Interaction Equivalency in Self-Paced Online Learning Environments

Chapter 5: Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This study embraced a mixed methods approach to explore the dynamics of interaction within a self-paced online learning environment utilizing both rich media and a mix of traditional and emerging asynchronous computer-mediated communication tools to determine what forms of interaction learners in a self-paced online course value most as well as what affect such interactions have on their overall learning experience. Prior to this study, little empirical evidence existed as to the value that learners place upon the various types of interactions in a self-paced online learning environment.

Four primary research questions guided the research study, each discussed individually below. The primary focus of this research was to investigate the preferences of learners concerning the various interactions they engage in during a self-paced online course while questioning the presumption espoused by Anderson (2003) that a measure of equivalency exists among these commonly identified forms of interaction in an online learning environment. A total of ten learners from among two sections of a self-paced online course participated semi-structured in-depth interviews sharing first-hand from their experience regarding their preferences for interaction. Interview transcripts were reviewed and coded to determine emergent themes. The triangulation of data through multiple sources, including verbatim transcripts, comparisons of qualitative responses to quantitative data gleaned from interview questions, and reviewer notes in conjunction with member checks of transcribed interviews aided in strengthening and validating findings.

Discussion of Research Questions and Findings

Research Question 1: What forms of interaction do adult learners engage in most in self-paced online courses?

Within distance education frameworks, interactivity is often esteemed as paramount to the development of meaningful and memorable learning experiences (Brewer & Klein, 2006; Joyce Lee et al., 2006) and yet it is a concept that has received relatively little research attention in the literature regarding self-paced learning.

The self-paced online environment represents a unique and still rather unexplored segment of the expansive territory of online learning. Whereas an imposed-pace model sets definitive parameters for the course stipulating that all learners engage in the same learning activities at specific time periods, the self-paced approach affords more autonomy to the learner and provides benchmarks for progress and achievement while allowing learners to proceed at an individualized pace. While an imposed-pace course lends itself to regular or occasional collaborative activities, the self-paced course presents a more challenging environment for fostering collaboration among learners as individual learners may be at different stages of the course at any given time (Anderson et al., 2005). Rather than implying a lack of guidance, the self-paced approach affords learners an increased measure of flexibility as to the pace in which they engage in the various course activities and communications with others.

Emerging tools and approaches for interaction based upon the new social computing capabilities of the semantic Web now make possible a wide array of interactions not only within the specified course environment but also across learner-defined domains that span beyond the virtual “walls” of the course (Dalsgaard, 2006; Dron, 2006b). The one-year online certificate program in Children’s Ministry (CMUO) offered by Valley Forge Christian College (VFCC) employs such a self-paced, emergent and flexible design and was selected as an appropriate context in which to explore the dynamics surrounding the interaction preferences of adult online learners.

Participants self-reported that they engaged most frequently in interactions involving either the course content or course instructor, on both formal and informal levels. Such interactions support the notion of the informal influence of the “network” and “collective” proposed by Anderson and Dron (2007). Emerging influences extend beyond the confines of the defined learning space and can potentially serve as an option for learners and designers alike to leverage within the self-paced learning environment.

Participants further noted that they actively engaged most actively with interactions with the instructor and course content, commensurate with findings of previous research pointing to the necessity of such fundamental interactions (Heinemann, 2003; Pawan et al., 2003; Perry & Edwards, 2005; Stein et al., 2005). The results of this study further strengthen the literature calling for the development of specific competencies not only for those designing online learning but also for those who facilitate online learning experiences of various formats (Klein et al., 2004; Varvel, 2007). Therefore, the interactions with the instructor as well as with the content of the learning experience should not be discounted.

Research Question 2: What forms of interaction do adult learners value most in self-paced online courses?

Interaction may serve numerous purposes within the online learning environment, but the primary focus for many instructional designers and instructors often centers around improving student outcomes within the online learning experience. This study sought to explore the forms of interaction that adult learners valued most in the self-paced learning experience.

Self-paced online courses present unique opportunities and challenges for designers and participants alike. Distance education theorists such as Keegan (1996), Brockett and Hiemstra (1991), and Holmberg (1989) point to the strengths of self-paced education, including the ability to overcome time and place constraints, choices for learners concerning media content type and pace, and the economic scalability. Yet, these flexible online learning environments, while providing learners with increased freedom and access, have been historically criticized for limiting learners’ ability to interact with peers in the learning community (Danaher, 1994). New social networking technologies, such as blogging, link sharing, collaborative authorship, and content syndication are being introduced that enable learners to collaborate in new and meaningful ways, therefore extending the theoretical and pragmatic bounds for the use of computer-mediated communication in online learning contexts (Alexander, 2006; Beldarrain, 2006). Whereas the use of traditional learning management systems creates a very organized, secure, and restricted learning environment, such emerging social technologies are allowing for new distributed student-centered approaches to learning, affording individual learners more control of the learning experience (Dron, 2007). No longer restricted to participating in the learning activities defined by the instructor or housed within a centralized learning management system, learners can take an increasingly proactive role in the development of their own personal learning landscape through the individualized selection and development of personal tools and networks that will extend beyond the duration of the course and foster a lifelong approach to learning (Attwell, 2006; Downes, 2006; Tosh & Werdmuller, 2004).

Through not only ranking of importance but also in rich narrative dialogue, adult learners expressed their preferences for quality interaction with the instructor and course content as being most important to the overall success of a self-paced online course. Data presented in Tables 9-11 displayed the preferred importance participants placed upon the various elements of a self-paced online course. Subsequent interview results reported throughout chapter 4 supported the quantitative rankings that participants assigned to the various course components and forms of interaction. Participants reported that while a balance of all interaction forms is most desirable, they value most the interactions with the instructor and content.

Studies have explored the benefits of using emerging social software tools, such as wikis, blogs, and RSS, that allow individuals with little or no technical programming skills to collaborate and quickly and easily contribute to the expanding body of information online (Boulos et al., 2006; Schwartz et al., 2004). Such studies overwhelmingly praise the strengths of these new communication tools (Beldarrain, 2006; Brescia & Miller, 2006; Cameron & Anderson, 2006; Mason, 2006; West et al., 2006). The aforementioned social software tools are among the many that allow individuals to easily create and share content and will be explained further in chapter three. The horizon is promising for the implementation of such decentralized and predominantly free tools within pre-existing learning environments as they enable a level of informal interactions previously non-existent outside the confines of formal course activities. Yet, the perspectives of students and faculty concerning the effects of incorporating such learner-centered interpersonal interactions in self-paced learning environments has been notably absent from the literature (Anderson et al., 2005). The continued investigation of the experiences and preferences of learners concerning the use of these new tools is essential to realizing the full pedagogical implications and best practices for implementation (Sims & Salter, 2006).

Participants hailed the blogging and social bookmarking activities incorporated into the particular course that was studied as integral to the quality of the overall learning experience, noting the synergy of formal and informal interactions that such activities fostered. Responses reinforced the value of components of informal, learner-directed learning environments that extend beyond the restrictions of the formal online learning space. While learners did not take full advantage of the numerous external resources and informal interactions that were available, participants expressed overwhelming satisfaction with the content and formal interactions designed and therefore may have been less likely to engage in superfluous interactions. Yet, the informal learning environment that was crafted placed maximum control with the learners. Such informal learning environments provide a more open venue for learners to connect with others interested in the same concepts either in a different course section or at a different stage of the course (Rhode, 2006).

Responses from participants support Paulsen’s (1993) Theory of Cooperative Freedom, which argues that many students who choose a distance learning format do so in search of freedom from not only the time and place learning constraints, but also freedom to choose the type of media and content, times of access, and pace of the learning. Participants unanimously noted that the unique self-paced format was a pivotal factor enabling them to enroll in an online program of study. Such responses give credence to the call for flexible and emergent learning designs that meet the needs of an ever-changing adult learner population.

The fact that participants in this study esteemed quality interactions with content and the instructor above other interactions with other learners reiterates the necessity for concerted effort to be placed upon the design of instructional materials, activities, and interactions that foster active engagement with the content while also providing opportunities for instructor-learner interaction. While some may contend that true self-paced learning models diminish the role of the instructor and therefore are not compatible with such recommendations, a host of hybrid approaches to self-paced online education such as that employed by VFCC have been shown to accommodate the flexibility and customizability of the self-paced model while also incorporating considerable measures of instructor-learner and learner-learner interactions. As participants’ responses in this study reiterate, a balanced approach to incorporating the various interactions is often preferred by adult learners in the self-paced online course.

Research Question 3: What forms of interaction do adult learners identify as equivalent in self-paced online courses?

While preferences may vary among learners and contexts in regards to the definition and means for evaluating interaction (Sims, 2003; Su et al., 2005), it continues to remain important to determine whether participants in online learning experiences identify the various modes of interaction as congruent or disparate. The perceived value of each available interaction modality will to a large extent determine its current and future role within the online learning experience. Insufficient or ineffective interaction may lead to student isolation, while exorbitant levels may lead to overload or frustration (Berge, 1999; Willging & Johnson, 2004).

This study sought to explore the preferences of learners concerning the various interactions they engage in during a self-paced online course while questioning the presumption espoused by Anderson (2003) that a measure of equivalency exists among these commonly identified forms of interaction in an online learning environment. Anderson’s theoretical basis for judging the essential quantities of each of the various types of interaction maintains that as long as one of three primary forms of interaction (student-teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level, other forms may be minimized or eliminated without adversely affecting the learning experience. This hypothesis is increasingly attractive to institutions pursuing initiatives to rapidly expand online course offerings as it addresses the limitation that such institutions commonly face regarding the ratio of faculty to students and the amount of student-teacher interaction. This rationale is being extrapolated to support the design of learning approaches that maximize the student-content and student-student interaction while seeking to reduce the level of student-instructor interaction. Yet, little empirical evidence previously existed as to the value that learners place upon the various types of interactions in a self-paced learning environment.

The results of this study provide an initial glimpse into adult learners’ preferences for interaction and serve as just one inquiry into whether a measure of equivalency truly exists among the various types of interactions employed in an online learning environment. Participants identified interaction with the instructor and content as very nearly equivalent in a self-paced online course. Participants pointed out that quality interaction with content is indispensable in the self-paced learning environment and can not in any way be replaced, while interaction with the instructor could potentially be diminished to an extent and compensated for through increased quality interactions with content or learners. Participants further noted that while interaction with other learners is desirable within the self-paced learning environment, the self-paced nature of the course makes such interactions challenging and therefore learners are willing to forgo such interpersonal interactions deemed by some as more tangential in exchange for the flexibility afforded by the self-paced learning approach.

In a granular analysis of the various interaction activities, participants generally reported the activity of blogging as equivalent or superior to asynchronous discussion via the discussion board in Blackboard. Such findings add to the burgeoning body of research supporting the pedagogical possibilities of blogging as a flexible asynchronous communication alternative to threaded discussion via a restricted learning management system (W. Chen & Bonk, 2008; Schmidt, 2007). Participants also found the mix of formal and informal interactions with the content and instructor as essential to the optimal self-paced online learning experience. Interactions with other learners, both in the formal learning space as well as fostered by informal activities, were seen as tangential and while helpful are not mandatory to achieve a desirable learning outcome.

Research Question 4: What impact do adult learners perceive interaction to have on their self-paced online learning experience?

The effects of interaction on both the traditional and online student have been explored within the literature and researchers have consistently found that interaction is essential for a successful learning experience within either the traditional classroom or the contemporary online learning environment (Friesen & Anderson, 2004; Keenan, 2002; Su, 2006; Swan, 2002; Wallace, 2003). While not the sole indicator of high-quality and effective online education programs, there is significant pre-existent evidence to suggest that meaningful interaction with other students and the instructor is integral to the development of thriving learning environments (R. E. Brown, 2001; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; H. C. Greene, 2005; Joyce Lee et al., 2006; Swan, 2002).

The effects of interaction have been measured using various outcomes, such as: learner satisfaction (Stein et al., 2005; Strachota, 2003), engagement (Lim, 2004), achievement (Jung et al., 2002), reflection (Roberts, 2002), and retention (Koper, 2005). Yet, questions have remained largely unanswered concerning the preferences of students regarding the various interactions that they engage in and the degree in which such interactions are perceived to be equivalent.

This study expands upon previous research advocating for the purposeful design of interaction within the online learning experience (C.-W. Chang, 2006; Hirumi, 2002).
It is recognized that interaction invariably may have a direct impact on the self-paced online learning experience. Participants reported their experiences regarding the various types of interactions they engaged in throughout the duration of a self-paced online course and pointed to the important part that the interactions with the instructor and course content played in their overall online learning experience. While interaction with other learners was not the most influential component of the particular course studied, the logical assumption may be drawn that in other courses where interpersonal discussion with other learners is in fact maximized, such interactions could also be equally important.

Participants confirm that quality interaction is a critical component of the quality self-paced online learning experience. Such conclusions support long-standing claims stressing the necessity for systematic design of instruction that encourage pedagogically-sound methods and incorporate emerging approaches as appropriate to meet the needs of learners (Kays & Sims, 2006; Koszalka & Ganesan, 2004). The substance and frequency of expressed quality interactions deemed necessary by learners may in fact vary from one learner population to another and may be influenced by the specific context and discipline. When asked if interaction with the instructor or content could be diminished or eliminated and therefore compensated for by forms of interaction, participants refuted such ideas. Further studies will be necessary to explore whether such hypotheses are in fact confirmed.

As Nicol, Minty, and Sinclair (2003) note, “The social context of online learning is qualitatively different from face-to-face learning and…this has significant implications for online learning design” (p. 270). Interaction is a key component to the development of the distinctive social context of online learning. Interaction may serve numerous purposes within the online learning environment, but the primary focus for many instructional designers and instructors may continue to center around improving student outcomes within the online learning experience.

Interaction Matrix

As a result of this study, the researcher developed the Interaction Matrix displayed as Figure 10 as one potential model for considering the incorporation of the holistic interaction forms available to date. While numerous taxonomies for interaction exist, the Interaction Matrix provides a collective approach to incorporating such dynamic interactions.

The Interaction Matrix detailed below helps explain the dynamic variety of interactions that are often considered essential in fostering a socially constructed learning environment. What follows is the rationale for the early conceptualization of this model that can help guide the design and development of environments that foster meaningful and memorable learning.

Each diagram that follows was developed by the researcher as an initial attempt to provide a visual representation of relationships among the various forms of interaction available to designers. Geometric elements were chosen to illustrate the interconnectedness and synergistic elements that various interactions possess when purposefully designed. In Figures 8-10, each interaction is symbolized by an equilateral triangle that is comprised of two different interaction elements, noted by smaller right triangles.

At the core of the Interaction Matrix are the essential elements of the learning environment: content, learner, instructor, collective, and network. Figure 7 depicts each of these primary elements as a different triangular piece that comprises the various formal and informal interactions that this study explored. As content, learner, and instructor are most established in the literature and most noted in this study, they are larger in Figure 8 than the emerging network and collective elements. All these components are further described below.

Figure 7. Interaction matrix core

Initial efforts of many learning endeavors are commonly focused upon the integration of course content. The content includes the complete assortment of instructional materials, learning objects, assigned readings, and resources that serve as the reference and resources that the both the instructor and learners will make use of throughout the learning experience. The instructor and learner(s) complete the triad of essential elements commonly understood as foundational to the learning encounter. These elements are therefore enlarged and form the boundary of the Interaction Matrix Core. Yet, two emerging catalytic components should also be included as core elements that learners interact with in informal contexts: the Network and the Collective.

Anderson and Dron (2007) note the distinctive characteristics of each of these granularities of social organization. In particular, they point to the radically new affordances possible through emerging applications of social software in educational contexts. They define the Network as, “a more fluid form of social entity in which members join, create and remove themselves from numerous informal learning and social connections.” The Network is personalized for each learner, as s/he has complete control over the composition of their network, the individuals comprising the Network, and the degree to which the Network is utilized.

The “Network” is further classified by Downes (2006) as being diverse, autonomous, open, connective, and distributed. Downes also notes that networks serve as bridges among individuals and agents in contrast to groups that typically isolate individuals into restricted units. Networks are fluid and generative as members contribute to create a resource that has greater value than any individual or group can solely construct. Examples of networks in education might include e-mail mailing lists, social networks, or subscribers to syndicated blogs.

In comparison to the Network, the Collective is much more expansive and involves the bottom-up interactions of the many. Anderson and Dron (2007) refer to the Collective as, “The largest form of social granularity in which members participate for individual benefit, but their activities are harvested to generate the ‘wisdom of the crowds’.” Anderson and Dron further note that the Collective is, “a kind of cyber-organism, formed from people linked algorithmically…it grows through the aggregation of individual, Group and Networked activities. This distinctive dynamic is one of aggregation, not networking and the clearest way of distinguishing the two is that collective systems do not require a commitment to the Many.” The Collective might include any type of interactions involving individuals indirectly contributing to the many and can involve such activities as searching, social bookmarking, ranking, reviewing, and voting. In such an environment, the items deemed most valuable by the Collective are elevated and ultimately can influence the behavior of the individual. For example, video clips on YouTube that have been viewed the most appear highest in search results and therefore are more likely to be accessed than others that don’t receive such a high ranking. Dron (2007) suggests that these emergent properties social software fostering interaction with the Collective can facilitate an approach to elearning that is, “Qualitatively different from and capable of significantly augmenting traditional methods, with special benefits for lifelong learners and those outside institutional boundaries” (p. 60). The notions of the Network and Collective help address the dynamic of informal interactions that are possible when individual, group, and network activities are aggregated.

Formal Interaction

Moore (1989) suggested the existence of three main types of interaction within educational contexts: (1) between the learner and instructor, (2) among learners, (3) between learners and the content they are working to master. A host of subsequent typologies have emerged, each seeking to either extend Moore’s basic tenets of interaction or define additional forms of interaction within the instructional context (see, for example, Anderson & Garrison, 1998; Hannafin, 1989; Hirumi, 2002; Juwah, 2006; Jung, Choi, Lim, & Leem, 2002; Wagner, 1997). The Interaction Matrix draws together the dynamic interactions possible in contemporary online learning environments into a single model that can be utilized in the design, development, and facilitation of online learning initiatives.

In accordance with widespread recommendations from the literature and recommendations from learners in this study, the following formal interactions as depicted in Figure 8 should be considered when designing online learning. Figure 8 is one subset of the Interaction Matrix, utilizing five equilateral triangles to illustrate the five key formal interactions that should be considered when designing online learning environments: instructor-content, learner-learner, content-content, learner-instructor, and learner-content. Combined, these interactions form a trapezoidal unit comprising the full spectrum of formal interactions to be considered.

Figure 8. Formal interaction

Instructor-Content Interaction. This involves the wide array of interactions that the instructor has with the content and includes activities such as selecting objectives, developing instructional materials, crafting activities for learners to engage in, etc.

Learner-Learner Interaction. This includes any number of interactions designed to encourage learners to interact with one another throughout the course. These interactions could be either synchronous or asynchronous, but the parameters for such activities are generally specified by the instructor or the course requirements.

Content-Content Interaction. Rather than offering just a single set of activities or interactions for all learners, content-content interaction can facilitate custom learning paths through course content and activities, displaying content to certain users for a limited period of time or making additional content available based on a variety of pre-defined or dynamic content variables.

Instructor-Learner Interaction. Any number of interactions between learners and the instructor are possible. Such interactions may be either synchronous or asynchronous and can be either instructional, supplementary, or evaluative in nature. No matter the specific format of the interactions, learners have reported finding the interactions with the instructor to be essential to the quality of the online learning experience (Restauri, 2006; Richardson & Swan, 2003).

Learner-Content Interaction. As learners actively engage with course content, they have opportunity to evaluate, apply, and synthesize course content. Therefore, the interactions that learners have with content should be carefully designed to facilitate meaningful interactions.

Informal Interaction

In addition to the formal interactions that instructors and designers must consider, numerous informal interactions also are possible and should be considered as contributing to the overall success of the learning encounter and may serve as integral to the quality learning experience preferred by both learners and instructors. These interactions, while some at times exist beyond the control of the designer or instructor, should at least be considered as important components to the complete learning experience. Figure 9 displays the second trapezoidal subset of the Interaction matrix, consisting of the following seven informal interactions: learner-learner, instructor-content, content-content, learner-instructor, learner-content, learner-network, and learner-collective.

Figure 9. Informal interaction

Learner-Learner Interaction. Learners have opportunity to interaction with each other informally outside of the formal learning environment. These interactions may include, but aren’t limited to: e-mail, phone, meeting in person, sharing or compiling bookmarked resources, social networking, subscribing to each other’s blogs, commenting on each other’s blogs.

Instructor-Content Interaction. In addition to the formal efforts of the instructor to design and develop various course content activities, the instructor may come across additional resources or supplementary course content items that may either add to overall understanding or serve as additional resources. The instructor may engage in a variety of ongoing informal interactions with the content, such as bookmarking new resources, subscribing to and commenting on blogs or news feeds, etc. The instructor may choose to incorporate newly-discovered content and resources immediately to the course in-progress or may utilize them when revising the course for the next group of students.

Content-Content Interaction. Consistent with the characteristics of the Collective described above, a wide assortment of informal interactions among content items can contribute to the learning experience and be leveraged. Such interactions could involve organic interactions such as the formation and updating of dynamic information feeds or agents that are developed and updated by other forms of information or content. As the available technology continues to develop and the Collective becomes more clever, the format and influence of content-content interactions will only further develop.

Learner-Instructor Interaction. Learners may need to reach out to the instructor informally for further clarification or assistance, or, the instructor may need to contact students outside the formal course environment to share announcements or updates. A myriad of other informal interactions are possible, all of which may help learners feel more connected to the instructor as well as supported throughout the entire learning experience.

Learner-Content Interaction. Learners have opportunity to interact with content informally, which may serve to help reinforce formal interactions and therefore solidify the efficacy of designed formal learner-content interactions. While each learner’s personal learning environment (PLE) whereby many such interactions take place is unique, it is possible to design opportunities in the learning experience for learners to leverage their PLE to extend formal learning content. Such activities might include searching online for related supplementary resources and then bookmarking them to share with the class or subscribing to blogs and other feeds that further extend the knowledge base.

Learner-Network Interaction. As learners develop their own learning network outside the walls of the formal course environment, they have opportunity to form connections that can support more informal interactions on a number of levels. Learner-formed and maintained networks are one plausible alternative to more formally designed, instructor-driven groups that afford learners the opportunity to personalize interactions to individual preferences and needs, integral to incorporating unique experience and socio-cultural perspectives into the teaching and learning ethos (Sims & Stork, 2007).

Learner-Collective Interaction. Learners can access a myriad of additional informal resources referred to as “the Collective” in which the input of the many can have a significant and dynamic contribution. Learners also can share their perspectives with the collective, therefore contributing to the success and future impact of the Collective.

Considering the full range of possible interactions that possible, the Interaction Matrix displayed as Figure 10 depicts the essential elements of a socially constructed learning environment as they are involved in various synergistic interactions. It incorporates both trapezoidal depictions of formal and informal interactions fitting neatly together upon the core of interactive components: content, learner, instructor, collective, and network.

Figure 10. Interaction Matrix

As Sims and Stork (2007) recommend, designers should be cognizant of the unique cultural and situational/social contexts of learners that influence the ability for learners to engage in online learning environments. Emergent designs enable learners to integrate their individuality, experience and culture into the teaching and learning dynamic. Such designs leverage the full suite of interactions possible. Therefore, designers should be aware of each of these potential interactions and incorporate as many such interactions as are possible in an effort to provide learners with the maximum level of control in their learning experience.

Recommendations

While this study provides important contributions to the field, it is noteworthy to mention recommendations that may enhance the impact as well as guide further studies to be conducted.

As with any exploratory study, the insights gleaned provide an initial and focused understanding of an educational intervention from the perspective of those involved, paving the way for future studies. The very nature of such inquiry is based on the premise that multiple perspectives for any given experience exist and that the significance of the experience to the participants is what comprises reality (McMillan, 2000). The rich insights gleaned from the participants are specific to that population and cannot be projected upon other classifications of individuals. This study focused on learner preferences for interaction in a self-paced online learning environment and did not simultaneously investigate instructor-preferred or administration-preferred tenets worthy of analysis. Further studies could explore such perspectives within the self-paced online learning environment as well as extend beyond any single institution in order to see if the sentiments expressed by learners in the selected course sections are isolated to the specific course or program selected or are more indicative of interaction trends in other contexts.

Similar future studies would add valuable contributions to the field by studying interaction in similar course environments in alternative institutions where the researcher is not the instructor as well as with multiple sections of a particular course where the same subject matter and learning experiences are facilitated by different instructors with subsequently different approaches to interacting with students. Successive studies could also involve differing learner populations, including various age groups and socio-cultural status to determine whether such influences impact interaction. Furthermore, additional studies are necessary to measure the affect that emerging interaction types have on the overall learning experience.

This study briefly explored learners’ preferences for asynchronous discussion and compared asynchronous discussion via a discussion board format as compared to a more open format of a blog. Further research is necessary to explore the unique aspects of emergent asynchronous communications approaches such as blogging, collaborative authorship, social bookmarking, and social networking as compared to more traditional asynchronous online communication approaches. In particular, when given the choice, do learners prefer a more open form a communication feasible through emergent computer-mediated communication technologies as compared to utilizing the discussion board provided in an LMS? In addition, to what extent can a social network system meet the needs of designers, instructors, and learners and therefore be capable of replacing an LMS? Finally, it would be beneficial to learn in future studies what impact course size may have on the self-paced online learning experience.

Conclusions

A host of interactions certainly are possible in contemporary online learning environments. Some are viewed as essential while others may assume a more supplemental role. Prior to conducting this study, it was proposed that one or more types of interaction could potentially surface as being preferred for adult learners in the self-paced online learning environment. While others had conjectured that learners may value formal, learner-instructor interaction highest, little evidence was previously available in the literature to support or refute the notion of interaction equivalency among interaction modalities. This study demonstrated that depending on the specific circumstance, not all forms of interaction may be either equally valued by learners or effective. Participants reported that informal interactions were as important as formal interactions in determining the quality of the online learning experience. In addition, the activity of blogging was shown to be equivalent to or even superior to instructor-directed asynchronous discussion via the discussion board in a LMS. While it may be possible to design opportunities for interpersonal interaction that may in fact rival interaction with the instructor or content, in this particular self-paced online learning environment that was studied, this was not the case. And, as learners’ preferences indicated that one or more types of interaction were valued over the other, it is certainly possible that in other learning environments such findings may differ. Further study is necessary to determine whether the initial insights of participants reflect noteworthy trends in interaction or merely an isolated instance.

The results of this study provide guidelines for instructional designers developing instructional strategies for online environments when neither the instructor nor course requirements impose pace upon the learners. The importance of well-designed instruction was reinforced. The components of what may be deemed “well-designed instruction” can span beyond stimulus-response or drill and practice activities to include a wide range of dynamic interactions as outlined in the Interaction Matrix. Such diverse interactions all collectively comprise a dynamic learning environment comprised of one or more learning communities that can extend beyond the restrictions of any single course section, connecting learners in unique ways.