EXPLORING THE INTERACTION EQUATION: VALIDATING A RUBRIC TO ASSESS AND ENCOURAGE INTERACTION IN DISTANCE COURSES

Margaret D. Roblyer, William R. Wiencke

Abstract


The degree of interaction among participants in distance courses is widely acknowledged to be an indicator of successful learning experiences; interaction has been found to contribute to both achievement and student satisfaction. As an increasing number of distance courses move to a completely asynchronous, online format, providing for better interaction is an important means of assuring course quality. To allow measurement and study of interaction in online courses, five elements were identified that contribute to interaction, and a rubric was designed to assess the degree of each in distance courses [1]. A previous use of the rubric in one online class [1] indicated the instrument had good convergent and divergent validity and reliability in terms of consistency of results across students. The current study focused on establishing the rubric’s concurrent validity and consistency of results across four distance courses. Recommendations are made to increase the usefulness and reliability of the rubric in practice.


Keywords


Interaction,Online Course Quality, Rubric Validity, Rubric Reliability

Full Text:

PDF

References


Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. Design and Use of a Rubric to Assess and Encourage Interactive Qualities In Distance Courses. The American Journal of Distance Education 17(2): 77–97, 2003.

Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. Building Interactivity Into Web Courses: Tools For Social And Instructional Interaction. Educational Technology 38(3): 29–35, 1998.

Moore, M. Three Types Of Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education 3(2): 1989. Available online: http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/ajde/ed32.asp.

Vrasidas, C., and McIsaac, M. S. Factors Influencing Interaction In An Online Course. The American Journal of Distance Education 13(3): 22–36, 1999.

Wagner, E. D. In Support Of A Functional Definition Of Interaction. American Journal of Distance Education 8(2): 6–29, 1994.

Wagner, E. D. Interactivity: From Agents To Outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 71: 19–26, 1997.

Yacci, M. Interactivity Demystified: A Structural Definition For Distance Education And Intelligent Computer-Based Instruction. Educational Technology 40(4): 5–16, 2000.

Fulford, C. P., and Zhang, S. Perceptions Of Interaction: The Critical Predictor In Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education 7(3): 8–21, 1993.

Zhang, S. and Fulford, C. P. Are Interaction Time And Psychological Interactivity The Same Thing In The Distance Learning Television Classroom? Educational Technology 34(6): 58–64, 1994.

Zirkin, B. G., and Sumler, D. E. Interactive Or Non-Interactive? That Is The Question!!! An annotated bibliography. Journal of Distance Education 10(1): 95–112, 1995.

Swan, K. Virtual Interaction: Design Factors Affecting Student Satisfaction and Perceived Learning in Asynchronous Online Courses. Distance Education 22(2): 306–331, 2001.

Waits, T., Lewis, L., and Greene, B. Distance Education At Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. July, 2003. Available online: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003017.

Durden, W. Liberal Arts for All, Not Just the Rich. Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, DC, October 19, 2001. Available online: http://chronicle.com.

Jonassen, D., Peck, K., and Wilson, B. Learning With Technology: A Constructivist Perspective. Columbus, Ohio: Prentice Hall/Merrill, 1999.

Goldsby, D., and Fazal, M. Now That Your Students Have Created Web-based Digital Portfolios, How do You Evaluate Them? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 9(4): 607–616, 2001.

Chenau, J. Cyber Traveling Through the Loire Valley. Learning and Leading with Technology, 28(2): 22–27, 2000.

Picciano, A. Distance Learning: Making Connections Across Virtual Time and Space. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall, 2001.

Wolcott, L. Distant, But Not Distanced. A Learner-Centered Approach To Distance Education. Techtrends 41(4): 23–27, 1996.

Hamza, M. K., and Alhalabi, B. Touching Students’ Minds In Cyberspace. Learning and Technology 26(6): 36–39, 1999.

Hirumi, A., and Bermudez, A. Interactivity, Distance Education, And Instructional Systems Design Converge On The Information Superhighway. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 29(1): 1–16, 1996.

Hughes, C., and Hewson, L. Online Interaction: Developing A Neglected Aspect Of The Virtual Classroom. Educational Technology 38(4): 48–55, 1998.

Kimeldorf, M. Teaching Online—Techniques And Methods. Learning and Leading With Technology 23(1): 26–30, 1995.

Klemm, W. Eight Ways To Get Students More Engaged In Online Conferences. T.H.E. Journal 26(1): 62–64, 1998.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S. Albright, M., and Zvacek, S. Teaching And Learning At A Distance: Foundations Of Distance Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall, 2000.

Horn, D. Distance Education: Is Interactivity Compromised? Performance and Instruction 33(9): 12–15, 1994.

Kearsley, G. Learning And Teaching In Cyberspace. Toronto, Ontario: Wadsworth, Thompson Learning, 2000.

Solloway, S., and Harris, E. Creating Community Online. Educom Review 34(2): 1999. Available online: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/erm99021.html.

Moore, M., and Kearsley, G. Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1996.

Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, E. J, and Gunawardena, C. Learner-Interface Interaction In Distance Education: An Extension Of Contemporary Models And Strategies For Practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education 8(2): 30–42, 1994.

Brown, R. The Process Of Community-Building In Distance Learning Classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 5(2): September 2001. Available online:

http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_brown.asp.

Roblyer, M. A Rubric To Encourage And Assess Student Engagement In Online Course Conferences. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE) Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, March 2002.

Taggart, G., Phifer, S., Nixon, J., and Wood, M. Rubrics: A Handbook For Construction And Use. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2001.

Baker, E. L., and Abedi, J. Dimensionality and Generalizability of Domain-independent Performance Assessments. Journal of Educational Research 89(4): 197–205, March-April 1996.

Novak, J. R., Herman, J. L., and Gearhart, M. L. Establishing Validity for Performance-based Assessments: An Illustration for Collections of Student Writing. Journal of Educational Research 89(4): 220–233, March-April 1996.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v8i4.1808



Copyright (c) 2019 Margaret D. Roblyer, William R. Wiencke