EL7004+Interactivity


 * ** EL7004-8 ** ||  ||
 * ** The Online Learner ** || ** 2 Interactivity ** ||
 * You are welcome. You exhibited excellent effort in completing the requirements of this assignment. Please read my comments. **
 * ** The Online Learner ** || ** 2 Interactivity ** ||
 * You are welcome. You exhibited excellent effort in completing the requirements of this assignment. Please read my comments. **
 * You are welcome. You exhibited excellent effort in completing the requirements of this assignment. Please read my comments. **

=Interactivity in the Online Classroom= Interactivity* in online courses is a requisite for learning and has many positive effects. Among these effects are satisfaction, achievement, motivation, community, meaning, and engagement. Interactivity enriches the relationships of the student with the instructor, other learners, course content, and the technological environment. Interactivity exists in every learning situation, for without it learning cannot take place.

Importance of Interactivity
The concept of interactivity is one of the core elements of good practice in education as identified by Chickering and Gamson (1987). Interactivity in an online course can be synchronous or asynchronous, and can have dimensions of conversation, communication, collaboration, and active learning ( Commonwealth of Learning, 2000 ). Interactivity in online courses forms a relationship between the student and the course content, other students, the instructor, and the technological medium utilized in the course ( Bradley, 2009; Levine, 2005 ). Collaborative and team building activities engender an interactive and engaging environment enhancing the likelihood of success for the online student ( Abrami, Bernard, Bures, Borkhovski, & Tamim, 2010; Boling, Hough, Krinsky, Saleem, & Stevens, 2011; Pelz, 2011 ).

Benefits of Interactivity
Studies show that the benefits of increasing interactivity between student and material, the instructor, and other learners results in greater satisfaction ( Al-Fahad, 2010; Boling et al., 2011; Ferguson & DeFelice, 2010; Lam & Bordia, 2008 ), better learning outcomes ( Abrami et al., 2010; Jackson, Jones, & Rodriguez, 2010, Martinez- Caro, 2011 ), higher motivation ( Omar, Kalulu, & Belmasrour, 2011; Park & Choi, 2009 ), a sense of community ( Boling et al., 2011; Pigliapoco & Bogliolo, 2008 ), and enhanced engagement ( Oncu & Cakir, 2011; So & Bonk, 2010 ).

Downside of Interactivity
Some educational theories subscribe that students should discover and construct knowledge using unguided, problem-based instruction to create solutions to real-life problems ( Allen, Crosky, McAlpine, Hoffman, & Munroe, 2009; Cabrera-Lozoya, Cerdan, Cano, Garcia-Sanchez, & Lujan, 2012 ). Although many believe that problem-based and collaborative learning is “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">a strongly supported method for promoting student-centered learning <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( Allen et al., 2009, p. 570 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), many others have demonstrated that “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">direct instruction involving considerable guidance, including examples, resulted in vastly more learning than discovery <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006, p. 79 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). This is not an indictment on interactivity per se, but of a specific kind of interactivity that increases the cognitive load of the student to the point where no cognitive faculties remain to transfer newly learned knowledge into long-term memory.

Efficacious Interactivity Types
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**Learner-content interactivity.** When students read, study, participate in class activities, and consider or examine course content they engage in learner-content interaction. The learning process requires that the student interact with the content of a course. There are a few factors that influence learner-content interaction including; mode of delivering course materials ( Abrami et al., 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), time on task or engagement ( Lam & Bordia, 2008 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), and relevant, up-to-date, and easy to understand information ( Alshare, Freeze, Lane, & Wen, 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**Learner-learner interactivity.** Students working with other students tend to promote understanding of course content and stimulate higher-order thinking, while diminishing feelings of isolation and engendering a sense of community ( Palloff & Pratt, 2003 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Many studies demonstrate that satisfaction with an online course increases as the level of interactivity between students increases ( Abrami et al., 2010; Bradley, 2009; Commonwealth of Learning, 2000; Lee, Redmond, & Dolan, 2008; Martinez-Caro, 2011; Omar et al., 2011; Pelz, 2010; Shea, Fredericksen, & Pickett, 2006 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).* Several authors have determined that interactivity between students is a primary factor in learner satisfaction with online courses ( Ferguson & DeFelice, 2010; Gunawardena, Linder-VanBerschot, LaPointe, & Rao, 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) and significant regarding learning outcomes ( Allen et al., 2009; Cabrera-Lozoya et al., 2012; Chen & Lien, 2011; Hurtado & Guerrero, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**Learner-instructor interactivity.** The literature suggests that student satisfaction and accomplishments increase in online classes as the instructor takes on the role of mentor and facilitator ( Blanchard, Hinchey, & Bennett, 2011; Levine, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), while students “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">become active participants in learning <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( Yang & Cornelious, 2005, Ensuring Effective Online Instruction, para. 3; see also, Donovant, 2009; Ferguson & DeFelice, 2010; Gunawardena et al., 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). The “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">strongest predictor of learning <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( p. 578 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) according to Martinez-Caro (2011) is the quantity of interaction between instructor and student, while the lack of face-to-face interactions is the most significant contributor to student dissatisfaction with online learning ( Donovant, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Of the seven most significant factors contributing to a learner’s satisfaction, four are directly related to the instructor’s skills or the amount of interaction they have with students ( Chyung & Vachon, 2005; see also Jackson et al., 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**Learner-technology interactivity.** An online course necessitates the interaction of the student with technology, and to learn successfully requires the student to have a minimum level of efficacy with the medium ( Bradley, 2009 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). One poor experience with an online course because of connectivity problems, lack of access, throughput issues, poor instructional design, or lack of interactivity may inhibit students from taking additional online courses ( Martinez-Caro, 2009; Thompson, Jeffries, & Topping, 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">).*

Instructor Interactivity Maximization Strategies
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**Learner-content strategies.** To enhance the learner-content interaction, instructors should ensure that the concepts and information of the course are clearly presented, relevant, and easily understood to motivate the student to be more engaged with the content ( Ali & Ahmad, 2011; Alshare et al., 2011; Lam & Bordia, 2008 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Activities should be relevant and useful and “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">focus on the importance and utility of content <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( Abrami et al., 2010, p. 20 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">), which optimizes learner motivation to inculcate the material, and enhance the learning environment ( Boling et al., 2011 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Any activity or communication that increases the interest of the student in the material is a viable strategy for developing and deepening the learner-content relationship. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**Learner-learner strategies.** When instructors include small group activities or team projects into courses, learner-learner interactivity increases, and if successful, will create essential positive group norms and dynamics ( Watkins, 2005 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). Palloff and Pratt (2003) suggested that online discussions foster not only student to instructor communication, but can increase the connection that a learner has with the learning community. Boling et al. (2011) found that positive, online learning experiences can be fostered through social exchanges such as “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">texting fellow students and completing real-world assignments that require [learners] to interact with others in their local communities <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” (pp. 6-7). Learner-learner interactivity includes a student interacting with another student, the entire class, small groups or teams, or with a partner, and is not always just discussion ( Pelz, 2010 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">). In each of these techniques the learner is able to collaborate with other students to increase his or her own knowledge, while assisting others in the acquisition of learning.* These strategies can backfire if they are forced or seem contrived; therefore, activities should be realistic representations of inherent activities that a student may perform in the real world. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**Learner-instructor strategies.** Cercone (2008) suggested several strategies for nurturing the learner-instructor relationship. These strategies included providing sufficient scaffolding to encourage the student without dominating the discussion, focusing on issues that relate directly to the student, and introducing collaborative activities that allow students to work with others and report their findings to the class as a whole. Collaborative activities were also suggested as a means of addressing different student learning styles by Palloff and Pratt (2003). Jackson et al. (2010) suggested “ <span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">prompt feedback, use of humor or emoticons, referring to the student by name in written communication, discussion prompts, and sharing of personal examples <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">” ( p. 81 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">) as a means of facilitating the student-teacher relationship, and increasing student satisfaction. Social presence and equitable student attention were identified by Ke (2010) as traits that motivate student learning and connectedness. Each of these strategies demonstrates a caring and present facilitator that wants to assist the student to increase their knowledge and understanding. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**Learner-technology strategies.** It is essential for the instructor to facilitate and augment the interaction that the student has with the learning environment (Levine, 2005). The instructor must ensure that the student knows how to use all of the features of the interface that will facilitate success in the course. In addition, the instructor may suggest alternative solutions if the current environment is not conducive to the students’ success due to connectivity or throughput issues. By minimizing the difficulties that a student may have with technical issues during an online class, the instructor diminishes distractions, while maximizing the student’s attention on creating relationships with the material, the instructor, and other learners.*

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Conclusion
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">Interaction breeds motivation and interest in students. Motivation and interest increase the time that a student interacts with course content. Motivation and interest may also increase the time that the learner discusses the material with others online. Motivation and interest increases the likelihood that the student will ask for clarifications or expansions upon the material from colleagues or the instructor. Thus, motivation and interest spark greater learning.* Interaction nurtures the relationships that are essential for learning to take place in an online course; between student and content, student and student, student and instructor, and student and the mediating technology. The instructor, by creating an interactive and collaborative environment that nourishes these relationships, facilitates learner satisfaction, motivation, and superior learning outcomes.*

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">[DrB1] Good introductory paragraph <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">[DrB2] Exceptional list of sources throughout paper – very thorough! <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">[DrB3] <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> Have a minimum of three sentences per paragraph. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">[DrB4] Instructors should encourage students to use technology to enhance communication and collaboration (see []). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">[DrB5] Faculty should use multimedia to demonstrate enriched teaching and learning enterprises. Multimedia goes well beyond more traditional “cubicle-based” computer use (see Teaching in the Digital Age by Nelson). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">[DrB6] Absolutely! <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">[DrB7] This is a terrific resource for educators. TECH21 (tech21.org) serves as a hands-on and virtual research-to-practice system for the implementation of instructional technology applications in learning and instruction.


 * = References ||
 * * Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. (2010, July). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. //The Evolution from Distance Education to Distributed Learning//. Symposium conducted at Memorial Union Biddle Hotel, Bloomington, IN.
 * Al-Fahad, F. N. (2010). The learners’ satisfaction toward online e-learning implemented in the college of applied studies and community service, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia: Can e-learning replace the conventional system of education? //Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 11//(2), 61-72. Retrieved from []
 * Ali, A., & Ahmad, I. (2011). Key factors for determining students’ satisfaction in distance learning courses: A study of Allama Iqbal Open University. //Contemporary Educational Technology, 2(2)//, 118-134. Retrieved from []
 * Allen, B., Crosky, A., McAlpine, I., Hoffman, M., & Munroe, P. (2009). A blended approach to collaborative learning: Making large group teaching more student-centred. //The International Journal of Engineering Education, 25//(3), 569-576. Retrieved from []
 * Alshare, K. A., Freeze, R. D., Lane, P. L., & Wen, H. J. (2011). The impacts of system and human factors on online learning systems use and learner satisfaction. //Decision Sciences: Journal of Innovative Education, 9//(3), 437-461. Retrieved from []
 * Blanchard, R. D., Hinchey, K. T., & Bennett, E. E. (2011, April). //Literature review of residents as teachers from an adult learning perspective//. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
 * Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2011). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. //Internet and Higher Education// [Advance online publication]. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.006
 * Bradley, J. (2009). Promoting and supporting authentic online conversations – which comes first – the tools of instructional design? //International Journal of Pedagogies and learning, 5//(3), 20-31. Retrieved from []
 * Cabrera<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">‐ Lozoya, A., Cerdan, F., Cano, M.<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">‐ D., Garcia<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">‐ Sanchez, D., & Lujan, S. (2012). Unifying heterogeneous e<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">‐ learning modalities in a single platform: CADI, a case study. //Computers & Education, 58//(1), 617<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">‐ 630. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.014
 * Cercone, K. (2008). Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. //Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal (AACE), 16//(2), 137-159. Retrieved from []
 * Chen, L.-C., & Lien, Y.-H. (2011). Using author co-citation analysis to examine the intellectual structure of e-learning: A MIS perspective. //Scientometrics, 89//, 867-886. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0458-y
 * Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. //American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39//(7), 3-7. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED282491)
 * Chyung, S. Y., & Vachon, M. (2005). An investigation of the profiles of satisfying and dissatisfying factors in e-learning. //Performance Improvement Quarterly, 59//(3), 227-245. doi:10.1177/0741713609331546
 * Commonwealth of Learning. (2000). //An introduction to open and distance learning//. Retrieved from []
 * Donavant, B. W. (2009) The new, modern practice of adult education: Online instruction in a continuing professional education setting. //Adult Education Quarterly, 59//(3), 227<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">‐ 245. doi:10.1177/0741713609331546
 * Ferguson, J. M., & DeFelice, A. E. (2010). Length of online course and student satisfaction, perceived learning, and academic performance. //International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11//(2), 73-84. Retrieved from <span class="wiki_link_ext">http://www.irrodl.org/ index.php/irrodl
 * Gunawardena, C. N., Linder-VanBerschot, J. A., LaPointe, D. K., & Rao, L. (2010). Predictors of learner satisfaction and transfer of learning in a corporate online education program. //The American Journal of Distance Education, 24//(1), 207-226. doi:10.1080/08923647.2010.522919
 * Hurtado, C., & Guerrero, L. A. (2009). A PDA-based collaborative tool for learning chemistry skills. //Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computer supported cooperative work in design. CSCWD’09, Santiago, Chile//, 378-383. Retrieved from []
 * Jackson, L. C., Jones, S. J., & Rodriguez, R. C. (2010). Faculty actions that result in student satisfaction in online courses. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14//(4), 78-96. Retrieved from []
 * Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. //Computers & Education, 55//, 808-820. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013
 * Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. //Educational Psychologist, 41//(2), 75-86. Retrieved from []
 * Lam, P., & Bordia, S. (2008). Factors affecting student choice of e-learning over traditional learning: Student and teacher perspectives. //The International Journal of Learning, 14//(12), 131-139. Retrieved from []
 * Lee, D., Redmond, J. A., & Dolan, D. (2008). Lessons from the e-learning experience in South Korea in traditional universities. In M. Iskander (Ed.), //Innovative techniques in instruction technology, e-learning, e-assessment, and education// (pp. 216-222). London, England: Springer Science+Business Media.
 * Levine, S. J. (Ed.) (2005). //Making distance education work: Understanding learning and learners at a distance//. Okemos, MI: LearnerAssociates.
 * Martinez<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">‐ Caro, E. (2011). Factors affecting effectiveness in e<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">‐ learning: An analysis in production management courses. //Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19//(3), 572<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif';">‐ 581. Retrieved from <span class="wiki_link_ext">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.v19.3 /issuetoc
 * Omar, A., Kalulu, D., & Belmasrour, R. (2011). Enhanced instruction: The future of e-learning. //International Journal of Education Research, 6//(1), 21-37. Retrieved from <span class="wiki_link_ext">http://www .journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-educational-research/
 * Oncu, S., & Cakir, H. (2011). Research in online learning environments: Priorities and methodologies. //Computers & Education, 57//, 1098-1108. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.009
 * Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2003). //The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners//. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley & Sons.
 * Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. //Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12//(4), 207-217. Retrieved from []
 * Pelz, B. (2010). (My) three principles of effective online pedagogy. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14//(1), 103-116. Retrieved from []
 * Pigliapoco, E. E., & Bogliolo, A. A. (2008). The effects of psychological sense of community in online and face-to-face academic courses. //International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 3//(4), 60-69. Retrieved from []
 * Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., & Pickett, A. (2006). Student satisfaction and perceived learning with on-line courses: Principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4//(2), 2-31. Retrieved from []
 * So, H.-J., & Bonk, C. J. (2010). Examining the roles of blended learning approaches in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments: A Delphi study. //Educational Technology & Society//, //13// (3), 189–200. Retrieved from []
 * Thompson, L., Jeffries, M., & Topping, K. (2010). E-mentoring for e-learning development. //Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47//(3), 305-315. doi:10.1080/14703297.2010.498182
 * Watkins, R. (2005). //75 e-learning activities: Making online learning interactive//. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer/John Wiley & Sons.
 * Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. F. (2005). Preparing instructors for quality online instruction. //Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8//(1). Retrieved from [|http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/yang81.htm] ||