Designing for online interaction: Scaffolded and collaborative interventions in a graduate-level blended course

Claudia Álvarez

Colombia

Universidad de La Sabana

Liliana Cuesta

Colombia

Universidad de La Sabana

Submitted: 07/29/2021

|

Accepted: 07/29/2021

|

Published: 03/22/2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2012.16024
Funding Data

Downloads

Keywords:

online interaction, instructional design, course design, e-learning, scaffolding

Supporting agencies:

This research was not funded

Abstract:

This article examines types of interaction from the perspective of intervening agents and interaction outcomes. We argue that the strategic combination of these types of interaction with certain core features (such as dosified input, attainable goal-setting, personalization and collaboration) contribute to creating a more effective relationship between instructional design, use and the interactional purposes of learning activities. The paper also offers instructors and course designers various considerations regarding the pedagogical nature of learning activities and the actions that both learners and instructors can carry out to optimize the online educational experience. Consideration for emergent trends in research on related areas are also presented.
Show more Show less

References:

Álvarez, C. & Cuesta, L. (2011). Interaction and learning outcomes: The right blend for successful online teaching. Paper presented at the EuroCALL 2011 Conference. The University of Nottingham.,

Anderson, T., and Garrison, D. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education. Madison, WI.: Atwood Publishing.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i2.1875

Anderson, T. (2003a). Modes of Interaction in Distance Education: Recent Developments and Research Questions. In Moore, G. (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.

Anderson, T. (2003b). Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149

Anderson, T. (2004).Toward a Theory of Online Learning. In Theory and Practice of Online Learning (1st ed.). AU Press Athabasca University Press.

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3).

Balaji, M. and Chakrabarti, D. (2010).Student Interactions in Online Discussion Forum: Empirical Research from 'Media Richness Theory' Perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1).

Beaudoin, M. F. (2002). Learning or lurking? Tracking the "invisible" online student. Internet and Higher Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00086-6

Clark, R.C., Nguyen, F., and Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4930450920

Cuesta, L. (2010a). The Design and Development of Online Course Materials: Some Features and Recommendations. PROFILE Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 12(1), 181-201.

Cuesta, L. (2010b). Las estrategias metacognitivas de instrucción en el proceso de autorregulación del aprendizaje. (Unpublished dissertation). Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, Spain.

Godwin, S. J., Thorpe, M. S., & Richardson, J. T. E. (2008). The impact of computer-mediated interaction on distance learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1).

Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in Pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719050400011X

European Commission- Eurostat (2006). Classification of learning activities -Manual. Luxembourg.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about leaning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Graesser, A., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Harter, D., Tutoring Research Group, & Person, N. K. (2000). Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in AutoTutor. Interactive Learning Environments, 8(2), 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1076/1049-4820(200008)8:2;1-B;FT129

Garrison, D. R. (1998). Andragogy, learner-centeredness, and the educational transaction at a distance. Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 123-127.

Hewitt, J. (2003) How habitual online practices affect the development of asynchronous discussion threads. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(1), 31-4. https://doi.org/10.2190/PMG8-A05J-CUH1-DK14

Keller, J. M. (1987a). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905780

Keller, J. M. (1987b). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance & Instruction, 26(9), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4160260902

Keller, J. M. (1999). Motivation in cyber learning environments. Educational Technology International, 1(1), 7- 30.

Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-Learning design: A multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165042000283084

McLoughlin, C. and Marshall, L. (2000). Scaffolding: A model for learner support in an online teaching environment. In A. Herrmann and M.M. Kulski (Eds), Flexible Futures in Tertiary Teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2-4 February 2000. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659

Nyikos, M. and Reiko, H. (1997). Constructivist theory applied to collaborative learning in teacher education: In search of ZPD. In the Modern Language Journal, Vol. 81, No.4, Special Issue: Interaction, collaboration and cooperation: Learning languages and preparing language teachers. Available from: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2006_10.dir/att-0071/01-Coll_Lng_TED_ZPD.pdf https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05518.x

Northrup, P. (2002). Online learners' preferences for interaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 219-226.

Palloff, R. and Pratt,K. (1999). Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the Online Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Petrovsky, A. V. (1985). The collective and the individual. Moscow: Progress.

Reiser, R. A. (2002). A history of instructional design and technology. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp.26-53). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Roblyer, M., & Ekhaml, L. (2000). How interactive are your distance courses? A rubric for assessing interactivity in distance learning.Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(2) [Online]. Available from: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/summer32.htm

Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities. Great Britain: Routledge Falmer.

So, H. (2010). Towards rigor of online interaction research: Implication for future distance learning research. The Turkish Online Journal of Education Technology, 9(2).

Sutton, L. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7 (3), 223-242.

Swan, K. (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds), Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6- 29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526852

Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.7103

Wilson, G. & Stacey, E. (2003). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teach online: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Adelaide. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1366

White, C. (2007). Focus on the language learner in an era of globalization: Tensions, positions and practices in technology-mediated language teaching. Language Teaching, 40 (4), 321-326. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480700451X

Wojciechowski, A., & Palmer, L.B. (2005). Individual student characteristics: Can any be predictors on success in online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8 (2).

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407-415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.407

Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Vigotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Show more Show less