This week I ran across an interesting article as I was
researching for a later assignment this week.
The article had to do with the efficacy of interactivity utilized in
distance education as it relates to the relative level of student motivation.
Initially, I assumed that the article would find that the
level of motivation rose in direct relation to the level of interactivity. From my constructivist standpoint, this would
make sense. It would certainly be easier
to lead students toward discovery using greater levels of interactivity,
something I also associate heavily with synchronous learning. Building a similar level of ability to lead,
without the interactive options, places that burden to deliver on the
curriculum and lesson plan development. Challenging,
though not impossible.
With this assumption in mind, I immediately disliked the
article. As an individual, I so value
the asynchronous nature of distance education that I do not want to see
research indicating greater synchronicity is the better practice.
What the article found was surprising, however. The higher levels of interactivity were only
effective to a point, and then became counter-productive (Mahle, 2011) at least
in reference to motivation. The news was not all good, at least for me. The study also assessed the level of student
confidence with the material after the course was complete and the level of
interactivity was found to correspond directly with the level of confidence
(Mahle, 2011). Student attention during
the course was not found to be effected significantly by the level of
interactivity while levels of retention and proficiency with the instructed concepts
benefited from moderate levels of interactivity.
For those involved in the design of distance education
courses, this tells us we need to build in some level of interactive tools for
optimum efficacy. We should not overdue
it though. At some point, it would
appear that the overuse of interactive and synchronous tools becomes no more
than a gimmick.
David Bennett
Mahle, M. (2011).
EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVITY ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND MOTIVATION IN DISTANCE
EDUCATION. Quarterly Review Of Distance Education, 12(3),
207-215.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interesting post. Nearing the end of the program here at Liberty I sometimes reflect on the courses I have taken and what was and wasn't effective in learning material. The extremely writing intensive courses (paper wise and discussion board wise) I have retained little knowledge at best. I think the course that I learned the most from was the class where Dr. Holder would have the Skype meetings and there was genuine discussion instead of posting a comment and finding an article that reflects your own thoughts. That may just be because of my auditory learning style, but that is my experience. Thanks again for your post.
I agree with you about Dr. Holder's use of synchronous interactive tools. I definitely feel they improved retention to some degree, and it was certainly nice to feel like you had actually met your classmates.
ReplyDeleteI believe the issue is of balance, and it must be individually assessed. For some, the asynchronous nature of a particular course may hold greater value than easy retention, due to scheduling challenges. Others may have the time, and find that the interactivity is the more highly valued factor.
As I considered this balance from a consumer standpoint in a market context, it struck me that a standardized system of descriptions about the levels of variables such as synchronous/asynchronous, interactivity, and even predominant learning modalities would allow consumers to choose the right classes for themselves. The same classes could be taught in multiple variations so that users could choose, not just a topic that suits them, but also the presentation format, context, and schedule type through which it will be taught.
Feel like I should patent or copyright that......