1
Interaction in Online Learning: A Comparative Study on the Impact of Communication Tools on
Student Learning, Motivation, Self-regulation, and Satisfaction
Moallem, M., Pastore, R. & Martin, M.
Abstract
The emergence of the newer web synchronous conferencing has provided the opportunity for high
level of students to students and students instructor interaction in web-based learning environments.
However, it is not clear whether absence or presence of synchronous or live interaction will affect
the learning processes and outcomes to the same extent for all learners with various characteristics,
or whether other factors that compensate for the absence of the live interaction can be identified and
accounted for deeper learning processes and for higher quality of learning outcomes. The purpose of
this presentation is to report the results of a study that investigated whether various communication
tools and methods influence student learning process, learning outcomes, motivation, self-regulation
and satisfaction.
2
Introduction
The emergence of the newer web synchronous conferencing tools (e.g., Eluminate
Live, Wimba Live (Contribute), WebEx, Saba Centra, and Adobe Connect) has provided the
opportunity for high level of students to students and students to instructor interaction in web-based
learning environments. The potential of these tools for providing interactive learning experiences
that are closer to what is possible in face to face teaching and learning environments (Rourke,
Anderson, Garrison,& Archer, 2001; Shi & Morrow, 2006) while simultaneously providing high
levels of learner control, freedom of time and place make these tools the best viable option for
distance education courses in general and online courses in particular. The use of web synchronous
learning environments to provide interactive learning experiences for learners who participate in a
variety of online classes has increased (Skylar, 2009; Stephens & Mottet, 2008) in recent years. In a
survey study conducted by International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL, 2009) at
108 virtual schools, 47 percent of the responders reported that they had policies about frequency of
contact through synchronous platforms (such as Elluminate, NetMeeting, Wimba). In another study,
among the institutions offering online courses in 2006-2007, 31 percent reported that they offered
the courses in a synchronous format; 19 percent used two-way video and audio (NCES, 2008). The
inclusion of these relatively new online tools is an indication of how rapidly the field of online
learning is changing and adapting to web synchronous conferencing tools.
Research on online learning continues to support the importance of dialogue or interaction (defined
as two-way communication among two or more people within a learning context (Gilbert & Moore,
1998)) between the teacher and students and among students for advancing the learning process and
for internalizing the learning (e.g., Cavanaugh, 2005; Friend & Johnson, 2005; Offir, Lev & Bezale,
2008; Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Shale & Garrison, 1990; Zucker & Kozma, 2003). The importance of
the interaction and its influence on the learning process in distance education is confirmed by Moore
(1992,1993) in his model of transactional distance education (i.e., a physical separation that results
in a psychological and communicative gap). Moore (1992) argues that increasing the interaction
between learner and instructor results in a smaller transactional distance and more effective learning.
Other studies also point that increased interaction results in increased student course satisfaction and
learning outcomes (e.g., Chiu, Hsu, Sun, Lin & Sun, 2005; Lee, Tseng, Liu & Liu, 2007; Irani,
1998; Wang, 2003; Zhang & Fulford, 1994; Zirkin & Sumler, 1995).
Two communication methods (i.e. synchronous and asynchronous) are used to engender high levels
of student-student and student-teacher interaction in online learning environments. Using web
conferencing tools, synchronous instruction brings teacher and students together simultaneously in
virtual spaces while asynchronous instruction is delivered without any specific timetable using
communication tools such as e-mail and discussion boards. Thus, the question is whether absence or
presence of synchronous or live interaction will affect the learning processes and outcomes to the
same extent for all learners with various characteristics (backgrounds, motivation and needs) and
learning preferences, or whether other factors that compensate for the absence of the live interaction
can be identified and accounted for deeper learning processes and for higher quality of learning
outcomes. In addition, whether one can expect better understanding (integration and incorporation)
of the learning materials for students who are taught by the synchronous distance education method
than for students who are taught by the asynchronous intervention method (facilitated by media such
as e-mail and discussion boards, supports work relations among learners and with teachers, even
3
when participants cannot be online at the same time), due to the limited live interaction in distance or
online learning.
Furthermore, regardless of availability of the newer Web-synchronous conferencing tools, our
education system continues to offer online courses as separate units for distance students and live or
blended courses for students who are able to attend classes live and in physical settings. Therefore,
the power of the new Web-synchronous conferencing tools that combine ultra-high-definition video,
quality audio, specially designed environment and interactive elements in order to create the feeling
of being in person with students in distance locations are not utilized to bridge the separation
between live and online learning environments.
The Purposes of the Study
The purposes of the present study were to (1) compare various communication methods (e.g.,
synchronous or live interaction; asynchronous or online interaction and a combined method of
synchronous and asynchronous interaction) within a learning environment that combined live and
online learning spaces to find out how they influence the learning process, learning outcomes,
learner motivation, self-regulation and satisfaction, (2) identify factors that compensate for the
absence of live interaction in online asynchronous environment and vice versa; (3) identify factors
that can be accounted for deeper and higher quality of learning, and (3) assess the impact of various
communication methods (synchronous, asynchronous and combined) on problem-solving skills
(deep learning process), collaborative learning, learner motivation and self-regulation.
Review of the Literature
The review of the literature on the effect of the quality and level of interactions offered in various
communications modes (i.e. synchronous and asynchronous) on student learning, satisfaction and
motivation in online learning environment points to the following influencing factors: social and
cognitive presence; immediacy of feedback; possibility of affective and interpersonal interactions;
and the opportunity for learners to improve critical thinking, problem solving and communication
skills.
Social and Cognitive Presence
The review of the literature on the advantages of asynchronous online learning environments, in
general and asynchronous online interaction in particular points to several issues. First,
asynchronous online learning environments provide the convenience and flexibility offered by the
“anytime, anywhere” accessibility for interaction (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles & Turoff, 1995; Matthews,
1999; Jiang, 1998; Swan, Shea, Frederickson, Pickett, Pelz & Maher, 2000). Anywhere, anytime
concept means that students can have access to courses discussion board and course materials 24
hours a day, regardless of location, making them more convenient than the live or synchronous
learning environment (Berge, 1997; Harasim, 1990; Matthews, 1999; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright
& Zvacek, 2000). Another advantage of asynchronous learning is that it allows students to reflect
upon the materials and their responses before responding, unlike live interactions (Berge, 1997;
Harasim, 1990; Matthews, 1999; Simonson, et. al, 2000). Furthermore, students also have the ability
4
to work at their own pace, which is especially important for those students who need more time to
process information and learn the materials (Matthews, 1999; Simonson, et. al, 2000).
However, many researchers who studied computer mediated communication (CMC) or
asynchronous online interaction point to its limitation with regard to nonverbal and vocal
communication and note that the inability of text-based asynchronous online discussion to transmit
vocal and non-verbal cues (found in synchronous interaction) causes it to be less immediate, less
intimate or colder and less personable experience. This feeling that is called “social presence”
(Walther, 1992; Short, Williams, and Christi, 1979) postulate that a critical factor of a
communication medium is its social presence. Social presence is defined as the “degree of salience
of the other person in the (mediated) interaction and the consequent salience of the interpersonal
relationships” (Short, et. al., 1979, p. 65). On the basis of this definition earlier studies argued that
different communication media convey varying degrees of social presence based on their ability to
transmit nonverbal and vocal information (Short et al, 1979). Thus, synchronous web interaction
(e.g., audio and video) has the potential of having a higher degree of social presence compared with
asynchronous interaction (e.g., text).
However, later studies examined the degree to which a person is perceived as “real” in mediated
communication questioned whether the attributes of a communication medium determined its social
presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997;
Swan, 2003b; Walther, 1996). They argued that the learner’s personal perceptions of presence
mattered more than the medium capabilities; therefore social presence could be a factor of both the
medium and the communicators’ perceptions of presence in a sequence of interactions. Given this
new construct, Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) further differentiated social presence and interaction,
indicating that interactivity is a potential quality of communication that may or may not be realized
by the individual. When it is realized and noticed by participants, there is “social presence.” Tu and
McIssac (2002) also supported the reciprocal relation of interaction and social presence, noting that
in order to increase the level of online interaction, the degree of social presence must also be
increased.
Supporting the same line of argument, Garrison (2003) argued that while social presence (personal
and emotional connection presented in rich media) is essential for effective online interaction it is
not enough for higher-order learning. He suggested that cognitive presence or the process of both
reflection and discourse is necessary for achieving meaningful learning outcomes (Garrison, 2003).
Garrison and his colleagues (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000) used this argument to develop a
conceptual model for community inquiry in higher education. Their model identified three core
elements of an educational experience that included social presence and two other concepts:
cognitive presence, and teaching presence. Hence, researchers seem to agree that asynchronous
online learning environments which provide the opportunity for both reflection and collaboration is
more likely to shape cognitive presence in ways that are unique to this form of interaction.
In sum, researchers seem to agree that social and cognitive presences are critical factors in building
an interactive learning environment (Garrison, 2003) and when information is presented in a way
that increases social presence, it is better remembered by learners and the learning process is
considered more engaging (Homer, Plass, & Blake, 2008). However, the researchers do not appear
to agree upon a single definition for social presence (Rettie, 2003; Tu, 2002). Furthermore, included
5
in the construct of social presence are concepts of immediacy and intimacy, which in turn influence
social presence and level and quality of interaction.
Immediacy and Intimacy
Researchers argue that the two concepts of intimacy (Argyle & Dean, 1965) and immediacy (Wiener
& Mehrabian, 1968) that are present in synchronous or live learning settings are related to social
presence. Intimacy is defined as a function of eye contact, physical proximity, topic of conversation,
etc. Changes in one function will produce compensatory changes in the others (Short, Williams, &
Christie, 1976). A communication with maintained eye' contact, close proximity, body leaning
forward, and smiling conveys greater intimacy (Burgoon, Buller, Hale, & deTurck, 1984). Thus, the
interaction is likely to be unpleasant if behavior cannot be altered to allow an optimal degree of
intimacy.
Immediacy is the psychological distance communicators place between themselves and their
recipients (Short et al., 1976). Immediacy, a concept proposed by Mehrabian (1971), refers to
“physical and verbal behaviors that reduce the psychological and physical distance between
individuals” (Baker, 2010, p. 4). Nonverbal immediacy behaviors include physical behaviors (e.g.,
leaning forward, touching another, looking at another’s eyes etc.), while verbal immediate behaviors
are nonphysical behaviors (e.g., giving praise, using humor, using self-disclosure etc.). Immediacy
also includes eye contact, smiling, vocal expressiveness, physical proximity, appropriate touching,
leaning toward a person, gesturing, using overall body movements, being relaxed and spending time.
The immediacy research points that verbally immediate behaviors can be conveyed in computermediated communication (O‟Sullivan, Hunt, & Lippert, 2004). Furthermore, research concludes that
instructor immediacy is positively related to student cognition, affective learning and motivation
(Arbaugh, 2001; Baker, 2004, 2010; McAlister, 2001), and that synchronous online instruction
provide more immediacy than asynchronous communication alone (Haefner, 2000; Pelowski,
Frissell, Cabral, & Yu, 2005).
Collaborative Learning
From a socio-cultural perspective, at the core of meaningful interaction is the concept of
collaboration and co-construction, which involves all learners in the process of learning.
Furthermore, researchers suggest that co-construction of ideas promotes greater ability for students
to apply what they are learning (Chinn, O’Donnell, & Jinks, 2000; Roschelle, 1992). In order to
build a learning community, meanings are to be jointly constructed as learners modify, confirm or
discard their original ideas through hearing other points of views and referring to others’ experiences
(Bakhtin, 1981; Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner, 2001; Golden, 1986). Therefore, various
communication methods for online learning should provide collaborative learning experiences at the
convenience of the learner. Therefore, various communication methods (e.g., synchronous or live
interaction; asynchronous or online interaction and a combined method of interaction) for online
learning should provide collaborative learning experiences at the convenience of the learner. Since
in a synchronous learning environment learners have access to visual and social cues and can offer
comments at any time and without a prompt and change the conversation (Groenke, Maples, &
Dunlap, 2005; Davidson-Shivers, Muilenberg, & Tanner, 2001; Herring, 1999) it is more likely that
they can establish team work environment.
6
Motivation and Self-regulation
There is much empirical evidence that self-regulated learning is of great importance for academic
achievement (Zimmerman 1990; Zimmerman and Schunk 2001). Research also shows that students
who reported using more self-regulatory strategies also reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation,
self-efficacy, and achievement (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). From a constructivist perspective, selfregulated learning is defined as “an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their
own learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and
behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment”
(Perry & Smart, 2002, p. 741). In other words, students are self-regulated to “the degree that they are
metacognitvely, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process”
(Zimmerman, 1986, p. 5). Thus, the concept and practice of self-directed and regulated learning have
focused on issues of control, both externally and internally (Garrison, 2003). Garrison (1997)
developed a model of self-directed learning that integrates motivation with issues of reflection and
action. He identifies monitoring (reflection) and managing (action) the learning process as key
dimensions of self-directed learning. According to this model, monitoring is learner’s assessment of
feedback information, while managing is learner’s control of learning tasks and activities. Initiating
interest and maintaining effort are also listed as being essential elements in self-direction and
effective learning (Garrison, 1997). Without self- monitoring and self-management, learning
effectiveness will be diminished considerably. Given this conceptualization, the issue of learner’s
control is related to the concept of metacognition which has two essential features “self-appraisal
and self-management of cognition” (Paris & Winograd, 1990, p. 17). Self-appraisal is “reflection
about knowledge and motivational states for the purpose of resolving a problem, while selfmanagement is the metacognitive orchestration of actually solving a problem” (Garrison, 2003, p. 6).
Researchers argue that the asynchronous and virtual nature of online learning provide better learning
environment for learners to be self-directed and to take responsibility for their learning (practice selfregulation) (e.g., Garrison, 2003). In other words, in online learning environments learners have to
assume greater control of monitoring and managing the cognitive and contextual aspects of their
own learning. In addition, the learner's self-motivation increases as a result of self-regulatory
attributes and self-regulatory processes in online learning (Eom, S. B. Wen, H. J. & Ashill N., 2006).
In sum, some research studies seem to highlight the impact of online learning on student motivation
and self-regulatory behaviors and students’ success in online learning when they are able to selfmotivate and self-regulate their own learning. What factors in various online communication
methods influence student motivation and self-regulation is a question that needs further exploration.
Technology Characteristics and Task Complexity
Characteristics of technology tools can improve or hinder efficient delivery of instructional material
(Alavi & Leidner, 2001). In online learning, technology characteristics are specifically linked to the
communication features provided by the synchronous and asynchronous tools. The impact of
different technology characteristics to present information and for communication may depend on
task complexity (Tan & Benbasat, 1990; Tractinsky & Meyer, 1999). Brown et al. (1984)
categorized tasks into three types ranging from easy, simple to difficult, and complex. Several
different task characteristics have been alleged to affect performance through their influence on
cognitive processes. Skehan (1998) identifies a task with a series of defining traits “a task is an
activity in which meaning is primary; there is some kind of communication problem to solve; there
is some sort of relationship to comparable real-world activities; task completion has some priority;
7
the assessment of the task is in terms of outcome” (p. 95). Swales’ (1990, p. 75) adds two more
traits to the definition of task “differentiated” and “sequenceable.” Performance of a more complex
task requires the learner to generate a more elaborate mental model (White & Frederiksen,
1990). Skehan & Foster (2001, p. 196) state that “task difficulty has to do with the amount of
attention the task demands from the participants. Difficult tasks require more attention than easy
tasks”. Hence, tasks that are more complex are associated with an increase in cognitive load, which
can reduce performance and learning (Bannert, 2002; Sweller, vanMerrienboer, & Paas, 1998).
Thus, higher level of interactivity captures the learner’s attention and increases user’s engagement
with the task environment (Alessi & Trollip, 2001; Heinich et al., 1989). This results in deeper
processing of the information, resulting in mastery of the information (Brown, Collins, & Duguid,
1989; Merrill, 1975), as well as aiding the individual in forming a personal mental model of the task
(Wild, 1996). Thus, one can hypothesize that a learning environment such as the synchronous
virtual classroom with a high level of interactivity and immediacy can aid in mental model creation,
which helps in reducing the cognitive load and increasing learning and performance. When the task
to be learned is complex, an interactive environment is important.
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1, Appendix A conceptualizes the online learning environment in this study and the
factors that influences it. The framework has been used to design the study. It has also been used to
guide the implementation of the study and its data collection and analysis procedure. As Figure 1
shows, the impact of a series of factors derived from the literature and others as they emerge are
examined in the study. The framework also represents the three different learning environments
under the study namely synchronous, asynchronous, and a combination of synchronous and
asynchronous. In all the three environments, three types of interaction are examined. The visual also
shows different outcomes that are targeted to be measured in the study.
Methodology
The study is designed to explore the following questions:



How and in what ways can synchronous or live interaction, asynchronous or online
interaction and a combined method of synchronous and asynchronous interaction influence
students’ learning process, learning outcomes, motivation, self-regulation and satisfaction?
What factors in various communication modes can be accounted for the effectiveness of
interaction?
What factors will impact the quality of learning, problem-solving (deep learning process) and
collaborative skills, learner motivation and self-regulation?
The exploratory nature of the study suggested a qualitative methodology, although quantitative data
were also collected and analyzed in order to compare various communication methods and explore
possible factors impacting interaction, quality of learning, collaboration, student motivation and selfregulation. As such, rather than just obtaining statistically significant results a comparative design
was used as a basis for further exploration (Yin, 1994).
8
The Courses and their participants
The conceptual framework was used to design and develop three modules/units of
instruction (two weeks of instruction for each unit) for a graduate level course (three units) that is
offered every spring semester during each academic year in the Instructional Technology program at
a southeastern university. Data collected from the course in spring of 2011 and again in spring 2012.
The spring semester graduate level course is a foundation course required of all students
enrolled in the program. In order to enroll in this course, all students must have taken at least one
foundation course in the program as a prerequisite and be familiar with the technology used for the
delivery of courses in the program. Table 1 shows the design specifications for the three modules.
Blackboard vista was used to deliver the course in spring of 2011 and Blackboard Learn was used to
deliver the course in spring of 2012. A Synchronous Learning Management System (SLMS)
(Horizon Wimba in spring 2011 and WebEx in spring 2012) was used for conducting real time
discussion, group work and presentations. For synchronous delivery modules while all students used
SLMS to communicate with each other and the instructor during real-time interaction, some students
were also physically present in the classroom and had an opportunity to see each other face-to-face
and through video feeds. Fourteen students (total 28) enrolled in each course. One of the researchers
was also the instructor of record for the course. Students were assured of anonymity and were
informed of their ability to choose not to participate at any time. According to demographic data,
students were heterogeneous with regard to age, background and experience in both courses. All
students participated in instruction of three units. The first unit was delivered asynchronously, the
second unit was delivered synchronously and mixed method was used for the delivery of the third
unit. The content and complexity of the units for all three modules/units were kept comparable.
Course Design Specification
A problem-based learning (PBL) or constructivist learning environment (Jonassen, 2008)
was used as the instructional design model for both courses. The design specifications are
summarized in Table 1. These specifications were used to keep the design of all modules consistent.
Table 1: Design Specifications for the study
Module 01 (Week 1 & 2)
Module 02 (Week 3 and 4)
Asynchronous Module
Synchronous Module
 Students were assigned
 Students were assigned to
to readings and other
readings and other
instructional materials
instructional materials (e.g.,
(e.g., instructors’ lecture
instructors’ lecture notes and
notes and multimedia
multimedia materials) a
materials) a week earlier.
week before live and
synchronous meeting.
 Students then used
module’s problem During live and synchronous
solving team assignment
class meeting, students
to collaborate in
participated in large group
completing the
discussion and/or a
assignment.
demonstration with lecture
facilitated by the instructor.
 A small group discussion
Module 03 (Week 5 and 6)
Mixed Approach
 Students were assigned to
readings and other
instructional materials (e.g.,
instructors’ lecture notes
and multimedia materials) a
week earlier. Students were
also assigned to a team and
were instructed to begin
discussing and collaborating
with their teams on
module’s problem-solving
assignment using a small
group discussion in the
9
area was created for each
The large group discussion
team as they worked on
then was followed by
their team assignments.
breaking out into small
teams.
 A large group discussion
forum was created to
 Teams were assigned to
provide opportunity for
collaborate in completing
interaction among all
module’s problem-solving
students and with the
assignment during live and
instructor.
synchronous team meeting.
 Students were instructed  Students were offered to
not to meet
continue team discussion in
synchronously and just
their designated virtual
use asynchronous tools to
rooms to follow up on live or
communicate and to
synchronous class and team
complete their team
discussion. However,
assignments even if they
Students were instructed to
were in close proximity
only use synchronous
with each other. Students
meetings for completing
submitted and published
team activities.
their assignments to other  The instructor also reviewed
groups to review and
students’ product and
comment.
collaborative process and
offered feedback in
 The instructor also
provided written
synchronous or live meeting.
feedback and comments
In addition to oral comments
on students’ team
the instructor also provided
products and
written feedback on teams’
collaboration process.
products and collaboration
process.




forum area.
A large group discussion
forum was created to
provide opportunity for
interaction among all
students and with the
instructor before live and
synchronous class
discussion.
The asynchronous large and
small group discussion was
followed by a live and
synchronous class and team
meeting. During live and
synchronous class meeting,
students participated in large
group discussion and/or a
demonstration with lecture
facilitated by the instructor.
During live and
synchronous class meeting,
students participated in large
group discussion and/or a
demonstration with lecture
facilitated by the instructor.
The large group discussion
was then followed by
breaking out into teams to
complete team assignment
and present it for both peers’
and instructor’s review and
comments.
As with the previous
modules, the instructor also
provided written feedback
and comments on students’
team product and
collaboration process.
Data Gathering Methods and Strategies
Multiple sources of data were used to test the consistency of the findings and to examine
various factors across different communication method. Table 2 summarizes data collection
strategies and sources.
10
Table 2: Detail description of data collection strategies
Data Gathering Methods
Description
and Strategies
Student Satisfaction
Student perception of quality of the interaction, learning experience
and their degree of satisfaction was assessed at the end of each
module using a 20 items questionnaire adopted from the literature.
Student profile including
At the beginning of each course and before the instruction students
style of thinking and
were asked to complete a profile form and take learning and
learning
thinking style inventories and post the results in the course forum
discussion area under “get to know me” or similar thread.
Student motivation and
Student motivation and self-regulation skills were assessed at the
self-regulation skills
beginning and before intervention and then repeated at the end of
each unit using 38 questions adopted from the literature (Pintrich,
P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J., 1991).
However, to triangulate the consistency of the results, student
motivation and self-regulation skills were also assessed using
observation of students’ behaviors using similar criteria drawn from
the literature and responses to three reflective questions at the end
of each module/unit.
Social presence scale
The Social Presence Scale developed by Gunawardena and Zittle
(1997) was adopted and used to study the effectiveness of social
presence in relationship to learning for each method of interaction
or communication.
Collaboration and
The quality of students’ collaboration and communication was
communication
assessed using Tuckman’s group development model (1965).
Students learning of the
Students learning of the content and achievement of the objectives
content and achievement
were measured using a post-test for each module as well as the
of the objectives
products that student teams developed at the end of each module.
Faculty perception and
The faculty member kept a reflective log on workload, achievement
reflection logs
of learning objectives; quality of students’ products and ability to
work collaboratively.
Student postings, chat log All students’ postings in their personal spaces, team areas and large
and audio archive of
group discussion were downloaded and analyzed. In addition, the
SLMS discussion
archives of students’ synchronous discussion and asynchronous
discussion logs were analyzed.
Data Analysis
Mixed methodology was used for data collection and data analysis. However, the overall
design of the study was qualitative with focus on triangulation of various sources of the data to make
conclusion. The constant comparison method was used to analyze different data sources for
questions by cross-case grouping of answers (Patton, 1990).
Results
Table 3 summarizes student demographic information. As it is shown in Table 3, students
were varied in their age and work experiences in both semesters. While 67% of students indicated
11
that they had not taken an online course that used synchronous communication tool before about the
same percentage noted that they had taken online courses that had used asynchronous
communication tools.
Table 3: Student demographic data
Question (N = 27)
Had you taken an online course that used synchronous
communication tools for interaction prior to enrolling in the
program?
Had you taken an online course that primarily used
asynchronous communication (forum; e-mail) for interaction
prior to enrolling in the program?
How many classes have you taken in the MIT program?
What is your age?
What you gender?
Indicate your prior college degrees.
Indicate your prior work experience and number of years
working.
%
Yes
33
%
No
67
Yes
67
No
33
1-3 courses
22-30
31+
42.4
53.6
Male
Female
37
63
BS or BA
MS
85
15
2-24 years of work
experience
Impact of various communication tools & methods on motivation and self-regulation
The motivation and self-regulation survey was conducted prior to the first module and again
at the end of each unit/module. The survey included 38 items (scale of 1-7; 1= not true of me, 7 =
very true of me) and assessed intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, task value, control of learning, selfefficacy and self-regulation. The overall results did not show any significant difference between
students’ motivation and self-regulation prior to the course and after each intervention. Students’
average score on four items measured Intrinsic motivation was high (M = 5.78 to 6.26) prior to the
course and remained high at the end of each module. Students’ average score for 4 items measured
extrinsic motivation was lower (M = 4.22 to 5.48) prior to the intervention and remained lower at the
end of each module suggesting that students appeared to be more intrinsically motivated to learn the
content of the course. The average score for six items measured task-value was high (M = 6.15 to
6.59) prior to the intervention and remained consistently high at the end of each module. This result
was not surprising since the course is a required foundation course. The average score of four items
measured control of learning was high (M = 5.70 to 6.33) prior to the intervention. However, the
average score declined slightly at the end of module one or asynchronous learning approach (M =
4.96 to M = 5.96) but remained high for the other two intervention. The average scores for 8 items
measured self-efficacy were high (M = 5.46 to 6.46) prior to the intervention and remained
consistently high at the end of each module. The average scores for nine out of 12 items measured
metacognitive or self-regulation skills were moderately high (M = 5.38 to 6.07) and remained high at
the end of each module. However, while average scores for three items were moderate prior to the
intervention (M = 4.08 (SD = 1.55); 4.96 (SD = 1.45) and 4.15 (SD = 1.88)), they changed slightly at
the end of each module. The average scores for the item: “During class time I often miss important
points because I am thinking of other things,” deceased at the end of module one (asynchronous
12
only; M = 3.91 (SD = .97)) and module two (synchronous only; M = 3.96 (SD = 1.60)), but
increased at the end of module three (mixed method; 4.23 (SD = 1.27)). Similar change was
observed for the item “I often find that I have been reading for class but don’t know what it was all
about,” (M = 4.91 (SD (.94); 4.96 (SD = 1.14); M = 5.00 (SD = 1.45). Average scores for the third
item “I often find that I have been reading for class, but don’t know what it was all about” however,
increased slightly. In sum, the comparative results of motivation and self-regulation survey did not
show significant changes. Minor changes were observed in a few items in the category of selfregulation in favor of mix methodology.
Results of motivation and self-regulation survey were cross-examined using the instructor’s
observation notes. The observation notes for both semesters confirmed that students were highly
motivated at the beginning of the semester, as it was evidenced by their enthusiasm for reading and
discussing the content and completing team activities. In their communication students also noted
that previous students had told them about the importance of the course content in their future
success. Furthermore, having had a positive learning experience in their previous course with the
same instructor appeared to have an impact on student motivation and self-regulation skills, as they
seemed to be familiar with the teaching strategies.
Cross examination of students’ responses to the end of each intervention reflective questions
combined with instructor’s observation notes, however, indicated that some students appeared to
have much harder time staying on tasks and regulating their activities during asynchronous
intervention (completing readings and taking notes, posting in the discussion area and contribute to
the team discussion) while others seemed to became more anxious in spite of reading and keeping
summary notes because they were worried that they might have missed or misunderstood some
concepts and expressed their concerns in the discussion area (e.g., “. . . feel somewhat lost, because
the asynchronous format lacks a live lecture of the material . . . “; “My worry is that I’m not getting
the whole picture.”; “I had a really hard time understanding the information this week (which is bad
since it’s the first week!.”; “Enjoyed the flexibility in my schedule, however, did struggle with the
content "on my own."; “I feel that I would be more successful if I had been guided a little more with some
reinforcement to the reading.”). Students’ responses to the reflective questions at the end of module
one indicated that instructor’s opening and closing remarks, participation in the discussion forum
and her lecture notes and slides did not seem to ease some students’ doubts about whether or not
they had good understanding of the materials. Analysis of students’ learning and thinking styles
surveys in relation to students’ patterns of behavior (reading and summarizing materials, posting in
the discussion area and contributing to the team discussion) showed that students who were active,
verbal and sequential learners had much harder time regulating their learning compared with
reflective, visual, and global learners. Reflective learners indicated that they enjoyed reading and
pondering on their own although they also mentioned that they missed live discussion and lectures
(e.g., “. . . made me really think about readings and ponder my own conclusions.”; “. . . it was nice to have
more time to read and work on assignments.”; “The biggest advantage for me was that I actually read a lot
more from the texts and had to create my own levels of understanding. "think" it stunk.” ; “Without the
interaction and discussion, I found that I had to re-read the materials for better understanding and try to
answer my own questions.”).
Impact of various communication tools and methods on social presence
13
A 12 item questionnaire (Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) was used to measure students’
reaction to social presence factor (scale of 1 to 5, 1 = very unsatisfied, 5 = very satisfied). The scale
has been used in many studies of online courses with undergraduate and graduate students (e.g.,
Richardson & Swan, 2003; Skiba, Holloway, & Springer, 2000). The adopted scale assessed three
categories of social presence (affective, interactive and cohesive). Table 4, summarizes each
category and its behavioral indicators.
Table 4: Categories and Indicators of Social Presence
Categories
Indicators
Expression of emotions
Affective
CMC conveys feeling and emotion,
Use of humor
and the language used in CMC is
Self-Disclosure
stimulating, expressive, meaningful
and easily understood.
Continuing a thread
Interactive
two-way exchanges, immediacy
Quoting from other messages
CMC as pleasant, immediate,
Referring explicitly to other messages
responsive and comfortable when
Asking questions
dealing with familiar topics
Complimenting, expressing appreciation, expressing
agreement
Vocatives
Cohesive
Addresses or refers to the group using inclusive
pronouns
Phatics / Salutations
The social presence average scores for some items were consistently lower for module one
(asynchronous only) and higher for mixed method. For instance, students scored the item “the
communication used in this unit was an excellent medium for social interaction” lower (M= 2.46) for
asynchronous only module, higher (M = 3.78) for synchronous only and much higher for mixed
method (M = 4.65). Similar trend was also observed for the following items “I felt comfortable
conversing through this unit’s medium” or “I felt comfortable participating in the discussion.”
However, the items that measured instructor’s social presence seemed to show minor differences
across three modules. For instance the average scores for following items “The instructor(s) created
a feeling of community” and “the instructor facilitated discussion in the module” were 4.00, 4.08,
4.33 for module 1 to 3. Overall, the average scores for mixed method were higher and were above
4.15 indicating higher social presence in mixed communication method.
Students’ responses to the end of modules’ reflective questions confirmed students’ positive
feeling toward their interaction with their peers and the instructor. Three themes that emerged from
students’ narrative responses to reflective questions that were related to social presence were
“relationship,” “communication difficulty,” and “immediate feedback.” These factors appeared to
impact students’ perception of social presence. Table ?? provide excerpts for each theme.
Without the interaction and discussion, I found that I had to re-read the materials for better
understanding and try to answer my own questions.
14
Communication Difficulty
“I thought that it is very difficult to fully express my thoughts [in]
writing without being able to actually speak to my group members.”
“Schedules made it tougher b/c you had to "wait" for others to respond
or they had to wait on you.”
. . .not be able to talk with classmates immediately about the readings;
having to write out thoughts in the discussion board without first
discussing it in class. “
“. . .having to wait for others slowed me down. In all, it was counterproductive.“
“I was forced to rely more on my own ideas and opinions as I didn't
have the advantage of turning to my classmates. “
Impact of various communication tools & methods on immediacy
Immediacy or verbal and non-verbal behaviors that reduce the psychological and physical
distance between individuals was measured with a 34 item survey (scale of 1 to 5, 1 = very unlikely,
5 = very likely). Twenty items measured verbal communications while 14 items measured nonverbal communications. The results showed no significant difference across three types of
communication methods. Average scores were consistently moderate to high for all three
interventions. This result could be due to students’ familiarity with the instructor’s communication
styles. It could also be related to course design specifications and the fact that the students had
constant communication with their peers and the instructor to accomplish weekly activities despite
communication tools.
Impact of various communication tools & methods on student satisfaction
Student satisfaction was measured at the end of each intervention using 20 item questionnaire
(scale of 1 to 5, 1 = very unsatisfied, 5 = very satisfied). The results point to some differences in
students’ satisfaction. While in none of the interventions students showed their dissatisfaction with
any of the items students’ responses showed highest level of satisfaction for the following items at
the end of the first intervention (Asynchronous only): “It is easy to contact the instructor,” “overall,
the instructor of the course acknowledged student participation in the course (for example replied in
a positive, encouraging manner to student submissions),” “If I have an inquiry, the instructor finds
time to respond,” “The instructor encourages my participation” at the end of the first intervention
(Asynchronous only). However, while high level of satisfaction for some items remained the same
at the end of second intervention (synchronous only) (e.g., “If I have an inquiry, the instructor finds
time to respond,”) students were highly satisfied with different set of items (“I work with others,” I
collaborate with other students in the class,” and “Group work is a part of my activities.”).
Interestingly enough, students’ satisfaction was steady across all items at the end of the third
intervention (combined method). Students’ responses to the reflective questions at the end of each
15
intervention provided some explanations for these results. However, more specific and detail
quantitative analysis is under way to make a better sense of the results.
References
Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and
learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42-54. Baker, C. (2010).
The Impact of Instructor Immediacy and Presence for Online Student Affective Learning, Cognition,
and Motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30
Baker, J. D. (2004). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective
and cognitive learning in the online classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 1-13.
Baker, J. D. (2010). The Impact of Instructor Immediacy and Presence for Online Student
Affective Learning, Cognition, and Motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30.
Berge, Z.L. (1997). Computer conferencing and the online classroom. International Journal of
Educational Telecommunications, 3 (1).
Cavanaugh, C. (2005). Virtual Schooling: Effectiveness for Students and Implications for
Teachers. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and
Teacher Education International Conference (301-308). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Friend, B., & Johnston, S. (2005). Florida Virtual School: A choice for all students. In Z. L.
Berge & T. Clark (Eds.), Virtual schools: Planning for success (pp. 97-117). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and
instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38(3), 29-35.
Gunawardena, C.N. & Zittle, F.J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a
computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3),
8-26.
Haefner, J. (2000). Opinion: The importance of being synchronous. Academic.writing . Retrieved
Oct. 5, 2010 [http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/teaching/haefner2000.htm].
Harasim, L.M. (1990). Online education: Perspectives on a new environment. New York:
Praeger.
Harasim, L.N., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., and Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to
teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL, 2009). Committee Issues Brief:
Examining Communication and Interaction in Online Teaching. iNACOL, retrieve on Sept. 2010
[http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/NACOL_QualityTeaching-lr.pdf].
16
Irani, T. (1998). Communication potential, information richness and attitude: A study of
computer medicated communication in the ALN classroom. ALN Magazine, 2(1).
Jiang, M. (1998). Distance Learning in a Web-based Environment. (Doctoral dissertation,
University at Albany/SUNY, 1998). UMI Dissertation Abstracts, No. 9913679.
Matthews, D. (1999). The origins of distance education and its use in the United States. T.H.E.
Journal, 27 (2), 54-66.
McAlister, G. (2001). Computer-mediated immediacy: A new construct in teacher-student
communication for computer-mediated distance education (Doctoral dissertation, Regent University,
2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 2731.
Moore, M. (1993). Theory for transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles
of distance education (pp. 22–38). London, New York: Routledge.
Moore, M. (1993). Theory for transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles
of distance education (pp. 22–38). London, New York: Routledge.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2008, December). Distance education at degreegranting postsecondary institutions: 2006-07. Retrieved Sept. 2010, from
http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009044.pdf.
Offir, B., Lev, Y. & Bezale, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning processes in distance
education: Synchrnous versus asynchronous systems. Computers & Education, 51, 1172-1183.
Available online [www.sciencedirect.com].
O‟Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S. K., & Lippert, L. R. (2004). Mediated immediacy: A language of
affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(4), 464-490.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pelowski, S., Frissell, L., Cabral, K., & Yu, T. (2005). So far but yet so close: Student chat room
immediacy, learning, and performance in an online course. Journal of Interactive Learning
Research, 16, 395-407.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Rettie, R. (2003). Connectedness, awareness, and social presence. Paper presented at the 6th
International Presence Workshop, Aalborg, Denmark. Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003).
Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and
satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-88.
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to
students' perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 6888.
17
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in
screen text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14 from
http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol14.2/rourke_et_al.html
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., and Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence
inasynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14 (2).
Russo, T., & Benson, S. (2005). Learning with invisible others: Perceptions of online presence
and their relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1),
54-62.
Shale, D., & Garrison, D. R. (1990). Introduction. In D.G.D.R. Shale (Ed.), Education at
a distance (pp. 1-6). Malabar, FL: Robert E. Kriger.
Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Swan, K. (2001). Measures of learning
effectiveness in the SUNY learning network. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Online education,
volume 2: Learning effectiveness, faculty satisfaction, and cost effectiveness (pp. 31 54). Needham,
MA: SCOLE.
Shi, S., & Morrow, B., V. (2006). E-Conferencing for instruction: What works? EDUCAUSE
Quarterly, 29(4), 42-49.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.
London: John Wiley & Sons.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., and Zvacek, S. (2000). Teaching and Learning at
Distance: Foundations of Distance Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Skiba, D. J., Holloway, N. K., & Springer, H. (2000). Measurement of best practices and social
presence in web-based international nursing informatics pilot course. Nursing Informatics 2000:
Proceedings of the 7th IMIA International Conference on Nursing, 650-657.
Skylar, A. A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous
interactive web conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 69-84.
Skiba, D. J., Holloway, N. K., & Springer, H. (2000). Measurement of best practices and social
presence in web-based international nursing informatics pilot course. Nursing Informatics 2000:
Proceedings of the 7th IMIA International Conference on Nursing, 650-657.
So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2007). Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence,
and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers &
Education. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.009.
Stephens, K. K., & Mottet, T. P. (2008). Interactivity in a web conference training context:
Effects on trainers and trainees. Communication Education, 57(1), 88-104.
Swan, K. (2003a). Developing social presence in online course discussions. In S. Naidu (Ed.),
Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 147-164). London: Kogan
Page.
18
Swan, K. (2003b). Learning effectiveness online: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C.
Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp. 13-45). Needham,
MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
Swan, K., Shea, P., Frederickson, E., Pickett, A. Pelz, W., and Maher, G. (2000). Building
knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact, and communication in the virtual
classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23 (4), 389-413.
Tu, C.-H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence
theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 2, 27-37.
Tu, C.-H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment.
International Journal on E-Learning, April-June, 34-45.
Tuckman, Bruce W. (1965) 'Developmental sequence in small groups', Psychological Bulletin,
63, 384-399. The article was reprinted in Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications
Journal - Number 3, Spring 2001 and is available as a Word document:
http://dennislearningcenter.osu.edu/references/GROUP%20DEV%20ARTICLE.doc. Accessed Oct.
14, 2010.
Zucker, A., & Kozma, R. (2003). The virtual high school: Teaching generation V. New York:
Teachers College Press.
19
Appendix A
Table 1: Design Specifications for the study






Module 01 (Week 1 and 2)
Asynchronous Module
Students were assigned to readings
and other instructional materials (e.g.,
instructors’ lecture notes and
multimedia materials) a week earlier.
Students then used module’s
problem-solving team assignment to
collaborate in completing the
assignment.
A small group discussion area was
created for each team as they worked
on their team assignments.
A large group discussion forum was
created to provide opportunity for
interaction among all students and
with the instructor.
Students were instructed not to meet
synchronously and just use
asynchronous tools to communicate
and to complete their team
assignments even if they were in
close proximity with each other.
Students submitted and published
their assignments to other groups to
review and comment.
The instructor also provided written
feedback and comments on students’
team products and collaboration
process.





Module 02 (Week 3 and 4)
Synchronous Module
Students were assigned to readings and other
instructional materials (e.g., instructors’
lecture notes and multimedia materials) a
week before live and synchronous meeting.
During live and synchronous class meeting,
students participated in large group
discussion and/or a demonstration with
lecture facilitated by the instructor. The large
group discussion then was followed by
breaking out into small teams.
Teams were assigned to collaborate in
completing module’s problem-solving
assignment during live and synchronous
team meeting.
Students were offered to continue team
discussion in their designated virtual rooms
to follow up on live or synchronous class and
team discussion. However, Students were
instructed to only use synchronous meetings
for completing team activities.
The instructor also reviewed students’
product and collaborative process and offered
feedback in synchronous or live meeting. In
addition to oral comments the instructor also
provided written feedback on teams’
products and collaboration process.





Module 03 (Week 5 and 6)
Mixed Approach
Students were assigned to readings and
other instructional materials (e.g.,
instructors’ lecture notes and multimedia
materials) a week earlier. Students were
also assigned to a team and were
instructed to begin discussing and
collaborating with their teams on
module’s problem-solving assignment
using a small group discussion in the
forum area.
A large group discussion forum was
created to provide opportunity for
interaction among all students and with
the instructor before live and
synchronous class discussion.
The asynchronous large and small group
discussion was followed by a live and
synchronous class and team meeting.
During live and synchronous class
meeting, students participated in large
group discussion and/or a demonstration
with lecture facilitated by the instructor.
During live and synchronous class
meeting, students participated in large
group discussion and/or a demonstration
with lecture facilitated by the instructor.
The large group discussion was then
followed by breaking out into teams to
complete team assignment and present it
for both peers’ and instructor’s review
and comments.
As with the previous modules, the
instructor also provided written
feedback and comments on students’
team product and collaboration process.
20
Table 2: Detail description of data collection strategies
Data Gathering Methods and
Strategies
Student questionnaire
Student profile including style of
thinking, learning and problem solving
and collaborative learning skills
Student motivation and self-regulation
skills
Social presence scale
Collaboration and communication
Students learning of the content and
achievement of the objectives
Faculty perception and reflection logs
Student postings, chat log and audio
archive of SLMS discussion
Description
Student perception of quality of the interaction, learning experience and their
degree of satisfaction was assessed at the end of each module using a
questionnaire in which students respond to a list of questions (both open
ended and closed-ended items) about the course design specifications.
At the beginning of each course and before the instruction students were
asked to complete a profile form and take learning and thinking style
inventories and post the results in the course forum discussion area under
“get to know me” or similar thread.
Student motivation and self-regulation skills were assessed at the beginning
and at the end of each course using a series of questions adopted from the
literature. However, to triangulate the consistency of the results, student
motivation and self-regulation skills were also assessed using observation of
students’ behaviors using a set of criteria drawn from the literature and
responses to three reflective questions.
The Social Presence Scale developed by Gunawardena and Zittle (1997) was
adopted and used to study the effectiveness of social presence in relationship
to learning for each method of interaction or communication. The scale has
been used in many studies of online courses with undergraduate and graduate
students (e.g., Richardson & Swan, 2003; Skiba , Holloway, & Springer,
2000). The Social Presence Scale consisted of fourteen items that embody the
concept of “immediacy” as defined in Short, et al. (1976). Modification of
the wording of the scale was made as needed to adjust it to the courses
content. Permission was obtained from Gunawardena to make these minor
modifications and use the scale.
The quality of students’ collaboration and communication is assessed using
Tuckman’s group development model (1965).
Students learning of the content and achievement of the objectives were
measured using post-test for each module as well as the products that student
teams developed at the end of each module.
The faculty member kept a reflective log on workload, achievement of
learning objectives; quality of students’ products and ability to work
collaboratively.
All students’ postings in their personal spaces, team areas and large group
discussion were downloaded and analyzed. In addition, the archives of
students’ synchronous discussion and asynchronous discussion logs were
collected and analyzed.
21
Figure 1: The conceptual framework for the study