The integration of interaction on distance-learning courses

The integration of interaction on
distance-learning courses

page 1 of 53

Abstract
Interactive media such as email and online conferencing are increasingly used to
provide distance learners with opportunities for interaction. These media are not always
integrated within courses to meet the needs and objectives of students, staff and
institution. In some circumstances they impede learning. This study investigates how
students on distance-education courses are affected by the use of interactive media and
by the levels of interaction and integration built into the course design.

Data were collected from students on two distance-learning courses at the British Open
University, using asynchronous email communication over several days or weeks to
carry out epistolary interviews. Other sources of data were the open-ended responses
from a survey of Open University students which was administered by a related study
of the integration of interaction, informally known as the Mellon Project.

My study provides an evidence-based analysis of some effects of the integration of
interaction on distance-education courses. It contains grounded accounts of different
types of interaction on such courses. These reveal the importance of face-to-face
interaction for distance students, showing how they use their daily contacts to supply
face-to-face course-related interaction, and how course designers can support these
strategies. The accounts also reveal students’ problems with self-presentation when
using conferencing software and their exaggerated sense of the negative characteristics
of themselves and others online. These accounts challenge previous assumptions that
computer-mediated communication commonly results in an idealisation of the other.

The data supports seven strategies for the effective integration of interaction in distance
education. Course designers are recommended to incorporate students’ reasons for
communication, recognise the role of interaction in motivating students, give students
control over their learning, allow time for interaction, encourage students to find
mentors, utilise the affordances of the media and create positive social presence.

page 2 of 53

Contents
Chapter 1: Aims and objectives 5

Introduction 5
Dissertation structure 6

Chapter 2: Literature review 8

Interactive media 9
Effects of interaction 10
Interaction, learning and teaching 13
Integration 14
Evaluating integration 15
Conclusion 16

Chapter 3: Choice of research design and methods 17

Case studies 17
Epistolary interviews 19
Supplementary data 21
Ethics 21

Chapter 4: Collecting and analysing the data 23

Epistolary interviews: sampling 23
Epistolary interviews: method 24
Course Experience Survey 26
Course material 27
Data analysis 27

Chapter 5: Interpreting the data 29

Levels of interaction 29
Levels of integration 30
Students’ perceptions of interactive media 32
Students’ perceptions of interaction 32
Accounts of interaction: face to face 34
Accounts of interaction: FirstClass 34

page 3 of 53

Accounts of interaction: problems with FirstClass 35
Accounts of interaction: time, place and community 38
Accounts of interaction: student initiated 39
Integration of interaction 41
Integration of interaction: B300 41
Integration of interaction: E124 43

Chapter 6: Findings 46

Incorporate students’ reasons for communication 46
Recognise the role of interaction in motivating students 46
Give students control over their learning 47
Allow time for interaction 47
Encourage students to find mentors 47
Utilise the affordances of the media 47
Create positive social presence 48
Strengths and limitations of this research 48
Future research 49
Conculsion 49

Bibliography 51

Appendices 1-5 (not published on Knowledge Network)

page 4 of 53

Chapter 1: Aims and objectives

Introduction
Educational establishments worldwide are making increasing use of interactive media
such as email and online conferencing in the design of courses. These media are
employed in a variety of ways which have been shown to affect outcomes for students.
Some courses take advantage of increased storage capacity or the capacity to link to
information-rich resources, while others employ the media’s interactive potential.
Unfortunately, these uses of interactive media are not necessarily integrated with the
needs and objectives of course, students, staff or institution. These design variations
affect how the media are used, how students learn and study; they also affect
institutions’ infrastructure and the roles of instructors and other staff.

The research presented here begins by examining what is meant by interaction,
integration and interactive media, and why it is useful to study these in the context of
education. It then uses two case studies to investigate the research question:
How are students on distance-education courses affected by the use of
interactive media and by the levels of interaction and integration built into
the course design?

This research is part of a larger study, known as the Mellon Project. This study, funded
by the Teaching and Technology Program of the Andrew Mellon Foundation, is
investigating the impact of interaction and integration in computer-mediated teaching in
higher education. To do this it draws upon student surveys, interviews with course team
staff and analysis of pre-existing data relating to student retention, assignment
submission and credit achievement. As this primarily quantitative data only provides
evidence of some aspects of students’ experience, case studies are being used to reveal
more about the impact of interaction and integration on students and on their
perceptions of their learning experience. The studies presented here are two of these.

Working within a pre-existing research project has many advantages. Research
parameters had been identified, much of the relevant literature had been located, the
concepts of interaction and interactivity in computer-mediated learning environments

page 5 of 53

had been studied (Godwin, 2005) and substantial amounts of quantitative data were
available for secondary analysis. However, there are also disadvantages. The courses
chosen for study had to be selected from a limited range, and differed in many ways
other than their integration of interaction. The Mellon Project neglected face-to-face
interaction, which my study found to be very important. While my study examined the
use of interactive media, the Mellon Project’s research design focused on computer-
mediated interaction.

The aims and design of my research are necessarily related to those proposed in Mary
Thorpe’s research design for the Mellon Project (Appendix 1). They focus on one
aspect of that research – students’ subjective experience of interaction and integration.
The aims of my research are:
• To investigate students’ perceptions of interaction on two distance-education
courses.
• To investigate students’ perceptions of the use of interactive media on these
courses.
• To investigate levels of interaction and integration on these courses.

A review of the literature suggests that students’ perceptions of the quality of courses
are not greatly influenced by the degree to which interaction is included in the course,
nor by the use of interactive media. Instead, perceptions of course quality are
influenced by the degree to which interaction has been integrated into the course
design. My research tests these hypotheses, and has the following objectives:
• To produce grounded accounts of different types of interaction on distance-
education courses.
• To produce an evidence-based analysis of some effects of the integration of
interaction on distance-education courses.
• To provide evidence to support the Mellon Project’s recommendations about
effective strategies for the use of computer-based teaching in distance-education
courses.

Dissertation structure
Chapter 2 presents an overview of relevant literature and defines key terms. Chapter 3
describes the choice of methods and of cases, the data collection methods employed for

page 6 of 53

the research and the reasons for their use. Chapter 4 details how the data were collected
and analysed and includes information about sampling and coding. Chapter 5 explains
how the data were interpreted, with reference to the literature examined earlier and the
research aims and objectives. Finally, Chapter 6 summarises the research findings and
their implications.

page 7 of 53

Chapter 2: Literature review
The terminology used to refer to computer-related media is various and inconsistent.
ICT or C&IT, information and communication technology, IT, learning technology and
new technology are often used interchangeably. The research design for the Mellon
Project shifted between ICT, IT and computer-mediated technologies. Earle (2002)
discussed the term ‘instructional technology’, noting that it ‘encompasses the broader
processes of teaching and learning [but] the prevailing public perspective incorporates
instructional technology as a synonym for computer technology’ (p6). He identified this
as a problem which had led to a focus on hardware at the expense of effective
pedagogy.

While ‘technology’ emphasises the hardware, ‘information technology’ foregrounds
potential for information storage and access. Sims et al. (2002) found that much online
educational material merely reproduces printed materials and does not represent online
learning, which they conceptualised as:
an environment that integrates collaboration, communication and engaging
content with specific group and independent learning activities and tasks. If
content materials and learning activities are to be placed online, then
significant levels of thought must be placed on the very nature of the
medium and the underlying implications for teaching and learning. (p138)
Thus they placed integrated interaction at the heart of online learning.

Participants in the ESRC seminar series The implications of networked learning for
higher education (2002) argued for an increased focus on interaction, stating that the
educational task of higher education:
is best achieved through a pedagogy based on constructionist views of
knowledge which requires students to engage with ideas and develop skills
and capabilities within a scholarly community where knowledge is actively
constructed and framed as provisional, and where future learning through
research is an aspiration. (p2)

page 8 of 53

Sims et al. and the ESRC seminar participants were clear that the technology’s potential
to facilitate interaction should be stressed. ‘Information technology’ is thus
inappropriate, as it focuses on the hardware’s uses as a delivery mechanism and
resource base. More useful terminology focuses on potential for interaction.

Interaction has been conceptualised in many ways (for an overview of these, see
Godwin, 2005), but this study follows the Mellon Project in adopting Wagner’s
definition (1994). He considered that ‘interactions are reciprocal events that require at
least two objects and two actions. Interactions occur when these objects and events
mutually influence one another’ (p8). This definition emphasises reciprocity and mutual
influence, without restricting the types of interaction possible. Students may interact
with instructors, other students, themselves or others. They may also interact with non-
human categories such as course content, the interface or their environment.

Interactive media
Laurillard (2002) foregrounded the capabilities of the technology with the term
‘interactive media’:
the presentational media that include hypertext, hypermedia, multimedia
resources, Web-based resources and Internet-delivered television… The
environment in which they are delivered, offering open access to any part of
the material, in any sequence, lends them a degree of user-responsiveness
that has earned these media the epithet “interactive”. (p107)

The term is useful, but this definition omits certain key areas. First, it limits itself to
presentational media, omitting the possibility of interacting with individuals rather than
content. Second, it ignores the affordances of the print media. Books have always
offered open access to their material in any sequence. Laurillard attempted clarification:
‘User control is fundamental to the “sit-forward” interactive media, and the user
expects to be doing something every few seconds, in contrast with the “sit-back”
narrative media of print and television’ (p110), but her distinction does not hold. Print
media are all ‘sit-forward’ media: reading requires constant action.

This leads to a third problem, the assumption that print media are not open to
interactive change. This does not tally with Barthes’ (1977) influential view: ‘a text is

page 9 of 53

not a line of words releasing a single “theological” meaning (the “message” of the
Author-God) but a multidimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them
original, blend and clash’ (p146). In these terms, any text must be considered
interactive, its sense and meaning changed by each reader, even as it changes the
reader’s thoughts.

If ‘interactive media’ is not to be too restricted or, conversely, to be a tautology,
interactivity must require observable evidence of the mutual influence integral to
interaction. Here, therefore, interactive media are defined as those which offer access to
to any part of their material or to other individuals, in any sequence, and which
normally produce observable change in response to a user’s actions.

Researchers into interactive media have identified a number of potential benefits of
interaction for students, summarised by Wu and Hiltz (2004) as: ‘convenience, place-
independence, time-independence, and the potential for users to become part of a
virtual community’ (p139). These have been the basis of much research, which has
focused on different types of interaction, the social presence offered by interactive
media, and the social networks that can be created. All these elements have been shown
to relate to learning outcomes and student satisfaction.

Effects of interaction
Jung et al. (2002) studied the relationship of different types of interaction to learning
achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. They examined
three types of online interaction: academic, collaborative and social. Academic
interaction was defined as interaction with online resources and task-related interaction
with an instructor, collaborative interaction involved working with fellow students,
while social interaction included interpersonal encouragement or social integration.
These forms of interaction were integrated within the course, and assignments were
related to the course materials and learning objectives. Students in the collaborative
group had the highest levels of satisfaction, although collaborative interaction did not
relate to increased learning achievement as judged by assignment scores. Social
interaction was found to relate to increased learning achievement, but not to learner
satisfaction. Academic interaction was not found to enhance achievement, satisfaction
or participation.

page 10 of 53

Wu and Hiltz (2004) studied technology students who were required to take part in
weekly online discussions linked to their course’s objectives. They identified features
which increase motivation and enjoyment: opportunities to be involved in discussions
at any time, the need to rephrase arguments and thus increase understanding, and the
opportunity to work in a student-dominated study space. Their analysis indicated that
online interaction relates to students’ perceived learning, and that students who report
they are highly motivated by and enjoy online discussion are those who report they
have learned the most, broadening their knowledge and developing their skills. The role
of the tutor in promoting online interaction was seen as crucial to learning, motivation
and enjoyment.

LaPointe and Gunawardena (2004) found a strong correlation between self-reported
peer interaction and self-reported learning outcomes. Their sample included
participants from 30 web-based courses which differed widely in the amount of
participation in online discussion required. Some assessed online work, others
penalised non-completion. Students reported that sharing experiences and
interpretations and encountering differences allowed them to clear confusion, gain
understanding and learn more.

Social presence is a feature of interaction that has been found to influence both
academic achievement and learner satisfaction. Lombard & Ditton (1997) defined
social presence as ‘the perceptual illusion of nonmediation’ (p9). The medium is
ignored, either because it appears to be transparent, providing a window on events, or
because it is perceived as a social entity. When using interactive media, people may
feel that they are together in virtual space or that they are encountering real people,
without being aware of the constraints of the online environment. They may talk to an
animated character or swear at a program – treating it as a social entity. Joinson (2005)
noted that ‘much of our self-perception and esteem comes by evaluating others’
reactions to our own behaviour’ (2005, p33). Bargh et al. (2002, p46) reported that
encountering others on the Internet ‘fosters idealisation of the other in the absence of
information to the contrary’. Thus, views of self and others online are not constructed
in the same way as offline views, but rely on social presence.

page 11 of 53

Students’ ability to interact online and their sense of being part of a course are related
to their social presence. Some form of this is necessary before they can create a
community of learners. Picciano (2002) found that student perception of social
presence had a small inverse, but not statistically significant, relationship with students’
performance on a multiple-choice examination; while it had a strong positive and
statistically significant relationship with performance on a written assignment. He
struggled to relate this distinction to students’ sense of social presence, but did not
consider that it could have been due to these forms of assessment producing different
approaches to study.

Yang and Tang (2003) identified three important types of online network: advising
(sharing work-related resources), adversarial (involving negative exchanges) and
friendship. Students central to advising networks performed better on course work, but
not significantly better in examinations; being central to an adversarial network had a
small but identifiable negative correlation with academic performance, and being
central to a friendship network had no clear academic correlation. This research design
incorporated an element missing from others, a negative aspect of interaction.
Interactive media may promote constructive cooperation; they also provide
opportunities for obstructing or opposing others.

Salomon (2000) identified serious problems with the use of interactive media in
education: a tendency to assimilate new technologies into existing instructional
practices unthinkingly, a view of technology as an end in itself, and a focus on the
medium rather than on how and why it is being used. He linked these problems to three
assumptions: knowledge and information are identical, knowledge is gained by
transmission and the role of computers in education is to help with this process.

He went on to highlight differences between information and knowledge. Information
is discrete, clear and can be transmitted without contextualisation. It can be seen as a
series of facts, which may be transmitted, learned by rote and tested in multiple-choice
questionnaires without any need for understanding. Knowledge, on the other hand,
requires interaction because it is constructed in meaningfully connected networks. This
construction of knowledge requires not only sharing and collaboration, but also
ambiguity, conflict and uncertainty. Those who view education as information transfer

page 12 of 53

will use interactive media for storage, drilling, testing and accessing information; those
who seek conceptual change will seek to make use of their interactive qualities.
Approaches to studying and conceptions of teaching and learning are thus relevant to
the use of interactive media.

Interaction, learning and teaching
Richardson (in press) describes interview-based research which identified different
approaches to studying in higher education:
a deep approach, based upon understanding the meaning of course materials;
a surface approach, based upon memorising the course materials for the
purposes of assessment; and a strategic approach, based upon obtaining the
highest grades. Even so, the same students could exhibit different
approaches to studying in different situations. In general, the choice of one
approach to studying rather than another appeared to depend upon the
content, the context and the demands of particular tasks. (p3)
Of these three, ‘deep approaches exemplify the type of learning that employers and
teachers expect students to demonstrate’ (Ramsden, 1988, p20).

These deep approaches to learning can be encouraged by the use of an appropriate
approach by teachers. Trigwell et al. (1999) considered teachers’ reports of their
approaches to teaching: an information transmission/teacher-focused approach which
deals with information and skills but not with the relationship between them; or a
conceptual change/student-focused approach in which students must construct their
own knowledge. They found that:
an information transmission/teacher-focused approach to teaching is
strongly associated with surface and non-deep approaches to learning and
that a conceptual change/student-focused approach to teaching is associated,
but less strongly, with a non-surface approach to learning. (pp65-66)
Courses which provide access to information but limited or no opportunities for
interaction can be seen to support an information transmission/teacher-focused
approach and thus serve a surface approach to learning well. Courses providing
opportunities for interaction have the potential to support a conceptual change/student-
focused approach and are thus more likely to result in a deep approach to learning.

page 13 of 53

Scouller (1996, 1998) studied the influence of assessment method on students’ learning
approaches, comparing the assignment essay with the short-answer question and the
multiple-choice question examination. She found that preparation for multiple-choice
or for short-answer questions was more likely to involve a surface approach to learning,
whereas preparing for an essay was more likely to involve a deep approach. She
concluded that, to encourage analytical and critical thought, assessment methods should
‘firstly, encourage the development of such abilities; and secondly, provide students
with the opportunity to demonstrate that they have developed these higher order
abilities’ (1998, p469).

While interaction is important, it is not sufficient to add opportunities and capabilities
for interaction to existing courses. Burt (2001) reported on nearly 26,000 students who
had completed distance-education courses at the Open University in Britain. At least
10% of those who had used email or computer conferencing as part of their course rated
these ‘not at all helpful’. LaPointe and Gunawardena (2004) carried out research using
online questionnaires and found that more surface learning than deep learning occurs in
computer-mediated communication, and that many educators have incorporated
interaction into online courses without understanding its nature, thus impeding the
learning process by imposing an extra cognitive load.

Kirkwood and Price (2005) looked at students’ attitudes to and experience of ICT,
bringing together research involving around 80,000 respondents. They found that
technology can enable new forms of learning and teaching to take place, but cannot
ensure that this happens. ‘It is not technologies, but educational purposes and
pedagogy, that must provide the lead, with students understanding not only how to
work with ICTs, but why it is of benefit for them to do so’ (p257). It is therefore
important to investigate whether interaction has been integrated within course
pedagogy.

Integration
Earle (2002) studied the integration of instructional technology into education:
Integration (from the Latin integrare, to make whole) includes a sense of
completeness or wholeness and incorporates the need to overcome artificial
separations by bringing together all essential elements in the teaching and

page 14 of 53

learning process – including technology (as one of the elements, not the sole
element)… the focus of integration is on pedagogy – effective practices for
teaching and learning. (p10)
He identified factors essential for integration: leadership, solid educational objectives,
professional development, adequate technology resources, time and evaluation. To
these can be added a clear vision of an integration strategy, which Mize and Gibbons
(2000) found to be necessary when researching effective integration in K-12 schools.

Laurillard (2002) identified considerations related to students’ needs and capabilities.
The design of learning materials should begin with a definition of learning objectives
and an analysis of student needs. Use of interactive media should be clearly justified in
terms of improving the quality of education. Clearly defined objectives are needed for
good design, development and assessment. The relationship of learning material with
the course objectives must be clear, and any pre-requisite skills must be possessed by
students or developed as part of the course. Interactive work should be built on,
followed through and assessed.

Assessment is key to integration. Scouller (1996, 1998) showed the importance of
assessment method to students’ approaches to learning. Jelfs and Colbourn (2002)
suggested it may be ‘unclear to “strategic” or “surface apathetic” learners what benefits
are to be accrued from an unmonitored appraisal of learning material’ (p50). If
assessment is to reflect course pedagogy, aims and objectives, then it should reflect
changes produced by the use of interactive media. Laurillard (2002) pointed to
interactive media’s ability to offer ‘individualised, private, formative feedback, which
helps to build [students’] understanding of the internal relations between theory and
practice’ (p127).

Evaluating integration
Gunn (1999) looked at ways of identifying whether successful integration has been
achieved, and proposed the situated evaluation of computer-assisted learning (SECAL)
framework. This begins with a detailed description of learning objectives, how these
are to be achieved and how they will be assessed. The framework takes into account
perceived relevance to learning goals, assessments and other course elements. Her case

page 15 of 53

study identified many benefits of the integration of interactive media, including an
overall improvement in standards, expectations and quality of learning outcomes.

Sims et al. (2002) proposed the evaluation of courses during their design in order to
achieve successful integration. They took into account learner/interface interaction,
which led to practical considerations: are the terminology and design clear, the
interactive medium accessible, and the navigation easy? Can users personalise their
environment and do they feel secure within it? Are administration, faculty and students
clear why an interactive medium is being used, and do they have an investment in or an
interest in its being used successfully? Constructive learning can best be encouraged if
the media actively encourage communities of learners, if learners can collaborate in
constructing and extending the knowledge base, if they can control the learning process
and link activities to their own learning requirements, and if they can structure their
environment to meet their own needs and preferences.

Conclusion
Interactive media can benefit students in many ways, supporting them in the
construction of knowledge. However, their interactive potential is often overlooked in
favour of their ability to offer access to information. When interaction is employed it
has been found to have positive effects on learning outcomes, but it can also lead to
technical problems, information overload and extra work. Interactive media do not
automatically encourage students to employ deep approaches to studying and teachers
to employ student-centred approaches to teaching. These results are most likely to be
achieved when interaction is integrated with pedagogy.

page 16 of 53

Chapter 3: Choice of research design and methods
The literature suggests that students are likely to benefit in many ways when interaction
is integrated with course pedagogy. The Mellon Project provided a framework for
investigating whether this is the case. It allowed this research to be set in a wider
context and it also provided survey data which supplemented the qualitative data
gathered for my research.

Case studies
The modernist approach to case study detailed by Yin (1984) aims for objectivity,
validity and reliability. The Mellon Project, being primarily quantitative, employs this
approach, which was therefore used here in order to be consistent with the project. A
post-structuralist approach, seeking understanding and demanding reflexivity, was
considered and could have worked well with the chosen qualitative research method,
but such an approach would not have produced the generalisable conclusions required
by the research objectives.

Yin (1984) advises that case studies should proceed using a formal protocol, ‘a major
tactic in increasing the reliability of case study research’ (p64). Mellon case study
research: a protocol setting out the design principles for case study selection, data
collection, analysis and reporting (Appendix 2) was developed by the project’s lead
investigators. At its centre are the premises that interaction and integration are
dimensions of courses which are critical in terms of their impact on student experience;
and that different results in terms of impact relate to the degree to which a course offers
both interaction and integration of that interaction. The course is taken as the unit of
analysis, as student perceptions of any element of the course will be shaped by their
view of the course as a whole.

Courses at the British Open University were studied. As this is a distance-learning
institution, it was thought that interaction using interactive media could be contrasted
with low levels of interaction on other courses, highlighting differences more clearly
than would be possible at an institution that uses face-to-face methods. In addition, the
university’s detailed statistical records facilitated the Mellon Project’s quantitative
comparisons. However, the university’s status as a distance-learning institution may

page 17 of 53

mean that the findings of the study are not generalisable. The students are studying part
time, are generally mature students and often have fewer qualifications than students at
other institutions, so may not be a representative group.

The Mellon Project assigned Open University courses from entry level (level 1) to
advanced (level 3) a score of 1 for each relevant technology used and an additional
score of 1 for any form of conferencing. This produced a range from 0–14, with a
median value of 5, for each of the courses in presentation to students in 2003/4. Scores
of 7 and above were deemed to have potentially high interaction and those scoring 5
and below to have potentially low interaction. Long-term (60-point) courses were
selected in preference to more limited (30-point) courses where possible. Researchers
examined course materials and assessed the degree of integration of interactive media.
Following this analysis, 36 courses were placed within a matrix (Figure 3.1, below).

High interaction Low interaction
High integration Cell 1 Cell 3
Low integration Cell 2 Cell 4
Figure 3.1: Two-way matrix of dimensions of computer-based teaching

Due to time constraints, my research focuses on two courses, one drawn from cell 1
(high interaction/high integration) and one drawn from cell 4 (low interaction/low
integration). Other courses were being studied by other researchers, so these two were
selected to produce theoretical replication, which was predicted to be clearest in these
categories. The chosen courses were B300: Business behaviour in a changing world, a
12-month, 60-point, level 3 course from the high/high category; and E124: Supporting
children’s learning in the Early Years, a nine-month, 30-point, level-one course from
the low/low category.

B300 is a business course which recruited 328 students for its 2004/5 presentation, of
whom 57% were women. At least 44% already had some higher-education qualification
and 89% were continuing students, so the majority had experience of study at
university level. Most had the option of attending face-to-face tutorials, but 10% were
based outside the UK and therefore did not have access to these. B300 is a compulsory

page 18 of 53

element of the BA (Hons) in Business Studies, and 79% of students were working
towards this qualification.

The education course E124 recruited 1,301 students for its 2005 presentation, of whom
98% were women. Although 20% had some higher-education qualification, 37% had
one A-level or less. Three quarters of the students had begun studying with the Open
University in 2004 or 2005, so they had limited experience of university education.
Most had the option of attending face-to-face tutorials or day schools; just 4% did not
have access to these because they were based outside the UK. E124 is a compulsory
part of the Foundation degree in the Early Years and of the Certificate in Early Years
Practice, both of which are aimed at people currently working within an Early Years
setting, and 95% of students were working towards one of these qualifications.

Epistolary interviews
The case studies focus on student perceptions of interaction and the use of interactive
media, and relate these to levels of integration. Considerable quantitative data relating
to these courses was already available for secondary analysis, so a qualitative approach
was selected to supplement this data and to provide some of the qualitative data
required for the Mellon Project. The main research method was interviewing, which
offered flexibility and the potential to investigate motives and feelings, seek new
viewpoints, clarify responses and follow up ideas. Face-to-face interviewing would
have placed geographic restrictions on the sample and would not have provided data on
students living abroad or in remote areas of Britain. Telephone interviews would have
limited the time available for interview and were could have proved difficult to arrange
with mature students already juggling study, jobs and family. To allow extended, in-
depth interviews and include geographically widespread respondents, epistolary
interviewing was employed.

Epistolary interviewing is a new research method in which interviews are carried out
using email. Interviews are asynchronous and may continue for weeks. The method
allows both interviewer and respondent to select suitable interview times, provides time
to consider questions and responses, allows an extensive geographical reach and
eliminates the need for transcription. The epistolary nature of the interview means that,
as in a sequence of written letters, a relationship between the correspondents can be

page 19 of 53

established and developed over time. Joinson (2005) reports ‘there is considerable
evidence that within a research setting, people… disclose more about themselves online
compared to in offline equivalents, and that much of that disclosure is more candid’
(p25). In addition, the method allows the researcher to conduct a number of interviews
simultaneously, so data from one interview can be tested in or used to develop other
interviews.

The method has some disadvantages. The need for computer skills and access could
produce a biased sample, but all Open University students are required to have email
access. Some researchers (Bampton and Cowton, 2002) have reported technical
problems, but the Open University computer system is robust and regularly backed up.
The method reduces spontaneity, which is compensated for by carefully considered
responses. There are also several ethical issues, addressed below.

Interviews were planned so the differences between talk and text would enhance rather
than limit the data. The epistolary interview is a developing form and may use the
conventions of face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, email communication or a
combination of these, depending on the situation. The interviewer therefore set the
pattern for the formality of the interview, ensuring that the online format was used to
organise and facilitate talk rather than to constrain it. The length, aims and format of the
interview, the need for spontaneous or researched responses, and whether reference
could be made to external material such as attachments were all established at the
outset. An interview protocol was drawn up, piloted and adopted (Appendix 3).

Disclosure was built into the interviews because ‘within an interaction, one person’s
intimacies tend to be reciprocated in terms of level and type by the communication
partner’ (Joinson, 2005, p27). Disclosure allowed the researcher to develop the
epistolary nature of the interview, building up a conversation and relationship over
time, which would not have been possible with a synchronous e-interview. As
epistolary interviewing is a new technique, the advantages of using disclosure are not
clear-cut. Joinson also reported that ‘any design that increases the “socialness” of an
encounter may also lead to increases in impression management motives as well’ (p29).
However, the interviews were not intended to discuss particularly sensitive issues, so
any tendency to impression management was judged unimportant.

page 20 of 53

Supplementary data
Interview data were supplemented by information from course materials and pre-
existing Mellon Project data collected using the Course Experience Survey (Appendix
4). This survey combined two validated research instruments, the Course Experience
Questionnaire (CEQ) and the Revised Approach to Studying Inventory (RASI), with
open-ended questions relating to Open University courses and their provision of
computer-based media.

Responses from E124 and B300 students to the open-ended questions on the Course
Experience Survey were coded and analysed alongside data from the epistolary
interviews to provide data from a larger sample. In addition, some of the quantitative
data gathered by other Mellon Project researchers was subjected to secondary analysis
for this study.

Ethics
Epistolary interviewing raises a number of ethical issues. Data protection is important,
and all data collected was stored on a password-protected hard drive. The pilot study
included digital certification, which allowed the encryption of messages and confirmed
the sender’s identity. However, this was found to confuse respondents, so it was not
used during interviews. All respondents were notified of the purpose of the research,
that participation was voluntary, that it would not affect their standing with the
university, and that they were free to withdraw at any time. The address of a website
containing this information was provided on all emails. Respondents’ privacy was
protected by the use of pseudonyms.

As King (1996) notes: ‘Even when they are given clearly presented guidelines, it is
unlikely that interviewees will have been in a similar situation before’ (p177). This is
particularly the case for epistolary interviews, which could become indistinguishable in
the respondent’s view from other online exchanges. Emails from the researcher were
therefore formally laid out using a consistent style which always contained a numbered
question, a title which drew attention to the research, and full contact details.

The data collected was not expected to be particularly personal or sensitive. In the
event, some respondents took the opportunity to reflect on their career, on their

page 21 of 53

relationships with others and on friendship. One B300 student was clear how she had
used the interviews: ‘I’ve really enjoyed having a proper think about my OU experience
and your framework has provided an excellent platform to prompt this.’ Such
reflections were responded to, but always clearly within the framework of the research
interview.

Working within the Mellon Project also raised ethical issues, as the project was still
underway and results had not been published. It was necessary to check that data
sources and other people’s analysis were always acknowledged and referenced. This
was particularly the case with Appendices 1, 2 and 4, all of which were the work of
other Mellon Project researchers.

This research conformed to the Open University’s Code of Good Practice in Research
(2003). As it involved research on students, a research proposal was submitted to the
university’s Student Research Project panel, and approval was given on 20 June 2005.

page 22 of 53

Chapter 4: Collecting and analysing the data
Data for this research were collected from three main sources: epistolary interviews,
pre-existing data from the Course Experience Survey (CES) 2004 administered by other
Mellon Project researchers, and the complete course materials for E124 and B300,
which include printed material, CDs, videos, audio cassette and web pages. Analysis
was carried out using the grounded-theory approach outlined by Strauss (1987). This
required analysis to take place alongside data collection, driving the collection of
further data and the generation of theory.

Epistolary interviews: sampling
Interviews with ten students were planned: five from E124 and five from B300. A
random sample of 25 students from the current presentation of each of these courses
was obtained from the Open University Survey Office, which created a sample
containing only students who were available for surveying under the Open University’s
rules. Students in the sample were contacted by email over a period of three weeks,
until 10 interviews were underway. Due to delayed responses, 12 interviews were
carried out in all; six for each course.

There were marked differences in the response rates for each course. Eighteen B300
students were contacted. Of these, seven responded, and six interviews were completed.
The first response came within 10 minutes of the initial email being sent. In all,
interview responses from B300 amounted to almost 8,000 words. In contrast, responses
from E124 students were slow. The original sample did not produce sufficient
responses, and a further random sample of 25 was needed. In total, 40 students were
contacted, resulting in six interviews, one of which was broken off by the student at
question 7. Total interview responses from E124 students came to around 4,500 words.

There was therefore substantially less E124 data available. One explanation was that
E124 students had less experience of course-related interaction, but analysis showed
that was not the case. E124 students, all Early Years practitioners, may have had less
access to and familiarity with email than the business students, who were more likely to
use email at work. However, all students in the samples had both a personal email
address and a student email address, and replies timed from 7am to 11pm suggested

page 23 of 53

access to email both at work and outside. Another possibility was that students with
fewer educational qualifications were less willing to take part in typed interviews. This
explanation was supported by the mistakes and lack of fluency in many E124
responses.

Epistolary interviews: method
Students who responded positively to the initial contact email were emailed more
details of the interview and the first question. Questions followed the interview protocol
(Appendix 3) and were phrased to be relevant regardless of students’ level of
interaction on their course. This provided a degree of standardisation within an informal
interview framework, ensuring the main questions were always phrased in the same
way and asked in the same order; and increased reliability by ensuring consistency
between respondents and courses.

Each emailed question included contact details for the researcher, including a web
address. This website included a brief summary of the project, information about
epistolary interviewing, the ten interview questions from the interview protocol,
frequently asked questions and information about the Mellon Project, including the
option of downloading the research design. The site also included a biography and
photograph of the researcher. Each email from the researcher contained personal
disclosure (see Panel 4.1).

Respondents varied in their reaction to disclosure. Some took the opportunity to
develop a wide-ranging conversation, others responded only to the formal questions,
often omitting either a salutation or a sign-off. Alison’s [all respondents’ names given
here are pseudonyms] responses (Panel 4.2), with their limited word count, uncorrected
mistakes and use of lower case only, resembled the text messages she used for
interaction on her course.

page 24 of 53

Hi Carol,

Yup, the heatwave has spread to Milton Keynes, and I’m wishing I was at the open-air pool instead of
in the office. Walked the kids to school this morning and they were getting slower.. and slower... and
s.l.o.w.e.r....

I heard from my friend at King’s Cross yesterday, and he was on the afternoon shift so missed the
worst of it, although he said they were treating casualties on the station, and there was loads of
disruption.

Great answer to question three - that level of detail is really useful to me. It’s good that your manager is
interested in your study and that you get to use it and apply it. Most of my courses at the moment are in
research techniques and come in useful while I’m doing my research - but sometimes it’s hard to make
the bridge between theory and real life.

I think you’ve covered lots of the answer to Question 4 in previous answers, so I’m including Question
5 as well.

Question 4: Having interacted with other people while doing B300: Business behaviour in a changing
world, in what ways have you found that helpful?

Question 5: What has put you off interacting with other people while on B300: Business behaviour in a
changing world?

Regards
Rebecca

=========================================
Rebecca Ferguson MA
Institute of Educational Technology
GC128, Open University
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA

Tel 01908 659256
http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/r.m.ferguson/

Panel 4.1: Personal disclosure in email

its helpful to discuss assignments and different theories and ways which
help children to learn and thrive, and be given different ideas on
activititys to do with the children.
i have spoke to others using first class and also through personal emails
and text messages.
Panel 4.2: Text-message style

page 25 of 53

Course Experience Survey
The Mellon Project investigated several areas relating to interaction, including students’
perceptions of course quality, their satisfaction with the courses and the course
materials, their opinions on assessment, workload, goals and standards. To collect
relevant data, the Course Experience Survey (CES) was administered in 2004 to a
sample of students on each of the 36 courses in the research matrix. Students who
responded were on 2004 or 2003/4 course presentations. Secondary analysis was
carried out on this pre-existing data, gathered by other researchers.

CES sample sizes depended on how a course had been rated for integration and
interaction. For E124, 113 questionnaires were sent out and 62 returned, a response rate
of 55%. For B300, 159 questionnaires were sent out and 65 returned, a response rate of
41%. This response pattern differed from that of my epistolary interviews, which had a
greater take up from B300 students than from E124 students. However, when
answering the three open-ended questions on the CES, B300 students again wrote
more, 4,700 words, compared to 2,500 written by E124 students. This may have
reflected the fact that B300 students were more dissatisfied or it may, again, show that
E124 students were less confident about expressing themselves in writing.

Secondary analysis of the quantitative data from the CES revealed an unforeseen
difference between E124 and B300. E124 had the highest student satisfaction levels of
the 36 courses studied, while B300 ranked only 33rd of 36 for satisfaction. This rating
was reflected in the responses to open-ended questions, in which B300 students made
twice as many suggestions for improvements.

The CES contained 92 questions, most designed for quantitative analysis. For my study,
responses to the only three open-ended questions were coded:
38 Does the course include the opportunity to engage in on-line conferencing
email? YES/NO
a: If so, what, if any, positive contributions did conferencing and/or email make
to your study?
b: If so, what, if any, negative contributions did conferencing and/or email make
to your study?

page 26 of 53

39 Does the course include the opportunity to use software, CDROMs and/or the
Internet? YES/NO
a: If so, what, if any, positive contributions did these make to your study?
b: If so, what, if any, negative contributions did these make to your study?

Do you have any other comments on this course or studying with the Open
University in general, or about this questionnaire?

Students did not necessarily respond to any or all of these questions; some omitted even
the YES/NO element. Other students gave responses of up to 450 words.

Course material
A third source of data was the course material for B300 and E124. The Mellon Project
originally used this data to assign courses to quadrants of the integration/interaction
matrix (Figure 3.1). It was re-examined here to check the original classification of the
two courses and to clarify students’ comments about the courses. It also provided
evidence of the extent to which interaction had been integrated within the courses.

Data analysis
Analysis of the data was carried out using the grounded-theory approach proposed by
Strauss (1987). Here, theory ‘is discovered and formulated developmentally in close
conjunction with intensive analysis of data’ (p23). Data collection, analysis and
generation of theory are inextricably linked when using this method – they do not
follow each other sequentially. Theoretical memos are generated during the analysis
and they, in turn, become part of the data to be analysed. Coding begins with open
coding, when codes are generated from the data. This generates questions, tentative
hypotheses and a search for more data. Open coding is followed by axial coding. Old
and new data is analysed in terms of the original coding categories, revealing
relationships between these and producing more questions and hypotheses. Finally, the
core category is identified, the main category to which much or most of the data relate.
‘The goal of grounded theory is to generate a theory that accounts for a pattern of
behaviour which is relevant and problematic for those involved. The generation of
theory occurs around a core category’ (Strauss, 1987, p34).

page 27 of 53

Open coding of the data, using the software package NVivo, began when the first
epistolary interview had been completed. Although the interviews were based around
ten standard questions, the epistolary nature of the interviews and the conversational
style adopted meant that questions and issues raised by the coding could feed into the
data collection. Coding categories suggested by the literature review were only
included if they arose from the data. Thus ‘building knowledge’, ‘information
gathering’ and ‘different perspectives’ were included while ‘social presence’ was
omitted in favour of ‘empathy’, ‘bonding’, ‘hate’ and ‘problems: people’. Some
categories were completely new and necessitated a return to the literature.

Once open coding of the first three interviews had been carried out, axial coding began.
Subsequent interviews were coded using the original codes, and also generated further
coding categories which, in turn, led to a reconsideration of earlier data. Theoretical
memos were stored online in a password-protected research blog. These memos were
read and reread, influencing data collection and coding. The original literature review
was treated as a long theoretical memo and reconsidered in the light of the data. It
became clear that the link between interaction and interactive media was not inevitable,
and the original research question was therefore revised.

Seventy-nine coding categories were generated by open and axial coding. Responses to
the open-ended questions from the CES were then coded into these categories, and two
new categories were created. The coding was then divided by course, to highlight
differences between the two courses. For the complete list of coding categories, see
Appendix 5. It became clear that the core coding category was ‘reasons for
communication’, and that virtually every other coding category related to this one. The
data was then re-examined to relate this category to the research objectives.

page 28 of 53

Chapter 5: Interpreting the data
This chapter investigates levels of interaction and integration on two distance-education
courses, and students’ perceptions of interaction and of the use of interactive media on
these courses in order to fulfill the three aims of this research. It also relates the data
analysis to the research objectives: to produce grounded accounts of different types of
interaction on distance-education courses, to produce an evidence-based analysis of
some effects of the integration of interaction on distance-education courses and to
provide evidence to support the Mellon Project’s recommendations about effective
strategies for the use of computer-based teaching in higher-education courses. The first
two of these objectives are met here, the third is covered in Chapter 6.

Levels of interaction
Data analysis was shaped by the research question: ‘How are students on distance-
education courses affected by the use of interactive media and by the levels of
interaction and integration built into the course design?’ It was therefore necessary to
pay particular attention to evidence relating to interaction and integration on the
courses. A key consideration was whether they had initially been rated correctly by the
Mellon Project.

The Mellon Project’s core research question, ‘What is the impact of degree of
interactivity and degree of integration in the design of computer-based teaching?’ led to
a focus on ‘computer-based elements including conferencing, email, tools, CD/DVD
resources, web-based resources and software’ (Appendix 2, p8). Courses rated high for
interaction used a variety of these resources. Three problems arose from this
categorisation. First, not all computer-based media promote interaction. Second, most
Open University courses include some face-to-face interaction, whether at tutorials, day
schools or (more rarely) summer school. Telephone tutorials are also widely used and,
while the telephone is an interactive medium, its use predates computers. Finally, some
courses require extensive face-to-face interaction with people outside the course, such
as workmates or clients.

These problems did not affect the ‘high interaction’ classification of B300, which not
only incorporated face-to-face tutorials and telephone conversations but also included a

page 29 of 53

range of computer-based resources. However, when face-to-face interaction was taken
into account, it became evident that E124 was a highly interactive course, including
face-to-face tutorials, a day school and guided interaction with people in the work
environment.

The data showed students interacting in a variety of ways. Those promoted by the
course materials are shown in Table 5.1.
B300 E124
Face-to-face tutorials Face-to-face tutorials
Telephone contact with staff Telephone contact with staff
Telephone contact with students Telephone contact with students
Online conferencing using FirstClass Online conferencing using FirstClass
Email contact with staff Email contact with staff
Web-based resources Web-based resources
Day school
Face-to-face contact at work
Table 5.1: Forms of interaction on B300 and E124
B300 therefore retained its high rating for interaction, but E124’s levels of interaction
were clearly high rather than low.

Levels of integration
A brief look at B300’s extensive course materials suggested that interaction had been
integrated successfully. Closer examination showed that this was not the case. There
were two main data sources: the course file and the three study guides. The course
objectives in the course file related to interaction: ‘you will be able to demonstrate…
effective use of information and communication technologies… collaborating with
others and working in a team to achieve a common goal’. However, the study guides
focused on learning outcomes and none of those related to interaction with other
people. The course file stated that ‘computer conferencing forms an integral and
important part of course work’. However, the course work in the study guides largely
ignored this possibility. For example, students were asked to ‘imagine you are trying to
explain the gist of Zimmerman’s chapter to a group of friends or colleagues.’ There was
no suggestion that students attempt such explanations using interactive media.

page 30 of 53

B300 clearly integrated interaction with assessment. Two of the seven tutor-marked
assignments (TMAs) which made up the assessed course work required use of
conferencing. Around 30% of the marks for TMA03 were awarded for including
‘consideration beyond your own sphere of self-study to encompass the activity (or
inactivity) of fellow-students in the group discussion (real and virtual) that have taken
place’. Ten percent of the marks for TMA07 were allocated for reflecting on the
experience of working in a collaborative research group. This TMA was due in week 45
of the 52-week course and, in the material for the six preceding weeks, there were three
suggestions that students interact with others either at a tutorial or on an online
conference. These were the only occasions when the study guides suggested interaction.

B300 students had to gain at least 40% for both continuous assessment and examination
to pass. A maximum of 7% of the continuous assessment and none of the exam related
to interaction. Interaction was not needed to pass, instead the student role as ‘a self-
reliant and independent learner’ was emphasised. B300 student Carol noted: ‘It
becomes a tougher task if you’ve not accessed the conferences, and possibly a lower-
scoring outcome, but I do think it would be possible to pass the TMA without it.’

In contrast, course materials show that interaction was recommended, supported,
explained and assessed on E124. It formed part of the learning outcomes. Every TMA
required interaction within the workplace. Advice on writing assignments
recommended interaction: ‘When you have finished your outline… you may want to
show it to someone else – perhaps a colleague who knows your work – or discuss it
with your tutor. Sharing your ideas at this stage will help you clarify your thinking.’
Audio and videotapes were used to promote interaction, for example: ‘Are there any
ideas you would like to share with colleagues or someone else who knows your work,
as a result of listening to this?’

E124, like B300, included computer-based resources: a range of software applications,
FirstClass conferencing, a website and online resources. Conferencing was introduced
and explained at the start: ‘FirstClass will help you to feel part of the course by
providing opportunities for you to exchange ideas and discuss different approaches with
other students. You will also be able to talk via email with your tutor on a one-to-one
basis. Often FirstClass is the quickest way of contacting your tutor or fellow students.’

page 31 of 53

Despite this initial positive approach, these computer-based resources were not
integrated within the course, and many students reported that they had never used them
or been aware of them.

Examination of course material suggested that B300 should be rated high for
interaction and low for integration, while E124 should be rated high in both categories.
These revised ratings relate to all forms of interaction. The CES suggested low levels of
integration of computer technology on both courses. When asked ‘Does the course
include the opportunity to use software, CDROMS and/or the Internet?’ almost 10% of
B300 respondents and almost 20% of E124 respondents answered ‘No’, despite the fact
that all three were provided on both courses.

Students’ perceptions of interactive media
The interactive media used by students were not necessarily those recommended by the
course materials. They reported using FirstClass, websites and email. Few mentioned
writing or word processing, media so ubiquitous that they went unnoticed. Many
reported phone conversations, and at least one E124 tutor group were texting each
other. One B300 research group was meeting via Skype, which allowed users to make
free phone calls using the Internet.

Students felt that interactive media allowed them to structure conversations, organise
work and research relevant, up-to-date information. Many reported using these media to
supplement face-to-face tutorials, or as a poor substitute for them. What they reported
getting from face-to-face interaction and not from interactive media were motivation, a
broad overview, and chances to spark off each other and bounce ideas of each other.
They reported no problems with phone use, but did report technical problems or
problems with the interface when using course websites or conferences.

Students’ perceptions of interaction
Course materials were clear about the expected uses and benefits of interaction. B300
suggested discussing academic issues with student and staff, receiving administrative
information, receiving details of information sources, contacting the course team,
sharing thoughts and ideas, supporting revision and working together. E124’s
suggestions included discussing ideas and feeling part of the course. Students were

page 32 of 53

aware of these reasons for interaction but Table 5.2 (below), based on the 12 epistolary
interviews and 127 CES responses, shows that other reasons for communicating were
also important to them.
No. of times Reason for communication
mentioned
31 To share thoughts / views / discuss
30 To access tutors
19 To contact students / avoid isolation
19 To ask for / give / receive support
17 Assignments / Assessment
17 To access up-to-date information
15 To encounter different points of view
13 To work together
12 To make comparisons
10 To develop understanding / clarify ideas
10 To replace / enhance tutorials
6 Negative reasons: to moan / wade in / show off
6 To receive feedback
5 To chat
3 To solve problems
1 To develop communication skills

Table 5.2: Reasons for communication cited by students

Several positive reasons for interaction omitted from the course materials were
mentioned by students. They wanted to contact others to avoid isolation. Yvonne wrote:
‘it makes it seem less like working in a bubble – where you have no contact with
anyone’. Making comparisons was also important. This B300 student is typical: ‘online
interaction enabled me to gauge my progress/understanding of topics against other
students.’ Many students found it important to ask for, give and receive help, from
tutors and their fellow students. An E124 student wrote that the online conference
‘enables me to ask questions at any time of day or night. You always get an answer.’

page 33 of 53

Accounts of interaction: face to face
Although E124 and B300 were distance-education courses, they included opportunities
for face-to-face communication at tutorials, day school and in the work environment.
B300 student Alan wrote: ‘the issue of face to face meeting in this kind of distance
learning is paramount in my view and I welcome any opportunity to meet fellow
students/tutors in a classroom setting.’ Another B300 student wrote: ‘Contact with my
tutor and other students I have met through tutorials has been extremely beneficial and
kept me going when I may have otherwise given up.’ Comments about face-to-face
contact were almost invariably positive, and when students suggested ways of
improving their course, they often suggested increasing the face-to-face element. One
E124 student wrote: ‘I would like more tutorials as I find talking to other students also
helps’, while a B300 student considered: ‘it would be nice to have a summer school and
work on a project together.’

Face-to-face tutorials were considered very important. Carol wrote that she found
‘interaction helpful in gaining an understanding of the course concepts. Mostly this
happens at tutorials, where discussion is fast and our tutor is involved.’ Some people
who had no access to these tutorials were indignant, as was this B300 student: ‘Sorry,
but I find the sheer lack of tutorials very unmotivating!!! For students in C. Europe
there are NO tutorials at all!!! This is totally unfair and does not give equal chances to
all students.’ Online discussion was seen as supplementing and extending tutorials, but
it came a poor second to face-to-face tutorials: ‘it is very positive in helping students,
particularly those who cannot attend tutorials’ but it ‘does not replace tutorials’.

Accounts of interaction: FirstClass
B300 and E124 students differed in their interview accounts of asynchronous
conferencing using FirstClass. B300 students mentioned many advantages. It provided
helpful information, formed part of their coursework, allowed them to get feedback and
pointers and provided different viewpoints. Some noted that it helped them to bond
with or empathise with other students. They had used it to chat with friends, and had
used email to invite other students to join in on the conference. As third-level students,
they had favourable reports of past FirstClass use, noting a good support network, good
rapport, staff enthusiasm and prompt tutor responses on other courses.

page 34 of 53

B300 student Carol gave a clear account of successful use of FirstClass in the past:
On previous courses (especially T171 and T205) there seemed to be a good
online support network and rapport, where tutors and block consultants (and
then other students) all conferenced like crazy to create a happy and slightly
mad area where the shyer ones (me!) felt comfortable to join in the banter.
If you get a chance to look in the FirstClass OUSA T171 Survivors
conference, it’s still got that same comfortable and slightly mad atmosphere,
and the people from that first T171 are still regular posters in there too.
She added: ‘B300 is not like that at all.’ Other B300 students agreed.

E124 students had very few positive things to say about FirstClass. Those interviewed
said that conferencing made it easy to talk to students and tutors. Those surveyed added
that the conference was interesting and made them feel a part of things. Their main
comment, though, was that they did not use the conferencing facility. This was often
explained in terms of time or technical knowledge, but there were also features of
conferencing that they actively disliked, as did B300 students.

These problems can be related to the work of Sims et al. (2002). Their criteria for
successful integration took into account learner/interface interaction, asking whether
the terminology and design were clear, the interactive medium accessible, the
navigation easy and the environment secure. Judged in these terms, the data showed
E124 and B300 clearly failing to integrate conferencing successfully.

Accounts of interaction: problems with FirstClass
The first problem was with the technology. Some students were limited by lack of
technical expertise. Jackie expressed this clearly:
I do feel the course designers assume most students are competent computer
users. I can only speak from my own limited computer experience and that’s
a bit lacking. The thought of online conference meetings fills me with dread
and all the online ‘stuff’ that came with the course material I handed over to
my son to install !!!!
A few others had encountered technical problems: ‘Just one big problem’, ‘Not always
able to access Internet’ and ‘Only got connect to be disconnected twice!!’

page 35 of 53

The format of FirstClass also attracted criticism. Wendy worked for a major
telecommunications provider and was very critical of the conferencing software:
The main reason that puts me off is the way that First Class is something
that you have to physically log into. This sounds a bit strange but when you
work remotely, like I do, you spend most of your time communicating on
email and using the company intranet and so to have to go to another place
is annoying. I would like to see the messages that are for me coming to my
email box.
The on-screen organisation was also criticised: ‘You can’t guess what is useful or not
without opening the message and reading it’ and ‘Please make this awful FirstClass
more clearly arranged.’

Time was a problem for some students, although others reported conference limited
time problems by speeding up information searches. One B300 student wrote: ‘Cannot
always find the time to participate and tend to feel guilty if I can’t’ and another reported
that ‘FirstClass is very time consuming to use. There is a lot of irrelevant / “chat” to
sort through.’ Others resented the time it took to set FirstClass up on their computer and
the time it took to log on. An additional problem was timetabling, particularly for B300
students, who were required to use the conference for two assignments: ‘Students had
to log on at very different times and it is sometimes difficult to keep up to speed on
discussions’ reported one, and another wrote ‘I’m usually also well behind, which
means that everyone has moved on often I don’t get much response, as the conference
focus has moved well past the bit I’m on.’

By far the biggest criticisms of FirstClass from students on both courses related to
social presence, the feeling of being together in virtual space or of encountering real
people online. Students were unhappy with their own online persona and they were
deeply suspicious of other people on line. They expressed these opinions forcefully.
E124 student, Yvonne, explained:
The main method of communicating seems to be via the conferencing centre
which I really dislike contributing to for the fear of looking stupid!
I sometimes think that my questions / queries will look silly to other people.
I also fear that my contributions are maybe incorrect or misleading and

page 36 of 53

again I don’t want to look silly. It seems much easier to ask a question at a
tutorial as the interaction is much more fluent.
Students reported feeling shy and vulnerable, insecure about posting and worried about
making mistakes or looking stupid. Some judged themselves lazy or inferior when
compared to those online. These feelings of personal insecurity seemed to result from
the perceived attitudes of others. As Joinson noted (2005), self-perception and esteem,
or the lack of them, were based on evaluations of others’ reactions.

Bargh et al. (2002) found that, in the absence of information to the contrary, Internet
communication fosters idealisation of the other. This was the reverse of what students
using FirstClass reported. B300 student Carol wrote:
I find conferences a bit creepy. Personal emails are okay (even group
emails are fine), and private chat is excellent, but I find conferences
uncomfortable. I mentioned this to someone once and they looked at me
sideways, so it might be just me. Perhaps it’s tied up with my strong need
for privacy, but I dislike not knowing who is out there reading my postings.
I know I am shy and I don’t like walking into large rooms of strangers, but
this is a bit different. Conferences give me a real feeling of vulnerability
that I’ve not experienced anywhere else. I don’t use open chat rooms for the
same reason. I know conferences are technically closed, but you still never
know who is there, and that’s the bit I don’t like.
Carol thought ‘it might be just me’, but many students were equally wary of
conferences. E124 student Jackie wrote, ‘the thought of online conference meetings
fills me with dread’ and one B300 student considered that ‘ignorant and disrespect are
the key words.’

As well as general unease with strangers, especially unresponsive strangers, on the
conference, the opportunity for making comparisons also produced problems. One of
students’ reasons for interacting was to compare themselves and their progress with
those of other students. Some reported that this was positive and kept them on track.
However, others, like Yvonne, were negative:
At least you have been spared the E124 website!! Everyone on this course
seems to be doing at least 2 other courses at the same time, whilst working
full time, raising a family and doing volunteer work as well!! Perhaps I am

page 37 of 53

Idle!! When they use the website it usually is because they want to know
about the course they have chosen for next year or to tell everyone about the
wonderful marks they got for their last TMA!! There, I sound like a bitter
and twisted old lady --- I’m not really!!
Students reported that others on the conference were unresponsive, unhelpful,
undisciplined, off-putting, intimidating and critical, with a tendency to show off or to
moan. These negative comments came from students on both courses, although E124
students were more likely to worry about other people, and B300 students were more
likely to comment on their self image.

Accounts of interaction: time, place and community
Wu and Hiltz (2004) summarised the benefits of online interaction as place-
independence, time-independence, convenience and the potential to become part of a
virtual community. None of these was consistently available to students. Comments on
place usually referred to tutorials being inaccessible: ‘I would like to be able to attend
tutorials and have face to face contact with my tutor’, ‘I find it very difficult to attend
the tutorials as they are a long way from my home, therefore I feel I’m missing out on a
lot of things’ and ‘Some questions might be answered if tutorials would be held on
continental Europe’. Very few were like the E124 student who identified place-
independence as a benefit: ‘Using the internet to link to other students on course E124
has helped me to feel less isolated as I cannot get to tutorials due to the distance
involved over 350 miles each way.’ They were more likely to see place as a problem:
‘not everyone has computer access at all times’.

Few students reported time-independence as a benefit of interactive media on their
course. Instead, they felt hampered by time constraints. This was particularly true for
B300 students, who were supposed to be collaborating online for TMA07 at the time
they were interviewed. They found this collaboration could hold them up and that there
was a time delay between responses. Alan wrote: ‘I have found it personally difficult
with the technology and the timing to link up with members of my team at the
appropriate moment.’ E124 students, free to use interactive media as they wished, often
did not find the time for it. This student’s comment is typical: ‘I know that
conferencing is available but quite honestly have not had the time to try.’

page 38 of 53

B300 and E124 were also not successful in creating a virtual community online.
Students felt out of place and suspicious in the FirstClass conference. Some reported
the existence of more successful conferences. Carol (above) cited the T171 conference,
to which she contributed long after completing the course, despite her general feeling
that online conferences were ‘creepy’. She attributed the success of that conference to
the tutors’ approach, to a good online support network and to rapport. She also
differentiated between B300 conferences and, again, attributed differences to the tutors’
different approaches:
The national B300 conference is slightly more active and I find the tutors
there a bit more encouraging online. They respond to postings, make
insightful comments and ask leading questions – all which help to prompt
responses. I would post there rather than my tutor group if I wanted clarity
on a particular course issue.
B300 student Wendy found the same: ‘the conversation on FirstClass of my own class
has not been very enlightening however the conversation in the other classes and the
Tutorial content from the other class that has been posted on the website has been very
helpful.’

Accounts of interaction: student initiated
Wu and Hiltz (2004) identified the opportunity to work in a student-dominated study
space as a source of motivation and enjoyment for students. Although students were
numerically dominant in FirstClass, they did not feel in control of it as a study space.
B300 students, in particular, felt they were compelled to use it rather than choosing to
do so. However, seeing definite benefits to interaction and having many reasons for
communication, they had set up their own study spaces. Several chose to use the
telephone. Yvonne felt her course did not support interaction, but she stayed in touch
with a student she had met the previous year: ‘Since then we have rung each other up,
discussed our TMAs and got together to see if we can help each other.’ B300 student
Alan wrote: ‘I contact my tutor by phone as I prefer talking rather than electronic
communication.’ Phone conversations with tutors were very popular: ‘One on one
support from my tutor is excellent and he never ever turns me away when I call.’ The
telephone, of course, offers place- and time-independence, does not require time-
consuming text input and is a synchronous medium.

page 39 of 53

B300 student Alan was the only person to report using Skype, an interactive medium
established in late 2003 to provide users with voice contact via the Internet. ‘On this
course in our groups for TMA my group is using Skype to communicate vocally over
the internet rather than using traditional texting conferencing. This is an excellent
innovation and I would use this for other courses too.’ This is another example of
students choosing synchronicity and voice contact over asynchronous text contact, even
though, in this case, it involved locating, downloading and installing extra software.

Students preferred form of interaction was face to face. Only limited amounts of this
were available, so students sought out someone with whom they could discuss their
studies. All but one of the 12 students interviewed identified people with whom they
discussed the course, either face to face or by phone. These were most likely to be
friends, colleagues or people encountered at work. E124 student Linda wrote, ‘I found
discussing this course with work colleagues and friends the most helpful, they were
able to help me relate the assignments to my job and gave alternative suggestions and
their varied opinions help to widen my view.’ B300 student David felt that ‘bouncing
ideas off my manager has helped because he has been able to relate some of the
theories to our business, therefore making it easier to understand.’

E124 students referred positively to mentoring. Anderson and Shannon (1995) define
this as ‘a nurturing process in which a more skilled or more experienced person, serving
as a role model, teaches, sponsors, encourages, counsels and befriends a less skilled or
les experienced person’ (p29). Mentors are commonly used in the training of UK
teachers and support staff. Jackie outlined her experience when training as a specialised
teaching assistant: ‘We were mentored throughout the course by a chosen member of
staff and time was given over to meetings to discuss options for the course assignments
and for our mentors to observe us completing tasks then to give us feedback’ and went
on ‘I wonder why mentoring was not included somewhere in E124?’ In fact, although
mentoring was not a part of B300 or E124, students appear to have created their own
unofficial mentors. This was the role in which they placed their friends and colleagues,
seeking someone who could act as a sounding board and provide support, ideas and
guidance.

page 40 of 53

Integration of interaction
Students on E124 and B300 interacted with other people mainly face to face, by the use
of FirstClass conferencing or over the telephone. Two of these were mediated
interactions, in that the student interacted with the interface as well as with another
human. In the case of FirstClass, it was possible to interact only with the interface
without being evident to other users. B300 course designers prioritised the integration
of mediated interaction, while E124 course designers prioritised face-to-face contact.
This is evident from their assessment strategies: two B300 assignments required
mediated interaction and none mentioned face-to-face contact, while all assessed work
for E124 required face-to-face contact and none mentioned mediated interaction.

Integration of interaction: B300
One of B300’s six learning objectives was ‘collaborating with others and working in a
team to achieve a common goal’. With students scattered across the UK and Europe,
many unable to attend any of the six tutorials, it made sense to work towards this
objective online. An initial online tutor group session built into discussion about the
third assignment and then into group research for the final assignment. Students were
assigned marks, although not many, for their description of and reflection on this online
interaction. They were required to have the resources to support this interaction and, as
this was a level three course, they could be expected to have sufficient familiarity with
the conferencing software to interact without technical problems. If they did have
difficulties, technical support was available by phone, and tutors ensured that all
students were set up correctly and able to interact online.

Laurillard’s (2002) criteria for integration – interactive work should be supported, built
on, followed through and assessed – were therefore met. However, when criteria
relating to interaction with the interface were considered, it became clear that
integration was incomplete and that this strategy promoted only skills and information
gathering. This integration strategy promoted a surface approach to learning. Students
did not feel in control and became resentful rather than engaged.

This was partly because students had only indirectly chosen to study B300 which, being
a 60-point, third level course, involves a year of hard work. Most were working towards
the BA (Hons) in Business Studies, of which B300 was a compulsory element. Zoe was

page 41 of 53

typical when she reported, ‘B300 is a compulsory part of the BA (Honours) Business
Studies degree, therefore I didn’t really have any choice.’

When it came to interacting, students clearly felt they were being pushed into it. David
wrote: ‘I wouldn’t say that we are encouraged to interact, more we are forced by the
TMAs.’ Wendy’s view was ‘my tutor pressurises me to use FC rather than encourages
me.’ The data indicated that many were not clear about their learning objectives when
using FirstClass. They suggested the purpose of their interaction was to ‘learn to select
useful and correct information’, ‘learn how to search correctly on the Internet’ or
‘polish our computer skills’. When they identified benefits of collaborating online these
usually related to developing a skill rather than constructing knowledge.

TMA07 required students to work together on a research project and later to reflect on
this experience. Wendy summarised the problems this created:
I feel aggrieved that my mark is somewhat dependent on others. The group
that I have been put in are particularly difficult to work with – they do not
want to do calls or meet as other teams have done. In addition there is no
structure around their research – I tried to organise them but it didn’t work
but then when we are only using email that is understandable.
Students complained that members of their group were lazy, undisciplined and
uncommunicative and that they worked as individuals rather than group members.
Instead of creating a learning community, this enforced interaction provoked
resentment. Few students reported getting anything positive from the experience. They
appear to have treated it as an information-gathering exercise rather than as an
opportunity to build knowledge, share ideas or gain different perspectives.

Many reported that being forced to collaborate had held them up, and forced them to
work to the timetable of others in the group. Interaction therefore reduced the time
available for consideration and reflection, focusing students on information gathering.
Not surprisingly, CES data showed B300 ranked 32nd of the 36 courses studied for
students’ use of a deep approach to learning and 3rd for use of a surface approach to
learning.

page 42 of 53

B300 thus failed to integrate interaction because students did not feel in control of the
learning process, could not link activities to their own learning requirements and were
not able to structure their environment to meet their own needs and preferences.
Furthermore, the design of the interface was not always clear and many students felt
insecure within the online environment. Interaction was judged a success in terms of
the course when it resulted in an exchange of information or in an increase in skills.
Carol saw conferencing as having two roles: ‘(a) gain experience in working
collaboratively online, but – more importantly – (b) to provide a blob of evidence for
analysis when applying the course’s decision-making concepts so we have something to
contribute to the reflection part.’ She saw the reflection and analysis as processes to
carry out alone; the interaction remained focused on skills and information.

B300 paid little attention to many of the affordances of interactive media, but did
encourage students to use information technology. Course materials asked students only
twice to discuss activities using the conference, and just once to ‘compare your
viewpoint with others through the conference and in your tutor group.’ These three
activities were not assessed, and they occurred late in the course when a pattern of
working individually had been established. After initial encouragement by tutors,
students appear to have been left to organise themselves, without any clear idea of how
they could use this opportunity other than to work together to find information.

Integration of interaction: E124
The situation for E124 was very different. Interactive media were not well integrated
into the course; 11% of CES respondents mistakenly believed that the course did not
include the opportunity to engage in on-line conferencing, and at least 25% had never
used the conference. It was offered as a facility but there was no pressure, and very
little incentive for its use. When the study guide listed required resources these never
included the conference. Therefore, when interaction is considered in terms of
interactive or computer-based media, integration levels were extremely low. On the
other hand, the course fully integrated face-to-face interaction. In doing so, it drew on
the interactive resources of students’ friends and colleagues.

Face-to-face interaction was so well integrated as to be almost invisible to students.
Yvonne wrote: ‘On E124 there is no pressure to interact with ANYTHING / ANYONE

page 43 of 53

else. If I didn’t attend a tutorial, log on to a conference, Speak to another soul, It would
not affect the course.’ The assignments fitted so seamlessly with her life, that she did
not regard the interaction as course related: ‘Probably the wrong thing to say but in the
main I have based my TMAs on things we already do or try to do!!!’

All the assessed material on the course: the three TMAs and the final project, explicitly
required workplace interaction. For example, TMA01 advised: ‘For this assignment
you will need to plan for and support a child, or group of children, in a learning
experience/activity in your setting, or to support children’s learning and understanding
in an activity initiated by a child or group of children… You will need to reflect on the
various ways in which you can support children’s learning and the various roles that
you can adopt.’ Yet the students interviewed made very little of this interaction with
children, they focused on interaction between adults. When asked with whom she had
interacted, Jackie wrote:
Apart from the tutorials I have not really invited other people to become
involved in my studies. I have asked parents’ permission to use their child in
my observations and reassured them that anything I write will not name any
child and will be confidential. I have informed my line manager about the
course I am studying.
Despite this apparent lack of interaction, she went on, ‘I have found the TMAs’ content
quite personal as I work in a 1-1 setting with children with Special needs.’ This
unnoticed interaction was similar to the way in which interaction by writing was almost
invisible within the interviews.

Interactive work on E124 was supported, built on, followed through and assessed. In
addition, students could control the learning process and link activities to their own
environment. They felt secure, they could see the relevance of all assessed activities,
and they had a strong interest in the success of these. This integration of face-to-face
interaction is clearly suited to a vocational course. The evidence suggests that it would
also have been suitable for B300. Wendy from B300 wrote: ‘Interactions with my
customers have allowed me to gain my own real life case studies/examples’ and Zoe
reported: ‘I’ve also used work colleagues when I’ve been researching an area and have
found that the knowledge and experience they have has sometimes helped me

page 44 of 53

understand something better or highlighted areas I hadn’t previously thought or known
about.’

The course designers for E124 took advantage of facilities already available to students.
The course was aimed at practitioners working in Early Years care and education
settings with young children and their families. Most students were already part of a
learning community, and often worked alongside several people who could play a
mentoring role. Practical experience and support were almost always available, as were
different perspectives and the opportunity to discuss and share ideas. Students were
given the opportunity and the tools to construct their own knowledge, and there was a
great deal of flexibility in the assessed activities.

page 45 of 53

Chapter 6: Findings
The final objective of this research was to provide evidence which would support the
Mellon Project’s recommendations about effective strategies for the use of computer-
based teaching in distance-education courses. This chapter summarises the interpreted
data on interaction and integration in terms of a series of strategies which this research
has suggested would be effective. It then looks at the strengths and limitations of this
research, and at future research opportunities.

Incorporate students’ reasons for communication
Course materials gave a series of reasons for students to interact with others. Some
were practical and administrative, some related to the collection of information and
others related to the construction of knowledge within a learning community. Students
had additional requirements which course designers should acknowledge. Students saw
interactive media as a way of making them feel less isolated; this affordance of the
media was very important to them. They wanted to chat, not necessarily on course-
related issues, but also to have the ability to filter out the chat when working to a
deadline. They wanted to compare progress with other students. They wanted to ask for
help and to solve problems and also, occasionally, they wanted the opportunity for a
good moan. They wanted someone to motivate them, especially at times when they
were finding the work hard.

Recognise the role of interaction in motivating students
Motivation was seen to be an important aspect of interaction. Students were unlikely to
report being motivated by the learning objectives of their course, particularly if it was a
high-level course they were not studying by choice. Assessment motivated them to the
extent that they would do what was required, but it was interaction with other students
and, particularly, with tutors that motivated them to engage with the course. This role of
tutors was particularly important to students and was seen as a major benefit of
interaction.

page 46 of 53

The integration of interaction on distance-learning courses

The integration of interaction on distance-learning courses

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a The integration of interaction on distance-learning courses

Similar a The integration of interaction on distance-learning courses (20)

Más de Rebecca Ferguson

Más de Rebecca Ferguson (20)

Último

Último (20)

The integration of interaction on distance-learning courses