Learning at distance: Effects of interaction traces on academic achievement
Introduction
With the development of technology, distance and online education provides a wide spectrum of interactive learning opportunities (Bernard et al., 2009, Bouhnik and Marcus, 2006, Donnelly, 2010, Woo and Reeves, 2007). Over the past few decades, interaction – as a main component of distance and online learning – has been studied by various researchers (e.g., Anderson, 2003, Arbaugh and Benbunan-Fich, 2007, Bernard et al., 2004, Wagner, 1994), commonly using Moore's (1989) framework of interactions (e.g., Agudo-Peregrina et al., 2014, Anderson, 2003, Kanuka, 2011). According to those considerations, learning occurs when a student interacts with other students or with an environment regardless of a subject domain, instructional design or the technology used in the learning process (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013). Many researchers consider interaction as the most important component of any learning environment (Woo & Reeves, 2007), and thus, importance of interactions in both traditional (e.g., Tirri and Kuusisto, 2013, Mehan, 1998, Johnson, 1981, Yee, 1971) and distance and online educational settings (e.g., Anderson, 2003, Bernard et al., 2009, Hirumi, 2002, Lou et al., 2006, Moore, 1989, Muirhead and Juwah, 2005, Wagner, 1994, Woo and Reeves, 2007) have been studied for a long period of time.
Despite a prevalent understanding of the importance of interaction in online education, research literature does not recognize a unique definition of interaction. Interaction is rather defined from various perspectives, within different contexts, based on the participants involved and the level of their engagement (Bernard et al., 2009, Woo and Reeves, 2007). Wagner (1994) looks at interaction from the functional perspective, as an emerging process that involves communication in various forms. Moreover, she argues that each interaction contains at least two complementary, interrelated, events that occur between two objects. Wagner (1994) also notes that the goal of interaction is to change a student's educational behavior and to bring the student closer to the learning goal. On the other hand, Yacci (2000) defines interactivity as a loop of mutually coherent messages, that should complete the cycle (from and to the student) in order for interaction to occur. The final interaction outcome is either learning of some content or affective benefits. Yacci (2000) further argues for existence of the student-centered perspective to interactivity, which means that students will not confirm the existence of interaction unless they obtain some feedback. Yacci (2000) suggests a communication theory as a valid framework for analyzing online interactions, which includes a wide variety of variables (e.g., the count and length of messages, the type of information and the amount of time spent between two messages) that should be considered when analyzing online interaction. Further, building on the previous definitions of Yacci (2000) and Wagner, 1994, Muirhead and Juwah, 2005 developed a similar understanding of interaction. According to their definition, interaction represents an event (i.e., communication in any possible form) that occurs between two or more subjects (participants or objects). It might occur synchronously or asynchronously utilizing technology and providing response or feedback as an outcome. Muirhead and Juwah (2005) also recognize the need to differentiate interactions depending on the context in which they occur (e.g., proactive inquiry, reactive inquiry, proactive elaboration).
The majority of the studies that analyzed interactions in online and distance education relied on a perceived measures of interaction (Bernard et al., 2009, Borokhovski et al., 2012). While being useful, those measures are not always suitable, especially given the survey fatigue that is well documented in the literature (Ben-Nun, 2008) and the availability of massive amount of trace data logged by various educational platforms (Phillips, Maor, Preston, & Cumming-Potvin, 2012). Therefore, this paper offers insights into how the methods of learning analytics (Siemens & Gašević, 2012) can be used to study effects of interaction on learning in distance and online education. Specifically, the study reported in this paper aims at investigating (i) the extent to which the trace data can be used to measure the interaction types as theorized in contemporary research in distance and online education, (ii) the effects of these measures of the interaction types on learning success; and (iii) whether the effects of interactions types differ across different courses while students are progressing toward their academic degrees (from foundational to core and elective disciplinary courses).
Section snippets
Interactions in distance education
The conceptual framework developed by Moore (1989) identifies three types of interactions: i) student–content, ii) student–instructor, and iii) student–student. The student–content interaction type represents the essence of education (Moore, 1989) and identifies the relation that occurs between a student and the content that describes the subject of studying. More recently, researchers and course designers, following the social constructivistic principles, suggest that content is distributed
Method
In this section, we describe the data collection process and measures used in the study. Moreover, we explained the procedure followed to conduct the study and the analysis method performed on the collected data.
Results
The final model included course group, course within a course group, count of student–content interactions, time spent on student–system interactions, as well as the interaction effect between course group and time on student–teacher interactions, and count of student–student interactions (Table 4). A comparison of AICc values for the null (AICc = 1224.8) and the chosen model (AICc = 1159.7) provided a strong evidence favoring the model that included fixed and random effects (Burnham &
Interpretation of the results with respect to the research questions
The results of our study further contribute to the understanding of importance of the interactions in an online and distance educational settings (e.g., Bernard et al., 2009, Lou et al., 2006, Muirhead and Juwah, 2005, Woo and Reeves, 2007). Moreover, we also revealed that educational level and context of a particular course have a significant impact on interaction types supported, and therefore on their importance for the student achievement.
Among analyzed interaction types, time spent on
References (90)
- et al.
Can we predict success from log data in VLEs? Classification of interactions for learning analytics and their relation with performance in VLE-supported F2F and online learning
Computers in Human Behavior
(2014) - et al.
The importance of participant interaction in online environments
Decision Support Systems
(2007) - et al.
Students' self-regulation for interaction with others in online learning environments
The Internet and Higher Education
(2013) Reconsidering research on learning from media
Review of educational research
(1983)- et al.
Self-regulation, motivation, and math achievement in middle school: variations across grade level and math context
Journal of School Psychology
(2009) Interaction analysis in a ‘learning by doing’ problem-based professional development context
Computer and Education
(2010)- et al.
Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education
The Internet and Higher Education
(1999) - et al.
Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework
The Internet and Higher Education
(2010) - et al.
Online formative assessment in higher education: a review of the literature
Computers & Education
(2011) The nursing educator's role in e-learning: a literature review
Nurse Education Today
(2014)