CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The field of online learning is rapidly advancing to meet the evolving needs of 21st century learners. The recognized progress is truly evolutionary in nature, whereby the influence of constant technological advances combined with ever-expanding understanding of pedagogical implications and best practices is fostering an environment poised for innovation. The amount of burgeoning research examining various factors pertinent to the development of successful online learning environments is proportionate to the rapid expansion of new developments within the field. The following literature review examines the primary theoretical underpinnings and current findings within the literature concerning the substance and quality of interaction in online learning.
Theoretical Framework
A host of theoretical foundations have been identified and expanded over the years to help explain the phenomenon of distance education. While the field was initially preoccupied with structural and organizational constraints, the theoretical development is continuing to shift focus from organizational to transactional issues and assumptions (Garrison, 2000). Early theorists such as Wedemeyer (1971), Keegan (1996), and Holmberg (1989) focused upon moving distance education beyond a sole primary format of “correspondence courses” to embrace more individualized and customizable approaches. As technology has advanced to the point where structural constraints are now a rather insignificant challenge, contemporary distance education theories place communication at the core of the teaching and learning transaction rather than focusing on the mechanics of implementation. Such theoretical ideologies are positioning the field to move into a postindustrial era characterized by an increasing measure of learner diversity and choice, where the primary energy is placed upon facilitation of teaching and learning at a distance. Contemporary theories, such as those serving as foundational components for the generation of the research questions for this study and guiding the following exploration of the literature, concentrate primarily upon the substance of the teaching and learning process and seek to identify approaches that are most conducive to fostering meaningful and memorable learning.
In concurrence with the dawn of the postindustrial era of distance education, much attention has been placed on understanding the nature of educational transactions (Rovai, 2002; Saba, 2000; Stein et al., 2005). Proponents esteem such active encounters with the concepts of the curriculum as vital to the construction of new knowledge that is both practical and long lasting. The transactional perspective of teaching and learning is based upon the precept that, “Information has meaning and value only when interconnections are made among facts, ideas and experience” (Garrison & Archer, 2000, p. 7). This perspective maintains that knowledge is constructed rather than acquired, claiming that collaboration is essential for the creation and reinforcement of new knowledge. Therefore, as learners build communication networks with fellow learners and the instructor, avenues for critical inquiry and dialogue are established. The transactional perspective is progressive, recognizing the ability for learners to take responsibility for their learning and capability for independent critical thinking. Incorporating the individual learning contexts of all members of the learning community, this approach recognizes that the unique perspective of each learner adds great richness and therefore is ideally suited for applications related to continuing education, particularly adult education.
Moving a step beyond looking at a macro analysis of educational transactions, Michael Moore’s (1986) theory of transactional distance is a widely acknowledged framework of distance education, positing that the extent of dialogue and structure categorizes all educational transactions. Moore’s conjecture, independently confirmed by Saba and Shearer (1994), states that the constructs of dialogue and structure are inversely interdependent. This notion of the nature of distance is radically different from previous viewpoints concerning distance education, as geographic distance was no longer the predominant issue to be addressed. Rather, this view acknowledges a measure of “distance” to exist in all learning contexts, characterized by the mix of structure and communication defining any learning event. In effect, transactional distance holds that the greater the structure, the lesser the dialogue within learning encounters. Moore adds a third dimension of autonomy to this framework, recognizing that autonomous learners require neither dialogue nor structure. It is this assertion of the uniqueness of a self-directed learning experience that introduces a measure of variability to an otherwise straightforward rationale. While Moore’s theory has been widely applied and expanded in numerous contexts, it is so broad in scope that it alone does not sufficiently account for the diverse variables constituting a rich distance learning experience (Y.-J. Chen, 2000; Garrison, 2000; Gorsky & Caspi, 2005).
Jon Dron (2006c) proposed a subset of transactional distance that is concerned primarily with the choices afforded to participants in the learning experience. His theory of transactional control, while not aimed at replacing Moore’s seminal work regarding transactional distance, does further clarify the dynamics of structure and dialogue within an educational event by defining the associated precepts. Transactional control views structure as equating teacher control, dialogue to negotiated control, and autonomy to learner control. At any point along the learning trajectory, transactional control will vary based upon the extent to which particular individuals make choices regarding the substance of the learning experience. In any educational endeavor, the teacher makes some choices while others are left to the learner. Mapping transactional control to transactional distance, Dron views dialogue as the unifying factor in a teaching and learning transaction, affording both the learner and teacher a measure of control over the learning experience. It is this idea of varying levels of control throughout the learning process supported by rich communication that makes possible the accommodation of the needs and preferences of all participants in the learning environment.
While an element of collaboration has certainly been shown to be beneficial to learning in a variety of contexts, the value of individuality and learner autonomy has also been recognized and promoted. Morten Paulsen (1993) was truly a pioneer for his day, proposing the theory of cooperative freedom that surpassed the more popular arguments at the time for the superiority of self-paced education, such as its economic scalability and ability to overcome time and space constraints. His theory of cooperative freedom is classified as one of independence and autonomy, perceiving distance learners as being both motivated and self-directed while possessing the innate desire to control learning outcomes. Paulsen, while recognizing the pedagogical challenge to creating and sustaining meaningful group communication in unpaced learning, 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. He elaborates on this notion by proposing six key freedoms prized by distance learners that computer-mediated communication utilized within an online learning environment can foster. These include the well-known freedom of time and freedom of space that have widely defined traditional distance education programming. Paulsen notes the freedom to pace learning to best meet the learner’s individual schedule and time availability as well as competencies. The fourth dimension pertains to the freedom to choose the learning medium that best addresses the learning style and preferences of the learner. The next freedom, the freedom of access, includes removing the barriers of prerequisites, high costs, and exorbitant technology requirements. Finally, the freedom of curriculum allows learners to choose from among a wide array of course offerings and permits the transfer of credits between programs and institutions. According to Paulsen, the ideal distance education solution embraces these key dimensions of cooperation and freedom, maximizing the amount of control afforded to learners.
Recognizing the wide range of learner needs and distance education program formats afforded by the emerging computer-mediated communication as well as the reality that no single medium supports the educational experience in a manner superior to all others (Russell, 2005), Terry Anderson (2003) sought to formulate a theoretical framework for explaining the dynamics of learner interactions in the context of self-paced courses delivered online. He noted the utility for institutions involved in distance and online education to routinely examine and adjust delivery models to accommodate both the largest number of students and significant niche groups of learners. In an effort to account for the numerous approaches to designing online learning curriculum and to build upon previously espoused theoretical rationale regarding interaction, Anderson proposed his “Interaction Equivalency Theorem” in which he posits:
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. High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as cost or time effective as less interactive learning sequences (Anderson, 2003, para. 10).
This theorem forms the foundation for an extensible model of community based learning support permitting learner-learner interaction in a cost effective manner while also maintaining the qualities of self-paced learning (Anderson et al., 2005). While maintaining the value of diverse types and quantities of interaction in any educational experience, Anderson’s theorem opens the door for exploration of emergent curriculum designs and interaction approaches that extend beyond the common instructor-paced, class model of education. This theorem implies that one type of interaction may be substituted for others without a degradation of the educational experience. Yet, this proposition of substituitivity isn’t as straightforward as a first glance at Anderson’s theorem may suggest. Not all students may interact meaningfully with peers or content and may therefore require or prefer interaction with an instructor. Yet, some students certainly may prefer to interact with the content or other students in a greater proportion than with the instructor. The key to Anderson’s thesis is that each student is different and requires a specific mix of interaction to fit specific preferences and needs. Numerous corollaries and implications for the design and facilitation of learning stem from the extent to which such varying interaction truly is perceived as being equivalent by learners.
The Emergence of Online Education
The influence of technology upon society is astounding and continues to evolve. The field of education is certainly not exempt from the technological advances of this past century. Recent technological innovations over the past quarter century have had a particularly profound influence on postsecondary distance education. The rapid proliferation of the World Wide Web and vast advancement of multimedia technologies have opened the door to new approaches for designing and delivering teaching and learning in higher education. Online education certainly continues to expand and influence higher education (M. F. Williams, III, 2003). This is no recent phenomena, as distance education within the online setting has been continually developing and expanding since the advent of the Internet (Khan, 1997). Even though growth in online education has been steady, it has not been equal among varying educational contexts. While over 90% of public colleges and universities in the United States have embraced online education at some level, only 53% of private, non-profit postsecondary institutions offer any form of online courses (Allen & Seaman, 2004).
The advancement of online education in the United States over the past decade is evidenced by both numerical and programmatic growth. By 1998, 44% of higher education institutions offered distance learning courses, with 8% providing an entire program on the World Wide Web (Council, 2001, as cited in M. F. Williams, III, 2003). Those figures have increased rapidly, as the same study repeated just two years later showed that 56% of postsecondary institutions offered distance education courses, with 34% offering a degree or certificate program that could be completed entirely online. An additional 12% of institutions indicated that they planned to begin offering distance education courses in the next three years (Waits & Lewis, 2003). The research further showed that among the institutions reportedly offering distance education courses in 2000-2001, 30% offered degree programs and 16% offered certificate programs” (Waits & Lewis, 2003). Large public institutions have been at the forefront of online education, leading the way in terms of the number of course offerings. In 2005 more than 96% of institutions with more than 15,000 enrollments reported offering online courses, with the rate of online program development proportional to the increase of overall institutional enrollment (Allen & Seaman, 2006). In the fall of 2003, over 1.9 million students were studying online, with online enrollments growing at a faster rate than for the overall student body (Allen & Seaman, 2004). The number of higher education students taking at least one online course during 2005 rose to 3.2 million, an increase of 40% in just two years (Allen & Seaman, 2006). No signs of decline in these trends are anticipated anytime soon.
Online education is quickly becoming the norm rather than the exception for many higher education institutions seeking to attract and retain adult learners. An increasing number of both traditional-age and older adult learners are seeking flexible, technology-based learning experiences (Allen & Seaman, 2006). Reasons for these preferences vary and include a wide range of factors from learning styles to convenience. These expectations are prompting institutions to look for new instructional design theories and methods for delivering instruction, updating curriculum and delivery methods (M. F. Williams, III, 2003). In order to accommodate an ever-increasing potential body of learners, administrators and designers of online learning initiatives look to solutions that can address both the quality of the learning experience as well as economies of scale. Technology-based learning has been shown to offer a flexible educational option for students who desire to proceed through a course in a self-directed fashion (Jiyeon Lee & Gibson, 2003; Oladoke, 2006). These education options, in the form of online education, offer institutions and administrators flexibility as they seek to meet the evolving demands of 21st century learners and remain competitive (M. F. Williams, III, 2003).
Institutions seeking to remain relevant to student’s needs must consider changes to the traditional paradigm of the manufacture, distribution, and delivery of learning (Wulf, 2003, as cited in McLaughlin, 2004). By offering courses in the online format, institutions provide educational opportunities to individuals who may be unable to physically travel to a campus due to time and geographic restraints (M. F. Williams, III, 2003). Thus, online courses aid in reaching students who otherwise might not be able to attend college or who wish to expand their education later in life.
The preferences people have for online instruction has been recognized for quite some time and continue to strengthen as new online programs are established and graduates demonstrate competence in their fields stemming from their online education.
Online instruction using Web technologies arouses great enthusiasm among educators and students. It provides a convenient environment for academic discourse, debate, discussion, collaboration, and friendly communication for people who are separated by time and place. It facilitates the involvement of outside experts and allows mature learners to bring their own experience and expertise to the learning process. Online learning also introduces new organizational, structural, intellectual, and cultural approaches to the educational process (Heath, 1997, p. 148).
Adult learners are an especially ripe learning population for institutions offering online programs, possessing learning needs that vary from more traditional college-age students (McLaughlin, 2004). Online students tend to be older and often have additional family and employment responsibilities as compared to the “traditional student” – the 18-21 year old attending a brick and mortar institution of higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2006). The commonly cited educational requirements of flexibility and anytime/anywhere access combined with the increased capabilities of self-directedness are ones that can often be more easily met through the online learning environment as compared to face-to-face settings.
Relationship of the Research Questions to Literature Themes
This exploratory study examined the experiences and preferences of adult learners concerning the various interactions that they encounter in a self-paced online course to determine whether a perceived equivalency exists among the various interactive elements. The following review of the literature explores the theoretical frameworks and empirical research conducted to date, examining the dynamics of interaction in online learning environments.
Informal Versus Formal Learning
Despite the emphasis that is placed upon the design and development of formal educational initiatives, holistic education has always been categorized by both formal and informal learning opportunities. Individuals learn throughout their lives in a variety of settings and contexts, many of which do not involve formal educational settings. Jay Cross (2006) contends that as much as 85% of learning takes place outside of formal educational settings, yet proportionately little attention has been paid to understanding informal learning and how it takes place (Attwell, 2006).
A myriad of taxonomies have been employed in an effort to quantify the characteristics that distinguish informal learning from formal learning endeavors (Hamilton, 2006). A fitting entry into the discussion of formal versus informal learning is to identify the attributes typifying informal learning. Tusting (2003) notes four features of informal learning that are commonly used to determine the degree to which a learning endeavor is deemed informal: the setting for the learning to take place, the degree of flexibility and planning, the approach to accreditation and external specification of outcomes, and the nature of the relationship between expert and learner (p. 12). Livingstone (2000) offers the following definition in an effort to encapsulate the essence of informal learning,
Informal learning is any activity involving the pursuit of understanding, knowledge or skill which occurs outside the curricula of educational institutions, or the course or workshops offered by educational or social agencies. The basic terms of informal learning (e.g. objectives, content, means and processes of acquisition, duration, evaluation or outcomes, applications) are determined by
the individual and groups that choose to engage in it. Informal learning is undertaken on one's own, either individually or collectively, without either externally imposed criteria or the presence of an institutionally authorised instructor (p. 2).
Ranging from personal to corporate settings, opportunities for individualizing one’s learning to meet specific interests and desired skills are abundant. The use of computers and the development of the Internet are among recent developments that have served as catalysts for the development of new forms of informal learning environments marked by openness and autonomy of learners (Selwyn, Gorard, & Furlong, 2006). The rise of educational technology in general, and online learning in particular, has spawned a rapidly accelerating emphasis upon such informal learning opportunities that afford the individuals with the utmost potential for customizing their learning experiences.
These contemporary online learning environments are marked by a shift from the formal online classroom to a learning space where both formal participants and informal participants are able to interact in new and diverse ways (Sims & Stork, 2007). No longer restricted to only interacting with the members of the formal class, learners have access to a myriad of resources, individuals, and learning objects that can be accessed as either primary or secondary learning aids. The rapid development of new and open information through emergent online communication modes characterized by user-generated content, places a virtually unlimited number of resources and ideas at the fingertips of learners. The organic nature of these informal connections to information makes possible new collaboration and learning environments that formerly were arduous to form (Downes, 2007). Learners are subsequently able to easily select the individuals and resources that they identify as most helpful for their individual learning at the moment. In the sphere of informal learning, individuals are able to form such personal learning environments (PLEs) whereby they select their own unique set of learning resources and interactions that they deem most valuable to their learning experience (Attwell, 2007; Wilson, Liber, Beauvoir, Milligan, Johnson, & Sharples, 2006). The composition of a PLE and the interactions fostered can evolve whenever the learner chooses to make the change. It is conceivable that the online learning space can be comprised of formal and informal participants who all can provide valuable contributions to the formal and informal learning experiences of students.
The lines previously understood between the formal course and informal environment are therefore becoming increasingly blurred as communication technologies become ubiquitous and interoperable. Flexible learning designs can incorporate the context of the individual, allowing for maximum control by the learner and therefore integrate both the formal and informal learning environments (Sims & Stork, 2007). The assumption can be made that as highly personalized communications technologies become commonplace, the opportunities to integrate these communications modes within formal learning environments increase. It is therefore of paramount importance to understand the dynamics of interaction in both formal and informal learning contexts.
Interaction
The concepts of interactivity and interaction are hardly well-defined constructs and are often either used interchangeably or confused when referring to the dynamics of e-learning (Sims, 2000). Nonetheless, a variety of definitions have been proposed to help provide clarity to the understanding of what constitutes interaction. In fact, Bannan-Ritland (2002), in a meta-analysis of 132 studies conducted from 1995-2000 identifying interaction as a variable or theoretical construct, found 20 different operational definitions of interaction. While no one single definition of interaction exists within the literature, several predominant rationales have guided contemporary understanding of the nature and function interaction in online learning frameworks.
According to Wagner (1994), interaction involves behaviors where individuals directly influence each other, whereas interactivity tends to focus on the aspects of the technology system. Sims (2000) elaborates further, defining interactivity as, “those functions and/or operations made available to the learner to enable them to work with content material presented in a computer based environment” (p. 46). Palloff and Pratt (2005) draw additional distinction between these constructs by defining interaction as interpersonal communication while referring to the inclusion of materials helping to create an active online learning environment as interactivity. Despite attempts such as these to focus the use of related terminology, these terms invariably are often used interchangeably in the literature. However, the aforementioned distinctions between the terms will be maintained for the sake of this review, as the stated focus is upon examining various aspects of interpersonal communication and the extent in which such interactions are deemed equivalent in self-paced learning environments. To that end, additional examination of the nature and substance of interaction is warranted.
While it is commonly held that interactions are central to successful online learning environments, a wide array of taxonomies exist in the literature seeking to explicate the composition of interaction. Moore (1989) suggests three types of interaction that occur within educational contexts: (1) between the learner and instructor, (2) among learners, and (3) between learners and the content they are working to master. Moore’s taxonomy seeks only to quantify the existent interactions by describing the agents involved in or affected by a given interaction and does not take into account intended outcomes. Yet, Moore’s communication-based framework identifying the primary entities involved in interaction helped pave the way for continued expansion of the types of interaction and factors considered important to the overall quality of a learning experience.
A host of subsequent typologies have emerged seeking to further classify the diverse interaction existent in the learning environment. Some are very broad in nature, while others attempt to provide a detailed classification of specific constructs of interaction. For example, Juwah (2006) approaches interaction by distinguishing the key elements in the learning cycle: conceptualization, construction, and dialogue. Jung, Choi, Lim, and Leem (2002) identify three broad categories of interaction: academic, collaborative, and social, while many others have gone into much greater depth exploring the dynamics of various categories of interaction. Yet, no matter how one wishes to classify the interactions existing in a learning transaction, the fact remains that active engagement is a requirement for meaningful learning to take place (Anderson & Garrison, 1998).
Some classify interaction in terms of purposes and functions rather than consistency. Hannafin (1989) considers interaction to function on a variety of domains from providing procedural control to causing differentiated levels of cognitive processing. He points to the diverse functions of interactions: confirmation, pacing, inquiry, navigation, and elaboration. Rather than choosing a restricted view, Hannafin maintains a utilitarian perspective concerning interaction and notes the wide range of benefits of purposeful interaction within education.
Anderson and Garrison (1998) extend the discussion of interaction beyond involving students to also include teacher-teacher, teacher-content, and content-content interactions. Like Hannafin, they call for recognition of the numerous domains in which interaction takes place beyond two-way interpersonal interaction that is most commonly recognized. Their perspective broadens the borders of interaction to include subsets that had not previously been seriously deliberated.
Wagner (1997) expands even further upon Moore’s basic categorization schema to consider the outcomes of interactions, emphasizing the communicability of educational experiences. Such interactions involve objects and events mutually influencing one another in a meaningful way. Wagner identifies the following types of interaction classified by intended outcomes: interaction to increase participation, interaction to develop communication, interaction to receive feedback, interaction to enhance elaboration and retention, interaction to support learner control/self-regulation, interaction to increase motivation, interaction for negotiation of understanding, interaction for discovery, interaction for exploration, interaction for clarification of understanding, and interaction for closure. Wagner argues for the existence of two primary purposes for interaction: to change learners and to move them toward an action state of goal attainment. Therefore, if learners are to truly be changed by interaction, a measure of intrinsic motivation must exist, resulting from an educational environment where active learner participation is encouraged and learning experiences are tailored to meet the needs of the learners.
Northrup (2002) investigated the types of interactions that students perceived to be important for online learning and argues for the existence of four primary purposes of interaction: to interact with content, to collaborate and converse, to help monitor and regulate learning, and to support performance. Her case study of 52 graduate students in an online masters program in instructional technology found learners’ preferences for interaction and individual experiences to center upon meeting their needs. Learner responses indicated that the concept of self-regulated learning and the existence of timely feedback from the instructor were most valued by participants.
Whether recognizing the agents or purposes of interaction, early taxonomies of interaction lacked recommendations for planning and implementing a comprehensive set of interactions necessary for achieving specified objectives. Hirumi (2002) proposes yet another framework for interaction, stressing the necessity for practical guidelines to guide a comprehensive set of interactions essential to meeting specified outcomes. His three-tiered framework for classifying e-learning interactions seeks to demarcate the relationship between fundamental communication-based interactions by proposing a theoretical framework for analyzing, designing, and sequencing planned e-learning interactions. According to Hirumi, Level I interactions occur within each individual learner, such as the cognitive and metacognitive processes of learning, whereas Level II interactions take place between the learner and human or non-human resources. While both levels of interaction are distinct and commonly accepted, Level III interactions proposed by Hirumi define an e-learning strategy involving a purposefully crafted set of Level II interactions designed and sequenced to foster Level I interactions. Hirumi’s hierarchical approach underscores the complexity of the collective set of interactions possible in e-learning contexts and stresses the importance of considering the full range of benefits to combining different interactive activities into an engaging learning experience.
While interaction and interactivity both contribute to active learning and tend to be oriented toward implied or expressed goals, neither were commonly used in the same instructional event prior to the Internet (Dempsey & Van Eck, 2007). Hirumi (2006) groups such taxonomies for classifying e-learning interactions into four categories: (a) communication, (b) purpose, (c) activity, and (d) tool-based taxonomies. No matter the classification framework selected, the underlying criteria generally fall into one of these four of categories.
Learner-content interaction. Hirumi (2006) identifies learner-content interaction interactions as those taking place when learners access various media representations of the subject matter under study. It is this type of interaction that is involved in what Holmberg (1986) refers to as the “internal didactic conversation” as learners “talk to themselves” regarding the ideas and information they encounter. Early distance education programs were largely content-interactive in nature. The rapid development of new communications technologies over the past century have made possible the development of other types of interaction within the distance education experience.
Learner-instructor interaction. Interaction between learner and teacher is considered by many to be essential to any successful online learning experience (Restauri, 2006; Rovai, 2002; Sher, 2004). Learner-instructor interactions are defined as, “student or instructor initiated communications that occur before, during and immediately after instruction” (Hirumi, 2006, p. 50). Depending on the format and frequency of such interactions, they may result in a substantial workload for both the instructor and learners beyond what may otherwise be expected from a face-to-face course.
Learner-learner interaction. Learner-learner interactions, whether in the face-to-face or online contexts, provide a valuable venue for collaboration, idea sharing, and knowledge construction. Moore (1989) defined such interactions as those occurring, “between one learning and another learner, alone or in group settings, with or without the real-time presence of an instructor” (p. 4). For years, a wide assortment of asynchronous and synchronous computer-mediated communication technologies has been leveraged to facilitate rich interpersonal interactions in distance education contexts. Yet, as the next generation of digital students who have grown up with digital technology enter academia, the educational establishment must recognize the unique ways in which digital students use technology and be poised to continue advancing methodologies and practices to meet the unique needs of learners (Andone, Dron, Pemberton, & Boyne, 2007).
Learner-others interaction. Each online learner has opportunity to build a unique network of individuals beyond the parameters of the online course for ongoing dialogue and relationship building. Such interactions may exist simultaneously along with other forms of course-community interactions. Learner-others interaction embraces the existence of external learning networks and includes the wide range of interactions enabling learners to acquire, interpret and apply information from various resources (Hirumi, 2006).
Learner-interface interaction. Noting the increase in computer-based delivery systems, Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) propose a communication-based classification of interaction that notes the importance of the interface in facilitating the interaction that takes place between the learner and fellow learners, the instructor, and the content. Defining this type of interaction as the, “process of manipulating tools to accomplish a task” (Hillman et al., 1994, p. 34), the technology incorporated into the learning experience is seen as a crucial element to the success of other learning encounters. This perspective is one that has been reinforced in the literature, asserting that the interactive experience of learners will either be aided or hindered by dynamics of the learner experience with the available technology (Sims, 1999, 2000; Vonderwell & Zachariah, 2005; H. Wang, Gould, & Fulton, 2007). The online learning environment fostering an atmosphere in which learners are uninhibited from meaningful engagement must be characterized by sound interface design principles.
Learner-tool interaction. As online technologies continue to rapidly advance, online learners are exposed to an increasing number of tools that can be utilized within the learning process. No longer are learners restricted to only use the utilities within a learning management system. Rather, an ever-increasing number of Web tools are emerging, providing learners with virtually endless approaches to accomplishing prescribed learning tasks. Learner-tool interaction involves the full scope of experiences learners have using various tools to complete tasks both within and outside the online environment (Hirumi, 2006).
Learner-environment interaction. Learner-environment interactions occur when learners work with resources outside the computer environment or visit external locations (Hirumi, 2006).
Learner-designer interaction. Hedberg and Sims (2001) postulate that since any learning experience is largely determined by the designer, the interactions that take place between designer and learner must be considered in learning design process. This indirect discourse between learner and designer is directed in large part by the role that design and development has in orchestrating effective interactive encounters (Sims, 1999). Emergent models repositioning the roles and processes traditionally associated with instructional design embrace this relationship between learners and designers. It is through such progressive design approaches that the full potential of teaching and learning within online environments can be realized (Irlbeck et al., 2006).
Vicarious interaction. While the predominant number of identified formats of interaction involve active participation in one means or another, Sutton (2000, p. 5) suggests that a more passive form of interaction, entitled vicarious interaction also exists whereby learners vicariously interact through reading and processing the online interactions of others without directly participating themselves. Expanding the work of Fulford and Zang (1993), Sutton found that learners who interacted vicariously read and learned from the interactions of others but chose not to contribute themselves to the discussion. The value of interaction for such learners who may not be inclined to directly participate in interaction for one reason or another should not be discounted, as these learners can still benefit from actively observing and processing the interactions of others. While not a distinctly independent form of interaction as it only occurs in conjunction with other forms of interaction, it is one of the many useful learning modalities associated with an engaging learning environment.
Numerous approaches to fostering interaction exist, all of which desire to enrich the learning experience. While asynchronous, textual computer-mediated communication has been a staple of interpersonal interaction in distance education for decades, synchronous communication modes are becoming increasingly popular. Proponents of asynchronous discussion point to convenience of participation as a key feature, allowing learners and the instructor the flexibility to contribute to the discussion at the time of day that fits their personal schedule. Also commonly touted is the inherently reflective nature of such time-independent communication, in which the participants are provided with time to thoughtfully craft a response considering the full range of issues involved. While generally only text-based, contributions to the discussion are in a format accessible for all learners. Synchronous discussion differs from asynchronous modes, requiring real time participation by participants. The premier attribute of immediate feedback associated with synchronous approaches is often noted as a shortcoming of traditional asynchronous communication. Once considered to be a restrictive communication means reserved only for the few with the means to purchase expensive equipment and high speed bandwidth, synchronous communication is becoming much more common as most computer users now possess the necessary computer hardware and Internet connectivity. Hines and Pearl (2004) point to the ability to provide an increased sense of presence and generation of spontaneity as key strengths of synchronous communication. However, formidable technical and logistical challenges still exist and must be considered when implementing synchronous instruction (Ng, 2007).
In an effort to explore in greater depth the empirical work concerning the two primary modes of interpersonal interaction, Johnson (2006) conducted a review of recent research examining the utility of text-based synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication and found the effectiveness of such tools to be frequently measured by student achievement and satisfaction. Her review notes a host of studies confirming that student achievement is fostered by structured asynchronous online discussion. Johnson reiterates the value that both asynchronous and synchronous formats of communication bring to a learning experience, maintaining that when used in moderation to meet specified learning outcomes either format can effectively scaffold the achievement of desired learning objectives.
Threaded discussion, one common form of asynchronous communication, is perhaps the most common interpersonal communication vehicle within online learning today, as such technology is a central feature of contemporary learning management systems (West, Waddoups, Kennedy, & Graham, 2007). Also known as electronic conferencing, such discussions are topical in nature, with new topics referred to as threads. Hewitt (2005) provides a more exact definition of this format of asynchronous discussion, defining a thread as, “A hierarchically organized collection of notes in which all notes but one (the note that started the thread) are written as ‘replies’ to earlier notes” (p. 568). As participants make new contributions to the discussion and post responses to one another, the discussion forum grows based directly upon the contributions of participants.
Numerous studies within the literature explore the vast applications of threaded discussion to distance education contexts. Angeli, Valanides, and Bonk (2003) examined the extent to which an electronic conferencing system facilitated communication among pre-service teachers outside their classroom. They reviewed the electronic conferencing transcripts of 146 undergraduate student teachers from one university in the United States who were completing a 20-hour early-field experience while at the same time also completing a required corresponding laboratory course. The intention of the electronic conferencing component was to provide the student teachers with a venue in which to discuss in greater depth the issues they experienced in the field. While anticipating that quality discourse and critical-thinking skills, Angeli et al. found that the online discourse did not reflect well-supported reasoning and consisted mostly of exchanges of personal experience. They stress the value of explicit expectations for discussion activities and suggest future research to explore motivation and affective variables related to the implementation of interaction methods.
Fung (2004) sought to develop a framework for analyzing online discussion as well as participation levels in an online master’s degree program in education. She analyzed the content of threaded discussion of 60 students in a single online course and also distributed a questionnaire to the students’ three other courses (N=212), receiving responses from 83 students, in an attempt to learn why some students chose not to participate actively in the optional online course discussion. Fung found that peers affected students’ level of participation. Those who felt socially connected were more likely to participate than those who did not. In addition, she noted that the lack of available time as well as students’ preference for spending more time reading the required text than participating in discussion were the most significant hurdles.
Greene (2005) conducted a pilot study of 39 pre-service teachers and eight practicing teachers participating in a virtual field trip experience to glean the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating both asynchronous and synchronous discussion with video case studies. Through transcript analysis of various participant communications, focus group interviews and exit interviews, participants expressed that they found the video case studies beneficial in terms of making sense of the theories studied in class, while the interpersonal communication aided learners in making practical application of the new information. The findings, albeit bordering on common-sense, point to the utility of threaded discussion as well as other forms of interpersonal communication for reflection and application of new information in real world contexts.
Topper (2005) took a similar approach, exploring the dynamics of online discussion while serving as the instructor in each of the courses, enabling him to report his findings in conjunction with an instructor’s perspective. His study encompassed 61 graduate students enrolled in at least one of four different graduate online courses for education professionals involving three face-to-face sessions during the 15-week term: once during the first week of the course, once during the middle of the term, and once during the end of the term. Through qualitative content analysis of threaded discussion postings as well as surveying students to learn of more concerning their overall experience completing an online course, Topper notes the important role that the instructor has in guiding course-related online discussion and highlights the value that purposed communication can have in determining the overall value of an online learning experience. He presents several recommendations for instructors or designers crafting boundaries for asynchronous discussion that promote both active engagement and meaningful learning. Such counsel is consistent with similar exhortations from the literature (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Palloff & Pratt, 2005; Salmon, 2003).
Yet, no matter how well intentioned, designed, or facilitated a threaded discussion may be, inevitably asynchronous discussion topics cease to continue growing. Hewitt (2005), concerned with the challenges of sustaining asynchronous discourse, examined how and why discussions shut down. He studied one graduate course in distance education offered online from a university in Canada that was comprised of 14 students and one instructor. The selected course incorporated a conventional Web-based threaded discussion board in which discussion was broken into five separate discussion areas throughout the duration of the 13-week course. Hewitt’s three-phased study explored the content of discussions for a causal link between discussion transitions and the death of threads, elicited responses from learners through an online questionnaire concerning the experiences regarding the thread death phenomenon, and analyzed patterns of learners’ online activity in search of explanations of how learner behavior affects thread life. Findings suggest that learners stop contributing to threads when they feel as though there is nothing further to add to the discussion or if they loose interest in the specific topic. Observations of learners’ online behavior revealed the existence of “single-pass” behavior in the case of 9 of the 14 students studied, in which the individuals didn’t re-read postings from earlier sessions. Rather, they focused primarily on unread postings and replied only to these new contributions. Such habitual, single-pass routines are a normal part of the life of asynchronous discussion and must be considered in the design and facilitation of discussion activities. The task of maintaining active discussion throughout the duration of a course is therefore a formidable challenge.
One solution may be to look beyond traditional discussion board tools to facilitate asynchronous discussion. Cameron and Anderson (2006) compare Weblogs to threaded discussion tools and point out the opportunities that this next generation of asynchronous discussion offers beyond current threaded discussion within contemporary learning management systems. While a greater explanation will be provided later, Weblogs, also referred to as “blogs,” are a relatively easy-to-use interpersonal communication solution. Blogs are truly learner-directed, affording learners with complete control to manage the design, content, and organization of the communication. While both discussion boards and blogs have their own strengths, one may be more appropriate for a specific activity or group of learners than the other. Blogs are yet another manifestation of technology that can facilitate communication bridging chasms of time and distance among those in a learning community.
Yet another approach to exploring interaction is to examine its community development attributes. Swan (2002) identified 22 independent course design factors and correlations to student perceptions of interaction, learning, and satisfaction from data collected from 73 courses offered via the State University of New York Learning Network. Qualitative data analysis revealed three key indicators of student satisfaction: clarity and consistency of course design, contact with and feedback from the course instructor, and active discussion. These components were integral to the development of learning community and support. Wallace (2003) affirms the importance of interaction in the development of learning community, noting in her review of the literature several outstanding questions, such as how collaboration and community differ, as well as whether the existence or strength of learning community is related to student learning outcomes. Hodge et al. (2006) point to the interaction that takes place within a learning community as pivotal to the success of contemporary distance education initiatives. They note that a measure of proximity that is fostered by learning communities in which interaction is strategically promoted and call for a learning environment establishing, “camaraderie, safety, collegiality and a feeling of belonging while reducing the sense of remoteness” (para. 31). Purposefully implementing interaction and communication within the online learning environment is crucial to the development of community.
Beyond the many approaches in which interaction is realized, a plethora of studies in the literature have examined the composition of various interactions to gain a better understanding of the elements comprising valued interaction. Maor (2003) built upon the basic pedagogical, social, managerial, and technical instructor roles identified by Berge (1995) to discuss the instructor activities necessary to establish and maintain a community of learners. Others have examined instructor perspectives and preferences in greater depth, noting factors influencing the substance and format of interaction (T.-s. Chang, 2003; McIsaac, Blocher, Mahes, & Vrasidas, 2002; Monson, 2003). Orellana (2006) conducted a study of 131 online instructors having taught at least one online course in the past five years from across United States higher education institutions. Utilizing an online version of Roblyer and Wiencke’s (2004) Rubric for Assessing Interactive Qualities in Distance Courses, Orellana explored instructor-perceived interaction levels and the preferred class sizes for optimal levels of interaction. The average online class size reported by participants was 22.8. While instructors on average classified their courses as highly interactive, the class size of 15.9 was perceived to be optimal for achieving the highest possible level of interaction. Even though the self-reported numbers are suspect, Orellana’s study demonstrates a correlation between the size of a class or learning community and the quality of the interaction possible. Class size is just one of the potentially many variables influencing the quality and substance of interaction. No data was discussed concerning minimal class sizes for interaction, as it is certainly conceivable that a critical mass is necessary in order for optimal interaction levels to be actualized.
Instructors' perceptions, preferences and skill level with the available technology are additional factors influencing the composition of interaction in an online learning environment. Su et al. (2005) conducted a case study involving an online survey of 102 students from among 27 online courses within an online MBA program offered by a large mid-western university in the United States and then conducted follow-up interviews with 26 faculty members and 10 second-year online MBA students to better understand the perceptions of both learners and instructors concerning the quality of the online interaction in the online coursework. Sue et al. observed that instructors perceived learner-instructor and learner-learner interactions as crucial for high quality online programs. Such preferences may certainly drive the format and curriculum of future program development efforts to feature such interactions. Notably absent from the responses was any mention of alternative interactions, such as learner-content and learner-environment interactions. Yet, it is conceivable that such interactions are equally important to the overall quality of an online learning experience. The undeniable fact remains that perceptions of what constitutes quality interaction vary.
In comparison to the literature exploring attributes of interaction from an instructor perspective, an equally expansive number of studies have examined students’ preferences for interaction (Abdulla, 2006; Fulford & Zhang, 1993; H. Johnson, 2007; Martens, Bastiaens, & Kirschner, 2007; Rovai & Barnum, 2003). While many parallels can be drawn among the viewpoints of learners and instructors in regards to interaction, the learner perspective is unique and merits the special attention it is afforded in the literature.
Grooms (2000) sought to examine from the perspective of adult distance education learners enrolled in an online doctoral leadership program the importance of interaction as well as what activities might comprise such interactions. She developed and administered the Computer-Mediated Interaction Questionnaire to 105 doctoral learners, seeking to explore perceived value of learner-content, learner-facilitator, and learner-peer interactions. Yielding a reliability coefficient of .86, Grooms’ study found interaction to be extremely important to learners with interpersonal interaction deemed more important that intrapersonal interaction. Learners also classified interaction with instructors as more valued than interactions with other learners.
Northrup (2002), interested in exploring the types of interactions that students deem important for online learning at her particular institution, developed an instrument similar to Grooms’ for gathering such initial insights from learners. The online survey Northrup designed was based upon four primary interaction variables: content interaction, conversation and collaboration, intrapersonal/metacognitive, and support. The resulting Online Learning Interaction Inventory (OLLI) underwent extensive review and validation tests, yielding Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of .95. This survey tool has been shown to capture an introductory look at the interactions of learners in an online learning environment, serving as the foundation whereby follow-up inquiry into the experiences of learners can provide an authentic understanding of their viewpoints. The OLLI was administered to 52 graduate students in an online masters program, allowing for learners to rate interaction attributes on a five point Likert scale. Interaction indicators were noted in each of the interaction domains, with self-regulated learning and timely instructor feedback reported as being most valued by learners. While both survey tools yielded valuable data concerning baseline preferences of learners in terms of interaction, both studies lacked rich insights into the substance of learners’ current experiences and rationale for their expressed preferences.
Certain universal interaction qualities appear to emerge as desired no matter how varied the instructional context may be. Russo and Benson (2005) studied student perceptions of others in online courses in relation to affection and cognitive learning outcomes. Data collected from student survey responses indicated a correlation between perceptions of the instructor’s presence and both affective learning and student satisfaction. Students noted interaction frequency and responsiveness as key attributes to a quality online learning experience. The findings illustrate that while a certain degree of asynchronicity regarding online interactions is expected, it is possible for excessive response time or lack of frequency in response to adversely affect student perceptions of quality and performance. In a similar study, Russo and Campbell (2004) found that students recognized the following communication practices as influential of whether participants in a course were perceived to present or not: frequency of interaction, responsiveness, the use of non-verbal communication channels, and participants’ communication style. The challenge for online instructors, as Sims and Bovard (2004) explain, is to strive to be perceived by students as present enough to meet their needs for interaction and yet do so without inhibiting students’ learning from one another. Such effective communication skills within the online arena involve instructor competencies that are distinctly different from those necessary for face-to-face instruction (Klein, Spector, Grabowski, & Teja, 2004; Varvel, 2007).
Elementary components of the online learning experience, such as the structure of the course itself, also contribute to the composition of the interaction. Stein, Wanstreet, Calvin, Overtoom, and Wheaton (2005) recognize the diverse range of factors influencing course design as well as the potential for pedagogically sound designs to impact the transactional distance that so commonly exists in distance education. They found through their study of 34 postsecondary learners from among three Midwestern United States universities that learner satisfaction with the structure of the course led to greater satisfaction with perceived knowledge acquired. Learners indicated through the completion of pre and post-course questionnaires that consistent patterns in regards to both the course design and facilitation techniques were keys to a positive learning experience. Consistent with previous studies, the quality and perceived value of learner-initiated interaction contributed greatly to overall course satisfaction. Herrington, Reeves, and Oliver (2006) point to the relationship between the quality of interaction in a course and the authenticity of the learning activities. They contend that the more similar activities are to actual “real world” activities that learners will engage in, the more likely learners are to both engage in the activities in the course as well as transfer newly acquired knowledge, skills, and attitudes attained to individualized contexts beyond the course. The social aspect of such interactions is a key ingredient to the engagement that interaction brings to distance learning in an online venue (N. Jones & Peachey, 2005).
The composition of interaction involves the combination of a plethora of variables spanning from the design to facilitation. Hirumi (2006) expresses caution when considering the design and implementation of interaction and stresses attention to both the quantity and quality of interactions designed, as unnecessarily complex or inadequate interactions may result in learner dissatisfaction, poor performance, or attrition. Poorly designed or exorbitant interactions not only can overwhelm the instructor and learners but also necessitate costly revisions to the learning activities. If learners perceive interaction to be mere busywork, they may quickly become dissatisfied and loose interest in the subject matter. Yet, if interaction is deemed by learners to be relevant to the achievement of stated learning outcomes and of personal value, learners will be much more likely to actively participate. The challenges to guiding the development of such engaging learning experiences are therefore formidable but not insurmountable. One must always keep both the preferences of learners in perspective with the plausible outcomes of interaction.
No matter the composition or approach to interaction selected, the goal should be to facilitate the realization of specified outcomes for learners. Numerous outcomes often result when interaction is purposefully designed and well facilitated within the online learning environment. Initially, one goal for interaction may be simply to encourage an increased level of participation in course activities. Jung et al. (2002) noted that adult learners identified social interaction with instructors and peers to be an important key to enhancing active participation in online discussion. Vonderwell and Zachariah (2005) took a closer look at specific factors influencing participation and found the following factors to affect student participation in online interactions: technology and interface characteristics, content area experience, student roles and instructional tasks, and information overload. Their findings echo others in the literature calling for online learning that is both well-designed and meets the individual needs of learners (Anderson et al., 2005; Gayton, 2007; Mimirinis & Bhattacharya, 2007). If learners are to actively participate in such environments, it is logical to conclude that the design must take into consideration learners’ perceptions of and preferences for interaction. Since it certainly is neither feasible nor prudent to try to incorporate excessive amounts of interaction types and technologies, decisions must be made as to what interactive approaches best promote attainment of the learning objectives while also considering institutional goals and available resources.
Outcomes closely aligned with participation include learner achievement and satisfaction. Restauri (2006) built upon the work of McDaniel (2003) and Roblyer and Wiencke (2003) to explore student-instructor interaction and whether perceived interaction had any effect upon such outcomes. She found distinct relationships between several student-instructor instruction predictor variables and levels of student achievement attained. The results support the notion that learners who are in fact actively participating, interacting in meaningful ways with both their peers and the instructor, are much more likely to achieve the instructional goals for the course. Throughout the literature the recurring themes of learner satisfaction and achievement continue to be sought as desirable outcomes of online education, with the quality and frequency of interaction being shown to significantly influence such outcomes (G. M. Johnson, 2006; Jung et al., 2002; Russo & Benson, 2005). Namely, the more satisfied learners are with course structure and leaner-initiated interaction, the higher their overall satisfaction with the course tends to be (Stein et al., 2005). As learners who indeed express satisfaction in their learning experience are generally more likely to enroll in successive online courses than those who have a less than desirable experience, overall learner satisfaction is a laudable outcome to pursue.
Varying metrics for measuring achievement regarding interaction have been identified in the literature and have also been viewed as results of successful interactive and experiential learning experiences. Roberts (2002) highlights reflection as a dimension of experiential learning, noting the value of designs that leverage interaction to promote reflection. As learners reflect upon their learning experiences, they often become engaged at a deeper level with the subject matter as the associated metacognitive processes aid in the reinforcement of new learning (A. K. Ellis, 2001). Lim (2004) calls for the development of truly engaging learning environments that promote increased levels of retention and higher-level thinking skills. The associated challenge for designers and educators is to determine the most effective mix of methods, activities, and materials to engage learners and then to develop learning environments that will support the realization of such goals. While information delivery and computer-mediated communication technologies continually advance, the steadfast principles of interaction evidenced in the literature persist and must be considered no matter what the specific format of the educational endeavor.
Transactional Perspective of Adult Learning
For centuries, scholars and practitioners have sought to understand the foundations of education. Early theories from researchers following in the wake of such prominent behaviorists as Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, and Skinner looked at education from a behaviorist perspective. These educational theorists believed that the way to improve the educational process and therefore change the response or output from learners was to simply adjust the stimulus that learners are exposed to. During the early nineteenth century, cognitive theory became increasingly dominant, stipulating that the mental processes by which learning takes place to be more closely examined. Piaget, Vygotsky, Miller, and Bruner were among those who focused not on the behavior of students but rather the thought processes involved in learning (Ormrod, 1999). As cognitive theories became more sophisticated, the related and yet quite distinct learning approach of constructivism was born from the idea that knowledge cannot have the purpose of producing representations of an independent reality but rather must be adapted to fit the context of the learner (Jonassen, 1999).
Subsequently, many learning theories have surfaced over the years attempting to characterize the nature of education under the philosophical umbrella of behaviorism, cognitivism, or constructivism. Merriam and Caffarella (1999) define a theory as “a set of interrelated concepts that explain some aspect of the field in a parsimonious manner” (p. 267). The goal of any educational theory is to provide “explanations about the underlying mechanisms involved in the learning processes” (Ormrod, 1999, p. 4). Theories take many approaches and at times may seem completely abstract and impractical. However, the goal of any learning theory is to bring to a logical and tangible semblance the underlying elements of a given educational process.
No matter the theoretical tradition one subscribes to, the undeniable fact remains that process and content are inseparable in education. In fact, it is the process of education that is often overshadowed by the content of a curriculum. However, it is ultimately the well-defined and developed educational process that will determine the overall success of the educational initiative.
Garrison and Archer (2000) base the transactional perspective upon the belief that “Information has meaning and value only when interconnections are made among facts, ideas and experience” (p. 7). Yet, it has not been without much debate over the nature of educational processes that this precept has become accepted along with many other constructivist views of education. To gain a greater appreciation for the development of constructivist perspectives, a brief review of the historical transformation of educational is in order.
For centuries, educators practiced a transmission model of education, built upon the ideology that instructors are to be subject matter experts whose task within education is to dispense their knowledge to students. Students were then to be tested to determine if they had acquired the required knowledge from the teacher. This transmission model of education dates back as far as any historical accounts of education, depicting a very restricted and structured approach to the learning process. The transmission model stipulates that the quality and quantity of the students’ knowledge is dependent upon the ability of the instructor to convey knowledge to the students. The emphasis of such a model is placed upon the information to be learned with no regard for the context in which it is to be applied (Jonassen, 1991; Vrasidas, 2000).
Behaviorism was one theory of education that has been very common within transmission models. Behaviorist teachers maintain that learning can only be realized through observation (Watson, 1930). They assert that students learn through a combination of positive and negative reinforcement following actions. Therefore, drill and practice activities are seen to be essential, whereby the student is able to assimilate knowledge and demonstrate proficiency. Consistent with all transmission models, the focus is placed upon the knowledge to be learned rather than any context for its application.
Cognitivist educators take a different approach to the acquisition of knowledge, examining the thought processes or “mental events” (Ormrod, 1999, p. 3) rather than specific behavior outcomes. It is much more important for the cognitivist to understand how learners mentally process the information rather than whether or not the result of the process is the correct answer. As the learning processes are better understood, educators can tailor instructional activities to meet the learning needs of students. Only once the learners’ are able to mentally process the information can they apply the knowledge to real-life contexts.
As previously mentioned, constructivism represents a drastic shift from traditional instructivist learning approaches. Certainly within the past several decades, constructivism has become the dominant theoretical framework among educators and has caused a radical transformation from traditional instructivist models to more contemporary constructivist models, in which educational activities and the implications for learners are viewed much more holistically. Since the outset of constructivist frameworks, many pioneers of education have taken a progressive mindset and have contributed greatly to the present framework of constructivism. For the sake of this review, the views of the most influential theorists on the transactional perspective are briefly reviewed.
Arguably one of the most influential educational theorists of the twentieth century, John Dewey (1938), states the importance of interactive and constructivist learning environments, claiming the necessity for interaction in any meaningful educational experience. He states that control resides in the learning activity and therefore is shared by teacher and students (Dewey, 1938). As a pragmatic, Dewey saw the purpose of education to meet the needs of human experience and society at the time. Therefore, progressive education, based upon a constructivist ideology, seeks to consider student needs and interests within the grander scope of the curriculum. The fundamental tenet argued by progressives since Dewey is that students should not be allowed to passively attempt to absorb information from the teacher. Furthermore, if students are to truly engage in meaningful and memorable learning, their experiences should include varying phases of reflection and active inquiry (Garrison & Archer, 2000).
Dewey was one of the first to refer to the process of constructing meaning and cogitation as “reflective thinking.” His goal wasn’t to adopt a radical form of student-centeredness (1938), but rather to engage students actively in the learning process, in both communal and individual reflective processes. He believed that as students are actively engaged in the learning process and given the opportunity to reflect upon their experiences both individually and corporately, the learning that results will be much richer and deeper than the acquisition of mere tangential information.
Akin to Dewey, Rogers (1969) believes that education stems from experience and can transform individuals as meaning is discovered through experience. In some regards taking an even more extremist view than Dewey, Rogers places individual freedom as paramount to the learning experience, empowering students with freedom within learning experiences. Rogers (1969) examines the important role of the facilitators to create and manage the educational climate and cause students to be confronted with relevant problems through which knowledge can be built. The roots of contemporary research on the role of the facilitator in the constructivist learning environment reach to the distinct claims of Rogers.
The ideas of Jürgen Habermas are significant to the theoretical framework of contemporary andragogy. Habermas posits two seminal doctrines in his educational theory: knowledge constitutive interests and communicative competence (Habermas, 1968). He maintains that no one methodology or process is inherently sufficient for all forms of knowledge. Rather, learning activities must be customized to meet the needs of both the learners and the nature of the knowledge to be grasped. Not to exclude the value of collaborative engagement, Habermas builds his learning theory on the value of interactive experiences where collaboration is built upon “reciprocal communication processes” (Garrison & Archer, 2000, p. 29). The union of engaging and didactic learning experiences, based upon the needs of learners with the element of collegial communication, forms a solid foundation for meaningful education.
At the core of all the claims of Dewey, Rogers, and Habermas is a desire to improve the quality of learning. The definition of learning is the foundation for any educational framework. “Learning is the process of constructing meaning from raw information and confirming knowledge” (Garrison & Archer, 2000, p. 6). The goal therefore is for learners in any context to construct meaning, defined by Garrison & Archer (2000) as “the personal discovery of connections amongst information and facts” (p. 11).
Constructivism touts the experiences of learners and the practical application of knowledge as principle to any learning activity. Constructive learning environments are authentic (Barab, Squire, & Deuber, 2000), simulating actual environments where the knowledge will be applied. Within the constructivist framework, the teachers’ role moves from being a dispenser of knowledge to a facilitator who guides the learning experience, creating a setting where students explore, collaborate, and reflect upon their understanding of the curriculum. Critical thinking is fostered, as learners have opportunities to make practical application of new concepts and skills. Garrison and Archer (2000) point to this central value of critical thinking to the overall learning experience noting, “Critical thinking is essential to meaningful learning and the construction of worthwhile knowledge” (p. 14). Such viewpoints have characterized progressive educational approaches for decades, as pioneers such as Dewey (1938) have maintained that all meaningful knowledge results from reflecting upon experience. These tenets of constructivism are evident in the andragogical principles that form the foundation for modern adult education.
At its core, andragogy is simply the study of adult learning. First appearing in the work of the German teacher Alexander Kapp in 1833, the term was initially used to describe precepts of Plato’s theory of education (Smith, 2005). Malcolm Knowles popularized the term through his research and publication during the 1970s and 1980s. Knowles (1984) defines andragogy as “the art and science of helping adults learning” (p. 43) in contrast with pedagogy, which is generally more focused upon assisting children to learn. Knowles contends that andragogy proceeds from five basic assumptions, including: self-directedness of adult learners (1980), increased volume and quality of adult experiences over children (1990), timing of learning activities related to developmental tasks (1990), problem centered nature of adult learning rather than subject centeredness (1980), and internal motivation for adults to learn rather than external motivation for children (1980).
Andragogy lacks a specific quantifiable definition, but refers in broad terms to the various assumptions that Knowles and others have articulated with respect to adult learning. Often included theories within the framework of andragogy include self-directed learning theory (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991; Brookfield, 1984; Caffarella & Caffarella, 1986; Garrison, 1992, 1997; Knowles, 1975), transformative learning theory (Boyd & Myers, 1988; Daloz, 1999; Freire, 1970; Mezirow, 2000), critical theory (Freire, 1994; Habermas, 1968), and postmodern theory (Derrida, 1978; Lyotard, 1984, 1992). Garrison and Archer’s transactional perspective is yet another flavor of application of common principles to andragogy that have been articulated for years.
The principles of andragogy have been applied extensively among contemporary online learning endeavors and have ultimately contributed to the academic rigor and quality of such programs (Burge, 1988). While many theoretical frameworks can be applied to e-learning, the transactional perspective clearly identifies key principles of andragogy that are most relevant within adult online learning environments.
Garrison and Archer (2000) propose the transactional perspective as a “coherent theoretical framework” (p. 3) for the various avenues by which reflective education practice of adult learning proceeds. Formed upon the assumption of an ideal learning environment, the transactional perspective considers learners as able to take responsibility for their own learning and capable of critical thinking.
As Garrison and Archer (2000) note, “The transactional perspective is built upon two foundational concepts – that a constructivist approach is necessary for learners to create meaning, and that collaboration is essential for creating and confirming knowledge” (p. 4). Therefore, the critical thinking and self-directed learning processes are integral to the teaching and learning transaction.
The transactional perspective is a coherent theoretical framework that embraces both the individual and societal perspectives of learning experiences, recognizing that content and process are inseparable. At the foundation is the development of constructivist and collaborative learning opportunities. Next, the questions of responsibility and control of learning are to be engaged and concluded with the responsibility for learning placed upon the student and the control of the learning experience shared among the learning community. Individual learning is therefore situated socially, requiring that the values and needs of both the individual and the community of learners be considered at all times.
The ultimate goal is to create an educational experience, characterized by the synergy between critical thinking and self-directed learning in which the learner is able to construct shared meaning and understanding within a community. The mere acquisition of information is by no means as complex or transformational as a collaborative, constructivist learning experience defined by “a dynamic interaction of relationships among intentions, activities and learning outcomes” (Garrison & Archer, 2000, p. 9).
Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework of the transactional perspective, illustrating three pairs of concepts from both the cognitive and social viewpoints. It is the dichotomy of the transactional perspective that makes it versatile enough to account for the complex interplay of internal and external factors within the online learning environment.
Reproduced by permission from Elsevier. From Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching and learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
The transactional perspective, while it initially may seem rather ambiguous, is focused upon the simple objective of fostering critical thinking and self-directed learning opportunities for adult learners. Garrison and Archer (2000) define self-directed learning as, “an approach where learners are motivated to assume personal responsibility and collaborative control of the contextual and cognitive processes involved in constructing meaningful and worthwhile learning outcomes” (p. 93). In order for such outcomes to be realized, learners must be provided with an educational environment whereby they can engage in various learning transactions, both individually and corporately with the learning community. Whether or not technology is used to facilitate the learning transactions is inconsequential as long as critical thinking and reflection are taking place in community.
Critical thinking is the cornerstone to all learning processes within higher education. Involving a set of complex and iterative processes, critical thinking is characterized by both individual and collaborative perspectives of meaning, woven together through the activities and experiences of the learners in community. This dynamic process includes not only learners reflecting individually and sharing new insights with the broader community but also the community challenging each member to build upon previously constructed knowledge.
The unique perspective of each learner adds richness to the learning ethos and must be recognized and encouraged. Yet, such individual and societal approaches can’t be considered in isolation. In fact, the transactional perspective incorporates the learning context and experiences of all the participants. The critical thinking/learning cycle illustrates the iterative process that adult learners engage in when exploring, identifying, and integrating knowledge within the context of an identified problem or experience. Because this learning process involves both individual and community learning experiences, learners are involved in a dynamic means of constructing knowledge that can be immediately applied. As learners move through the cycle of individual and shared experiences of knowledge construction they are able to apply and integrate new knowledge while expanding their knowledge base for future learning experiences (see Figure 2).
Reproduced by permission from Elsevier. From Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching and learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
A plethora of research studies have been conducted recently centering on the concept of a transactional perspective of learning in online environments (Conrad, 2002; Kanuka & Garrison, 2004; Perry & Edwards, 2005; Richardson & Newby, 2006; Tu & Corry, 2003). Online learning is demanding and rewarding, requiring learners to both set boundaries and intentionally enter into collaborative, constructivist learning experiences. Conrad (2002) found that learners define online community different and have varied strategies for how they prefer to have community built and maintained in their courses. In the online environment, students must assume greater responsibility to match the increased responsibility that is inherent in online learning (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). Likewise, it is also incumbent upon the online instructor to create an environment where the processes of the teaching and learning transaction can take place.
Many argue that it is the goal of education to teach students how to learn to learn so that the learning process will continue throughout their lifetime. If this goal is to be attained, students undoubtedly need to become adept at critical analysis and collaboration with peers. The transactional perspective places these aspects of the learning experience at the core of the learning process, focusing attention upon the practical application and integration of new knowledge, skills, and attitudes into everyday life.
While much work remains concerning the implementation of new socially-constructed learning environments and the development of best practices of andragogy, it is evident that no single adult learning theory will ever account for all the complexities of adult learners (Merriam, 2001). Research has shown that both the cognitive and social dimensions must be considered when developing meaningful learning experiences (J. S. Brown, 2000). The transactional perspective holds great promise for researchers seeking to study many different modes of adult learning and forms the foundation for examining the development of learning communities.
Community of Inquiry (COI) Model
Online learning is more than simply a temporal fad as it is proving to be a permanent facet of higher education. Since its inception, online learning has rapidly advanced and evolved as the pedagogical implications for this relatively new mode of learning are explored and the available technology is leveraged to bring to fruition learning experiences that have previously not been possible. Yet, online education has not escaped criticism, as it has been frequently compared to traditional face-to-face face learning. Early comparisons justifiably found online education to lack many of the attributes of its face-to-face counterpart. However, as technology has advanced and allowed for the implementation of learning features that quality online pedagogy demands, the quality of learning available online has progressed rapidly. Today, it is widely accepted that “no significant difference” exists between online and face-to-face learning (Russell, 2001, 2005).
However, there are still many in higher education who refute such notions of equality and maintain a bias against online learning (Noble, 2001). What these cynics fail to recognize is that despite the research that asserts the equivalency of online learning to face-to-face instruction, online learning in many ways provides a superior experience and quality of learning than traditional face-to-face approaches. What distinguishes online learning from other modes isn’t the technology used but rather the pedagogical potential when online technologies are harnessed effectively to craft the learning experience. Quality education, no matter what venue it takes place in, has always included the “dynamic integration of content and context created and facilitated by a discipline expert and pedagogically competent teacher” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 4). Online learning extends the bounds of what has traditionally been possible in education and provides educators with an incredibly expansive set of tools for crafting quality educational experiences for learners today. It is this enhanced learning experience that sets online learning apart from its face-to-face and traditional distance education counterparts.
Communication is the primary factor often recognized as contributing to quality online learning initiatives (R. E. Brown, 2001; Ortiz-Rodriguez, Telg, Irani, Roberts, & Rhoades, 2005). Collaboration, reflection, and higher-order thinking are all possible through asynchronous online learning environments (Garrison, 2003). These interactions among participants are integral to the development of online learning networks. A Community of Inquiry (COI) model has been used to define the complex interactions among participants in a collaborative online learning experience (Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, & Archer, 2001).
The COI model assumes a collaborative constructivist view of education where the private and shared worlds of experience are intimately connected. Based upon the established work of educational theorists like Dewey, Rogers, and Habermas, the COI model embraces the notion that self-reflective learning is both intrapersonal and interpersonal.
The COI model provides a tangible application of the transactional perspective of education in an online learning environment. It views education as having the dual purpose for the learner of both constructing meaning from experience and then refining and confirming this newly gained understanding through collaboration with a community of learners.
In order for these processes of internalization of learning and extension of knowledge through collaborative discourse to be realized, issues of responsibility and control must be addressed. The learners in particular must possess the ability to undertake a measure of responsibility for their learning and control over their learning experience. COI is especially well suited for online adult learning contexts where self-directed learning is inherent.
COI views collaboration as integral to the overall success of any online learning experience. Collaboration goes beyond simple interaction and must, “draw learners into shared experiences for the purposes of constructing and confirming meaning” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 14). In this regard, communication in a truly collaborative fashion extends far beyond the establishment of social acquaintance to that of deep intellectual exchange. COI views this high level intellectual interaction as not only possible but also necessary for meaningful and memorable learning to take place.
A variety of distinct roles exist among participants in the online learning experience. While the role of the online instructor is diverse and expansive, radically different from face-to-face contexts (Berge, 1995, 2001; Liu, Bonk, Magjuka, Lee, & Su, 2005; Palloff & Pratt, 2005; Salmon, 2003), the same is true for online learner roles. Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung (2004) found that learners perceived their role in the online learning environment as different from previous face-to-face learning experiences. The COI model accounts for these differences and allows for the complex interactions that take place among learners and the instructor in the online learning environment.
Based upon their extensive backgrounds in online learning, Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001) developed the COI model to represent the diverse elements and yet interrelated aspects to a quality online educational experience. They propose three key elements crucial to the success of any online learning endeavor: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. Specific tasks such as selecting course content, setting the climate of the online community, and supporting discourse throughout the course all take place within the interplay of the cognitive, social, and teaching activities. Figure 3 illustrates the integration of these elements of the online learning environment. The elements of the COI model will be explored further throughout the balance of this review.
(Reproduced by permission from Pergamon. From Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.)
A variety of analytical frames have been utilized to examine the level of cognitive substance of asynchronous communication within online courses (Meyer, 2004). Cognitive presence accounts for the intellectual processes and refers to the degree to which participants in any community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication (Garrison et al., 2000). It is this aspect of online learning that is at the core of the e-learning experience as learners engage in the teaching and learning transaction.
Cognitive presence reflects the higher-order thinking processes and knowledge acquisition associated with critical thinking (Garrison et al., 2001). In fact, critical thinking and practical inquiry are chief concepts principle to the cultivation of cognitive presence. As learners reflect upon their learning experiences and incorporate their insights into the collaborations, their cognitive presence in the learning community is shaped (Garrison, 2003). The experience of actively engaging with the concepts of learning in both a self-reflective fashion internally as well as exploring and refining understanding in community is the benchmark of quality online learning experiences.
The differences between the nature of spoken and written communication is foundational to an understanding of computer-mediated communication and its applications in creating a COI (Garrison et al., 2001). The spoken word is immediate and temporal whereas written communication is more deliberate and permanent. Online learning makes it possible for learners to reflect and contribute equally to the overall learning experience, as each member has equal opportunity to enhance the learning experience for others through their unique intellectual insights. The contributions of each member of the learning community add richness to the learning, making each course section distinct from others.
Meyer (2005) sought to examine cognitive processes of learners as apparent through the asynchronous discussion and classify the level of such processes using Blooms’ taxonomy. Her goal was to use Blooms’ established metrics to evaluate the measure in which contributions to the online discussion in two online doctoral courses in educational leadership were substantive. She conducted a content analysis of 17 student-led discussions from among 2 different doctoral courses and found that while online discussion seldom remains at the highest levels of Blooms’ taxonomy for extended durations, it is the fluidity of the online discussion and learning processes, facilitated by social and teaching presence, that truly makes cognitive presence possible. Her findings support the supposition that rigorous cognitive activities are in fact possible in the online learning environment.
The Internet has become an increasingly social venue. Users look to the Internet as means for staying connected socially with others they are separated from by time or distance. This social connectedness is one key factor to the attractiveness of online learning. A myriad of factors contribute to the development of social networks within online learning environments (Aviv, Erlich, & Ravid, 2005). It is the development of social presence within the online course that helps to set the climate for the learning experience to take place.
Social presence is defined as, “The ability of participants in the community of inquiry to project their personal characteristics into the community, thereby presenting themselves to the other participants as ‘real people’” (Garrison et al., 2000, p. 89). Social presence is the avenue whereby cognitive presence is realized. As learners develop their social presence in the course, they are given opportunity to build networks with their peers whereby meaningful dialogue surrounding concepts foundational to course content can take place.
Social presence isn’t developed automatically. Online instructors and facilitators have the responsibility to create an environment which promotes interaction and collaboration (Gunawardena, 1995). There are many ways in which social presence is cultivated, including concerted efforts by both the instructor and students in the online environment (Palloff & Pratt, 1999, 2003; Salmon, 2003). While general principles can apply to the development of social presence, each individual learning context and learner population requires a unique approach.
Many examples exist in the literature concerning best practices of social presence development in online learning communities. Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer (1999) developed a framework for assessing the social presence in a computer mediated communication environment. They identify issues of intimacy and immediacy as integral to the success of the social fabric of the online learning environment and formulated a rubric for evaluation of communication, labeling messages within discourse as interactive, affective, or cohesive. Further classification is made through various subordinate indices. They found that rich online communication generally exhibits characteristics of all three domains.
Rourke and Anderson (2002a) were among the many who utilized the framework of Rourke et al. (1999) and identified specific communicative practices that promote favorable student perceptions of the social atmosphere of textual discourse, including: “addressing others by name, complimenting, expressing appreciation, posting messages using the reply feature, expressing emotions, using humor, and salutations” (p. 7-8). While such aspects may seem trivial, they have been shown to be integral components to the development of the social climate of the course.
Richardson and Swan (2003) found that online students with high perceptions of social presence also exhibited high perceived satisfaction with the course instructor. Swan and Shih (2005) conducted further research and found perceived presence of instructors to be a more profound influence on student satisfaction than the perceived presence of peers. This indicates the importance of the instructor in the online learning experience. It is the development of teaching presence that may perhaps be the most important and complex aspect of the COI model to be developed.
Teaching presence refers to functions within the learning experience often performed by the instructor, including the design and facilitation of the educational experience (Garrison et al., 2000). These roles need not be limited to simply the instructor, as students can lead online discussion and exhibit teaching presence in the course. In fact, Rourke and Anderson (2002b) found that students actually preferred peer teams leading online discussion as compared to the course instructor.
Online instructors carry out many different roles in the creation and facilitation of online learning environments (Berge, 1995, 2001; Liu et al., 2005). Anderson et al. (2001) identified teaching presence to consist of the following characteristics: design and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction. Whereas numerous elements contribute to meaningful and memorable learning, teaching presence is the binding element of any online learning experience, balancing cognitive and social aspects consistent with purposed educational objectives (Garrison et al., 2000).
Online students have indicated that exemplary online instructors are those who create a learning climate that includes strong elements of social, cognitive, and teaching presence (Perry & Edwards, 2005). Pawan, Paulus, Yalcin, and Chang (2003) found that without the instructor’s definitive teaching presence and modeling of collaborative discussion contributions, learner discussions primarily consisted of low-level cognitive interactions. While there certainly is a place for such cognitively insignificant postings in the creation of the social climate, the ultimate goal should be for learners to engage in high-level thinking and communication of new knowledge gained in a way that stimulates the learning experience for all members of the community.
Shea, Li, Swan and Pickett (2005) developed an instrument to evaluate the role between online learning community and teaching presence. They found that a strong and active presence of the instructor in the course correlates to students’ sense of connectedness and learning. Their work shows that the instructor plays an important part in eliminating the sense of distance among online learners.
The facilitative and guiding role of the online instructor has been shown to be critical to the success of online learning experiences (Kanuka & Garrison, 2004). A host of approaches and activities that have proven effective in online learning environments are available to the online instructor today (Palloff & Pratt, 2005), but the instructor must be cognizant of their existence and implement select activities within a context of teaching presence. No matter how intellectually stimulating the activity, it cannot be void of the control and guidance of instructor presence.
Learners expect to be reciprocated for their efforts (Aviv et al., 2005) in the online learning community. The instructor’s influence within the online learning environment is crucial to ensuring that communication flows freely and that dialogue proceeds in a collegial and responsive fashion. As the instructor sets the climate for the dialogue to take place, the expectations established help guide the interactions of all members of the learning community.
The COI model has been touted by many as one successful recipe for the creation of transformative online educational environments. Many benefits of the COI model exist, making it applicable to a wide array of online learning applications.
Critical thinking and self-directed learning are valued as the core of the meaningful and memorable online learning experience. For instructors and designers new to online learning, the COI model presents a holistic view of the complex attributes proven to be integral to the successful online learning environment. In one shape or another, cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence must be accounted for if the online learning environment is to be utilized to the fullest extent possible.
The COI model is built upon a collaborative constructivist approach to learning, maintaining that the instructor is not the dispenser of knowledge but rather a facilitator who guides the learners’ journeys through the course content. As learners are encouraged to engage in a process of practical inquiry, they have opportunity to frequently reflect upon knowledge gained and share that newly found knowledge with their colleagues. As understanding is shared, the insights expressed within the community extend the learners’ perception of issues and application beyond their individual perspectives. The learning community therefore is the mechanism for the rich learning experiences rather than necessarily dynamic instructional materials or insights from the instructor.
Focusing primarily on the pedagogy rather than technological implementation, the COI model views technology not as the catalyst for the learning experience but rather the tool whereby engaging, meaningful, and collaborative learning can take place. It provides a basic framework of emphasis for both design and facilitation efforts to be built upon. The designer seeking to develop an online learning experience will be well served by addressing the elements of the COI model within course design. When the online course is implemented, the instructor can look to the elements of COI as a roadmap for where the online interactions should travel throughout the duration of the course. While certainly not an all-inclusive model, COI addresses the key elements proven essential to successful online learning.
COI values diverse experiences, as each individual learner brings unique worldview to the learning experience. As learners collaborate with one another and extend each other’s ideas, a deep understanding of the concepts discussed emerges. One of the primary advantages of online learning over face-to-face education is the opportunity for a much more diverse student body to participate in the learning experience. Whereas geographical constraints determine who can and cannot enroll in a face-to-face course, access to the online experience is restricted only by the prospective users access to basic computing and Internet technology. The resulting community of learners includes an incredible range of perspectives to the learning material. As learners share their perspectives and exchange in meaningful dialogue, the experience for all members of learning community is enriched. Therefore, the instructional context shared by the instructor or through various instructional media is only the springboard for the further exploration.
The COI model is not without its limitations. It looks at online community almost to the detriment of the instructional content. While the “teaching presence” piece of COI does account for the role of the instructor in providing applicable instructional content to correspond to instructional objectives, no mention is made of learning that may in fact take place through the interaction with instructional materials. Certain technical and procedural subjects exist in which quality instructional materials are required before meaningful construction of learning can take place. COI does not fully accommodate the need for both interaction and interactivity in the learning experience. Palloff and Pratt (2005) make a clear distinction between these two qualities, defining “interaction” as “the all-important student-to-student and student-to-instructor interaction” (p. 4). They see “interactivity” as a desirable attribute that is fostered through including multi-sensory materials that help to engage the learners in the content and subsequently engage in activities whereby learning is constructed. While it is true that adult learners need to construct their learning, there certainly is a place for instructional content, delivered in any number of ways. The specific format and technology used in the delivery is immaterial, but there most certainly are instances where adult learners do need an initial presentation of concepts pertinent to the unit of study in order for an informed dialogue and inquiry into hierarchical principles to take place. Even though COI implies the value of instructional materials, the novice designer or instructor might assume that discussion alone may suffice.
COI addresses only issues of presence in the stated course. It does not account for the holistic community that each individual learner is a member of outside the confines of the online learning community. Adult learners undoubtedly develop a support network of colleagues, family, and acquaintances long before enrolling in the online course. As they proceed through the online learning experience, they connect on many levels with the instructor and classmates within the course. However, during this online experience, learners retain their relationships outside of the online community. These social and cognitive influences from without are unique to each learner and add to the overall learning experience. In some cases, it is quite possible that these connections from without may take the place of certain learner needs typically met from within the online community. The COI model implicitly attempts a task that is nearly impossible: to account for the sum total of the online learning experience. While it is vital that the online learning community incorporate healthy levels of cognitive, social, and teaching presence, the learning experience of each adult will be influenced by a wide variety of external, off-line influences as well.
Balance is always essential when implementing any learning framework. COI focuses primarily on issues related to the development of community in the online course. It is important to remember that COI is not an exhaustive learning theory, but rather just one explanation for the dynamic of community and cognitive development in an online learning environment.
As online life becomes ubiquitous, adult learners may very well have numerous online networks beyond the particular online course environment that will augment their experiences in the online course(s) they are completing. It is the formation and development of such learning networks that hold promise for the development of socially-constructed learning environments. The COI model has certainly proven to be a robust and flexible model guiding the quality of online educational collaboration and certainly will serve future generations of e-learning. The emergence of new social network technologies and the implementation within e-learning frameworks have opened the door for examining new contexts for the development of learning communities and the implications for the design and development of the next generation of adult online education.
This is an exciting time in adult education, as more learning opportunities are available now than ever before for adults seeking to better themselves through education. As online learning continues to evolve and expand to meet the needs of learners, new learning venues will be established that expand the bounds of current theory. Sims and Brovard (2004) suggest that a model of presence for an online course integrate the needs and preferences of learners. These needs and preferences most likely will evolve as society and technology advance and continue to shape learners’ perspectives.
Self-paced adult education, also referred to as learner-paced education, is one phenomenon aimed at meeting the diverse needs of adult learners that does not appear to be subsiding. In a self-paced course, adult learners engage in learning activities at an individual pace, whereby they are more independent than those in more tightly constrained online learning communities. In traditional online courses, learners generally progress through the course materials and activities at a prescribed and uniform manner, often with a new set of learning materials and discussion each week. The self-paced model sees adult learners as both members of the online learning community and individual learners, each with specific goals for the course and time schedules that may not coincide with everyone else’s. Rather than implying a lack of guidance, self-paced learning simply affords learners with an increased measure of flexibility as to the pace in which they engage in the various course activities.
Critics of such minimally guided learning endeavors point to the consistent reports of successful instructional approaches placing emphasis on guidance of student learning (Mayer, 2004; Sweller, 2003). Some go as far as to denounce minimal guidance entirely, purporting that such approaches are destined for failure (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). These opponents maintain that highly structured direct instruction is the most effective means for learners to grasp complex concepts and procedures. Daniel and Marquis (1988) stress moderation however, challenging distance educators to strive for balance between interactive learning activities and independent learning strategies. In such a way, one need not completely abandon the benefits of one approach to gain those of another.
The concept of self-paced learning parallels that of self-directed learning. Whereas the former involves specified learning activities completed in an individualized manner, the latter is even more flexible and permits the learner the opportunity to select the most appropriate learning path. A plethora of empirical research studies during the 1970s along with the efforts of Malcolm Knowles and Allen Tough (1979) led the way to popularizing the concept of self-directed learning. A prominent framework in the field of adult education for decades, self-directed learning has continued to receive much attention in the literature and is recognized as a bona fide mode of adult learning (Brookfield, 1984; Garrison, 1997; Knowles, 1975; Moore, 1986; Oladoke, 2006; Piskurich, 1993; Song & Hill, 2007).
Self-directed learning emphasizes the fact of learner control over the planning and execution of learning and challenges the assumption that adult learning can only occur in the presence of a professionally certified teacher. This approach implies that learners take the initiative in utilizing resources, rather than simply reacting to transmissions from the resources. Knowing what they want to get from a resource, learners probe the resources until they attain the desired results. They are proactive rather than reactive in their approach. Self-direction is fostered through a high degree of learner participation and initiation in conjunction with meaningful and consistent interaction (Jiyeon Lee & Gibson, 2003).
Another undeniable facet of self-paced learning is that of self-regulation. Whereas self-paced learning primarily characterized an individualized rate at which learners progress through prescribed learning activities, self-regulation includes the sum total of cognitive and social processes that comprise an individualized learning environment. Referring to the degree in which learners are “metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process” (Zimmerman, 1989, p. 329), self-regulation involves learners thoughts, feelings, and actions and is largely determined by a host of behavioral, environmental, and individual elements (Hodges, 2005). Recognizing that the online learning environment presents unique opportunities and challenges, scholars have pointed out that unique strategies are employed by online learners to achieve success in self-regulating their learning experience (Dell, 2006; P. E. Williams & Hellman, 2004).
Noting the limited amount of research on self-regulation in Web-based learning environments, Whipp and Chiarelli (2004) explored self-regulation in online learning in an effort to determine whether the methods utilized by learners to self-regulate the online learning process differ from those of more traditional face-to-face or distance education contexts. Conducting a case study of 15 students in an online graduate course, they found that learners employed a number of notable adaptations of traditional self-regulation strategies to fit the online learning environment. These included goal setting and planning, organizing and transforming instructional materials, structuring the learning environment, seeking help, self-monitoring and record-keeping, and self-reflection. For each of the aforementioned strategies, online learners adapted traditional approaches to fit the unique aspects of their online learning experience. They noted that support from the instructor as well as the course design both were influential in guiding the specific self-regulation steps that they took. Successive studies have reinforced these claims, noting the importance of course design in determining the specific self-regulation steps taken by learners (M.-M. Chang, 2005; Fisher & Baird, 2005).
At the core of many course designs often chosen to foster self-regulation are sequenced learning activities. Sequenced learning activities combined with purposed, interpersonal communication have been a hallmark of recent online learning initiatives. Holmberg (1989) notes that a self-paced distance education environment that includes sequenced learning activities entwined with frequent communication and assignment exercises is favorable for institutions seeking to provide maximum access while embracing an approach that accommodates the needs and preferences of the individual learner. Yet, it is presumptuous to assume that all learners will prefer such structured and socially-dependent forms of learning over less-structured, independent approaches. Ke and Carr-Chellman (2006) recognized the uniqueness of learners who prefer more solitary learning experiences and sought to answer the question, “In online learning environments that require collaboration, how do solitary learners experience their own learning?” Through a phenomenological study of five solitary learners in an online collaborative environment, Ke and Carr-Chellman report that learners preferred interpersonal interactions that were more academic rather than social and that were not interdependent upon other participants. Such findings are indicative of the preferences for some learners to remain more independent in their learning. Self-paced course offerings are one means of meeting the desire of many adult learners for autonomy.
The perspectives of students and faculty concerning incorporating learner-centered interpersonal interactions and discussion concerning the means to facilitate group collaboration in learner paced education models is notably absent from the literature (Anderson et al., 2005). Anderson et al. (2005) argue for the development of new technologies and implementation of pedagogies that support the interaction needs of students in learner-paced courses. Such enhancements would permit learners to build organic learning networks and engage in interactions with numerous agents. As concerted efforts are made to balance meaningful collaboration with learner autonomy, it is conceivable that learners may be able to enjoy the benefits of both independence and discourse.
Learning opportunities that do not restrict learner freedoms and yet foster meaningful, learner-centered interaction are becoming increasingly popular among adult learners. Studies of adult students enrolled in self-paced online courses at Athabasca University, Canada’s Open University, showed that a majority of students chose not to participate in collaborative activities even if they are built into the course and a lack of participation adversely affects course marks. Anderson (2006a) reported that 78% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that they would interact with other students as long as they could proceed through the course at an individual pace. Students preferred interactions that were neither tied to specific course outcomes nor defined the pace of course progress.
Challenges to the development of self-paced learning environments incorporating interactions that best meet the needs of adult learners are formidable, but not insurmountable. Most notable is the task of bridging the transactional distance existent in such approaches while permitting learners to retain maximum control over their learning experience. Learners enrolled in self-paced learning programs are free from the constraints of imposed pace and yet many view ongoing dialogue with other learners and the instructor as integral to a meaningful learning experience. While only minimal evidence exists suggesting that effective learning is dependent upon a cohort of students moving together in a specified sequence, significant evidence from the literature suggests that providing opportunities for meaningful interaction with other learners and community members in the context of structured learning activities enhances both learning as well as course completion rates (Anderson et al., 2005; Strachota, 2003; Su et al., 2005).
One central task for those developing such learner-paced online learning is to therefore discover how to structure collaborative activities in learner-paced courses so that both learner pacing and collaboration can be retained. The facilitation of interaction among groups of learners in a self-paced setting is problematic, as such collaboration has traditionally been based upon completion of specific learning activities at specified times. Learner-paced programs also struggle to generate a critical mass of students necessary to maintain a learning community, as learners are often afforded the flexibility to enroll in a new course whenever most convenient to their personal and professional schedules. Therefore, not only do course sizes often vary greatly, but also the number of students participating in any given activity at a particular time.
Traditional asynchronous discussion in a closed learning management system may not be the answer, as such technologies ideally suit interpersonal interaction in imposed pace learning. These communication technologies also disallow interaction with entities outside the confines of the learning community, such as other established learning communities and may ultimately inhibit learner participation. Emerging forms of open, learner-directed computer-mediated communication hold great promise for enabling learners to remain connected and participate in meaningful interactions with fellow learners at varying stages of the learning process as well as those who are not enrolled in the same program or course section. Yet, academia is only just beginning to realize the potential of such emerging social networking and communication modes in supporting the unique interaction and learning needs of adults.
Social Networks
It has long been recognized that communication within education should have an interactive component, whereby all parties have the ability to participate rather than simply being recipients of one-way transmission. Educators have pointed to the importance of the development of learning community in conjunction with the implementation of dichotomous communication modalities, recognizing that community creates opportunities for learning in addition to imposing constraints upon its members (Rovai, 2002; Wegerif, 1998). It is through such a structured and yet organic environment that some have claimed that the most transformational learning experiences take place (C. Jones & Steeples, 2001; Siemens, 2004).
As the semantic Web is realized within the age of ubiquitous connectivity, online social networks are becoming an increasingly prominent aspect of daily life. While the concept of social networks is by no means a new phenomenon, online technology has vastly expanded the potential scope and reach of any given network. Without any advanced technical skills or knowledge of any HTML code, an individual with access to the Internet can join from one to many online networks and begin collaborating on any topic or point of interest imaginable. In such an environment, individuals can join and leave networks as they wish and are free to engage in any number of social networks simultaneously. Rather than simply sending electronic messages to friends or acquaintances, such social software tools provide a host of capabilities for individuals to create online profiles, disseminate a wide variety of rich media, and easily share or co-create resources with members of the network.
The benefits of integrating emerging online collaborative tools that embrace the characteristics of the semantic Web have been noted as holding great promise for addressing the characteristics of lifelong learning and meeting the varying needs of adult learners (Beldarrain, 2006; Friesen & Anderson, 2004). The structure of such frameworks is much more loosely connected than more traditional collaborative environments. These frameworks comprise learning that is based on creation, sharing, and participation. Downes (2006) elaborates on the potential of these new approaches, drawing the distinction between traditional structure of groups in online learning environments versus networks. Noting the distributed nature of networks versus the centralized nature of groups, Downes highlights several points of distinction between groups and networks: groups are unified, networks are diversified; groups are coordinated, networks are autonomous; groups are closed, networks are open; groups are distributive, networks are connective. Downes points out that while many overlaps exist among these two categories of collaboration, networks do provide an alternative viewpoint to approaching the development of interpersonal interaction as compared to the traditional group frameworks. While structured learning communities have been an established pedagogical method in higher education for years, there is much still to be learned concerning the dynamics of networked learning environments and the extent to which such communities benefit instructors and learners (Chute, Sayers, & Gardner, 1997; McConnell, 2005).
One primary goal of networked learning environments, characterized by the incorporation of computer-mediated communication within distance education, has been the development of learning community. With the advent of contemporary electronic communication technologies, significant progress has been made in leveraging emerging communication practices to bridge the chasms of time and space that have traditionally separated distance learners. Rovai (2002) highlights the dimensions of classroom community, affirming that community can be developed online in as rich a manner as in the face-to-face classroom. He notes the diverse range of factors that contribute to a development of learning community in a distance learning environment. Greene (2005) found through a pilot study of an online community of learners that purposeful communication involving practical application of course materials is an effective strategy for improving both the learning experience and sense of learning community. In an effort to further explore the conditions that students identify as being highly conducive to community development, Lee, Carter-Wells, Glaeser, Ivers, and Street (2006) conducted a case study of a cohort of 18 students in an online master’s degree course and analyzed online learning community development among the cohort. The results of the first year of the 3-year longitudinal study show that students ranked participation in discussion across multiple forums as well as communication for the sake of technological support as highly conducive to community development. The theme of support through community development is one that continues to surface through the literature as being highly desirable by students and pedagogically beneficial to the learning experience (Fisher & Baird, 2005; Strachota, 2003; Swan, 2002). Administrators and instructors alike are taking notice of the design and substance of communication in distance education programs, as learners have expressed that communication is an integral component of a quality distance education program (Ortiz-Rodriguez et al., 2005).
Beyond the capacity for aiding learners to achieve learning objectives, community development is often viewed as a means for supporting ongoing dialogue. Mann (2005) asserts that the focus should be placed on such efforts of dialogue support rather than focusing on specific techniques fostering learning community. Her point is valid, stressing that community development is the natural product of effective communication efforts, leading to engaged, collaborative learning. The dynamics of social presence in the online venue assume increasing importance, as the perceived presence of the instructor and fellow learners in the online course may affect not only the level of student satisfaction but also the quality of the learning experience (Swan & Shih, 2005).
It is shortsighted to simply view the mere existence of an online communication environment as indicative of a beneficial social network for learning. Some may even go as far as to assume that merely enabling asynchronous discussion via the discussion board feature of a learning management system (LMS) will foster learning community. Yet, one must remember that the LMS is simply a suite of tools that when incorporated through purposeful design can aid in providing a technological structure and continuity to the course. While the LMS can provide the organization, it is the affordances of an engaging learning community and the associated networks that learners form that ultimately create the ecology for the learning environment.
To move beyond the limitations of traditional instructor-driven, asynchronous threaded discussion, institutions are beginning to embrace emerging social networking technologies that allow for the creation of a virtual social space extending beyond the boundaries of a single course section or program. As social software, at times clumped together with the smorgasbord of participatory online communication technologies referred to as “Web 2.0” becomes more universally adopted, it’s becoming easier than ever before to morph academic communication with forms of personal and social communication. One blaring complaint of online learning environments that are restricted solely to existence within a LMS is the closed nature of such systems, preventing communication from taking place outside of the specified electronic venue (Dalsgaard, 2006; Dron, 2006a). Once the term of the online course is over, access is typically terminated for all participants in the course, and the discourse from the course is no longer accessible.
New capabilities of networked learning are needed within both formal and informal learning environments to meet the expectations for online learners already accustomed to participating in such open communication modes. Yet, the mere existence of a social network is no guarantee for the development of a meaningful learning community. Rather, in order for such social networks to be a significant element of the total learning experience, they should be fully integrated with the course activities. McPherson and Nunes (2004) discuss how the existence of a virtual social space designed to support the creation of a learning community is not a panacea. They found through their study of adult learners in a continuing professional development program that learners desired to interact in ways outside of the restricted online course environment, utilizing communication technologies that they were previously familiar with. While further study into the preferences of learners in terms of interaction is certainly warranted, preliminary recommendations from the literature suggest that social networks yielding the most educational benefit are those purposefully incorporated into the learning environment (McPherson & Nunes, 2004; Tan, 2006).
Educational Social Software
It has been argued that learning management systems do not support the dynamics of a social constructivist approach emphasizing self-governed learning activities and that it is necessary for e-learning to move beyond learning management systems to engage students in active use of the Internet (Dalsgaard, 2006). Educational Social Software (ESS) is a relatively new subset of communication tools that have been recognized as offering aspects to the communication landscape that up until recently have not been available. These tools leverage the affordances of the Semantic Web, permitting the active contribution to the form and substance of the World Wide Web in a manner previously restricted to the few with extensive technical and programming skills. It is just this participatory nature of content creation and collaboration that Tim Berners-Lee (1997) envisioned when laying the groundwork for the Internet. A host of implications exist for the educational establishment in general and online learning in particular as the communication potential of such emerging communication practices is realized.
The Educational Semantic Web (ESW) serves as the foundation whereby various applications of educational social software are built upon. Akin to the Semantic Web, the ESW serves as the framework whereby individuals are free to actively construct their learning networks and resources. Anderson (2006b) points to three fundamental tenets of the ESW that have risen to prominence, characterizing the unique nature of such applications. First, the capacity of the Semantic Web to support effective retrieval of vast amounts of content has radically shaped new approaches to information management. As the amount of information available online increases at an astronomical rate, users need to be able to identify content in a manner that it is meaningful and can be easily retrieved. The ESW involves the capacity for users to quickly and easily tag resources in such a way that they can be quickly retrieved as well as shared with others. Second, the ESW supports and enhances human communication. Since communications can be both syndicated and aggregated, producers of communication and content can determine the scope of the impact of their communications while retaining the autonomy of all users. Users can subscribe to information sources and communication feeds they find to be most relevant and helpful at any given time, further selecting the communication modes they find most beneficial. Finally, the ESW possesses the capacity to support autonomous agents. Built on a structure of universal content encoding, users can configure agents that will filter new information and contributions, providing only communication updates that meet predetermined criteria. The ESW therefore facilitates the development of learner-learner interaction, fostering the creation and preservation of learning communities (Anderson, 2006b). In addition, the ESW can help address the widely varying characteristics of lifelong learning, often shaped by learner-defined contexts and requirements. The set of technologies possible by the ESW, when combined with appropriate services and practices, can be of great assistance in meeting the unique needs of lifelong learners (Friesen & Anderson, 2004).
Anderson (2005) recognizes the difficulty in orchestrating and supporting meaningful student-student and student-content interactions and points out the value of social software in permitting the maximum student freedom while at the same time supporting opportunity for community building. In support of a working knowledge of ESS, Anderson (2006a) offers the following definition: “Networked tools that support and encourage individuals to learn together while retaining individual control over their time, space, presence, activity, relationship, and identity” (p. 83). While it can be argued that such a definition is broad enough to encompass more traditional communication forms such as e-mail and threaded discussion, the expansive nature is necessary to envelop the wide range of capabilities that ESS offers.
A host of social software tools have been classified as ESS, with more seemingly being added to the list each day. Weblogs, wikis, podcasts, e-portfolios, and social bookmarks are just a few such collaborative tools that have powerful implications for learning, permitting learners to communicate via rich media and form multifaceted learning networks (Sims & Salter, 2006). These innovative online communication vehicles facilitate content creation and dialogue in radically different ways from previous computer-mediated communication approaches (Alexander, 2006). Studies have explored the benefits of using such emerging social software to encourage meaningful e-learning interaction (Beldarrain, 2006; Brescia & Miller, 2006; Cameron & Anderson, 2006; Konieczny, 2007; West et al., 2006), noting the enhanced communication and networking capabilities. The shift from conventional one-to-one and one-to-many communication to incorporation of ESS has ushered in a new approach to e-learning, marked by new interaction capabilities that are qualitatively different from traditional methods (Dron, 2006b).
Blogging is one of the many emergent computer-mediated communication tools considered to be ESS, offering distinct advantages over common threaded discussion by promoting learner-centered and learner-controlled communication approaches (Cameron & Anderson, 2006). A blog, the shortened and more common term used for Weblog, is a Web publishing solution in which the individual is able to quickly post new content. Readers can post comments, whereby engaging in a didactic conversation with the author. It is this free flow of communication among the author and readers that make blogs such an attractive and popular form of online interpersonal communication. In an educational context, blogging affords individuals with the capability to share ideas with a broader community beyond the defined course boundaries (Martindale & Wiley, 2005).
While at first glance a blog may simply appear to be a Web site with content entries that are date and time stamped and listed in reverse chronological order, the underlying framework is qualitatively different from static HTML. At the core of every blog is an XML file, also referred to as a Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed, which serves as the index of the most recent additions to the blog. RSS is a core element of any blog, making it possible for individuals to subscribe to view all new information updates via an aggregator without having to continually revisit the blog. In effect, the aggregator does the work of checking for new content. Whenever the author of a blog makes a new entry, commonly referred to as a posting, the blog software automatically updates the XML file of the blog to include information about the new posting such as the title, the date and time it was posted, the first portion of the body of the posting, as well as a link to read the entire posting. For each new posting that is subsequently added, the blog software updates the XML file to include details about the new postings. Therefore, a blog is much more than simply a collection of postings, as it serves as a mechanism for syndication and aggregation of new content and communication.
Another popular and versatile ESS tool is a wiki. While blogs are primarily utilized as a communication means for a single individual, wikis allow for collaborative authorship, encouraging free editing of information. A wiki is powered by software, referred to as a wiki engine, that tracks changes and makes it easy for anyone with the appropriate access to be able to contribute to a document without any special programming skills. Rather than a single author being responsible for a specific portion of a writing project, members of the team are able to simultaneously contribute new information as well as make changes to existing content. Maximizing on the collective intelligence of the community, a wiki is a very organic collection of content and communication, continually evolving as the community collectively creates and edits it. Similar to blogs, wikis require little technical skill and can be either publicly accessible or privately secure.
E-portfolios have emerged as yet another powerful form of ESS, harnessing the functionality of blogs and wikis in a centralized Web publishing and communication application. Tosh and Werdmuller (2004) use the term “Learning Landscape” to refer to the makeup of such systems, noting the wide range of pedagogical possibilities afforded learners. Existing in may different forms, e-portfolios are in the most simplistic terms digital repositories of learning artifacts that demonstrate competencies or achievement of specified learning objectives. Yet, contemporary e-portfolios often extend far beyond simple collections of learning resources to include reflections of learning processes, communications of learning experiences, and even sharing of select digital objects with others.
One primary characteristic evident within the literature uniting all social networking and educational social software applications is the element of community building. Brown (2001) examined the process in which community formed within an adult distance learning class implementing asynchronous computer-mediated communication and identified three stages characterizing community formation: 1) friendship building; 2) community acceptance through ongoing discussion; 3) camaraderie development through prolonged interpersonal communication. As learners progressed through these various stages, a greater degree of engagement with the course and the dialogue was noted. Greene (2005) took a similar approach in studying the development of an online community of adult learners and found community development to be a valuable aspect of learners’ ability to make practical application of new concepts. ESS facilitates the creation and growth of learning communities on a variety of levels.
The implementation of educational social software into the learning environment not only enhances the feeling of connectedness among participants in the learning experience but also equips learners with tools to use available resources on the Web to solve future problems (Dalsgaard, 2006). Once the course or learning program ends, the established networks continue to exist. The continued participation in existing social networks combined with the knowledge of and capability to create new networks provides learners with access to an enormous number of people and resources that can truly support a lifelong approach to learning. Learners can adjust their networks and participation at any given time to meet their learning needs for the moment. ESS therefore can serve as the bridge between the episodic course learning experience and the lifelong learning process.
With such characteristics of ESS in mind, Tu (2005) calls for a transition from viewing such technology as means for storage and retrieval to recognizing the enormous pedagogical potential for active engagement in the process of knowledge construction. When considering that instructor-learner interaction is not scaleable (Anderson, 2006b), alternative approaches may be necessary for initiatives seeking to expand course size or curriculum offerings while maintaining a quality learning experience. ESS is one solution aimed at supporting learner-learner and learner-instructor interaction while still allowing students to individually pace their learning.
Summary
The development of a collaborative learning environment is one critical factor to the success of an e-learning initiative (Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Jung et al., 2002). Almost as diverse as the construct of interaction itself is the number of possible approaches to fostering meaningful interaction in online contexts. Yet, arbitrarily adopting new approaches simply because technological tools permit doing so is both imprudent and impractical. Facing the reality of scarce resources, institutions may select methodologies that best meet course objectives while potentially overlooking learner needs and preferences. In reality, these decisions should be grounded upon sound insights into the online learning experience that is being developed, with the implicit focus of fostering the types of interactions that learners find most beneficial to their learning experience and potentially have the greatest impact on the quality of the learning experience.
Recognizing the important role that interaction has in the overall e-learning framework, many studies have examined the amount and frequency of communication representative of interaction within instructor-paced contexts (Angeli et al., 2003; Curtis & Lawson, 2001; Pawan et al., 2003; Rourke & Anderson, 2002a). Others have gone the next step of exploring in greater depth the quality of such interaction and the impact that such interactions have on learning outcomes (Ho, 2005; Meyer, 2004; Picciano, 2002; Rovai & Barnum, 2003). Yet few have neither specifically explored learners’ preferences for interaction in alternative, self-paced online learning environments (Anderson et al., 2005) nor sought to determine whether various forms of interaction are deemed equivalent. As Piccano (2002) notes, “new situations created through new technology require new study and evaluation” (p. 25). As online education continues to advance, both in terms of the pedagogical approaches utilized and the technologies incorporated to foster learning processes, the opportunities for extending understanding of such emerging approaches expand proportionally. This study provides a valuable contribution to the literature concerning the perceived role, function, and value of varying types of interaction in one such emerging online learning context.
Posted by Jason on February 3, 2008
Tags: Chapter 2
Comments on specific paragraphs:
Click the
icon to the right of a paragraph
Comments on the page as a whole:
Click the
icon to the right of the page title (works the same as paragraphs)