This document summarizes a presentation on the Interaction Equivalency Theorem given at the Distance Teaching & Learning Conference in 2011. The presentation reviewed the history of interaction in distance learning and defined the three types of interaction. It discussed research supporting the two theses of the Interaction Equivalency Theorem. Namely, that deep learning can occur when one type of interaction is high, and increasing multiple interactions may improve satisfaction but not effectiveness. Studies by Bernard, Rhode, and Miyazoe and Anderson provided empirical support for both theses. The presentation concluded by discussing implications for learning design and directions for further research.

1. The Interaction Equivalency Theorem: Research Potential and Application in Teaching Terumi Miyazoe, PhD Tokyo Denki University The Open University of Japan Terry Anderson, PhD Athabasca University Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 1

2. Outline Review of the Interaction Equivalency Theorem History of interaction in distance learning The Modes of Interaction by Anderson and Garrison (1998) The Interaction Equivalency Theorem by Anderson (2003) Research on the Interaction Equivalency Theorem Meta-analysis by Bernard et al. (2010) Empirical application by Miyazoe and Anderson (2010) Discussions Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 2

3. 2010 Publications The Interaction Equivalency Theorem Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 94- 104, available at http://www.ncolr.org/ Empirical Research on Learners’ Perceptions: Interaction Equivalency Theorem in Blended Learning European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, available at http://www.eurodl.org/ Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 3

4. Interaction Adefinition: “reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions. Interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence each other” (Wagner, 1994, p.8) (At least) two agents Reciprocity, mutuality Human and nonhuman Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 4

5. Three Types of Interaction (Moore, 1989) The first systematic clarification of interaction in distance education having three essential components of: learner–content, learner–instructor, and learner–learner interaction Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 5

6. The Modes of Interaction by Anderson and Garrison (1998) 6 The CoI model (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000) Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin

7. Comparison Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 7 Multi-agents’ view points, including nonhuman agents Others: Learner-Interface (Hillman et al, 1994) Learner-Environment (Burnham and Walden, 1997) Vicarious Interaction (Sutton, 2000) Learner’s view point

8. The Interaction Equivalency Theorem by Anderson (2003) Thesis 1. Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student–teacher; student–student; student–content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience. Thesis 2. High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, although these experiences may not be as cost- or time effective as less interactive learning sequences. Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 8

9. Thesis 1 Visualization Quality Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 9

10. Thesis 2 Visualization Quantity Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 10

11. Closed vs. Open Systems Thesis 1: Closed system Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 11

12. Closed vs. Open Systems Thesis 2: Open system A guest lecturer Student forum discussions Online resources + Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 12

13. Bernard et al. Bernard, M. R., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289. Bernard, M. R., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439. Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 13

14. Meta-analysis A definition: Used to “summarize, integrate, and interpret selected sets of scholarly works in the various disciplines” (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p.2) Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 14

16. Quantitative findings

17. Comparability

18. Coding

19. Comparison groups

20. Effect sizeDistance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 15

21. Bernard et al. (2009) Distance education courses 1985 - 2006 6,000->77 studies Interaction Treatment (IT) ≒Interaction dyad Student-Student (SS) Student-Content (SC) Student-Teacher (ST) Thesis 1 (Value/Importance) ≒Quality Thesis 2 (Strength/Magnitude) ≒Quantity Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 16

22. Bernard’s Main Findings Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 17

23. Bernard’s Summary SS and SC＞STfor both achievement and attitude Combinations of SS+SC and ST+SCincrease achievement Combination of SS+STand attitude items does not increase effectiveness. -> Both Theses 1 and 2 are supported. Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 18

24. Doctoral Studies Rhode (2008 January): Capella University Self-paced online course for adult learners ST + SC combination was the most valued Equal value for ST and SC, but not SS interaction -> Consistent to Bernard’s study Byers (2010 November): Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University Self-paced online teacher professional development course -> Support Thesis 1 (content is valued the most) Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 19

25. The Theorem Equivalency Theorem (Anderson, 2003) Interaction Equivalency (Rhode, 2008) Interaction Equivalency Theorem (Miyazoe and Anderson, 2010) Equivalency of Interaction Theorem (Byers, 2010) Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 20

26. Miyazoe and Anderson (2010) N = 236 (four universities: 11 classes: four instructors) Survey research Perceptions about quality learning assurance interaction element Quality learning ≒ Deep and meaningful learning experience Experienced blended learning Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 21

27. Six Patterns of Priority Order of Interaction Equivalency Theorem Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 22

30. Learning Modes 25 *TSC: Teacher-Student-Content Important Unimportant CST Face-to-face Blended Online Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin

31. Subject Orientations 26 Important Unimportant Skill-oriented Knowledge-oriented Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin

32. Terumi and Terry’s Findings Students could name one interaction that was valued greater than the others. Students could rank the order of priority for the three interactions. -> Both Theses 1 and 2 are supported. Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 27

33. Presentation Summary As regards to Anderson’s Interaction Equivalency Theorem, this presentation: clarified its historical position articulated its two core theses supported its validity. Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 28

34. Discussions Learning design Exploration of different interaction designs in accordance with specific teaching and learning contexts Different disciplinary knowledge may demand different interaction designs for highest effectiveness and efficiency Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 29

35. Further Research Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 30 Further topics Examination of cost and time issues Determination of essential parameters Meta-analysis since 2006

36. Equivalency Theorem Website Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 31 URL: equivalencytheorem.info

37. Thank you for your attention! Your Comments/Questions Welcomed t.miyazoe@mail.dendai.ac.jp terrya@athabascau.ca Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 32

38. Works Cited Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore, & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 129-144). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Anderson, T., & Garrison, R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 97-112). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230. Bernard, M. R., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289. Burnham, B. R., and Walden, B. (1997). Interactions in Distance Education: A report from the other side. Paper presented at the 1997 Adult Education Research Conference. Stillwater, Oklahoma. Retrieved May 30, 2004, from: http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/aerc/1997/97burnham.html Byers, A. S. (2010). Examining learner-content interaction importance and efficacy in online, self-directed electronic professional development in science for elementary educators in grades three – six. (Doctoral Dissertation). The Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia, US. Hillman, D., D. Willis, and C. N. Gunawardena. 1994. Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education 8 (2): 30-42. Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 33

39. Works Cited (Cont’d) Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta- analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010a). The interaction equivalency theorem. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(2), 94-104, available at http://www.ncolr.org/ Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010b). Empirical research on learners’ perceptions: Interaction Equivalency Theorem in blended learning European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, available at http://www.eurodl.org/ Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. Rhode, J. F. (2008). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. (Doctoral Dissertation; AAT 3291462). Capella University. Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. Interactional Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/603/1178 Sutton, L. (2000). Vicarious interaction: A learning theory for computer-mediated communications. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 24-28, 2000). ERIC Document No. 441 817 Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-26. Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 34

40. Further Research Topic Perspective shifting Thesis 3: Deep and meaningful formal teaching is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (teacher–student; teacher–content; teacher–teacher) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience. Thesis 4: Deep and meaningful formal teaching and learning are supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (content–student; content–teacher; content–content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience. Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2011, Madison, Wisconsin 35