Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 23, Issue 2–3, pp 143–156 | Cite as

Interaction and the online distance classroom: Do instructional methods effect the quality of interaction?

  • Heather Kanuka
Article
First Online:

Abstract

In this special issue, I bring together two studies to provide a comprehensive overview on diverse and interactive instructional methods aimed to facilitate higher levels of learning. One study explored the effects of group interaction using different instructional strategies focusing on the learning process using the Community of Inquiry framework. The other study investigated the effects of group interaction using different instructional strategies focusing on learning products using the SOLO taxonomy. The outcomes of both studies were consistent in revealing that certain kinds of instructional strategies have more effective interactions, resulting in facilitating higher levels of learning.

Keywords

Online learning Distance education Interaction Instructional strategies 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abrami, P., Bernard, R., Bures, E., Borokhhovski, E., & Tamim, R. (2011). Interaction in Distance Education and Online Learning: Using Evidence and Theory to Improve Practice, 23(2).Google Scholar
  2. Bates, A. W. (1997). The future of educational technology. Learning Quarterly, 1(2), 7–14.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. (1995). Teaching for better learning. In J. Biggs & D. Watkins (Eds.), Classroom learning: Educational psychology for the Asian teachers (pp. 261–279). Singapore: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Collett, D., Kanuka, H., Blanchette, J., & Goodale, C. (1999). Learning technologies in adult distance education. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
  7. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar
  8. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 1–19.Google Scholar
  9. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(2). Retrieved January 13, 2011, from http://www.jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/heckman.html.
  11. Juler, P. (1990). Promoting interaction; maintaining independence: Swallowing the mixture. Open Learning, 5, 24–33.Google Scholar
  12. Kanuka, H. (2000). Learner content interaction: The silent but active participant. Presentation at the 15 CADE), Making IT Learner Centred, May 2000, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Kanuka, H. (2002). Guiding principles for facilitating higher levels of Web-based distance learning in post-secondary settings. Distance Education, 23(1), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kanuka, H. (2005). An exploration into facilitating higher levels of learning in a text-based Internet learning environment using diverse instructional strategies. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(3). [online]. Available: http://www.jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/kanuka.html.
  15. Kanuka, H. (2010a). Cultural Diversity, technologically-mediated learning and instructional design: Implications for choosing and using communication tools. Asia Pacific Collaborative Education Journal, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  16. Kanuka, H. (2010b). Fostering higher levels of learning using diverse instructional strategies with internet communication tools. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: computers, cognition and collaboration in education. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Kanuka, H., Rourke, L., & Laflamme, E. (2007). The influence of instructional methods on the quality of online discussion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McKnight, C. B. (2001). Supporting critical thinking in interactive learning environments. Computers in the Schools, 17(3/4), 17–32.Google Scholar
  19. Moore, M. G. (1973). Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 44, 661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moore, M. (1990). Recent contributions to the theory of distance education. Open Learning, 5(3), 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  23. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Russell, T. L. (2001). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education. IDECC, Montgomery, AL.Google Scholar
  25. Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: An exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 11, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Telus CentreUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options