Constructivist Strategies to Optimize Four Levels of Interaction
in a Distance Learning Environment: A Case Study
Linda Lohr, Professor, Educational Technology
The University of Northern Colorado
970 351 2513, fax 970 351 1622
Nicholas Eastham, Instructional Designer
Center for Enhancement of Teaching and Learning
The University of Northern Colorado
David Kendrick, Director
Center for Enhancement of Teaching and Learning
The University of Northern Colorado
Abstract
This case study describes how a constructivist theory of learning guided the design of an online three credit hour graduate course on instructional design. Four types of interaction data were collected from 27 students, two instructional designers and one teaching assistant. Overall, constructivist strategies appeared to contribute to a successful learning experience as measured by student surveys, designer observations, and academic performance. While a strong majority of students considered a number of constructivist strategies beneficial, such as the provision of a variety of reading and learning activity options, many constructivist strategies appeared to detract from the learning experience. Data related student-to-student, student-to-content, student-to-teacher, and student-to-interface interaction suggests the need to consider: limiting or eliminating small group discussions and student blogs, discontinuing the instructional story, increasing design-document specific feedback, using a broad and shallow interface structure and moving significant course content to a pre-packaged paper-based format.
Keywords
interactivity
constructivism
distance learning
interface design
cognitive load theory
instructional strategies
stories
online collaboration
Introduction
Distance learning is often described as education that is time and location independent. Learning takes place even when distance and asynchronous interactions separate instructor and student.
When a teacher is physically absent, the student must take increased responsibility for learning. In turn, the teacher's role changes towards the role of facilitating instruction. Thus distance learning embodies the constructivist orientation of the teacher as a "guide on the side" versus "sage on the stage". The emphasis on learner-generated understanding makes constructivist-teaching strategies ideally suited for the design of distance learning environments.
According to constructivist learning theory, individual and social experiences are the basis of knowledge experiences (Crotty, 1994; Jonassen, 1992; Savery& Duffy,1995; Valasidou, Sidiropoulos, & Makridou-Bousiou (2005). Learning is viewed as an active process of thinking, understanding, and reflecting that results in meaning making on an individual level.
Given the potential for numerous social interactions in distance education settings, as well as the many opportunities for reflection inherent with asynchronous communication, a distance-learning environment by nature supports a constructivist learning experience. These experiences are the basis for what Grabinger (1996) coined as Rich Environments for Active Learning (REAL). According to Grabinger, a REAL provides an authentic context that supports cooperative learning between students and teachers, and stimulates learner inquiry, responsibility, and decision-making. The critical feature of a REAL is the provision of realistic contexts for knowledge construction.
The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the discovery of how distance educators might implement constructivist-learning strategies into distance education settings to create a REAL experience. A case-study methodology is used to share the design, development, and implementation of constructivist learning theories into the course design of a semester-long graduate course teaching instructional design.
Background
Three areas of investigation converge in this study. First, eight constructivist learning guidelines promoted by Dolittle (1999) provide a framework for integrating constructivism into the development of an online learning environment. Next, the concept of interactivity and how four types of interactivity might be designed to facilitate Dolittle's 8 constructivist principles is covered. Last, a consideration of cognitive load theory and its impact on the design of the four types of interaction and ultimately the effectiveness of the constructivist learning strategies is shared.
Constructivist principles
Doolittle (1999) identified eight constructivist principles important for a rich learning experience:
1. Learning should take place in authentic and real-world environments.
2. Learning should involve social negotiation and mediation.
3. Content and skills should be made relevant to the learner.
4. Content and skills should be understood within the framework of the learner’s prior knowledge.
5. Students should be assessed formatively, serving to inform future learning experiences.
6. Students should be encouraged to become self-regulatory, self-mediated, and self-aware.
7. Teachers serve primarily as guides and facilitators of learning, not as instructors.
8. Teachers should provide for and encourage multiple perspectives and representations of content.
Interactivity
Implicit in the eight principles is the concept of learner interactivity with the learning experience. Considered a sometimes overused, misunderstood, and potentially meaningless term (Reeves, 1999) interactivity is defined as a two-way message loop between a sender and receiver, a definition with roots in Shanon's communications theory. In one-way communication, the learner receives a teacher's message. To be considered interactive, the learner returns a mutually relevant message. The reverse is also true; the initial message might originate with the learner to be received by the teacher, other students, or even the computer system itself.
Moore and Anderson (2003) define four types of interactivity: 1) student-to-content, 2) student-to-student, 3) student-to-teacher, and 4) student-to-interface. Design to increase the effectiveness of each type of interaction is to some extent dependent upon the capacity of the interaction format to optimally engage the learner. In a distance learning environment student-to-content interaction is facilitated in part through use of a content space where instructional materials are posted. Student-to-student interactions are facilitated in discussion spaces, links to blogs, email, and private group spaces. Student-to-teacher interactions generally take place in discussion spaces, links to blogs, email and private group spaces. Student-to-interface interactions take place throughout a distance environment wherever a student is required to click
Cognitive load theory
A critical issue in the design of interaction is the learner's cognitive load. Where in the past, a learner might have focused mostly on student-to-teacher interactions, the three additional interaction categories mentioned above contribute to a potential information overload for the learner. According to Chang and Ley (2004), online learning environments impose a heavy cognitive load due to the number of choices available to the learner, from links to external sites to internal chat sessions and discussion threads, to separate email communications, readings embedded in the learning environment, and readings external to the learning envirionment.
Cognitive load is a term used to describe the mental energy needed to think about or process information. The research on cognitive load describes three categories of load: intrinsic load, extraneous load, and germane load (Paas, Renkle & Sweller, 2003). Intrinsic load refers to the nature of the content and its level of complexity. Complexity can be defined in terms of element interactivity, or the extent that a learner must understand instructional content that overlaps and interacts with other instructional content.
Extraneous load can be thought of as the noise, or superfluous elements of communication, that act as barriers to learning due to the increased load they place on memory. Germane load can be thought of as those things that a designer can do to facilitate optimal load. For example, textual techniques that reinforce the content, such as chunking content, sequencing it, and providing analogies can help people understand new information more quickly.
In a typical classroom, information is directed from one source. In online communication, information may originate from many sources, and that information is often a result of a learner-driven decision-making process. When knowledge originates not only from the instructor but from content and other learners, and only through decisive interaction with an interface, the learner is more than a receiver of information. They must actively search for and select information. Given the array of choices available, the capacity of the learner to hold information is often challenged.
The focus of the study centers on the integration of constructivist learning strategies to the design and development of four types of interactivity in a distance-learning environment. Specific questions guiding this inquiry included:
1. Overall, was the course considered effective, as measured by student perceptions of learning gain and cognitive load as well as by instructional designer observations and academic ratings student of performance?
2. How successful were the implemented constructivist strategies in enhancing each of the four types of interaction, as measured by designer observations and student perceptions?
3. What design changes are needed to improve the instructional effectiveness of the four types of interaction?
Design and development of a constructivist distance-learning environment
Dolittle's (1999) eight constructivist learning strategies were integrated into a semester-long graduate-level course teaching instructional design. Funds to support the design, development and assessment for the project were provided by the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning at the University of Northern Colorado. Twenty-seven graduate students from two sections of the course, one lead designer/instructor, one teaching assistant/instructional designer, and one project stakeholder participated in the study. Design meeting notes, student blogs, discussions, and projects, and student end of semester surveys provide the data needed to assess the effectiveness of the course.
Course overview
The lead designer (also the instructor) developed an online Instructional Design course comprised of six two-week units: A Four Step Design Process, Cognitive Load Theory, Learner Analysis, Design of Objectives, Design of Strategies, and Design of Assessment. The terminal objective of the course was to apply all readings, discussions, and reflections to the design, development, and assessment of a 20 - 30 minute self-paced instructional unit for a client or mentor.
Integration of constructivist principles
Each of Dolittle's (1999) constructivist principles were implemented as follows:
Principle 1: Provide an authentic real-world environment.
To address this principle while also addressing enhancement of germane load, the designer required each student to create a unit of instruction for a client of their choice. Clients were either a teacher or trainer in need of self-paced instruction for use in their classrooms/or distance education settings. Students were evaluated by the course teacher as well as by their client. The Discussion Board and email (student-to-teacher, student-to-student, and student-to-interface interaction formats), and PowerPoint and Flash technology (student-to-content interaction format) were used to facilitate this principle.
Principle 2: Provide an environment that allows social negotiation and mediation.
To address this principle and to also address strategies for working with intrinsic load, students received weekly feedback from both their instructor and their client/mentor. Students would first work with the client/mentor to create drafts of instruction. Students would then work with the instructor (using a detailed rubric), modifying work as necessary. A back and forth process between the student, client/mentor and instructor took place during each of the six units. E-Mail, the Discussion Board, and private discussion groups (student-to-teacher, student-to-student, and student-to-interface interaction formats), were used to facilitate this principle.
Principle 3: Provide relevant content.
To address this principle as well as to employ germane strategies, students were asked to directly apply information from each of the six two-week units to the development of their client/mentor's lesson. This principle was facilitated through use of the student content area titled "2. Go to class", e-Mail, the Discussion Board, and Private Group areas (student-to-teacher, student-to-student, and student-to-interface interactionformats).
Principle 4: Recognize prior knowledge.
To address this principle, students worked in team environments to discuss readings and experiences in light of their own experiences. Students were also asked to keep a weekly blog reflecting on what they learned and how they might reconcile that information with previous experiences and knowledge. Private Group Areas, Internet blog sites, and blog space set up in Discussion areas were used to facilitate this principle (student-to-student, and student-to-interface formats).
Principle 5: Formatively assess students.
To address this principle, students created units of instruction with bi-monthly formative feedback from the instructor of the course. This feedback was provided using a detailed rubric that specified how unit content must be implemented into the project. Email and Discussion board interactions were use to facilitate this principle (student-to-teacher interaction).
Principle 6: Provide opportunities for reflection and self-mediation.
To address the principle, the instructor asked students to describe their thinking and learning in a weekly blog. Students were also encouraged to share changes in their thinking in the small group discussions as well. Students selected from a number of blog sites (such as Edublogs) or used a series of indented threads within the Discussion space. Each unit provided students many reading and activity options, which allowed them to mediate their own learning. This principle reflects student-to-content interaction and potentially student-to-student interaction.
Principle 7: Promote teacher as facilitator
To address this principle, the teacher asked students to learn from their interactions with a client or mentor, as well as interactions with other students in discussion areas. The instructor provided a number of readings, many optional, for student selection, as well. To guide students, the teacher blogged her experiences with content for each unit, and provided worked examples for student reference. Edublogs and Blackboard content, small group, and Discussion areas helped promote the teacher as a facilitator of the learning experience (student-to-content, student-to-interface, student-teacher interaction formats).
Principle 8: Provide multiple representations of content
To address the principle, the instructor asked students to work with clients/mentors and other students. Additionally, a story, an analogy, teacher modeling, and a variety of reading materials were used to teach critical content. The Blackboard content area, Internet links, and Edublogs facilitated access to different types of instructional content (student-to-content, student-to-student, student-to-teacher, and student-to-interface interactionformats).
Four interaction formats
The Blackboard learning management system was used to deliver instruction to students. Student-to-interface interactions originated with a main menu with three options: "1. Start here", "2. Go to class", the "3. Talk here /post work" space, as well as through a communications link to individual and group email.
Students were introduced to the objectives of each unit in the "1. Start here" space that directed students to the "2. Go to class" link designed for student-to-content interaction. This space was chunked into the 5 categories described above: 1) Unit Overview, 2) Unit Readings, 3) Tools for Richer Learning, 4) Activities, and 5) Self-check.