Sims et al. and the ESRC seminar participants were clear that the technology’s potential

to facilitate interaction should be stressed. ‘Information technology’ is thus

inappropriate, as it focuses on the hardware’s uses as a delivery mechanism and

resource base. More useful terminology focuses on potential for interaction.

Interaction has been conceptualised in many ways (for an overview of these, see

Godwin, 2005), but this study follows the Mellon Project in adopting Wagner’s

definition (1994). He considered that ‘interactions are reciprocal events that require at

least two objects and two actions. Interactions occur when these objects and events

mutually influence one another’ (p8). This definition emphasises reciprocity and mutual

influence, without restricting the types of interaction possible. Students may interact

with instructors, other students, themselves or others. They may also interact with non-

human categories such as course content, the interface or their environment.

Interactive media

Laurillard (2002) foregrounded the capabilities of the technology with the term

‘interactive media’:

the presentational media that include hypertext, hypermedia, multimedia

resources, Web-based resources and Internet-delivered television… The

environment in which they are delivered, offering open access to any part of

the material, in any sequence, lends them a degree of user-responsiveness

that has earned these media the epithet “interactive”. (p107)

The term is useful, but this definition omits certain key areas. First, it limits itself to

presentational media, omitting the possibility of interacting with individuals rather than

content. Second, it ignores the affordances of the print media. Books have always

offered open access to their material in any sequence. Laurillard attempted clarification:

‘User control is fundamental to the “sit-forward” interactive media, and the user

expects to be doing something every few seconds, in contrast with the “sit-back”

narrative media of print and television’ (p110), but her distinction does not hold. Print

media are all ‘sit-forward’ media: reading requires constant action.

This leads to a third problem, the assumption that print media are not open to

interactive change. This does not tally with Barthes’ (1977) influential view: ‘a text is

of 53

not a line of words releasing a single “theological” meaning (the “message” of the

Author-God) but a multidimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them

original, blend and clash’ (p146). In these terms, any text must be considered

interactive, its sense and meaning changed by each reader, even as it changes the

reader’s thoughts.

If ‘interactive media’ is not to be too restricted or, conversely, to be a tautology,

interactivity must require observable evidence of the mutual influence integral to

interaction. Here, therefore, interactive media are defined as those which offer access to

to any part of their material or to other individuals, in any sequence, and which

normally produce observable change in response to a user’s actions.

Researchers into interactive media have identified a number of potential benefits of

interaction for students, summarised by Wu and Hiltz (2004) as: ‘convenience, place-

independence, time-independence, and the potential for users to become part of a

virtual community’ (p139). These have been the basis of much research, which has

focused on different types of interaction, the social presence offered by interactive

media, and the social networks that can be created. All these elements have been shown

to relate to learning outcomes and student satisfaction.

Effects of interaction

Jung et al. (2002) studied the relationship of different types of interaction to learning

achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. They examined

three types of online interaction: academic, collaborative and social. Academic

interaction was defined as interaction with online resources and task-related interaction

with an instructor, collaborative interaction involved working with fellow students,

while social interaction included interpersonal encouragement or social integration.

These forms of interaction were integrated within the course, and assignments were

related to the course materials and learning objectives. Students in the collaborative

group had the highest levels of satisfaction, although collaborative interaction did not

relate to increased learning achievement as judged by assignment scores. Social

interaction was found to relate to increased learning achievement, but not to learner

satisfaction. Academic interaction was not found to enhance achievement, satisfaction

or participation.

of 53

Wu and Hiltz (2004) studied technology students who were required to take part in

weekly online discussions linked to their course’s objectives. They identified features

which increase motivation and enjoyment: opportunities to be involved in discussions

at any time, the need to rephrase arguments and thus increase understanding, and the

opportunity to work in a student-dominated study space. Their analysis indicated that

online interaction relates to students’ perceived learning, and that students who report

they are highly motivated by and enjoy online discussion are those who report they

have learned the most, broadening their knowledge and developing their skills. The role

of the tutor in promoting online interaction was seen as crucial to learning, motivation

and enjoyment.

LaPointe and Gunawardena (2004) found a strong correlation between self-reported

peer interaction and self-reported learning outcomes. Their sample included

participants from 30 web-based courses which differed widely in the amount of

participation in online discussion required. Some assessed online work, others

penalised non-completion. Students reported that sharing experiences and

interpretations and encountering differences allowed them to clear confusion, gain

understanding and learn more.

Social presence is a feature of interaction that has been found to influence both

academic achievement and learner satisfaction. Lombard & Ditton (1997) defined

social presence as ‘the perceptual illusion of nonmediation’ (p9). The medium is

ignored, either because it appears to be transparent, providing a window on events, or

because it is perceived as a social entity. When using interactive media, people may

feel that they are together in virtual space or that they are encountering real people,

without being aware of the constraints of the online environment. They may talk to an

animated character or swear at a program – treating it as a social entity. Joinson (2005)

noted that ‘much of our self-perception and esteem comes by evaluating others’

reactions to our own behaviour’ (2005, p33). Bargh et al. (2002, p46) reported that

encountering others on the Internet ‘fosters idealisation of the other in the absence of

information to the contrary’. Thus, views of self and others online are not constructed

in the same way as offline views, but rely on social presence.

of 53

Students’ ability to interact online and their sense of being part of a course are related

to their social presence. Some form of this is necessary before they can create a

community of learners. Picciano (2002) found that student perception of social

presence had a small inverse, but not statistically significant, relationship with students’

performance on a multiple-choice examination; while it had a strong positive and

statistically significant relationship with performance on a written assignment. He

struggled to relate this distinction to students’ sense of social presence, but did not

consider that it could have been due to these forms of assessment producing different

approaches to study.

Yang and Tang (2003) identified three important types of online network: advising

(sharing work-related resources), adversarial (involving negative exchanges) and

friendship. Students central to advising networks performed better on course work, but

not significantly better in examinations; being central to an adversarial network had a

small but identifiable negative correlation with academic performance, and being

central to a friendship network had no clear academic correlation. This research design

incorporated an element missing from others, a negative aspect of interaction.

Interactive media may promote constructive cooperation; they also provide

opportunities for obstructing or opposing others.

Salomon (2000) identified serious problems with the use of interactive media in

education: a tendency to assimilate new technologies into existing instructional

practices unthinkingly, a view of technology as an end in itself, and a focus on the

medium rather than on how and why it is being used. He linked these problems to three

assumptions: knowledge and information are identical, knowledge is gained by

transmission and the role of computers in education is to help with this process.

He went on to highlight differences between information and knowledge. Information

is discrete, clear and can be transmitted without contextualisation. It can be seen as a

series of facts, which may be transmitted, learned by rote and tested in multiple-choice

questionnaires without any need for understanding. Knowledge, on the other hand,

requires interaction because it is constructed in meaningfully connected networks. This

construction of knowledge requires not only sharing and collaboration, but also

ambiguity, conflict and uncertainty. Those who view education as information transfer

of 53

will use interactive media for storage, drilling, testing and accessing information; those

who seek conceptual change will seek to make use of their interactive qualities.

Approaches to studying and conceptions of teaching and learning are thus relevant to

the use of interactive media.

Interaction, learning and teaching

Richardson (in press) describes interview-based research which identified different

approaches to studying in higher education:

a deep approach, based upon understanding the meaning of course materials;

a surface approach, based upon memorising the course materials for the

purposes of assessment; and a strategic approach, based upon obtaining the

highest grades. Even so, the same students could exhibit different

approaches to studying in different situations. In general, the choice of one

approach to studying rather than another appeared to depend upon the

content, the context and the demands of particular tasks. (p3)

Of these three, ‘deep approaches exemplify the type of learning that employers and

teachers expect students to demonstrate’ (Ramsden, 1988, p20).

These deep approaches to learning can be encouraged by the use of an appropriate

approach by teachers. Trigwell et al. (1999) considered teachers’ reports of their

approaches to teaching: an information transmission/teacher-focused approach which

deals with information and skills but not with the relationship between them; or a

conceptual change/student-focused approach in which students must construct their

own knowledge. They found that:

an information transmission/teacher-focused approach to teaching is

strongly associated with surface and non-deep approaches to learning and

that a conceptual change/student-focused approach to teaching is associated,

but less strongly, with a non-surface approach to learning. (pp65-66)

Courses which provide access to information but limited or no opportunities for

interaction can be seen to support an information transmission/teacher-focused

approach and thus serve a surface approach to learning well. Courses providing

opportunities for interaction have the potential to support a conceptual change/student-

focused approach and are thus more likely to result in a deep approach to learning.

of 53

Scouller (1996, 1998) studied the influence of assessment method on students’ learning

approaches, comparing the assignment essay with the short-answer question and the

multiple-choice question examination. She found that preparation for multiple-choice

or for short-answer questions was more likely to involve a surface approach to learning,

whereas preparing for an essay was more likely to involve a deep approach. She

concluded that, to encourage analytical and critical thought, assessment methods should

‘firstly, encourage the development of such abilities; and secondly, provide students

with the opportunity to demonstrate that they have developed these higher order

abilities’ (1998, p469).

While interaction is important, it is not sufficient to add opportunities and capabilities

for interaction to existing courses. Burt (2001) reported on nearly 26,000 students who

had completed distance-education courses at the Open University in Britain. At least

10% of those who had used email or computer conferencing as part of their course rated

these ‘not at all helpful’. LaPointe and Gunawardena (2004) carried out research using

online questionnaires and found that more surface learning than deep learning occurs in

computer-mediated communication, and that many educators have incorporated

interaction into online courses without understanding its nature, thus impeding the

learning process by imposing an extra cognitive load.

Kirkwood and Price (2005) looked at students’ attitudes to and experience of ICT,

bringing together research involving around 80,000 respondents. They found that

technology can enable new forms of learning and teaching to take place, but cannot

ensure that this happens. ‘It is not technologies, but educational purposes and

pedagogy, that must provide the lead, with students understanding not only how to

work with ICTs, but why it is of benefit for them to do so’ (p257). It is therefore

important to investigate whether interaction has been integrated within course

pedagogy.

Integration

Earle (2002) studied the integration of instructional technology into education:

Integration (from the Latin integrare, to make whole) includes a sense of

completeness or wholeness and incorporates the need to overcome artificial

separations by bringing together all essential elements in the teaching and

of 53

learning process – including technology (as one of the elements, not the sole

element)… the focus of integration is on pedagogy – effective practices for

teaching and learning. (p10)

He identified factors essential for integration: leadership, solid educational objectives,

professional development, adequate technology resources, time and evaluation. To

these can be added a clear vision of an integration strategy, which Mize and Gibbons

(2000) found to be necessary when researching effective integration in K-12 schools.

Laurillard (2002) identified considerations related to students’ needs and capabilities.

The design of learning materials should begin with a definition of learning objectives

and an analysis of student needs. Use of interactive media should be clearly justified in

terms of improving the quality of education. Clearly defined objectives are needed for

good design, development and assessment. The relationship of learning material with

the course objectives must be clear, and any pre-requisite skills must be possessed by

students or developed as part of the course. Interactive work should be built on,

followed through and assessed.

Assessment is key to integration. Scouller (1996, 1998) showed the importance of

assessment method to students’ approaches to learning. Jelfs and Colbourn (2002)

suggested it may be ‘unclear to “strategic” or “surface apathetic” learners what benefits

are to be accrued from an unmonitored appraisal of learning material’ (p50). If

assessment is to reflect course pedagogy, aims and objectives, then it should reflect

changes produced by the use of interactive media. Laurillard (2002) pointed to

interactive media’s ability to offer ‘individualised, private, formative feedback, which

helps to build [students’] understanding of the internal relations between theory and

practice’ (p127).

Evaluating integration

Gunn (1999) looked at ways of identifying whether successful integration has been

achieved, and proposed the situated evaluation of computer-assisted learning (SECAL)

framework. This begins with a detailed description of learning objectives, how these

are to be achieved and how they will be assessed. The framework takes into account

perceived relevance to learning goals, assessments and other course elements. Her case

of 53

study identified many benefits of the integration of interactive media, including an

overall improvement in standards, expectations and quality of learning outcomes.

Sims et al. (2002) proposed the evaluation of courses during their design in order to

achieve successful integration. They took into account learner/interface interaction,

which led to practical considerations: are the terminology and design clear, the

interactive medium accessible, and the navigation easy? Can users personalise their

environment and do they feel secure within it? Are administration, faculty and students

clear why an interactive medium is being used, and do they have an investment in or an

interest in its being used successfully? Constructive learning can best be encouraged if

the media actively encourage communities of learners, if learners can collaborate in

constructing and extending the knowledge base, if they can control the learning process

and link activities to their own learning requirements, and if they can structure their

environment to meet their own needs and preferences.

Conclusion

Interactive media can benefit students in many ways, supporting them in the

construction of knowledge. However, their interactive potential is often overlooked in

favour of their ability to offer access to information. When interaction is employed it

has been found to have positive effects on learning outcomes, but it can also lead to

technical problems, information overload and extra work. Interactive media do not

automatically encourage students to employ deep approaches to studying and teachers

to employ student-centred approaches to teaching. These results are most likely to be

achieved when interaction is integrated with pedagogy.

of 53

Chapter 3: Choice of research design and methods The literature suggests that students are likely to benefit in many ways when interaction

is integrated with course pedagogy. The Mellon Project provided a framework for

investigating whether this is the case. It allowed this research to be set in a wider

context and it also provided survey data which supplemented the qualitative data

gathered for my research.

Case studies

The modernist approach to case study detailed by Yin (1984) aims for objectivity,

validity and reliability. The Mellon Project, being primarily quantitative, employs this

approach, which was therefore used here in order to be consistent with the project. A

post-structuralist approach, seeking understanding and demanding reflexivity, was

considered and could have worked well with the chosen qualitative research method,

but such an approach would not have produced the generalisable conclusions required

by the research objectives.

Yin (1984) advises that case studies should proceed using a formal protocol, ‘a major

tactic in increasing the reliability of case study research’ (p64). Mellon case study

research: a protocol setting out the design principles for case study selection, data

collection, analysis and reporting (Appendix 2) was developed by the project’s lead

investigators. At its centre are the premises that interaction and integration are

dimensions of courses which are critical in terms of their impact on student experience;

and that different results in terms of impact relate to the degree to which a course offers

both interaction and integration of that interaction. The course is taken as the unit of

analysis, as student perceptions of any element of the course will be shaped by their

view of the course as a whole.

Courses at the British Open University were studied. As this is a distance-learning

institution, it was thought that interaction using interactive media could be contrasted

with low levels of interaction on other courses, highlighting differences more clearly

than would be possible at an institution that uses face-to-face methods. In addition, the

university’s detailed statistical records facilitated the Mellon Project’s quantitative

comparisons. However, the university’s status as a distance-learning institution may

of 53

mean that the findings of the study are not generalisable. The students are studying part

time, are generally mature students and often have fewer qualifications than students at

other institutions, so may not be a representative group.

The Mellon Project assigned Open University courses from entry level (level 1) to

advanced (level 3) a score of 1 for each relevant technology used and an additional

score of 1 for any form of conferencing. This produced a range from 0–14, with a

median value of 5, for each of the courses in presentation to students in 2003/4. Scores

of 7 and above were deemed to have potentially high interaction and those scoring 5

and below to have potentially low interaction. Long-term (60-point) courses were

selected in preference to more limited (30-point) courses where possible. Researchers

examined course materials and assessed the degree of integration of interactive media.

Following this analysis, 36 courses were placed within a matrix (Figure 3.1, below).

High interaction Low interaction

High integration Cell 1 Cell 3

Low integration Cell 2 Cell 4

Figure 3.1: Two-way matrix of dimensions of computer-based teaching

Due to time constraints, my research focuses on two courses, one drawn from cell 1

(high interaction/high integration) and one drawn from cell 4 (low interaction/low

integration). Other courses were being studied by other researchers, so these two were

selected to produce theoretical replication, which was predicted to be clearest in these

categories. The chosen courses were B300: Business behaviour in a changing world, a

12-month, 60-point, level 3 course from the high/high category; and E124: Supporting

children’s learning in the Early Years, a nine-month, 30-point, level-one course from

the low/low category.

B300 is a business course which recruited 328 students for its 2004/5 presentation, of

whom 57% were women. At least 44% already had some higher-education qualification

and 89% were continuing students, so the majority had experience of study at

university level. Most had the option of attending face-to-face tutorials, but 10% were

based outside the UK and therefore did not have access to these. B300 is a compulsory

of 53

element of the BA (Hons) in Business Studies, and 79% of students were working

towards this qualification.

The education course E124 recruited 1,301 students for its 2005 presentation, of whom

98% were women. Although 20% had some higher-education qualification, 37% had

one A-level or less. Three quarters of the students had begun studying with the Open

University in 2004 or 2005, so they had limited experience of university education.

Most had the option of attending face-to-face tutorials or day schools; just 4% did not

have access to these because they were based outside the UK. E124 is a compulsory

part of the Foundation degree in the Early Years and of the Certificate in Early Years

Practice, both of which are aimed at people currently working within an Early Years

setting, and 95% of students were working towards one of these qualifications.

Epistolary interviews

The case studies focus on student perceptions of interaction and the use of interactive

media, and relate these to levels of integration. Considerable quantitative data relating

to these courses was already available for secondary analysis, so a qualitative approach

was selected to supplement this data and to provide some of the qualitative data

required for the Mellon Project. The main research method was interviewing, which

offered flexibility and the potential to investigate motives and feelings, seek new

viewpoints, clarify responses and follow up ideas. Face-to-face interviewing would

have placed geographic restrictions on the sample and would not have provided data on

students living abroad or in remote areas of Britain. Telephone interviews would have

limited the time available for interview and were could have proved difficult to arrange

with mature students already juggling study, jobs and family. To allow extended, in-

depth interviews and include geographically widespread respondents, epistolary

interviewing was employed.

Epistolary interviewing is a new research method in which interviews are carried out

using email. Interviews are asynchronous and may continue for weeks. The method

allows both interviewer and respondent to select suitable interview times, provides time

to consider questions and responses, allows an extensive geographical reach and

eliminates the need for transcription. The epistolary nature of the interview means that,

as in a sequence of written letters, a relationship between the correspondents can be

of 53

established and developed over time. Joinson (2005) reports ‘there is considerable

evidence that within a research setting, people… disclose more about themselves online

compared to in offline equivalents, and that much of that disclosure is more candid’

(p25). In addition, the method allows the researcher to conduct a number of interviews

simultaneously, so data from one interview can be tested in or used to develop other

interviews.

The method has some disadvantages. The need for computer skills and access could

produce a biased sample, but all Open University students are required to have email

access. Some researchers (Bampton and Cowton, 2002) have reported technical

problems, but the Open University computer system is robust and regularly backed up.

The method reduces spontaneity, which is compensated for by carefully considered

responses. There are also several ethical issues, addressed below.

Interviews were planned so the differences between talk and text would enhance rather

than limit the data. The epistolary interview is a developing form and may use the

conventions of face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, email communication or a

combination of these, depending on the situation. The interviewer therefore set the

pattern for the formality of the interview, ensuring that the online format was used to

organise and facilitate talk rather than to constrain it. The length, aims and format of the

interview, the need for spontaneous or researched responses, and whether reference

could be made to external material such as attachments were all established at the

outset. An interview protocol was drawn up, piloted and adopted (Appendix 3).

Disclosure was built into the interviews because ‘within an interaction, one person’s

intimacies tend to be reciprocated in terms of level and type by the communication

partner’ (Joinson, 2005, p27). Disclosure allowed the researcher to develop the

epistolary nature of the interview, building up a conversation and relationship over

time, which would not have been possible with a synchronous e-interview. As

epistolary interviewing is a new technique, the advantages of using disclosure are not

clear-cut. Joinson also reported that ‘any design that increases the “socialness” of an

encounter may also lead to increases in impression management motives as well’ (p29).

However, the interviews were not intended to discuss particularly sensitive issues, so

any tendency to impression management was judged unimportant.

of 53

Supplementary data Interview data were supplemented by information from course materials and pre-

existing Mellon Project data collected using the Course Experience Survey (Appendix

4). This survey combined two validated research instruments, the Course Experience

Questionnaire (CEQ) and the Revised Approach to Studying Inventory (RASI), with

open-ended questions relating to Open University courses and their provision of

computer-based media.

Responses from E124 and B300 students to the open-ended questions on the Course

Experience Survey were coded and analysed alongside data from the epistolary

interviews to provide data from a larger sample. In addition, some of the quantitative

data gathered by other Mellon Project researchers was subjected to secondary analysis

for this study.

Ethics Epistolary interviewing raises a number of ethical issues. Data protection is important,

and all data collected was stored on a password-protected hard drive. The pilot study

included digital certification, which allowed the encryption of messages and confirmed

the sender’s identity. However, this was found to confuse respondents, so it was not

used during interviews. All respondents were notified of the purpose of the research,

that participation was voluntary, that it would not affect their standing with the

university, and that they were free to withdraw at any time. The address of a website

containing this information was provided on all emails. Respondents’ privacy was

protected by the use of pseudonyms.

As King (1996) notes: ‘Even when they are given clearly presented guidelines, it is

unlikely that interviewees will have been in a similar situation before’ (p177). This is

particularly the case for epistolary interviews, which could become indistinguishable in

the respondent’s view from other online exchanges. Emails from the researcher were

therefore formally laid out using a consistent style which always contained a numbered

question, a title which drew attention to the research, and full contact details.

The data collected was not expected to be particularly personal or sensitive. In the

event, some respondents took the opportunity to reflect on their career, on their

of 53

relationships with others and on friendship. One B300 student was clear how she had

used the interviews: ‘I’ve really enjoyed having a proper think about my OU experience

and your framework has provided an excellent platform to prompt this.’ Such

reflections were responded to, but always clearly within the framework of the research

interview.

Working within the Mellon Project also raised ethical issues, as the project was still

underway and results had not been published. It was necessary to check that data

sources and other people’s analysis were always acknowledged and referenced. This

was particularly the case with Appendices 1, 2 and 4, all of which were the work of

other Mellon Project researchers.

This research conformed to the Open University’s Code of Good Practice in Research

(2003). As it involved research on students, a research proposal was submitted to the

university’s Student Research Project panel, and approval was given on 20 June 2005.

of 53

Chapter 4: Collecting and analysing the data Data for this research were collected from three main sources: epistolary interviews,

pre-existing data from the Course Experience Survey (CES) 2004 administered by other

Mellon Project researchers, and the complete course materials for E124 and B300,

which include printed material, CDs, videos, audio cassette and web pages. Analysis

was carried out using the grounded-theory approach outlined by Strauss (1987). This

required analysis to take place alongside data collection, driving the collection of

further data and the generation of theory.

Epistolary interviews: sampling

Interviews with ten students were planned: five from E124 and five from B300. A

random sample of 25 students from the current presentation of each of these courses

was obtained from the Open University Survey Office, which created a sample

containing only students who were available for surveying under the Open University’s

rules. Students in the sample were contacted by email over a period of three weeks,

until 10 interviews were underway. Due to delayed responses, 12 interviews were

carried out in all; six for each course.

There were marked differences in the response rates for each course. Eighteen B300

students were contacted. Of these, seven responded, and six interviews were completed.

The first response came within 10 minutes of the initial email being sent. In all,

interview responses from B300 amounted to almost 8,000 words. In contrast, responses

from E124 students were slow. The original sample did not produce sufficient

responses, and a further random sample of 25 was needed. In total, 40 students were

contacted, resulting in six interviews, one of which was broken off by the student at

question 7. Total interview responses from E124 students came to around 4,500 words.

There was therefore substantially less E124 data available. One explanation was that

E124 students had less experience of course-related interaction, but analysis showed

that was not the case. E124 students, all Early Years practitioners, may have had less

access to and familiarity with email than the business students, who were more likely to

use email at work. However, all students in the samples had both a personal email

address and a student email address, and replies timed from 7am to 11pm suggested

of 53

access to email both at work and outside. Another possibility was that students with

fewer educational qualifications were less willing to take part in typed interviews. This

explanation was supported by the mistakes and lack of fluency in many E124

responses.

Epistolary interviews: method

Students who responded positively to the initial contact email were emailed more

details of the interview and the first question. Questions followed the interview protocol

(Appendix 3) and were phrased to be relevant regardless of students’ level of

interaction on their course. This provided a degree of standardisation within an informal

interview framework, ensuring the main questions were always phrased in the same

way and asked in the same order; and increased reliability by ensuring consistency

between respondents and courses.

Each emailed question included contact details for the researcher, including a web

address. This website included a brief summary of the project, information about

epistolary interviewing, the ten interview questions from the interview protocol,

frequently asked questions and information about the Mellon Project, including the

option of downloading the research design. The site also included a biography and

photograph of the researcher. Each email from the researcher contained personal

disclosure (see Panel 4.1).

Respondents varied in their reaction to disclosure. Some took the opportunity to

develop a wide-ranging conversation, others responded only to the formal questions,

often omitting either a salutation or a sign-off. Alison’s [all respondents’ names given

here are pseudonyms] responses (Panel 4.2), with their limited word count, uncorrected

mistakes and use of lower case only, resembled the text messages she used for

interaction on her course.

of 53

Hi Carol, Yup, the heatwave has spread to Milton Keynes, and I’m wishing I was at the open-air pool instead of in the office. Walked the kids to school this morning and they were getting slower.. and slower... and s.l.o.w.e.r.... I heard from my friend at King’s Cross yesterday, and he was on the afternoon shift so missed the worst of it, although he said they were treating casualties on the station, and there was loads of disruption. Great answer to question three - that level of detail is really useful to me. It’s good that your manager is interested in your study and that you get to use it and apply it. Most of my courses at the moment are in research techniques and come in useful while I’m doing my research - but sometimes it’s hard to make the bridge between theory and real life. I think you’ve covered lots of the answer to Question 4 in previous answers, so I’m including Question 5 as well. Question 4: Having interacted with other people while doing B300: Business behaviour in a changing world, in what ways have you found that helpful? Question 5: What has put you off interacting with other people while on B300: Business behaviour in a changing world? Regards Rebecca ========================================= Rebecca Ferguson MA Institute of Educational Technology GC128, Open University Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA Tel 01908 659256 http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/r.m.ferguson/

Panel 4.1: Personal disclosure in email

its helpful to discuss assignments and different theories and ways which

help children to learn and thrive, and be given different ideas on

activititys to do with the children.

i have spoke to others using first class and also through personal emails

and text messages. Panel 4.2: Text-message style

of 53

Course Experience Survey

The Mellon Project investigated several areas relating to interaction, including students’

perceptions of course quality, their satisfaction with the courses and the course

materials, their opinions on assessment, workload, goals and standards. To collect

relevant data, the Course Experience Survey (CES) was administered in 2004 to a

sample of students on each of the 36 courses in the research matrix. Students who

responded were on 2004 or 2003/4 course presentations. Secondary analysis was

carried out on this pre-existing data, gathered by other researchers.

CES sample sizes depended on how a course had been rated for integration and

interaction. For E124, 113 questionnaires were sent out and 62 returned, a response rate

of 55%. For B300, 159 questionnaires were sent out and 65 returned, a response rate of

41%. This response pattern differed from that of my epistolary interviews, which had a

greater take up from B300 students than from E124 students. However, when

answering the three open-ended questions on the CES, B300 students again wrote

more, 4,700 words, compared to 2,500 written by E124 students. This may have

reflected the fact that B300 students were more dissatisfied or it may, again, show that

E124 students were less confident about expressing themselves in writing.

Secondary analysis of the quantitative data from the CES revealed an unforeseen

difference between E124 and B300. E124 had the highest student satisfaction levels of

the 36 courses studied, while B300 ranked only 33rd of 36 for satisfaction. This rating

was reflected in the responses to open-ended questions, in which B300 students made

twice as many suggestions for improvements.

The CES contained 92 questions, most designed for quantitative analysis. For my study,

responses to the only three open-ended questions were coded:

38 Does the course include the opportunity to engage in on-line conferencing

email? YES/NO

a: If so, what, if any, positive contributions did conferencing and/or email make

to your study?

b: If so, what, if any, negative contributions did conferencing and/or email make

to your study?

of 53

39 Does the course include the opportunity to use software, CDROMs and/or the

Internet? YES/NO

a: If so, what, if any, positive contributions did these make to your study?

b: If so, what, if any, negative contributions did these make to your study?

Do you have any other comments on this course or studying with the Open

University in general, or about this questionnaire?

Students did not necessarily respond to any or all of these questions; some omitted even

the YES/NO element. Other students gave responses of up to 450 words.

Course material

A third source of data was the course material for B300 and E124. The Mellon Project

originally used this data to assign courses to quadrants of the integration/interaction

matrix (Figure 3.1). It was re-examined here to check the original classification of the

two courses and to clarify students’ comments about the courses. It also provided

evidence of the extent to which interaction had been integrated within the courses.

Data analysis

Analysis of the data was carried out using the grounded-theory approach proposed by

Strauss (1987). Here, theory ‘is discovered and formulated developmentally in close

conjunction with intensive analysis of data’ (p23). Data collection, analysis and

generation of theory are inextricably linked when using this method – they do not

follow each other sequentially. Theoretical memos are generated during the analysis

and they, in turn, become part of the data to be analysed. Coding begins with open

coding, when codes are generated from the data. This generates questions, tentative

hypotheses and a search for more data. Open coding is followed by axial coding. Old

and new data is analysed in terms of the original coding categories, revealing

relationships between these and producing more questions and hypotheses. Finally, the

core category is identified, the main category to which much or most of the data relate.

‘The goal of grounded theory is to generate a theory that accounts for a pattern of

behaviour which is relevant and problematic for those involved. The generation of

theory occurs around a core category’ (Strauss, 1987, p34).

of 53

Open coding of the data, using the software package NVivo, began when the first

epistolary interview had been completed. Although the interviews were based around

ten standard questions, the epistolary nature of the interviews and the conversational

style adopted meant that questions and issues raised by the coding could feed into the

data collection. Coding categories suggested by the literature review were only

included if they arose from the data. Thus ‘building knowledge’, ‘information

gathering’ and ‘different perspectives’ were included while ‘social presence’ was

omitted in favour of ‘empathy’, ‘bonding’, ‘hate’ and ‘problems: people’. Some

categories were completely new and necessitated a return to the literature.

Once open coding of the first three interviews had been carried out, axial coding began.

Subsequent interviews were coded using the original codes, and also generated further

coding categories which, in turn, led to a reconsideration of earlier data. Theoretical

memos were stored online in a password-protected research blog. These memos were

read and reread, influencing data collection and coding. The original literature review

was treated as a long theoretical memo and reconsidered in the light of the data. It

became clear that the link between interaction and interactive media was not inevitable,

and the original research question was therefore revised.

Seventy-nine coding categories were generated by open and axial coding. Responses to

the open-ended questions from the CES were then coded into these categories, and two

new categories were created. The coding was then divided by course, to highlight

differences between the two courses. For the complete list of coding categories, see

Appendix 5. It became clear that the core coding category was ‘reasons for

communication’, and that virtually every other coding category related to this one. The

data was then re-examined to relate this category to the research objectives.

of 53

Chapter 5: Interpreting the data This chapter investigates levels of interaction and integration on two distance-education

courses, and students’ perceptions of interaction and of the use of interactive media on

these courses in order to fulfill the three aims of this research. It also relates the data

analysis to the research objectives: to produce grounded accounts of different types of

interaction on distance-education courses, to produce an evidence-based analysis of

some effects of the integration of interaction on distance-education courses and to

provide evidence to support the Mellon Project’s recommendations about effective

strategies for the use of computer-based teaching in higher-education courses. The first

two of these objectives are met here, the third is covered in Chapter 6.

Levels of interaction

Data analysis was shaped by the research question: ‘How are students on distance-

education courses affected by the use of interactive media and by the levels of

interaction and integration built into the course design?’ It was therefore necessary to

pay particular attention to evidence relating to interaction and integration on the

courses. A key consideration was whether they had initially been rated correctly by the

Mellon Project.

The Mellon Project’s core research question, ‘What is the impact of degree of

interactivity and degree of integration in the design of computer-based teaching?’ led to

a focus on ‘computer-based elements including conferencing, email, tools, CD/DVD

resources, web-based resources and software’ (Appendix 2, p8). Courses rated high for

interaction used a variety of these resources. Three problems arose from this

categorisation. First, not all computer-based media promote interaction. Second, most

Open University courses include some face-to-face interaction, whether at tutorials, day

schools or (more rarely) summer school. Telephone tutorials are also widely used and,

while the telephone is an interactive medium, its use predates computers. Finally, some

courses require extensive face-to-face interaction with people outside the course, such

as workmates or clients.

These problems did not affect the ‘high interaction’ classification of B300, which not

only incorporated face-to-face tutorials and telephone conversations but also included a

of 53

range of computer-based resources. However, when face-to-face interaction was taken

into account, it became evident that E124 was a highly interactive course, including

face-to-face tutorials, a day school and guided interaction with people in the work

environment.

The data showed students interacting in a variety of ways. Those promoted by the

course materials are shown in Table 5.1.

B300 E124

Face-to-face tutorials Face-to-face tutorials

Telephone contact with staff Telephone contact with staff

Telephone contact with students Telephone contact with students

Online conferencing using FirstClass Online conferencing using FirstClass

Email contact with staff Email contact with staff

Web-based resources Web-based resources

Day school

Face-to-face contact at work

Table 5.1: Forms of interaction on B300 and E124

B300 therefore retained its high rating for interaction, but E124’s levels of interaction

were clearly high rather than low.

Levels of integration

A brief look at B300’s extensive course materials suggested that interaction had been

integrated successfully. Closer examination showed that this was not the case. There

were two main data sources: the course file and the three study guides. The course

objectives in the course file related to interaction: ‘you will be able to demonstrate…

effective use of information and communication technologies… collaborating with

others and working in a team to achieve a common goal’. However, the study guides

focused on learning outcomes and none of those related to interaction with other

people. The course file stated that ‘computer conferencing forms an integral and

important part of course work’. However, the course work in the study guides largely

ignored this possibility. For example, students were asked to ‘imagine you are trying to

explain the gist of Zimmerman’s chapter to a group of friends or colleagues.’ There was

no suggestion that students attempt such explanations using interactive media.

of 53

B300 clearly integrated interaction with assessment. Two of the seven tutor-marked

assignments (TMAs) which made up the assessed course work required use of

conferencing. Around 30% of the marks for TMA03 were awarded for including

‘consideration beyond your own sphere of self-study to encompass the activity (or

inactivity) of fellow-students in the group discussion (real and virtual) that have taken

place’. Ten percent of the marks for TMA07 were allocated for reflecting on the

experience of working in a collaborative research group. This TMA was due in week 45

of the 52-week course and, in the material for the six preceding weeks, there were three

suggestions that students interact with others either at a tutorial or on an online

conference. These were the only occasions when the study guides suggested interaction.

B300 students had to gain at least 40% for both continuous assessment and examination

to pass. A maximum of 7% of the continuous assessment and none of the exam related

to interaction. Interaction was not needed to pass, instead the student role as ‘a self-

reliant and independent learner’ was emphasised. B300 student Carol noted: ‘It

becomes a tougher task if you’ve not accessed the conferences, and possibly a lower-

scoring outcome, but I do think it would be possible to pass the TMA without it.’

In contrast, course materials show that interaction was recommended, supported,

explained and assessed on E124. It formed part of the learning outcomes. Every TMA

required interaction within the workplace. Advice on writing assignments

recommended interaction: ‘When you have finished your outline… you may want to

show it to someone else – perhaps a colleague who knows your work – or discuss it

with your tutor. Sharing your ideas at this stage will help you clarify your thinking.’

Audio and videotapes were used to promote interaction, for example: ‘Are there any

ideas you would like to share with colleagues or someone else who knows your work,

as a result of listening to this?’

E124, like B300, included computer-based resources: a range of software applications,

FirstClass conferencing, a website and online resources. Conferencing was introduced

and explained at the start: ‘FirstClass will help you to feel part of the course by

providing opportunities for you to exchange ideas and discuss different approaches with

other students. You will also be able to talk via email with your tutor on a one-to-one

basis. Often FirstClass is the quickest way of contacting your tutor or fellow students.’

of 53

Despite this initial positive approach, these computer-based resources were not

integrated within the course, and many students reported that they had never used them

or been aware of them.

Examination of course material suggested that B300 should be rated high for

interaction and low for integration, while E124 should be rated high in both categories.

These revised ratings relate to all forms of interaction. The CES suggested low levels of

integration of computer technology on both courses. When asked ‘Does the course

include the opportunity to use software, CDROMS and/or the Internet?’ almost 10% of

B300 respondents and almost 20% of E124 respondents answered ‘No’, despite the fact

that all three were provided on both courses.

Students’ perceptions of interactive media

The interactive media used by students were not necessarily those recommended by the

course materials. They reported using FirstClass, websites and email. Few mentioned

writing or word processing, media so ubiquitous that they went unnoticed. Many

reported phone conversations, and at least one E124 tutor group were texting each

other. One B300 research group was meeting via Skype, which allowed users to make

free phone calls using the Internet.

Students felt that interactive media allowed them to structure conversations, organise

work and research relevant, up-to-date information. Many reported using these media to

supplement face-to-face tutorials, or as a poor substitute for them. What they reported

getting from face-to-face interaction and not from interactive media were motivation, a

broad overview, and chances to spark off each other and bounce ideas of each other.

They reported no problems with phone use, but did report technical problems or

problems with the interface when using course websites or conferences.

Students’ perceptions of interaction

Course materials were clear about the expected uses and benefits of interaction. B300

suggested discussing academic issues with student and staff, receiving administrative

information, receiving details of information sources, contacting the course team,

sharing thoughts and ideas, supporting revision and working together. E124’s

suggestions included discussing ideas and feeling part of the course. Students were

of 53

aware of these reasons for interaction but Table 5.2 (below), based on the 12 epistolary

interviews and 127 CES responses, shows that other reasons for communicating were

also important to them.

Table 5.2: Reasons for communication cited by students

Several positive reasons for interaction omitted from the course materials were

mentioned by students. They wanted to contact others to avoid isolation. Yvonne wrote:

‘it makes it seem less like working in a bubble – where you have no contact with

anyone’. Making comparisons was also important. This B300 student is typical: ‘online

interaction enabled me to gauge my progress/understanding of topics against other

students.’ Many students found it important to ask for, give and receive help, from

tutors and their fellow students. An E124 student wrote that the online conference

‘enables me to ask questions at any time of day or night. You always get an answer.’

No. of times

mentioned

Reason for communication

31 To share thoughts / views / discuss

30 To access tutors

19 To contact students / avoid isolation

19 To ask for / give / receive support

17 Assignments / Assessment

17 To access up-to-date information

15 To encounter different points of view

13 To work together

12 To make comparisons

10 To develop understanding / clarify ideas

10 To replace / enhance tutorials

6 Negative reasons: to moan / wade in / show off

6 To receive feedback

5 To chat

3 To solve problems

1 To develop communication skills

of 53

Accounts of interaction: face to face

Although E124 and B300 were distance-education courses, they included opportunities

for face-to-face communication at tutorials, day school and in the work environment.

B300 student Alan wrote: ‘the issue of face to face meeting in this kind of distance

learning is paramount in my view and I welcome any opportunity to meet fellow

students/tutors in a classroom setting.’ Another B300 student wrote: ‘Contact with my

tutor and other students I have met through tutorials has been extremely beneficial and

kept me going when I may have otherwise given up.’ Comments about face-to-face

contact were almost invariably positive, and when students suggested ways of

improving their course, they often suggested increasing the face-to-face element. One

E124 student wrote: ‘I would like more tutorials as I find talking to other students also

helps’, while a B300 student considered: ‘it would be nice to have a summer school and

work on a project together.’

Face-to-face tutorials were considered very important. Carol wrote that she found

‘interaction helpful in gaining an understanding of the course concepts. Mostly this

happens at tutorials, where discussion is fast and our tutor is involved.’ Some people

who had no access to these tutorials were indignant, as was this B300 student: ‘Sorry,

but I find the sheer lack of tutorials very unmotivating!!! For students in C. Europe

there are NO tutorials at all!!! This is totally unfair and does not give equal chances to

all students.’ Online discussion was seen as supplementing and extending tutorials, but

it came a poor second to face-to-face tutorials: ‘it is very positive in helping students,

particularly those who cannot attend tutorials’ but it ‘does not replace tutorials’.

Accounts of interaction: FirstClass

B300 and E124 students differed in their interview accounts of asynchronous

conferencing using FirstClass. B300 students mentioned many advantages. It provided

helpful information, formed part of their coursework, allowed them to get feedback and

pointers and provided different viewpoints. Some noted that it helped them to bond

with or empathise with other students. They had used it to chat with friends, and had

used email to invite other students to join in on the conference. As third-level students,

they had favourable reports of past FirstClass use, noting a good support network, good

rapport, staff enthusiasm and prompt tutor responses on other courses.

of 53

B300 student Carol gave a clear account of successful use of FirstClass in the past:

On previous courses (especially T171 and T205) there seemed to be a good

online support network and rapport, where tutors and block consultants (and

then other students) all conferenced like crazy to create a happy and slightly

mad area where the shyer ones (me!) felt comfortable to join in the banter.

If you get a chance to look in the FirstClass OUSA T171 Survivors

conference, it’s still got that same comfortable and slightly mad atmosphere,

and the people from that first T171 are still regular posters in there too.

She added: ‘B300 is not like that at all.’ Other B300 students agreed.

E124 students had very few positive things to say about FirstClass. Those interviewed

said that conferencing made it easy to talk to students and tutors. Those surveyed added

that the conference was interesting and made them feel a part of things. Their main

comment, though, was that they did not use the conferencing facility. This was often

explained in terms of time or technical knowledge, but there were also features of

conferencing that they actively disliked, as did B300 students.

These problems can be related to the work of Sims et al. (2002). Their criteria for

successful integration took into account learner/interface interaction, asking whether

the terminology and design were clear, the interactive medium accessible, the

navigation easy and the environment secure. Judged in these terms, the data showed

E124 and B300 clearly failing to integrate conferencing successfully.

Accounts of interaction: problems with FirstClass

The first problem was with the technology. Some students were limited by lack of

technical expertise. Jackie expressed this clearly:

I do feel the course designers assume most students are competent computer

users. I can only speak from my own limited computer experience and that’s

a bit lacking. The thought of online conference meetings fills me with dread

and all the online ‘stuff’ that came with the course material I handed over to

my son to install !!!!

A few others had encountered technical problems: ‘Just one big problem’, ‘Not always

able to access Internet’ and ‘Only got connect to be disconnected twice!!’

of 53

The format of FirstClass also attracted criticism. Wendy worked for a major

telecommunications provider and was very critical of the conferencing software:

The main reason that puts me off is the way that First Class is something

that you have to physically log into. This sounds a bit strange but when you

work remotely, like I do, you spend most of your time communicating on

email and using the company intranet and so to have to go to another place

is annoying. I would like to see the messages that are for me coming to my

email box.

The on-screen organisation was also criticised: ‘You can’t guess what is useful or not

without opening the message and reading it’ and ‘Please make this awful FirstClass

more clearly arranged.’

Time was a problem for some students, although others reported conference limited

time problems by speeding up information searches. One B300 student wrote: ‘Cannot

always find the time to participate and tend to feel guilty if I can’t’ and another reported

that ‘FirstClass is very time consuming to use. There is a lot of irrelevant / “chat” to

sort through.’ Others resented the time it took to set FirstClass up on their computer and

the time it took to log on. An additional problem was timetabling, particularly for B300

students, who were required to use the conference for two assignments: ‘Students had

to log on at very different times and it is sometimes difficult to keep up to speed on

discussions’ reported one, and another wrote ‘I’m usually also well behind, which

means that everyone has moved on often I don’t get much response, as the conference

focus has moved well past the bit I’m on.’

By far the biggest criticisms of FirstClass from students on both courses related to

social presence, the feeling of being together in virtual space or of encountering real

people online. Students were unhappy with their own online persona and they were

deeply suspicious of other people on line. They expressed these opinions forcefully.

E124 student, Yvonne, explained:

The main method of communicating seems to be via the conferencing centre

which I really dislike contributing to for the fear of looking stupid!

I sometimes think that my questions / queries will look silly to other people.

I also fear that my contributions are maybe incorrect or misleading and

of 53

again I don’t want to look silly. It seems much easier to ask a question at a

tutorial as the interaction is much more fluent.

Students reported feeling shy and vulnerable, insecure about posting and worried about

making mistakes or looking stupid. Some judged themselves lazy or inferior when

compared to those online. These feelings of personal insecurity seemed to result from

the perceived attitudes of others. As Joinson noted (2005), self-perception and esteem,

or the lack of them, were based on evaluations of others’ reactions.

Bargh et al. (2002) found that, in the absence of information to the contrary, Internet

communication fosters idealisation of the other. This was the reverse of what students

using FirstClass reported. B300 student Carol wrote:

I find conferences a bit creepy. Personal emails are okay (even group

emails are fine), and private chat is excellent, but I find conferences

uncomfortable. I mentioned this to someone once and they looked at me

sideways, so it might be just me. Perhaps it’s tied up with my strong need

for privacy, but I dislike not knowing who is out there reading my postings.

I know I am shy and I don’t like walking into large rooms of strangers, but

this is a bit different. Conferences give me a real feeling of vulnerability

that I’ve not experienced anywhere else. I don’t use open chat rooms for the

same reason. I know conferences are technically closed, but you still never

know who is there, and that’s the bit I don’t like.

Carol thought ‘it might be just me’, but many students were equally wary of

conferences. E124 student Jackie wrote, ‘the thought of online conference meetings

fills me with dread’ and one B300 student considered that ‘ignorant and disrespect are

the key words.’

As well as general unease with strangers, especially unresponsive strangers, on the

conference, the opportunity for making comparisons also produced problems. One of

students’ reasons for interacting was to compare themselves and their progress with

those of other students. Some reported that this was positive and kept them on track.

However, others, like Yvonne, were negative:

At least you have been spared the E124 website!! Everyone on this course

seems to be doing at least 2 other courses at the same time, whilst working

full time, raising a family and doing volunteer work as well!! Perhaps I am

of 53

Idle!! When they use the website it usually is because they want to know

about the course they have chosen for next year or to tell everyone about the

wonderful marks they got for their last TMA!! There, I sound like a bitter

and twisted old lady --- I’m not really!!

Students reported that others on the conference were unresponsive, unhelpful,

undisciplined, off-putting, intimidating and critical, with a tendency to show off or to

moan. These negative comments came from students on both courses, although E124

students were more likely to worry about other people, and B300 students were more

likely to comment on their self image.

Accounts of interaction: time, place and community

Wu and Hiltz (2004) summarised the benefits of online interaction as place-

independence, time-independence, convenience and the potential to become part of a

virtual community. None of these was consistently available to students. Comments on

place usually referred to tutorials being inaccessible: ‘I would like to be able to attend

tutorials and have face to face contact with my tutor’, ‘I find it very difficult to attend

the tutorials as they are a long way from my home, therefore I feel I’m missing out on a

lot of things’ and ‘Some questions might be answered if tutorials would be held on

continental Europe’. Very few were like the E124 student who identified place-

independence as a benefit: ‘Using the internet to link to other students on course E124

has helped me to feel less isolated as I cannot get to tutorials due to the distance

involved over 350 miles each way.’ They were more likely to see place as a problem:

‘not everyone has computer access at all times’.

Few students reported time-independence as a benefit of interactive media on their

course. Instead, they felt hampered by time constraints. This was particularly true for

B300 students, who were supposed to be collaborating online for TMA07 at the time

they were interviewed. They found this collaboration could hold them up and that there

was a time delay between responses. Alan wrote: ‘I have found it personally difficult

with the technology and the timing to link up with members of my team at the

appropriate moment.’ E124 students, free to use interactive media as they wished, often

did not find the time for it. This student’s comment is typical: ‘I know that

conferencing is available but quite honestly have not had the time to try.’

of 53

B300 and E124 were also not successful in creating a virtual community online.

Students felt out of place and suspicious in the FirstClass conference. Some reported

the existence of more successful conferences. Carol (above) cited the T171 conference,

to which she contributed long after completing the course, despite her general feeling

that online conferences were ‘creepy’. She attributed the success of that conference to

the tutors’ approach, to a good online support network and to rapport. She also

differentiated between B300 conferences and, again, attributed differences to the tutors’

different approaches:

The national B300 conference is slightly more active and I find the tutors

there a bit more encouraging online. They respond to postings, make

insightful comments and ask leading questions – all which help to prompt

responses. I would post there rather than my tutor group if I wanted clarity

on a particular course issue.

B300 student Wendy found the same: ‘the conversation on FirstClass of my own class

has not been very enlightening however the conversation in the other classes and the

Tutorial content from the other class that has been posted on the website has been very

helpful.’

Accounts of interaction: student initiated

Wu and Hiltz (2004) identified the opportunity to work in a student-dominated study

space as a source of motivation and enjoyment for students. Although students were

numerically dominant in FirstClass, they did not feel in control of it as a study space.

B300 students, in particular, felt they were compelled to use it rather than choosing to

do so. However, seeing definite benefits to interaction and having many reasons for

communication, they had set up their own study spaces. Several chose to use the

telephone. Yvonne felt her course did not support interaction, but she stayed in touch

with a student she had met the previous year: ‘Since then we have rung each other up,

discussed our TMAs and got together to see if we can help each other.’ B300 student

Alan wrote: ‘I contact my tutor by phone as I prefer talking rather than electronic

communication.’ Phone conversations with tutors were very popular: ‘One on one

support from my tutor is excellent and he never ever turns me away when I call.’ The

telephone, of course, offers place- and time-independence, does not require time-

consuming text input and is a synchronous medium.

of 53

B300 student Alan was the only person to report using Skype, an interactive medium

established in late 2003 to provide users with voice contact via the Internet. ‘On this

course in our groups for TMA my group is using Skype to communicate vocally over

the internet rather than using traditional texting conferencing. This is an excellent

innovation and I would use this for other courses too.’ This is another example of

students choosing synchronicity and voice contact over asynchronous text contact, even

though, in this case, it involved locating, downloading and installing extra software.

Students preferred form of interaction was face to face. Only limited amounts of this

were available, so students sought out someone with whom they could discuss their

studies. All but one of the 12 students interviewed identified people with whom they

discussed the course, either face to face or by phone. These were most likely to be

friends, colleagues or people encountered at work. E124 student Linda wrote, ‘I found

discussing this course with work colleagues and friends the most helpful, they were

able to help me relate the assignments to my job and gave alternative suggestions and

their varied opinions help to widen my view.’ B300 student David felt that ‘bouncing

ideas off my manager has helped because he has been able to relate some of the

theories to our business, therefore making it easier to understand.’

E124 students referred positively to mentoring. Anderson and Shannon (1995) define

this as ‘a nurturing process in which a more skilled or more experienced person, serving

as a role model, teaches, sponsors, encourages, counsels and befriends a less skilled or

les experienced person’ (p29). Mentors are commonly used in the training of UK

teachers and support staff. Jackie outlined her experience when training as a specialised

teaching assistant: ‘We were mentored throughout the course by a chosen member of

staff and time was given over to meetings to discuss options for the course assignments

and for our mentors to observe us completing tasks then to give us feedback’ and went

on ‘I wonder why mentoring was not included somewhere in E124?’ In fact, although

mentoring was not a part of B300 or E124, students appear to have created their own

unofficial mentors. This was the role in which they placed their friends and colleagues,

seeking someone who could act as a sounding board and provide support, ideas and

guidance.

of 53

Integration of interaction

Students on E124 and B300 interacted with other people mainly face to face, by the use

of FirstClass conferencing or over the telephone. Two of these were mediated

interactions, in that the student interacted with the interface as well as with another

human. In the case of FirstClass, it was possible to interact only with the interface

without being evident to other users. B300 course designers prioritised the integration

of mediated interaction, while E124 course designers prioritised face-to-face contact.

This is evident from their assessment strategies: two B300 assignments required

mediated interaction and none mentioned face-to-face contact, while all assessed work

for E124 required face-to-face contact and none mentioned mediated interaction.

Integration of interaction: B300

One of B300’s six learning objectives was ‘collaborating with others and working in a

team to achieve a common goal’. With students scattered across the UK and Europe,

many unable to attend any of the six tutorials, it made sense to work towards this

objective online. An initial online tutor group session built into discussion about the

third assignment and then into group research for the final assignment. Students were

assigned marks, although not many, for their description of and reflection on this online

interaction. They were required to have the resources to support this interaction and, as

this was a level three course, they could be expected to have sufficient familiarity with

the conferencing software to interact without technical problems. If they did have

difficulties, technical support was available by phone, and tutors ensured that all

students were set up correctly and able to interact online.

Laurillard’s (2002) criteria for integration – interactive work should be supported, built

on, followed through and assessed – were therefore met. However, when criteria

relating to interaction with the interface were considered, it became clear that

integration was incomplete and that this strategy promoted only skills and information

gathering. This integration strategy promoted a surface approach to learning. Students

did not feel in control and became resentful rather than engaged.

This was partly because students had only indirectly chosen to study B300 which, being

a 60-point, third level course, involves a year of hard work. Most were working towards

the BA (Hons) in Business Studies, of which B300 was a compulsory element. Zoe was

of 53

typical when she reported, ‘B300 is a compulsory part of the BA (Honours) Business

Studies degree, therefore I didn’t really have any choice.’

When it came to interacting, students clearly felt they were being pushed into it. David

wrote: ‘I wouldn’t say that we are encouraged to interact, more we are forced by the

TMAs.’ Wendy’s view was ‘my tutor pressurises me to use FC rather than encourages

me.’ The data indicated that many were not clear about their learning objectives when

using FirstClass. They suggested the purpose of their interaction was to ‘learn to select

useful and correct information’, ‘learn how to search correctly on the Internet’ or

‘polish our computer skills’. When they identified benefits of collaborating online these

usually related to developing a skill rather than constructing knowledge.

TMA07 required students to work together on a research project and later to reflect on

this experience. Wendy summarised the problems this created:

I feel aggrieved that my mark is somewhat dependent on others. The group

that I have been put in are particularly difficult to work with – they do not

want to do calls or meet as other teams have done. In addition there is no

structure around their research – I tried to organise them but it didn’t work

but then when we are only using email that is understandable.

Students complained that members of their group were lazy, undisciplined and

uncommunicative and that they worked as individuals rather than group members.

Instead of creating a learning community, this enforced interaction provoked

resentment. Few students reported getting anything positive from the experience. They

appear to have treated it as an information-gathering exercise rather than as an

opportunity to build knowledge, share ideas or gain different perspectives.

Many reported that being forced to collaborate had held them up, and forced them to

work to the timetable of others in the group. Interaction therefore reduced the time

available for consideration and reflection, focusing students on information gathering.

Not surprisingly, CES data showed B300 ranked 32nd of the 36 courses studied for

students’ use of a deep approach to learning and 3rd for use of a surface approach to

learning.

of 53

B300 thus failed to integrate interaction because students did not feel in control of the

learning process, could not link activities to their own learning requirements and were

not able to structure their environment to meet their own needs and preferences.

Furthermore, the design of the interface was not always clear and many students felt

insecure within the online environment. Interaction was judged a success in terms of

the course when it resulted in an exchange of information or in an increase in skills.

Carol saw conferencing as having two roles: ‘(a) gain experience in working

collaboratively online, but – more importantly – (b) to provide a blob of evidence for

analysis when applying the course’s decision-making concepts so we have something to

contribute to the reflection part.’ She saw the reflection and analysis as processes to

carry out alone; the interaction remained focused on skills and information.

B300 paid little attention to many of the affordances of interactive media, but did

encourage students to use information technology. Course materials asked students only

twice to discuss activities using the conference, and just once to ‘compare your

viewpoint with others through the conference and in your tutor group.’ These three

activities were not assessed, and they occurred late in the course when a pattern of

working individually had been established. After initial encouragement by tutors,

students appear to have been left to organise themselves, without any clear idea of how

they could use this opportunity other than to work together to find information.

Integration of interaction: E124

The situation for E124 was very different. Interactive media were not well integrated

into the course; 11% of CES respondents mistakenly believed that the course did not

include the opportunity to engage in on-line conferencing, and at least 25% had never

used the conference. It was offered as a facility but there was no pressure, and very

little incentive for its use. When the study guide listed required resources these never

included the conference. Therefore, when interaction is considered in terms of

interactive or computer-based media, integration levels were extremely low. On the

other hand, the course fully integrated face-to-face interaction. In doing so, it drew on

the interactive resources of students’ friends and colleagues.

Face-to-face interaction was so well integrated as to be almost invisible to students.

Yvonne wrote: ‘On E124 there is no pressure to interact with ANYTHING / ANYONE

of 53

else. If I didn’t attend a tutorial, log on to a conference, Speak to another soul, It would

not affect the course.’ The assignments fitted so seamlessly with her life, that she did

not regard the interaction as course related: ‘Probably the wrong thing to say but in the

main I have based my TMAs on things we already do or try to do!!!’

All the assessed material on the course: the three TMAs and the final project, explicitly

required workplace interaction. For example, TMA01 advised: ‘For this assignment

you will need to plan for and support a child, or group of children, in a learning

experience/activity in your setting, or to support children’s learning and understanding

in an activity initiated by a child or group of children… You will need to reflect on the

various ways in which you can support children’s learning and the various roles that

you can adopt.’ Yet the students interviewed made very little of this interaction with

children, they focused on interaction between adults. When asked with whom she had

interacted, Jackie wrote:

Apart from the tutorials I have not really invited other people to become

involved in my studies. I have asked parents’ permission to use their child in

my observations and reassured them that anything I write will not name any

child and will be confidential. I have informed my line manager about the

course I am studying.

Despite this apparent lack of interaction, she went on, ‘I have found the TMAs’ content

quite personal as I work in a 1-1 setting with children with Special needs.’ This

unnoticed interaction was similar to the way in which interaction by writing was almost

invisible within the interviews.

Interactive work on E124 was supported, built on, followed through and assessed. In

addition, students could control the learning process and link activities to their own

environment. They felt secure, they could see the relevance of all assessed activities,

and they had a strong interest in the success of these. This integration of face-to-face

interaction is clearly suited to a vocational course. The evidence suggests that it would

also have been suitable for B300. Wendy from B300 wrote: ‘Interactions with my

customers have allowed me to gain my own real life case studies/examples’ and Zoe

reported: ‘I’ve also used work colleagues when I’ve been researching an area and have

found that the knowledge and experience they have has sometimes helped me

of 53

understand something better or highlighted areas I hadn’t previously thought or known

about.’

The course designers for E124 took advantage of facilities already available to students.

The course was aimed at practitioners working in Early Years care and education

settings with young children and their families. Most students were already part of a

learning community, and often worked alongside several people who could play a

mentoring role. Practical experience and support were almost always available, as were

different perspectives and the opportunity to discuss and share ideas. Students were

given the opportunity and the tools to construct their own knowledge, and there was a

great deal of flexibility in the assessed activities.

of 53

Chapter 6: Findings The final objective of this research was to provide evidence which would support the

Mellon Project’s recommendations about effective strategies for the use of computer-

based teaching in distance-education courses. This chapter summarises the interpreted

data on interaction and integration in terms of a series of strategies which this research

has suggested would be effective. It then looks at the strengths and limitations of this

research, and at future research opportunities.

Incorporate students’ reasons for communication

Course materials gave a series of reasons for students to interact with others. Some

were practical and administrative, some related to the collection of information and

others related to the construction of knowledge within a learning community. Students

had additional requirements which course designers should acknowledge. Students saw

interactive media as a way of making them feel less isolated; this affordance of the

media was very important to them. They wanted to chat, not necessarily on course-

related issues, but also to have the ability to filter out the chat when working to a

deadline. They wanted to compare progress with other students. They wanted to ask for

help and to solve problems and also, occasionally, they wanted the opportunity for a

good moan. They wanted someone to motivate them, especially at times when they

were finding the work hard.

Recognise the role of interaction in motivating students

Motivation was seen to be an important aspect of interaction. Students were unlikely to

report being motivated by the learning objectives of their course, particularly if it was a

high-level course they were not studying by choice. Assessment motivated them to the

extent that they would do what was required, but it was interaction with other students

and, particularly, with tutors that motivated them to engage with the course. This role of

tutors was particularly important to students and was seen as a major benefit of

interaction.

of 53

Give students control over their learning

Wu and Hiltz (2004) reported that students’ motivation and enjoyment were increased

by the opportunity to work in a student-dominated study space. This conclusion was

supported by my research. Students chose to tailor communication by integrating

interactive media such as telephone, text messaging and Skype. They resented being

forced to interact on FirstClass in ways which did not suit them, and therefore did not

gain the intended benefits from that interaction. Being forced to research information

on the Internet and share that information meant that they missed the other

opportunities that conferencing could have provided. Students who had most control

over their activities and their learning experience reported positively on their course.

Allow time for interaction

Interaction on a face-to-face course often occurs in spare time. Online interaction takes

up valuable study time, and it takes longer to communicate in text than speech. Many

E124 students said they could not find time to interact online. B300 students had no

choice, but complained that it took time away from their study. To be properly

integrated, interaction time should be factored into a course timetable, and times

scheduled to provide the option of the synchronous discussion that students prefer.

Encourage students to find mentors

Almost all students interviewed had adopted unofficial mentors who, variously, served

as role models, encouraged, counselled and befriended students. These mentors gave

students the opportunity to rehearse arguments and to increase understanding. Such

relationships were all conducted face to face or over the phone, they were individual,

they were synchronous and the student had control over them. They thus combined

students’ preferred forms of interaction with good opportunities for constructing

knowledge, sharing views and gaining different perspectives. E124 encouraged such

relationships by regularly suggesting that students share their ideas with a colleague, or

discuss them with others.

Utilise the affordances of the media Students want to see clear benefits from their use of interactive media to compensate

for the time involved in setting up, logging on and waiting for responses. Course

designers and students should be aware of what the media can offer, and should be

of 53

clear why an interactive medium has been chosen. This was clear from B300’s TMA07.

Many students believed that they were being asked to use FirstClass and the Internet

purely as information sources: the opportunities for gaining different viewpoints,

sharing and discussing ideas were not made clear. While course designers did not

clarify and take advantages of the affordances of the media, they also ignored their

limitations. In this case, students found that trying to work online with a group of

people they had never met, all with their own time constraints, was a more difficult task

than working as a group in a face-to-face environment would have been. Students

therefore felt lost and out of control because their group working strategies applied only

to face-to-face environments. Students also felt that their interaction was pointless, that

no additional marks were to be gained from going outside the course material and, on

the contrary, there was the possibility of being accused of plagiarism.

Create positive social presence

Students were uncomfortable using FirstClass. This was particularly related to

problems with self-presentation, and to an exaggerated sense of the negative

characteristics of others online. This was a serious problem which, in many cases, was

exacerbated by only a few people posting to the conference. The most successful

conference environments were those in which tutors led by example, responded to

others, consistently encouraged participation and recognized the need to create an

identity through small talk. These actions were seen to produce a more secure

environment and a sense of community.

Strengths and limitations of this research Working within a pre-existing framework necessitated aligning the objectives of this

research with those of the main Mellon Project. It also limited the choice of cases. Of

those studied here, one was selected for its high levels of interaction and integration,

the other for its low levels of these. As the courses differ in many other respects, they

would not have been obvious choices for a stand-alone study. However, they allowed

for theoretical replication, and were expected to produce contrary results for predictable

reasons. Analysis showed, though, that the courses had initially been misclassified, and

that the Mellon Project framework had failed to take face-to-face interaction into

account.

of 53

The epistolary interviews focused data collection on a very small sample of students,

and the method encouraged responses from those students most comfortable with

online communication. Although the interview data was supported by the CES

responses gathered by other researchers, face-to-face interviews might have produced

different coding categories and a different attitude to interactive media use.

The strengths of this study are that it has produced detailed, grounded accounts of

course interaction and the use of interactive media. A fine-grained analysis has

produced a series of findings based on data from a geographically dispersed group of

informants. These findings can now be used to inform and supplement those of the

wider Mellon Project and to drive further data collection.

Future research

The research presented here found that students using conferencing software often have

negative perceptions of other conference users. This contradicts work on online

communication in other environments and needs to be investigated further to reveal

why these negative perceptions develop and whether similar attitudes are commonly

found on course conferences.

The research also suggests that distance-education students gain knowledge, insight and

satisfaction from adopting a mentor who can encourage, counsel and befriend them.

Further research could investigate how successful this strategy is, what effect it has on

retention rates, learning outcomes, approach to learning and perceptions of course

quality. It could also investigate whether such a mentoring role is possible for the

majority of distance-learning students, or whether it only applies to students whose

courses are closely related to their work or their day-to-day lives.

Conclusion

This research has focused on the role of interaction in distance education. The initial

assumption was that, other than infrequent tutorials and perhaps a day school or

summer school, interaction for distance learners is only made possible by the use of

interactive media. Analysis has revealed that this is not the case: students are

instrumental in creating their own learning environments and in making it possible to

interact face to face and synchronously with others who can support their learning. The

of 53

role of the mentor is important to students, providing both motivation and opportunities

to build knowledge. Students prefer face-to-face interaction to mediated interaction and

will create possibilities for face-to-face meetings whenever possible.

Interaction using conferencing software was found to be a negative experience for

many students. Social presence was experienced in a variety of negative ways. This

resulted when conferencing was not integrated within the course and judgements had to

be based on a limited number of postings. It also resulted when conferencing was

assessed, making students reliant on strangers they had only encountered online.

Students were found to have a variety of reasons for interaction, all of which can be

satisfied by interactive media, if necessary. However, a variety of these communication

needs have been overlooked or rejected by course designers. Students meeting face to

face have the opportunity to chat, moan, seek help and compare themselves with others.

It is only when they can do these online that a sense of social presence is developed,

creating a community rather than a task-based environment.

Finally, the most successfully integrated interaction on courses was almost invisible.

Interaction which utilises and builds on students’ everyday working lives is not labelled

as study. Good course materials encourage students to use their interactions with those

around them as a chance to engage with ideas and construct knowledge in their

everyday lives.

of 53

Bibliography Anderson, E. M. and Shannon, A. L. (1995) ‘Towards a conceptualisation of

mentoring’ in Issues in mentoring (eds, Kerry, T. and Mayes, A. S.) Routledge,

London, pp. 25-35.

Bampton, R. and Cowton, C. J. (2002) ‘The e-interview’, Forum Qualitative

Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [on-line journal], 3, 27

paragraphs www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm [Accessed: 7 May 2005].

Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A. and Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002) ‘Can you see the real

me? Activation and expression of the ‘true self’ on the Internet’, Journal of Social

Issues, 58, 33-48.

Barthes, R. (1977) Image-music-text, Fontana, Glasgow.

Burt, G. (2001) ‘Media – a systematic account: conceptualisation, empirical

investigation, obscurity and action’ Mathematical Social Science, Note 21 on the

Knowledge Media Network http://kn.open.ac.uk/document.cfm?documentid=3393

[Accessed 17 April 2005]

Earle, R. S. (2002) ‘The integration of instructional technology into public education:

promises and challenges’, Educational Technology, 42, 5-13

http://www.bookstoread.com/etp/earle.pdf [Accessed: 7 April 2005].

Godwin, S. (2005) ‘A preliminary evaluation of the concepts of interaction and

interactivity in computer mediated learning environments’, IET Knowledge

Network, http://kn.open.ac.uk/workspace.cfm?wpid=2668 [Accessed: 11 May

2005].

Gunn, C. (1999) ‘They love it, but do they learn from it? Evaluating the educational

impact of innovations’, Higher Education Research and Development, 18, 185-199.

Jelfs, A. and Colbourn, C. (2002) ‘Do students’ approaches to learning affect their

perceptions of using computing and information technology? ’ Journal of

Educational Media, 27, 41-53.

Joinson, A. N. (2005) ‘Internet behaviour and the design of virtual methods’ in

Virtual methods: issues in social research on the Internet (ed, Hine, C.) Berg,

Oxford.

of 53

Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C. and Leem, J. (2002) ‘Effects of different types of

interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based

instruction’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39, 153-162.

King, E. (1996) ‘The use of the self in qualitative research’ in Handbook of

qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences (ed,

Richardson, J. T. E.) BPS Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 175-188.

Kirkwood, A. and Price, L. (2005) ‘Learners and learning in the twenty-first century:

what do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information

and communication technologies that will help us design courses?’ Studies in

Higher Education, 30, 257-274.

LaPointe, D. K. and Gunawardena, C. N. (2004) ‘Developing, testing and refining of

a model to understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning

outcomes in computer-mediated conferencing’, Distance Education, 25, 83-106.

Laurillard, D. (2002) Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use

of learning technologies, RoutledgeFalmer, London; New York.

Lombard, M. and Ditton, T. (1997) ‘At the heart of it all: the concept of presence’,

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, 1-42

www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html [Accessed: 14 March 2005].

Mize, C. D. and Gibbons, A. (2000) ‘More than inventory: effective integration of

instructional technology to support student learning in K-12 schools’, Society for

Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2000, 1,

2033-2037 http://dl.aace.org/807 [Accessed: 11 May 2005].

Open University (2003) ‘Code of good practice in research’

http://www.open.ac.uk/research-school/Documents/CodeGoodPracRes.pdf

[Accessed 19 Sept 2005]

Picciano, A. G. (2002) ‘Beyond student perceptions: issues of interaction, presence

and performance in an online course’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,

6, 21-40 www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v6n1/v6n1_picciano.asp [Accessed: 14

March 2005].

Ramsden, P. (1988) ‘Studying learning: improving teaching’ in Improving learning:

new perspectives (ed, Ramsden, P.) Kogan Page, London, pp. 13-32.

Richardson, J. T. E. (in press) ‘Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’

approaches to teaching in higher education’, Educational Psychology.

of 53

Salomon, G. (2000) ‘It’s not just the tool, but the educational rationale that counts’

Invited keynote address at the 2000 Ed-Media Meeting, Montreal

www.aace.org/conf/edmedia/00/salomonkeynote.htm [Accessed 17 April 2005]

Scouller, K. (1996) ‘Influence of assessment method on students’ learning

approaches, perceptions and preferences: the assignment essay versus the short

answer question’, HERDSA 1996: Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in

Higher Education, www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/scouller.html [Accessed: 7 May

2005].

Scouller, K. (1998) ‘The influence of assessment method on students’ learning

approaches: multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay’, Higher

Education, 35, 453-472.

Sims, R., Dobbs, G. and Hand, T. (2002) ‘Enhancing quality in online learning:

scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation’, Distance Education,

23, 135-148.

Strauss, A. (1987) Qualitative analysis for social scientists, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. and Waterhouse, F. (1999) ‘Relations between teachers’

approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning’, Higher Education, 37,

57-70.

Wagner, E. D. (1994) ‘In support of a functional definition of interaction’, The

American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 6-29.

‘Working towards e-quality in networked e-learning in higher education: a manifesto

statement for debate’, 2002 ESRC Research Seminar Series University of Sheffield

Wu, D. and Hiltz, S. R. (2004) ‘Predicting learning from asynchronous online

discussions’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8, 139-152

www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n2/v8n2_wu.asp [Accessed: 14 March 2005].

Yang, H. and Tang, J. (2003) ‘Effects of social network on students’ performance: a

web-based forum study in Taiwan’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7,

93-107 www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/v7n3_yang.asp [Accessed: 14

March 2005].

Yin, R. K. (1984) Case study research: design and methods, Sage, Beverly Hills,

California.

The integration of interaction on distance-learning courses

Education

Transcript of The integration of interaction on distance-learning courses