Assistant Professor

Northern Illinois University

csorensen@niu.edu

Instructional Designer

Florida Gulf Coast University

dbaylen@fgcu.edu

Paper presented at the 1999 Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Montreal, Canada

The literature reveals that technology is changing the practice of distance education. Distance education is moving toward more interactive environments. No longer is the isolated individual taking a correspondence course the essence of distance education. Groups of students, using new technologies, can now interact in "real time" and in “asynchronous” time not only with the instructor, but also with other students. This trend is expected to grow as demands for distance education increase, particularly among adult populations.

The resurgence of distance education is attributed to the development of new hardware and software applications that enhance the transmission and receipt of images and sounds at a distance. One of the more recent technologies is two-way interactive television. Technologies such as interactive television are widening the communications channels between student and instructor, channels that were limited in earlier forms of distance instruction. More interactivity is now possible between and among participants in the distance learning environment.

Studies of student satisfaction with distance education suggest that the level of interaction in the class is related to perceptions of satisfaction regardless of the instructional medium. This paper will report findings from a study of four graduate research and evaluation courses at a Midwestern public university that were taught using interactive television technology, specifically, a compressed video system. Two of the courses had three delivery sites each and two had two sites each. Data were collected using multiple sources. Data included information on student background and experience with distance education; videotapes of the classes; surveys of distance education satisfaction; five-minute feedback forms; student journals; surveys of student perceptions of interactivity; and student achievement data. A particular focus in this study was on “interactivity” in distance education. Therefore, the results reported here will focus on data from four sources: surveys of student perceptions of interaction, videotape data from the classes, and student journals and one-minute feedback forms.

Distance education literature suggests that interaction is an important variable to consider in developing and delivering distance education. Two-way audio and video connections have increased interaction capabilities between instructor and remote students compared to earlier forms of distance education. However, while two-way interactive television provides more channels of communication than other forms of distance education (i.e. correspondence study, videotape instruction, or one-way video instruction), the physical separation of learners and the instructor still creates barriers to communication and connectivity. Interaction between students and instructors is often regarded as essential by educators. Gunawardena and Zittle (1995) note that recommendations for successful distance education strategies often focus on providing maximum interaction between students and the instructor. A number of studies have focused on interaction in distance education classrooms.

Barker (1995) contends that distance learning forces instructors to find new ways to structure student-teacher interaction and requires “forced” interaction and more effort to involve remote students and make them feel part of the class. Barker recommends planning for interaction because of the tendency for distance students to be passive. Moore (1993) noted that distance education creates a physical separation that leads to a psychological and communications gap between instructors and learners and discusses three types of interaction (learner-content, learner-instructor, learner-learner). Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994) added the dimension of learner-interface interaction, arguing that the effect of technology on interaction is often overlooked. They maintain that the interface acts as a “confounding intermediary” in other types of interaction.

In a study of interaction and satisfaction in an interactive television course for K-6 teachers, Fulford and Zhang (1993) found that a critical predictor of satisfaction with distance education is the students’ perception of overall interaction in the class. They suggest that perception of interaction is a desired learning outcome. Their study also revealed that learner perceptions of interaction decrease over time, perhaps due to an increase in interaction expectations on the part of students as they become more confident and comfortable in the distance education environment. In a later article, Zhang and Fulford (1994) report that according to their research, how students feel about interaction in the classroom may not be directly related to the amount of time actually spent on interaction, but rather on the nature of the interaction as perceived by the students.

Miller, McKenna, and Ramsey (1993) concluded in their study of interaction in distance education that students’ psychological perceptions may have more effect than the capability of the technology to simulate an environment that allows approximately the same level of interaction as a traditional classroom. Burnham (1995) found in observations of remote sites that students interacted with the instructor, but interacted more often and longer with other students at their local site.

Wilkes and Burnham (1991) found a relationship between satisfaction and student involvement and found that on-site students rated both areas significantly higher than distant students. These authors conclude that instructors have substantial influence on the amount of student involvement in the classroom. Ritchie and Newby (1989) found that classes where the instructor was not physically present had significantly lower ratings on involvement and overall satisfaction than either the traditional class or the television class with the instructor present in the room. It could be argued that students in television classes where the instructor is physically present (origination) are likely to have a learning experience more similar to that of a traditional classroom than to that of their remote counterparts.

The purpose of this study was to better understand the interactions and dynamics that occur in on interactive television classroom, focusing on the manifestation of interactivity. With two-way interactive technologies, claims have been made that the level of interaction in a traditional classroom can be duplicated and that students’ experiences in the distance environment are similar to experiences in a regular classroom (Simonson, 1994). Interactivity in the distance classroom was studied in three ways for this research project: 1) a survey was given asking students to rate their perceptions of the level of interaction, 2) classes were videotaped and randomly selected videotapes were analyzed for interaction patterns, and 3) student journals and feedback forms were reviewed for comments related to interactivity. In particular, this study compared student perceptions of interactivity as reflected in self-report surveys and in journals and feedback forms with data collected via videotapes of the classes.

This study took place at a public midwestern university of about 23,000 students. In the past few years, interactive television via compressed video has been increasingly used at the institution to deliver instruction to remote sites. However, 1997 marked the first year that courses from the department of curriculum and instruction were offered in this format. Four different sections of graduate level research and evaluation courses, taught by the same instructor, were the focus of this study. Two sections were taught in 1997 and two were taught in 1998.

Thirteen students were enrolled in one course which was delivered to three sites in Spring 1997: an on-campus section with five students, one remote site (A) with six students, and a second remote site (B) with two students. Five students were male and eight were female. Five were doctoral level students and eight were master’s level students. This class met for a total of fourteen three-hour sessions. The instructor remained at the campus site for nine sessions. For three sessions, the instructor traveled to site A and for one session to site B. The final class was held at a central location and all but one student attended this face-to-face session.

Eighteen students were enrolled in the second course delivered to three sites in Summer 1997: an on-campus section with nine students, one remote site (A) with eight students, and a second remote site (B) with one student. Five students were male and thirteen were female. Eleven were doctoral level students and nine were master’s level students. The class met for nine sessions, each three and a half hours long, over the interactive television system. This course also included an initial face-to-face Saturday class (six hours long) and a final face-to-face Saturday class. All students were present at the initial Saturday session, while two were absent at the final Saturday session.

Twenty students were enrolled in the third course delivered to three sites in Spring 1998: an on-campus section with four students, one remote site (A) with 15 students, and a second remote site (B) with one student. Two students were male and 18 were female. Seven were doctoral students and 13 were master’s students. The class met for thirteen sessions over the interactive video system, with each session lasting for three hours. The instructor traveled to remote site A twice, with three students from the origination site traveling with the instructor for one of those visits.

Thirty-two students were enrolled in the fourth course delivered to two sites in Summer 1998: an on-campus section with 21 students and a remote site (C) with 11 students. Twenty of the students were female and twelve were male. Twenty-two were doctoral students and ten were master’s students. The class met daily (Monday through Thursday) for four hours each day for four weeks. There were also two all-day Saturday sessions where the students met on campus face-to-face; one was the initial session and one session occurred midway through the course.

Interactivity was measured in three ways for the study. Students were asked to respond to self-report surveys asking about perceptions of interaction. Classes were videotaped and analyzed for interaction. Finally, students were asked as part of the class to reflect on their class experiences through feedback forms in 1997 and through journaling in 1998.

Surveys designed to assess student perceptions of interaction were collected. This survey was based on the work of Fulford, Sherry, and Zhang (1997). Two versions of the survey were used. During the spring 1997 class, the survey assessed perceptions of the level of interaction for (a) student to instructor, (b) instructor to student, (c) student to student overall, (d) student to student at the same site, (e) student to student across sites, and (f) overall class interaction. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis (frequency distributions and means). Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis indicated that four of the constructs (student to student at the same site, student to student across sites, student to student overall, and overall class interaction) were reliable while two were problematic. There seemed to be problems with the student to instructor and instructor to student constructs. The researchers, after reviewing the data, theorized that these two constructs were not differentiating between instructor and student interactions when the students were at the same site as the instructor and when the students were at the remote site. T-tests indicated statistical differences in the responses of remote and origination site students to items in these two constructs.

The survey was revised for the summer 1997 course, maintaining the three of the stable constructs and using two new constructs. The constructs were named: (1) overall class interaction, (2) teacher-student interaction within site, (3) teacher-student interaction across site, (4) within site student interaction, and (5) across site student interaction. These five constructs were found to have adequate reliabilities (Cronbach alpha levels .77 to .98) following the summer 1997 administration. Subsequent administration and reliability analysis confirmed that these constructs were stable. During 1997 the interaction surveys were administered in a pretest-posttest design, with the pre-test given at the second session and post-tests at the concluding session. Surveys in 1998 were posttest only and given at the concluding session. Data were analyzed using SPSS.

As a regular part of the class, students were asked to provide feedback to the instructor. During 1997, this feedback took the form of feedback forms (referred to as Plus/Delta sheets -- See figure below) which students were asked to complete in five minutes at the conclusion of each class.

The interactive television classrooms allow for easy videotaping of classes. Each classroom is equipped with a videotape system that will record the class as seen through the system camera. Class sessions were videotaped from both the origination site and one remote site (A). For this paper, three videotapes were randomly selected for analysis from one course in order to look at both interaction patterns in general and changes in interaction over the course. Analysis of the videotapes is continuing. Analysis was conducted using a modified video evaluation instrument based on the work of Fulford and Zhang (1994). The video evaluation instrument was designed to record each class event. Based on these events, the type of interaction is recorded. Two-way interactions were coded by hand in six categories: teacher to the class (T-C), teacher to a specific student (T - SS), origination site student to teacher (OS-T), remote site student to teacher (RS-T), student to student at the same site (S-SS), and student to the class or to student at the other site (S-C). Each event was noted by tape number, tape time notation, and type of event. Discourse was also analyzed for manifestations of specific interactive behaviors, for example, humor, nurturing, and self-disclosure. These were documented in the video analysis by noting the tape number and the time the event occurred on the videotape. Field notes documenting specific observations made by the researcher were also maintained.

Throughout these courses, the instructor intentionally sought ways to increase student interactions in the class. Introductory exercises during the first class session were designed for students to get to know one another. Students were designated as discussion leaders and required to lead a 30 minute portion of the class discussion related to critiquing a research article. Students were provided with opportunities to meet face-to-face at least once during the course. Group activities were used during class time, both within sites and across sites. Students were allowed, but not required, to work in teams for one assignment based on common interests in a research topic. E-mail and phone lists were provided to class members. The instructor’s goal was to engage students in the distance setting in interactive behaviors.

Since the instrument itself was being tested during the first two administrations, the results from the separate courses are reported separately here. The findings, however, show consistent trends across all administrations.

Students in the Spring 1997 course were given a pre-assessment and a post-assessment to gather information about their perceptions of the level of interaction that occurred in the distance education classroom. Students were asked to respond to items using a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = agree, 6 = strongly agree). All thirteen students responded on the pre-assessment; eleven responded on the post-assessment. Table 1 indicates the mean score for each statement and for the constructs on the pre and post assessments.

Areas of potential improvement were identified by looking at items where at least 20% of the students (23% is equivalent to 3 of the 13 students) disagreed (marked a 1, 2 or 3). On both the pre-assessment and post-assessment there were a number of students who disagreed that the level of interaction between students was high. Ratings on “interaction in class is high,” “students often state their opinions to the instructor,” and “in class, students often state their opinions to each other” did not meet the 20% criterion on the pre- assessment, but did on the post-assessment. However, ratings for “the students often ask each other questions,” “there is a high level of class interaction between students” and “students generally answer each others’ questions” met the criterion on the pre-assessment, but not on the post-assessment. All four items on the survey addressing interaction between students at different sites met the criterion on both the pre- and post-assessments.

The individual items were combined to form six constructs. Overall interaction scores declined from 4.33 to 4.15 from pre-to post-assessment. Declines in scores from pre- to post-assessment in the areas of instructor to student (5.10 to 4.86) and student to instructor (5.03 to 4.58) interactions may be a reflection of a wider gap in perceptions among individual students as evidenced by a larger post-assessment standard deviation. For both pre-and post-assessments, student to student interaction at the same site had the highest mean, followed by instructor to student interaction and student to instructor interaction. Perceptions of overall class interaction and student to student interaction overall may have been affected by the lowest score, student to student interaction at different sites.

As noted earlier, when factor analysis and reliability analysis using Cronbach alpha were conducted on the constructs for the Spring 1997 instrument, two of the constructs (student to instructor and instructor to student) did not perform as expected. The survey was reconceptualized and the constructs revised prior to the conclusion of the summer class in which the new form was administered.

Students in the Summer 1997 course were given the interaction survey during the last week of the class. Again, students were asked to respond using the six-point Likert scale. Three constructs from the Spring survey were deleted and two new constructs were added. Fourteen of the eighteen students in the class responded. Table 2 indicates the mean score for each statement and for the constructs.

The only items with a mean rating below 4.00 were items related to across site student interactions. Again, areas where at least 20% of the students (3 of 14 students is approximately 21%) disagreed were considered to be areas of concern. Four students disagreed that the overall level of interaction between students was high and that the instructor frequently asked questions of the students at the instructor’s site. Three students disagreed that the instructor frequently asked questions of remote students, students at the remote sites asked the instructor questions, and students at the same site asked each other questions. Six or more students disagreed with each of the statements related to across site student interaction.

Additional analysis of these items revealed no statistical differences in responses by gender, degree status (master’s or doctoral), or location at origination or remote site. Perceptions of the level of interaction in the class were consistent among groups. Factor analysis and Cronbach alpha reliability assessment indicated that the constructs performed as predicted (alpha levels .77 to .98). This survey was used again in 1998.

Interaction surveys were again distributed and collected at the conclusion of Spring and Summer classes in 1998. These surveys were combined for analysis. Fifteen of the 20 students in Spring completed the survey as did 22 of the 32 students in the summer course. Table 3 indicates the mean ratings on the survey items and the percent of agreement and disagreement. The same six-point agree to disagree Likert scale was used as in the previously described instruments.

As noted earlier, the instructor in the class made a concerted effort to provide opportunities for interaction in the class. Based on the findings above, it appears that students perceived the level of interaction between the instructor and the students as fairly high. However, there was a definite perception that the interaction between the instructor and students at the same site (5.18) was higher compared to interaction between the instructor and students at the remote site (4.69). The individual items in the instructor-student remote site construct indicate that the lower means were on items related to the students’ behavior (students at the remote site ask the instructor questions = 4.50 and students at the remote sites respond to instructor questions = 4.40). The behavior of the instructor (instructor asks questions of remote site students= 4.82 and instructor answers questions of remote site students = 5.08) seems to be rated higher. In fact, instructor asks questions of remote students mean rating was actually higher (4.82) than the mean for instructor asks questions of students at the same site (4.76).

Across site interaction among students was particularly low (construct mean=2.87). More than 80% of the students disagreed that students at different sites asked each other questions, stated their opinions to each other or answered each others questions. Two-thirds disagreed that there was high interaction between students at the different sites.

Additional t-test analysis again indicated no statistical differences between responses of males and females, master’s and doctoral students, or remote and origination site students. Stepwise regression analysis indicated that the best predictor of student ratings of overall class interaction was the rating for the interaction between the instructor and the remote site students, which accounted for approximately 68% of the variance. None of the other constructs (instructor-same site students, student-student same site, student-student across site) entered the regression equation. Cronbach alpha analysis again indicated the constructs were reliable (alpha levels ranged from .67 to .92 and followed the same pattern as the summer 1997 data).

Differences in interaction in the videoconference classes were described by students in their open-ended comments. Students noted that they were more inhibited in the distance setting . Their perceptions of student-to-student interactions, teacher and student interactions, and the impact of the technology are noted below.

Students noted less interaction with classmates at different sites, although the interaction among students at the same site was seen as “more intimate” than in a traditional class with a greater sense of “belonging to the group.” Group and introductory activities were seen as promoting more interaction. Providing opportunities for students to meet face-to-face was suggested as a way to improve student-to-student interactions across sites. Some felt that students needed to take more responsibility for initiating interactions in the distance setting.

The instructor’s focus on introductory activities designed to introduce students to one another on the first class session were perceived as an important component in building a sense of community.

The instructor intentionally built in opportunities for students to work together on activities during class time. Sometimes those activities involved groups at each site, and occasionally groups across sites. These group activities were perceived as valuable to the students.

Student comments indicated that a strong sense of community emerged among the students at the individual sites. This was particularly evident among the students at the remote sites. However, the sense of community at the sites may have emerged at the expense of a broader sense of community across sites.

Students continued to suggest that student should have the opportunity to meet face-to-face early in the semester to help build the sense of a larger community.

Some students saw the need for students to become more active in initiating interactions.

                    I think students need to take the responsibility to interact with each other in class. (origination student)

Teacher to Student Interaction

The students at both remote and origination sites expressed a preference for having the instructor on-site, and noted that interaction patterns shifted depending on the location of the instructor. Students were seen as more involved in discussions at the site where the instructor was present.

Students preferred to have the instructor at their location. They perceived less interaction with the instructor in this setting compared to a traditional setting. While the teacher was normally at the origination site, at least two trips per semester were made to the remote site.

Comments from the students indicated that the presence of the instructor at the remote site changed the classroom dynamics. Students at the same site as the instructor (whether on-campus or at the remote site) seemed to feel more involved in the class. Students noted that instructor location made a difference in the level of participation and interaction. Remote students who had previously been less involved in class discussions became more active when the instructor visited their site. The on-campus students, who were more accustomed to having the instructor in person, found it more difficult to pay attention when the instructor was at the remote sites. The origination site students were disconcerted at having to experience being remote students.

Students seemed to feel that the instructor-student interaction was OK, although there were suggestions that keeping the camera focused on the instructor might improve the sense of interacting more directly.

Students did indicate that the technology affected interaction, although some indicated that it was “a neat way to take a course.” Some even indicated that it focused class attention on the instructor and resulted in fewer “diversions.”

Lack of physical presence combined with the technology appeared to inhibit interaction in the class.

Students also indicated some difficulty in maintaining focus. This was particularly evident for the origination students when the instructor was at the remote site. Students indicated that it was more difficult to pay attention and to participate in class discussions generally in the distance education environment. The normal visual cues students used to determine when to speak up were often absent. It was also disconcerting for some to be able to hear a voice, but not be able to see the student speaking. Some students, however, found that the technology helped keep the students focused on the instructor.

However, even with the difficulties and some discomfort with the environment, most students were satisfied with interactions in the videoconference setting.

Approximately nine hours of video tape were reviewed and analyzed from three randomly selected class sessions from the same course (each class session was approximately three hours in length). The sessions selected included the second class session, the fourth class session, and the seventh class session. Each event was coded by tallying a hash mark in a category. Events were coded as T-C (an interaction initiated by the teacher and directed at the class), T-SS (an interaction initiated by the teacher and directed to a specific student), OS-T (interactions initiated by a student at the origination site and directed to the teacher),RS-T (interactions initiated by a student at a remote site and directed to the teacher), S-SS (interactions initiated by a student to another student at the same site), or S-C (interactions initiated by a student and directed to the class in general or to a student in another site). Table 4 shows the number of interactions recorded. The information, by class session and overall is discussed below.

The two areas where the most incidents occurred were teacher initiated interactions to the entire class (175) and student interactions initiated to another student at the same site (166). Teacher initiated interactions primarily involved covering specific content material (119) and housekeeping comments and review of requirements (33). Student interactions with other students at the same site generally occurred during group activities (100) and during breaks (23).

Teacher initiated interaction directed to a specific student and student initiated interaction at the on-campus site directed to the teacher were noted almost an equal number of times (69 and 70 incidents, respectively). Student initiated interactions directed to the teacher from students at the remote sites occurred less frequently with 55 incidents noted. Only 27 incidents of interactions initiated by students and directed to the class or to a student at another site were documented.

Specific engaging behaviors noted included smiling, looking towards the other person, nodding, laughing, hand gestures, and shaking one’s head. Distractions noted during the video review included audio feedback problems, rustling papers, and distracting noises caused by students moving around due to the open microphone set up of the ITV system.

Teacher to class (T-C) interactions were again the highest (144) with most of the interactions related to course content (131). Teacher interacting with specific students (T-SS) was observed next most frequently (116) followed by remote site students interacting with the teacher (RS-T), observed 101 times, and students interacting with students at the same site (S-SS) 116 times. Origination site students initiating interactions with the instructor (OS-T) occurred 89 times. Eighty-seven interactions were initiated by students and directed toward the entire class or students at another site.

Specific engaging behaviors included smiling, laughing, displaying hand gestures, nodding, making jokes, and facing other students as a student talks. Distractions included rustling papers, background conversations (particularly at the remote site) and a thumping sound.

During session seven, the most frequent interactions were student initiated to students at the same site (137), followed closely by teacher to class interactions (132). Remote site student initiated interactions to the teacher (RS-T) occurred 105 times and origination site student initiated interaction with the teacher (OS-T) occurred 101 items. Teacher interactions with specific students (T-SS) was observed 85 times and student to class (S-C) interactions 78 times.

Engaging behaviors observed included smiling, facing the other students as a student talks, nodding, laughter, and leaning towards the TV monitor. Facing other students occurred more frequently in this video than in the others. Distractions included echo feedback, a humming noise, rustling papers, and various background noises.

The trends indicate a shift in the amount of teacher to class (T-C) initiated interactions and an increase in student initiated interactions (OS-T, RS-T, S-C) over time. In addition, at two points (session 4 and session 7) the number of interactions initiated by remote site students to the teacher exceeded those initiated by students at the origination sites. Remote site student-initiated interactions with the teacher tripled from session 2 to session 7. The lowest number of interactions in all cases was student to student across site interactions (S-C). In general, more interactions were observed in the later courses.

Other observations made by the researchers based on the videotape data were related to the influences of various instructional strategies on the interaction patterns. In several classes, the instructor used a discussant format which required students to lead the discussion for a limited amount of time. This instructional method appeared successful in increasing student-initiated interactions across sites. Group activities typically centered around within-site groupings. These activities were successful in building rapport within the site and increased student-to-student interactions at the same site.

Another interesting aspect observed in the videotapes occurred during teacher-dominated time (e.g. lectures with powerpoint presentations). Although the instructor typically kept these times to less than 30 minutes, remote site students appeared off-task. It was observed that students at the remote site placed their microphones on “mute” during these presentations and although the audio was thus not recorded, the video clearly shows interactions occurring between students at the remote site during the lecture. This occurred in spite of the fact that students knew that they were being recorded. It may be hypothesized that being in a setting with technology on a routine basis and the lack of additional equipment for recording resulted in students “forgetting” about the recorder. The observation data seemed to indicate that students at the origination site (where the instructor was generally present) behaved differently than the remote site students. Their behavior was more typical of a traditional class.

Based on the survey data, in general, students perceived interaction between students and the instructor as moderate, interaction between students at the same site as high, and interactions with students at other sites as low. The lower ratings for across site interaction may have affected ratings of interaction in the class overall. Students suggested that having students meet face-to-face at least once during the semester, and preferably near the beginning of the semester, might increase the level of interaction across sites. Instructors might also want to consider using across-site groupings for activities and projects to increase the level of interaction among students at different sites.

Even though the pre- and post- comparisons on student perceptions of interaction were not statistically significant, post-assessment means were lower than pre-assessment means, indicating a decline in perceptions of interaction over the semester. This finding mirrors findings of Fulford and Zhang. This decline may be an artifact caused by increased expectations of interaction as students become more comfortable with the technology and the logistics of distance education.

The qualitative data indicate that students perceived lower interactions across sites and that the technology limited interactions to some extent. Particularly evident from the qualitative data was the perception that interaction patterns changed as the instructor’s location changed. The presence of the instructor at a site increased the level of interaction of the students at that site, particularly in terms of teacher-student interaction and across site interaction. Videotape analysis also showed this effect.

The videotape data showed verbal interactions, gestures, body language, and eye contact that indicated interaction is taking place, particularly between students at the same site and between teacher and students. However, there are fewer indications of interactions between students across sites, particularly early in the class. It appears that student initiated interactions increased later in the course and teacher initiated interactions declined. These data do not match the students’ perceptions. Students perceived less interaction later in the course. This leads to a possibility that perception is influenced by the amount of teacher-initiated interaction. This interpretation is supported by the regression analysis conducted on the perception data that showed the best predictor of overall ratings of interaction was the perceived interaction between the instructor and the remote site students.

Based on the video data, group activities appear to have enhanced the within site interactions. Interaction between students and the instructor appears to depend on the location of the instructor. More interactions occur between students and instructor when the instructor is on-site. Having the instructor rotate sites may equalize interaction behaviors across sites. Instructors may also need to develop specific strategies to facilitate participation and interaction from the remote sites during class time.

The data gathered during this study can inform future planning and implementation of distance instruction. Since this was a convenience sample (the students in the instructor’s classes) and used only graduate students, caution should be used in generalizing the findings to other populations. However, the patterns seem consistent across semesters and may warrant further investigation. The following conclusions may provide some guidance for those interested in improving interaction in videoconferencing settings.

While a sense of community appears to have developed at the individual sites, particularly the remote sites, ways of building a larger sense of community for the entire class should be examined. The presence of the instructor at different sites appeared to affect the class dynamics. Interaction and verbal expressiveness seemed to increase at the site where the instructor was present. Having the instructor rotate sites might equalize class participation across sites.

Classroom configurations also appeared to impact interaction. Students were inhibited in interacting with classmates due to visual and audio limitations. Perhaps providing monitors that can constantly display remote classrooms, or use of split screen options, could help students feel more in contact with their peers at other sites.

Maintaining attention in the distance classroom appears to be a more difficult task than perhaps in the traditional class. Varying activities and including hands-on exercises and small and large group discussions were instructional methods appreciated by the students.

Overall, students were satisfied with their distance learning experience, although there were a number of suggestions for improvement. Providing at least one opportunity for students to meet face-to-face seemed to be a consistent suggestion.

As part of efforts to investigate the potential of other technologies to increase interaction across sites in videoconference settings, the instructor has integrated web-based components into the research class as it is being taught currently (Spring 1999). Students are required to communicate with one another via an asynchronous communication tool interface (e.g., WebBoard) in response to a weekly question posted by the instructor. A chat room is also available at the web site. Investigations of the impact of web-based technologies on interaction patterns is underway. However, before we conclude this paper, we must point out a remark made by a student in one of the classes and echoed by other students.

Perhaps it is a question we need to ask ourselves. What is our goal instructionally for improving across site interaction?

Barker, B. (1995). Strategies to Ensure Interaction in Telecommunicated Distance Learning. In Koble, M. (editor), The American Center for the Study of Distance Education Invitational Research Conference in Distance Education: Towards Excellence in Distance Education: A Research Agenda, Discussion Papers, (pages 269-277). University Park, PA: Penn State.

Burnham, B. (1995). A Systematic View of Distance Education and Evaluation. In Koble, M. (editor), The American Center for the Study of Distance Education Invitational Research Conference in Distance Education: Towards Excellence in Distance Education: A Research Agenda, Discussion Papers, (pages 183- 196). University Park, PA: Penn State.

Dillon, C. and Walsh, S. (1992). Faculty: The Neglected Resource in Distance Education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 5-21.

Fulford, C. & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of Interaction: The Critical Predictor in Distance Education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.

Fulford, C. & Zhang, S. (1994). “Tooling Up to Go the Distance” Video Interaction Analysis. In Simonson, M., Maushak, N., and Abu-Omar, K. (Editors) Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) 16th Annual Proceedings (pages 216 - 228). Nashville, TN: AECT.

Fulford, C. & Zhang, S. (1995). Interactivity in Distance Education Television: A Constructed Reality. In Koble, M. (Editor), The American Center for the Study of Distance Education Invitational Research Conference in Distance Education: Towards Excellence in Distance Education: A Research Agenda, Discussion Papers (pages 42-52). University Park, PA: Penn State.

Fulford, C., Sherry, A., & Zhang, S. (1997). Measuring Students’ Perceptions of Interaction in Distance Education TV Classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting for the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Albuquerque, NM.

Graf, D. (1993). Teleteaching: Distance Education Planning, Techniques, & Tips. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Media Resources Center.

Gunawardena, C. & Zittle, R. (1995). An Examination of Teaching and Learning Processes in Distance Education and Implications for Designing Instruction. In Koble, M. (editor), The American Center for the Study of Distance Education Invitational Research Conference in Distance Education: Towards Excellence in Distance Education: A Research Agenda, Discussion Papers, (pages 315-340). University Park, PA: Penn State.

Hillman, D., Willis, D. & Gunawardena, C. (1994). Learner -interface Interaction Distance Education: An Extension of Contemporary Model and Strategies for Practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.

Kearsley, G. (1995). The Nature and Value of Interaction in Distance Learning. In Koble, M. (editor), The American Center for the Study of Distance Education Invitational Research Conference in Distance Education: Towards Excellence in Distance Education: A Research Agenda, Discussion Papers, (pages 366-374). University Park, PA: Penn State.

Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179-211.

Miller, J., McKenna, M., & Ramsey, P. (1993). An Evaluation of Student Content Learning and Affective Perceptions of a Two-way Interactive Video Learning Experience. Educational Technology, 13 (6), 51-55.

Moore, M. (1993). Three Types of Interaction. In Harry, K., John, M. & Keegan, D. (editors), Distance Education: New Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Ritchie, H. and Newby, T. (1989). Classroom Lecture/Discussion vs. Live Televised Instruction: A Comparison of Effects on Student Performance, Attitude, and Interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(3),36-45.

Silvernail, D. and Johnson, J. (1992). The Impact of Interactive Televised Instruction on Student Evaluations of Their Instructors. Instructional Technology, 32(6), 47-50.

Simonson, M. (1994). Two-way Interactive Distance Education: Iowa's Star Schools Project. Educational IRM Quarterly, 3(2), 10-13.

Sorensen, C. (1997). Attitudes of Community College Students Toward Interactive Television Instruction. in Maushak, N., Simonson, M, & Wright, K. (editors), Encyclopedia of Distance Education Research in Iowa (2nd edition-revised). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1989). Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education. OTA-SET-430). Washington D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Wilkes, C. W. and Burnham, B. R. (1991). Adult Learner Motivations and Electronic Distance Education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(1), 43-50.

Zhang, S. & Fulford, C. (July-August, 1994). Are Interaction Time and Psychological Interactivity the Same Thing in the Distance Learning Television Classroom? Educational Technology, 58-64.

Please rate the following items using the scale below: