Title The design of online learning environments from the perspective of

interaction Author(s) Huay Lit Woo Source Educational Technology, 53(6), 34-38 Published by Educational Technology Publications This document may be used for private study or research purpose only. This document or any part of it may not be duplicated and/or distributed without permission of the copyright owner. The Singapore Copyright Act applies to the use of this document. Copyright © 2013 by Educational Technology Publications, Inc. This article was originally published in Educational Technology, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 34-38. Archived with permission of the publisher.

B. E. (201 0). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 7 5-year-o/d students in reading, mathem atics, and sci­ence literacy in an international context; http ://www. eric.ed.gov/ PDFS/ ED5 7 3640.pdf.

Fredri ckson, B. L., & Losada, M . F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human fl ourishing. Am erican Psychologist, 60(7), 678-686.

Gabriel, T. (201 0, june 1 0). Under pressure, teachers tamper with tests. Th e New York Times; http:l!bed fo rdtownmeet­ing.coml uploads / NYT _6_ 7 0_ 7 0_ Test_ Tampering. pdf.

Hannum, W. (201 3, july-August). Using needs assessment to enhance organi zational success. Review of Needs assess­ment for organiza tional success by Roger Kaufman & Ingrid Guerra-Lopez . Ed uca tional Technology, 53(4 ), 57-59.

Hannum, W. H., & Hansen, C. D. (1989). Instructional sys­tems development in large orga nizations. Englewood Cliffs, Nj : Educational Techno logy Publi cati ons.

jones, M. G., jones, B. D., & Hargrove, T. Y. (2 003). The unintended consequences o f high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littl efield .

Kaufman, R., & Guerra-Lopez, I. (201 3). Needs assessment fo r orga niza tional success . Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

Kretzmann, ). , & McKn ight, ). P. (1996). Assets-based com­munity development. Na tional Civic Review, 85(4 ), 23-29.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990, May-June). The core con;petence of the corporati on. Harva rd Business Review, 79- 91.

Pink, D. (2009). Drive: Th e surprising truth about what moti­va tes us. New York: Penguin .

Rath, T. (2007). Strengths finder 2.0. New York: Gallup Press.

Roberts, L. M ., Sprei tzer, G., Dutton) . E., Q uinn, R., Heaphy, E., & Barker, B. (2005). How to play to your strengths. Harvard Business Review, 83(1 ), 75- 80.

Roehlkeparta in, E. C. (2 005). Asset mapping. In C. B. Fisher & R. M . Lerner (Ed s. ), Encyclopedia of applied develop­m ental science (Vo l. 1, pp. 11 9- 122 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication s.

Roehlkepartain, E. C. (2008). Beyond needs assessm ents: Identifying a community 's resources and hopes. Scotts Valley, CA: National Service-Lea rning Clea ringhouse; www.servicelearning.org/ instant_in fo! fac t_sheetslcb_facts l beyond_needs_assess! .

Rumberger, R. W. (2011 ). Dropping out: Why students drop out of high school and what can be done about it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Seligman, M . E. P. (2011 ). Flourish: A visionary new under­standing o f happiness and well-being. New York : Free Press.

Stowell , F. A., & West, D. (1991 ). The Apprec iati ve Inqu iry Method: A systems-based method of knowledge el ic ita­tion. In M . C. jackson et a/. (Eds. ), Systems thinking in Europe. New York: Plenum Press.

Wh itney, D., & Trosten-Bioom, A. (201 0). Appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change (2nd ed.). San Fra ncisco: Berrett-Koehler.

The Design of Online Learning

Environments from the Perspective of Interaction

Huay Lit Woo

The des ign of online lea rning environments is a com pi icated process because it enta i Is the use of techno logica l too ls to med iate the va ri ous forms of in teraction situated in the learning process. O ne poss ible way to help reduce such complica ti on inher­ent in va ri ous forms of interacti on is to look at des ign as a problem-so lving acti vi ty. This mea ns online design w ill become an endeavor to minimi ze des ign problems and provide so lutions to these problems. The process includes considering convert ing online acti vi­ti es into their face-to-face counterparts, the suitability of affordances and contexts of the chosen too l, and the favorability of users' perceptions of the too l.

The Challenges of Incorporating Technological Tools in Online

Learning Environments Interaction is key to lea rning (Horton, 2000; Mason & Rennie, 2008; Oliver & Herrington, 2001 ; Zwang, 2011 ). It is al so a means by whi ch peopl e constantl y make adjustment and lea rn about their environment (Wil son & Meyers, 2000). Thi s is an important process, espec iall y w hen the lea rning is situated in a soc ial setting.

Interaction in a traditional face-to-face learning envi­ronment usually involves students, the instructor, and the learning materials, but not in an online learning environment. According to Chou (2003), there are

Huay Lit Woo is a Research Scienti st in educati onal technol­ogy at the National Institu te of Education, Nanyang Techno­logica l Un iversity, Singapore. He has taught courses at the higher education leve l on using ICT to des ign lessons and has been actively invo lved in publ ication. His current research area is des igning learning environments using Web-based techno logies (e-mail: huaylit.woo@nie.edu .sg).

34 EDUCATIONAL TECH NO LOGY /November-December 2013

Content

Instructor

Learner

Learner

Interface

Figure 1. Types of interaction in a Web-based learning environment.

fou r types of interaction that can occur when learning takes place via the Internet: (1) learner-content, (2) learner-instructor, (3 learner-learner, and (4) learner­interface interactions. These interactions are shown in Figure 1.

Interactions (1) to (3) commonly take place between two · parties, with no mediation in between, such as a learner reading a book (v ia path 1 ), an instructor talking to a learner (v ia path 2), or learners discussing a topic in a group (v ia path 3). But when learning goes on line, an add itional tool , such as an e-mail app li cation, wi ll be required for communication between an instructor and his/her learners, or a video may be used as a fo rm of subject content, and likewise a discussion forum may become a place for learners to discuss with their fellow students some collabo rative assignments . Interaction then is no longer confined to two parties but is conducted via a device that sits in between the two in­teracting bodies. To do well in such a tripartite situation will require a learner to be well-versed with the inter­face of the tool ; this is a requirement over and above that of a traditional form of learning. This is what Chou describes as the fourth interaction, or the " Learner­Interface" interaction (v ia path 4). The need to know a tool's interface imposes challenges not only on learn­ers but also on instructors and designers of the learning environment.

To understand how the inclusion of a too l compli­cates the learning process, Chou's ways of interaction are reorganized to have the tool take the centre stage in order to reflect its mediatory role. This is shown in Figure 2 .

Figure 2 is ca lled the "Tool-Enabled Interaction" model or simple the "TEl " model. It encapsu lates all possible forms of interaction that are available in an

Instructor

(A)

/ (C)

Learner I Content

Figure 2. Interactions via a mediating technological tool : The Tool-Enabled Interaction model (TEl).

online learning environment. The TEl model has the fo llowing characteristics:

1. It shows that all interactive processes are mediated by a tool. Therefore, pedagogy alone is not sufficient to determine the success of learning; additional knowledge­how to use the tool to interact-is required.

2. It delineates complexity and allows all possible forms of concurrent interactions to be analyzed independently or collectively. For example, in an online lesson, an instructor is required to explain to a learner a certain con­cept in an e-book. Based on the TEl model, it shows that three types of simultaneous interactions will be required to support such activity. First is to provide a two-way commu­nication between the instructor and learner via the Instructor-Tool- Learner path; next is to provide a means for the learner to interact with the e-book via the Learner- Tool-Content path; and last is to provide the same means for the instructor to interact with the same e-book via the lnstmctor- Tool-Content path. Because all tools must be accessible via their interfaces, the TEl model also specifies where these interfaces are and who will access them. For the given example above, the interfaces are indi­cated in Figure 2 by paths A, B, and C.

3. The TEl model contains an additional interaction path which is not reflected in Chou's model. This is the Instructor- Tool-Content path, as noted above. This path suggests that an instructor must constantly interact with the content he/she uploaded for online learning, which means the instructor must maintain the currency of the content and the right timing for the content to appear or to be removed. For example, if the content is in the form of a link to a Website, the instructor must ensure that the content which the link refers to will remain active and accessible throughout the course of the on line learning; or, if the content is a case study document, it would be appropriate to make the document accessible to students on ly after they have understood the required concepts-releasing it

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY /November-December 2013 35

too early may compromise the effectiveness of the learning process . But, very often, the roles and respon­sibilities for the instru ctor to manage content are se l­dom highlighted in most on line design literature.

The TEl model exemplifi es the fact that designing learning in an online environment is very comp lex and challenging (Kays & Sims, 2006). The involvement of using a tool to support lea rning suggests that the usual understanding of human psychology long known to both instructors and instructional designers cannot be applied directly in the on line situation; instead, it ca lls for additional know ledge-of the Human-Computer Interface (HCI)-that is built on integrating the theoreti­ca l bases of human psychology and computer science engineering (Carrol l, 1997), to be included in the design process. Hence, online instructiona l design is indeed a cross-disciplinary field that transcends the art of design to include both pedagogy and technology in a si ngle entity. This is in line with Mishra and Koehler's (2006) contention that:

Quality teaching requires developing a nuanced under­standing of the complex relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy, and using this understanding to develop appropriate, context-specific strategies and repre­sentations. (p. 1029)

The·knowledge of how pedagogy, content, and tech­nology are to be infused for lea rning is termed by Mishra and Koehler as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK, later TPACK). Such knowledge is not something that can be acquired simp ly by attend ing training classes or workshops; it requires yea rs of practi cing and designing instruction with technology, and very often it is learned through trial-and-error, and sometimes by heuristi cs . Because of this, designing effective online learning environments remains chal­lenging and demanding.

Designing Online learning Environments Is a Problem-Solving Activity

Smith and Ragan (2002) ca ll design the "execution of some plan in order to solve a problem" (p. 4). They regard design as a form of prob lem-solving activity in an ill­structured or ill-defined domain. Thi s is a refreshing idea but quite a departure from traditional views that instruc­tional design is about developing instructional materials and activities to meet the needs of learners (Briggs, 1997, cited in Richey & Nelson, 1996). Designing online activ­ities takes a simi lar path, but it needs knowledge from multiple disciplines, as specified in TPACK; it is therefore more problematic to design than traditional face-to-face instruction. This view is echoed by Irlbeck, Kays, Jones, and Sims (2006), who see online learning design as a special case of design in the broad sense, in that a design­er's main role is to seek strategies that w ill provide solu-

tions for problems that are often multifaceted in nature. Hence the notion that design is to so lve a problem is very suitable for the case of on line design.

Seeing design in this li ght, online instructional design wil l provide so lutions to the problems found during the designing process. Therefore, the role of a good online instructional designer w ill be to design online lea rning environments by reducing possible design problems, both technical and pedagogical, to the minimum. This gives rise to the fo llow ing consider­at ions.

Online l earning or Face-to-Face learning? Nothing beats meaningful interaction when it comes

to learning. This has been highlighted in the ea rl y part of this artic le, w hich is w hy some schools are begin­ning to implement "flipped classrooms" as an alterna­tive to the formal face-to-face c lassroom setting. A flipped classroom is one that " requires students to study course concepts at home and do traditional homework in the c lassroom" (Robson, 2013, p. 1 ). It is the reverse of the process of traditional classrooms. Its purpose is to use the face-to-face class hours for students to engage w ith their peers and teacher to solve problems and to leave the more mundane chores of reading textbook materials at home. The important message of such a practice is that lea rning w ill be more meaningfu l if planned activiti es can contain components to allow lea rners to interact actively with their peers and for their teacher to scaffold their learn­ing Uonassen, 2000). This gives rise to considerations for allowing some of the highl y interactive act iviti es with high degrees of scaffolding originally designed for an on line environment to be done in a face-to-face setting. In other words consider "flipping" activities in the on line setting to the face-to-face setting.

But the decision to "flip" a class or not wi ll need careful consideration. The use of the TEl model wil l be usefu l in this respect. Based on the TEl model, highly interactive activ ities such as co llaboration will need to use tools that can support multiple interaction paths between instructor and learners, learners and learners, instructor and content, and learner and content. This is absolutely a complex situation not only in that it involves all the interactions depicted by the TEl model, but also the various forms of interface that all participants in the col­laborative processes must know. Hence, given the axiom that to design is to solve problems, as explicated in previ­ous sections, it would be prudent to make instructional decisions based on the cr iterion of " least problems," meaning that a tool chosen to support an activity should be the one that has the least problems to solve.

As a rul e of thumb, if an activity requires multiple independent platforms to engender interactions, such as usi ng Skype (http://www.skype.com!en!) for com­munication and at the same time using Adobe PDF

36 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY / November- December 201 3

Reader for accessi ng documents and Coogle Croups (http://groups.google.com ) for group discussion, then learners are likely to be overwhelmed by the many types of interface that they have to handle, and the learn ing experience wi ll likely be frustrating. For such a case, it will be more appropriate to use a full-fledged Learning Management System (LMS) such as BlackBoard (http://www.blackboard.com) that has functions to inte­grate all the tools mentioned earlier into a single platform. However, it is understood that not all on line course providers w ill adopt LMS; under such a situation, it would be worthwhile to consider turning the activity into a face-to-face activ ity and to give the tools a mi ss altogether. But what about activities that need on ly a single tool or a tool that is not too complicated to han­dle? Such a situation is not uncommon to individua l instructors who prefer to design their own lessons with thei r own choice of tools. But this wi ll take on another set of considerations, which wi ll be discussed in the fol­low ing sections.

Affordances of the Tool Every tool reli es on a certain technology to build;

therefore, it has limitations in terms of affordances. Affordance is a term used to describe how well a tool provides opportuniti es for a user to take act ion (Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns, & Beers, 2004). For instance, a generic wiki too l like PBWorks (see http:!/ pbworks.com) is often used for co llaborative works by offering a co-ed iting feature for members of a team to co-write articl es and share documents. But it falls short of providing a "threaded" platform for members to discuss in a formal way. This could be so because the affordances of PBWorks are built on the notion of distributed cognition rather than discourse for knowl­edge construction. However, if the activity requires discourse learning, then perhaps an online discussion forum will serve the purpose better, because its thread­ed function can help trace the interactions of the stu­dents' postings and thus the development of any new ideas. Hence, each tool has its specific use and renders only limited f lex ibility; this means the tool may restrict certain pedagogies rather than enhance the pedagogies. As such, online instructional designers need to strike a balance between affordances and constra ints (Ryder & Wilson, 1996).

Perception of the Tool Not all learners are comfortable with using technology

for learning. According to Hil tz and Turoff (2 005), there are on average about 10% to 20% of students who wil l prefer the face-to-face environment to online learning because "they believe they learn best in that [the former] environment" (p. 61 ). In other words, believers in face-to­face learning have low perceptions of the va lue of tech­nology tools; this is detrimental to the success of online

learning. Indeed, perception is a very important element in learning, because all learning is presupposed by a learner's prior experience, and it is this prior experience that determines the meaningfulness of the activity that the learner is going through (Slavin, 1997) .

In the case of online learning, if a learner already has a negative perception of a particular tool, or a form of activity using that tool, then the meaningfulness of the tool and the activity w ill be lost as a result, and the extent of learn ing wi ll be compromised. Therefore, in designing on line activities, one must consider the learners' percep­tions, not the perceptions of the designers, which are often mistakenly assumed to be the priority.

Context for Using the Tool Learning is a form of human activ ity, and all activities

are either situated in a context or are context-related (Nardi, 1996). Learning activities therefore must be designed w ith a context in mind (Woo & Wang, 2009). Psychologists have stressed that cond itions under which learners partake in their lea rning activities have great impacts on how they apply the lea rning later. If the situation for app lication is similar to the situation of learning, then transfer of lea rning takes place easil y; otherwise, transfer will be met with difficulties (Schunk, 2000). In the same vein, cognitive theorists also have found that mood can si milarl y affect the extent of how information is reca lled from memory. When the mood at the time of learning is very different from the mood at the time of testing, then reca ll performance wi ll be impaired (Foster, 2009). All of these have impli­cations for the tools used in lea rning.

Using a technologica l tool is very different from using an ordinary tool in our daily lives. A technological tool, by virtue of its design, often requires some forms of pro­tocol to get it to work (a technologica l tool here refers to a tool that is enab led by a computer). But these proto­cols are for tne computer, and are often either different or not required for human-to-human interactions. For example, conversations within a group in real life can happen in a form of turn-taking or one-to-rtlany or both, depending on the needs of the ci rcumstances. The participants can also express feeling through ges­tures or body language. But in an Asynchronized Online Discussion (AOD) environment, conversation is thread­ed and dialogue is serialized, meaning that a participant must always place his/her message within a certain thread and below a certain posting, even though the message is to address a few people from different threads. Furthermore, the text-based conversat ion engendered by the AOD also forb ids other intangible information, like mood and feeling, to be displayed along w ith the text, despite the fact that this shortcom­ing may be compensated for by using emoticons to denote the state of emotion . The effect, however, is still weak and unnatural. Hence, learni ng with a technolog-

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY /November-December 2013 37

ical tool requires a clear view of the possible context it brings about (Mason & Rennie, 2008) so that the tool will not produce a context which is far from what is intended; otherwise, it can become a hindrance rather than an enabler of learning.

The Way Forward Online learning wil l continue to be an important player

in education for years to come. This is due to the strong support of new technologies and the global demands for workers to be well-versed in 21st Century tools and skills. But not all technologies are applicable for use in educa­tion, even if some of them have revolutionary impacts on lives, and they affect the way people do things, such as the impacts caused by smartphones and Facebook.

Smartphones have made human connectivity possible anytime and anywhere; likewise, Facebook updates infor­mation about friends regularly, making socialization much easier. These technologies are designed to enhance humans' sociality, and they employ a common tactic, that is, they increase the interactivity between the device and the user and hence the interconnectivity between other users in the group. Increasing tool interactivity appears to be a common trend.

Increasing tool interactivity for devices looks promising, but it has repercussions for online learning designers. It mean~ users will have to learn new ways of operating these devices, and there must be provision for the devices to work in tandem with each other. Both of these condi­tions impose new learning curves for the learners and a new understanding of pedagogies for the instructors. Consequently, it is difficult to design online activities using these devices independently as tools. The way to go prob­ably favours the use of integrated systems, like customized LMSs, which have tools built into a shared interface, with their functions interoperable. This is exactly what is hap­pening in many universities around the world, and the phenomenon is expected to continue for some time. 0

References

Carroll, j. M. (1997). Human-computer interaction: Psychology as a science of design. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 61-83.

Chou, C. (2 003). lnteractivity and interactive functions in Web-based learn ing systems: A technical framework for designers. British journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 265-279.

Foster, j. K. (2 009). Memory: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hiltz, S. R. , & Turoff, M. (2005). The evolution of online learn­ing and the revolution in higher education Communications of the ACM, 48(1 0), 60-64.

Horton, W. (2 000). Designing Web-based training. New York: john Wiley & Sons.

Irlbeck, S., Kays, E., jones, D. , & Sims, R. (2006). The Phoenix rising: Emergent models of instructional design. Distance

Education, 27(2), 171-185. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools:

Engaging critical thinking (2 nd ed.). Englewood Cli ffs, NJ : Prentice Hall.

Kays, E., & Sims, R. (2006). Reinventing and reinvigorating instructional design: A theory for emergent learning. In L. Markauskaite, P. Goodyear, & P. Reimann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Austra lasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE): Whose Learning? Whose Technology? (pp. 409-412). Sydney: Sydney University Press.

Kirschner, P., Strijbos, j . W., Kreijns, K. , & Beers, P. J. (2 004). Designing electronic co llaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66.

Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2008). £-learning and social network­ing handbook: Resource for higher education. New York: Routledge.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. j . (2006). Tech nologica l pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 7 08(6), 1 017-1054.

Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activ­ity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed. ), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 69-1 02). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Oliver, R., & Herrington, j . (2 001 ). Teaching and learning online-a beginner 's guide to e-learning and e-teaching in higher education. Western Australia: Centre for Research in Information Technology and Communications, Edith Cowan University.

Robson, N. (2013). Sioux/and teachers try new technique: No homework at home. Sioux City journal.com; http ://sioux city journal.com/news! local!siouxland-teachers-try-new-technique­no-homework-at-home!article .

Richey, R., & Nelson, W. A. (1996). Developmental research. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 1213-1245). New York: Macmillan.

Ryder, M., & Wilson, B. (1996). Affordances and constraints of the Internet for learning and instruction. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 7 996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 642-654) (ER:IC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397833).

Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational per­spective (3rd ed.). Englewood Cli ffs, NJ : Prentice Hall.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. j. (2002). Instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: john Wiley & Sons.

Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational psychology (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in the­oretical and practical context. In D. H. Jonassen & S.M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57-88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Woo, H. L., & Wang, Q. (2 009). Using Weblogs to promote critica l thinking: An exploratory study. International journal of Social and Human Sciences, 3, 53-61.

Zwang, J. (2 011 ). Ten ideas for interactive teaching. eSchool News; http://www.eschoolnews.com/20 7 7 /06/06/ten-ideas­for-interactive-teaching/print/.

38 EDUCATIONAl TECH NO LOGY / November-December 2013