Interaction in Learner-Paced Learning

Terry Anderson, David Annand & Norine Wark
Athabasca University - Canada's Open University

October, 2004

Abstract:

This report summarizes a study of learner-learner interaction in the context of student-paced undergraduate programming delivered by Athabasca University – Canada’s Open University. The studies utilized review of literature, interviews with Athabasca University faculty and external distance education experts, an online survey of registered students and documentation of current activities. A new model of community based learning support is proposed to utilize new social computing capabilities of the web to allow for learner-learner interaction in a scaleable and cost effective manner.

Meaningful group communications are perhaps the greatest
pedagogical challenge in unpaced learning. (Paulsen, 2003, p.45.)

Most current designs of online courses reflect many features of traditional universities. They generally have specified start and end dates, limited entry points, and consist of groups of students who proceed through each course at about the same pace. This “cohort model” lends itself to group-based, online learning experiences. However, there is a tradition of open education that has sought to address the needs of learners who, for one reason or another, do not fit this classic mold of higher education. In these institutions, the primary objective of the learning model is to provide the greatest degree of access and flexibility for students.

As an Open University, Athabasca University is committed to providing this flexibility. This is instantiated in a number of ways. Anyone over the age of 15 may enroll in courses. Courses may be challenged for credit. Students may apply to have non-formal learning experiences assessed for program credit. Courses are designed as “independent study” experiences. They may be started at any time during the year and completed at locations convenient to learners. Learners can proceed through these courses at their own pace. Assignments and exams can often be completed at any time, and in any order.

Independent learning designs dominated thinking and research on distance education for many years. Seminal distance education theorists including Holmberg (1989a), Peters (1988) and Keegan (1990) celebrated the individualization, freedom and cost effectiveness of independent designs in the practice and even the definitions of distance education. They argued that independent study is an inherently superior form of higher education, because of its ability to overcome time and place constraints and its economic scalability.

However, these very characteristics of independent study tend to restrict the ability of students to formally collaborate during their course work. There is a growing body of literature indicating that increased peer interaction can boost participation and completion rates, and result in learning outcome gains in distance education courses (Shindler, 2004; Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999; Slavin, 1995). Interpersonal learning activities may also result in enhanced social integration of learners, and hence improve quality of learning, and course and program completion rates in both campus and distance programs (Tinto, 1987; Sweet, 1986; Tinto, 1975). Imposed pacing as well as increased social presence and encouragement of peers within the learning community may account for higher completion rates in cohort-based models compared to learner-paced ones. For instance, completion rates for learners in Athabasca University’s learner-paced undergraduate courses averaged 63.6% for the 2002-2003 period. Completion rates for the same courses offered in seminar format (either through synchronous technologies or face-to-face) averaged 86.9% over the same period (Athabasca University, 2003, p.12).

Is it possible to marry the best of both approaches? At present we know very little about the effects of introducing peer collaboration in independent study environments from student, administrative and faculty perspectives. Nor do we know how to create and structure collaborative activities within independent study courses so that desirable characteristics of both collaboration and learner pacing can be retained. Further, we know little about demographics, learning styles, attitudes or lifestyles of students who are more likely to appreciate and participate in collaborative activities at a distance. This type of knowledge could be used not only to develop more diverse learning activities but also to develop student services and tutorials that guide learners into course formats that are appropriate for them.

This report examines the challenges and opportunities for enhancing peer communication, support, and collaboration while retaining independent study online courses. It summarizes interviews with teachers and course developers at Athabasca University, and telephone interviews with educators at similar institutions in Europe and the US. It also reports perceptions of value and use of online interaction among a sample of students in undergraduate, independent study courses at Athabasca University. This information is used to develop a set of recommendations specific to Athabasca University, but is also valuable for distance education institutions seeking to combine the perceived advantages of self-paced learning and online community. First, though, relevant literature is reviewed.

Review of Interaction Literature

Wagner (1994) defined interaction as “reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions. Interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence one another” (p. 8). There is a wide body of distance and other education literature that explores the value of student-student interactions and collaboration. Vygotsky (1978) argued that learning is fundamentally a social process carried on with the aid of mediated tools. He also contended that the most fruitful experience in learners’ educational processes occur when they interact, in a context, with more experienced partners or teachers who provide an “intellectual scaffold” that helps them perform complex tasks than would not be possible alone.

In adult learning, collaborative learning models are based upon constructivist theory. This assumes that the different perspectives, interests and skills that adults bring to the learning encounter provide additional resources to create knowledge and enhance learning through dialogue and joint production of “knowledge artifacts.” For meaningful learning to occur, constructivism suggests that students need to explore subject matter in a broader context than provided in their reading materials - by sharing experiences and interacting, for example. Each type of instructional interaction plays a role in the entire educational process, with the process being more effective if the instructional design includes a variety of interactions.

Garrison (1989) argued that dialogue and debate were essential for learning, because these forms of two-way communication allowed learners to negotiate and structure personally meaningful knowledge. Teaching necessarily transmitted societal knowledge, but a rounded learning experience needed to foster critical analysis processes in order to bring personal perspectives to bear and create new understanding for both the teacher and student.

Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Banaan-Haag (1995) developed this conception of online learning even further. To them, sustained two-way asynchronous communication not only enables greater instructor-learner communication, but most importantly, enables the social construction of knowledge among learners at a distance. This constructive effect occurs when online learning environments require, among others, “negotiation of meaning and reflection on what has been learned” (p. 21). Laurillard (2000) argued that a university education must go beyond access to information or content and include “engagement with others in the gradual development of their personal understanding” (p. 137). This engagement is developed through interaction between teachers and students and forms the basis of her “conversational” approach to teaching and learning.

Learners in Web-based courses with constructivist orientations are frequently expected to work in groups to share ideas, develop projects, or participate in debates (Bonk & Reynolds, 1997). Learning in virtual groups has significant potential for student collaboration, cooperation, and co-construction of knowledge (Bailey & Luetkehans, 2001; Conrad, 2002; Lock, 2002). There is a growing amount of evidence suggesting the efficacy of distributed learning based on collaborative models (Fisher, Phelps, & Ellis, 2000). Well-planned projects completed by virtual groups have been reported to result in improved learning outcomes (Carr-Chellman, Dyer, & Breman, 2000). Interestingly though the large majority of this research is based on cohort based, paced learning designs.

Peer interactions positively influence motivation, communication, and intellectual development. Out of seven identified principles of good practice in undergraduate education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) four are related to interaction: those that encourage contact between students and faculty, develop reciprocity and cooperation among students, encourage active learning, and encourage prompt feedback from teachers.

Other research in adult based distance education suggests value in techniques like peer tutoring and assessment (Ashwin, 2003; Damon, 1984). Peers can provide non-threatening, empathetic forms of support and instruction that often speak more directly to the learners than that provided by teachers coming from much different social and cognitive perspectives. Peer tutoring and teaching, especially at upper levels, has also been shown to reduce teacher workload in paced courses without impairing the quality of the learning environment (Rourke & Anderson, 2002). Also, for many learners, higher education is a social experience that provides opportunity for meeting new friends and building social networks. Such social networks can result in pleasurable personal relationships, enduring friendships, and professional contacts. Evidence from social network analysis also supports the value of membership by learners in diverse groups within vocational and personal domains (Watts, 2004).

However, experience has shown that building online learning communities requires commitment from all members. Students in a Web-based environment who are required to work collaboratively must commit increased time and develop new strategies to get to know each other, plan work together, and maintain effective communication ( Gabriel, 1999; Mason, 1998).

Value of Independent Learning

On the other hand, independent study (learner-paced) models of education have demonstrable value in their own right, despite the difficulties for peer collaboration that result. Independent study courses satisfy the desires of many adult learners for autonomy. In many instructional designs that are optimized for independent study, high quality learner- content interaction is substituted for learner-learner and learner-teacher interaction (Anderson, 2003a).

Holmberg (1989b) argued for the superiority of individualized interaction between student and teacher within traditional, independent study models of distance education. He conceptualized distance learning as essentially an individual act of internalization. Dewey (1916) suggested that internal interaction is the defining component of the educational process that occurs when a learner transforms the inert information passed to them from another and constructs it into knowledge with personal application and value. Thus, Holmberg saw instructional design that supported learner autonomy and independence as important for learners at a distance. He asserted that distance education institutions needed to provide open access and unpaced courses, and should not require group-based learning activities.

Others agreed with Holmberg that the more important characteristics of adult distance education consisted of learner independence and personal responsibility for educational outcomes and processes. Keegan (1990) characterized effective distance education processes as “reintegrating” the teaching and learning acts; that is, replicating as many of the attributes of face-to-face communication as possible, yet maintaining learner autonomy. Interpersonal communication at a distance did not need to be limited to more direct forms of instructor-student interaction, such as telephone conversations or teleconferencing, but could also be recreated through appropriate design and use of printed instructional materials. Reintegration occurred when printed learning materials were easily understood, anticipated potential learner problems, provided carefully constructed course objectives and content, and contained ample practice questions and related feedback. These concepts are supported within online learning models that still rely heavily on student-content interaction augmented by computer-mediated and telephone interactions among students and learning staff, in large part because these designs are cost-effective, scalable, and do not appear to affect learning efficacy (Clark, 1994).

Holmberg (1989a) argued that creation of a personal voice and “guided didactic interaction” was possible in carefully structure print-based learning material. Today, more sophisticated electronic aides are used within instructional content to enhance learner –content interaction in the online environment through addition of java applets, automated testing and quiz forms of feedback, simulations, adaptive computer assisted instruction, and other forms of digital learning objects.

This relatively distinct divide between theorists appears to be essentially unresolved at present. One view (represented by Holmberg and Keegan) conceptualizes the process of distance education as being primarily flexible, unpaced learning that facilitates learner independence and autonomy. Others (such as Garrison) conceive the distance education process as now being transformed into one of sustained two-way communication, where significant and frequent interaction between instructor and learner and among learners is the essential, enabling learning feature.

The failure to distinguish among relative degrees of pacing in distance education courses or programs, and the organizational and learning system differences that result, may account for varying conceptualizations in the literature of the appropriate means to achieve “interaction”. Anderson (2003a) noted that though constructivist learning theory necessitates student-student interaction, this type of interaction is not essential for learning to occur within cognitive and behaviorist learning theories – except, for instance, when learning outcomes prescribe development of skills necessary to perform cooperative or essentially communicative tasks. Also, the value of interaction in the educational process and consequent creation of interdependence advocated by constructivists has at times been challenged by evidence that many students consciously choose learning activities that minimize their interactions with teachers and other students.

The Semantic Web (Berners-Lee, 1999) is also increasingly able to support interaction among autonomous electronic “agents” and human beings. Anderson (2003b) suggested that due to computers’ increasing computational power, storage capacity, functionality when networked, and ease of programming, the ability to transform student-teacher and student-student interaction into enhanced forms of student-content interaction will enhance the educational effectiveness of online, independent study learning models, and may decrease learners’ expressed needs for peer interaction.

Discussions about the means, if any, to facilitate group collaboration in independent study learning models is notably absent from the literature. While technologies exist to facilitate synchronous and asynchronous forms of group interaction in paced, online learning environments, facilitating interaction among groups of learners in an unpaced setting is still problematic – and this despite rapid advances in technology and online learning management systems. This has likely occurred because most online learning systems have evolved from classroom-based educational models and group-based support systems (Ngwenya, Annand & Wang, 2004). Unpaced online learning must therefore address some important practical challenges in order to develop online learning systems that facilitate group-based learner interaction in an unpaced online environment.

There may also be other pedagogical and practical, administrative considerations that prevent or limit peer collaboration in online independent study environments. To further inform our understandings about these issues, we gathered information from educators and students. This process is described below.

Research Method

Within Athabasca University, the investigators purposefully constructed a list of potential faculty members, instructional designers, and media developers. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with eight individuals who agreed to discuss their thoughts about providing collaborative learning experiences within online, independent study courses. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes.

We also posted invitations on seventeen applicable listservs for non-AU faculty to participate in telephone interviews about the topic. Of the eventual thirty-two external respondents, eighteen people responded to this initial request to participate. Nine other contacts were provided by information gathered from websites of The Canadian Association of Distance Education and The Open University of Hong Kong Electronic Library Distance Education Institute. Five additional people were identified during telephone interviews with initial interviewees. Twenty-nine respondents were interviewed by telephone, two sent their replies via email and one participated through an online audio conference with the help of a translator. Each respondent received semi-structured interview questions in an email prior to participating in the interview (Appendix 1). Telephone and audio conference interviews were recorded for all respondents. These were later transcribed, then analyzed and grouped for reporting purposes by researcher-identified themes.

All AU faculty who coordinate undergraduate unpaced courses were also canvassed by means of emails sent to applicable centre chairs and forwarded by them. (Appendix 2). Sixteen individuals responded to this email.
In addition, students currently enrolled in researcher-selected undergraduate independent study courses at Athabasca University were invited by email to complete an online survey (Appendix 3). Students were given two weeks to complete the survey. One email reminder was sent.

Results from Faculty Interviews

External faculty respondents were very interested in this study, as might be expected from the self-selecting nature of the sample. Several respondents indicated that they were either actively developing or delivering learner-paced programming or interested in doing so. Respondents identified a variety of advantages to collaborative learning models. Most concurred that the educational value of a learning community provides greater learning opportunities for online students. One representative commentator stated,

"In collaborative learning there are shared learning experiences, a bit of bench marking of standards between students as they progress, more choice in sub-groups, wider communities for such groups as gifted children, and better access and sharing of information and common materials. In many cases, learning becomes faster. It seems that online learning is an appropriate way for some students to learn."

Respondents suggested peer collaboration had value for several reasons. These, and representative comments where appropriate, are as follows:

1. Creating communities of inquiry.

"Social interaction theories are key to learning. I believe that I learn and remember best when I can talk to others and work through the problem by getting feedback from others. This can be done verbally, textually or by other online means as well.”

2. Developing communication, time management and teamwork skills.

3. Exposing students to others’ questions.

“[Collaborative online learning allows you to hear] the questions that others ask that you didn’t think to ask, so that you learn more because it would not have even occurred to you to ask that.”

4. Providing peer support.

“With our Human Physiology course sometimes we have study buddies. Students will study together. That has worked really well in some cases when students are made aware that they can’t just extract the information from each other but they learn together.”

5. Orientation to the relevant discipline.

"Learning a subject in the social sciences requires learning the appropriate jargon. You have to practice using that jargon before you can fully understand it, so interaction is important. Working with the professors and other students helps you modify your understanding of these terms and becomes the very nature of the course itself."

6. Gaining intercultural perspectives.

“Many [students] come from quite a diversity of backgrounds and they all have a lot of valuable insights to share and that certainly wouldn’t happen if they just worked at home with their print-based assignments and talked with their tutor.”

7. Faster completion times

"We are finding that the ones that are more active in the community are finishing before the others. So the connection brings motivation."

It is of course possible that the students who are most motivated are also more likely to participate in collaborative activities and finish the course in quicker times. Thus, participation may be associated with, but not be a casual factor, in faster completion times. We know from our own students that there is great variation in the actual time taken to complete their courses.

Various problems with increased interaction and collaboration were also identified. Respondents noted that to be effective, collaborative and interactive activities must be designed and integrated into the course. In addition, efforts must be expended by institutional staff to promote, monitor, coordinate and assess these activities. Each of these activities takes time and resources Usually the delivery model requires increased expenditures for student support, -including academic tutoring, and this does not scale well (Annand, 1999). As a result, peer collaboration models are less cost effective. As one interviewee noted:

“Developing a community of learning is possible but the cost is high, possibly too high for the undergraduate level. At the graduate level, interaction is both feasible and valuable.”

Building community is aided if students can easily interact with others. At present, this generally requires the release of personal information such as telephone or email addresses. To release such information, without the explicit approval of students may be contrary to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPP) regulations now in place in many jurisdictions. One respondent noted:

“It appears that there is a FOIPP prohibition on giving out student emails to other students in the course. If that is true, it would be a fundamental problem. This is problematic because you need to make exceptions for anyone who refuses. If you are doing group work in a course you can’t have someone refuse.”

Some internal respondents noted that the tutor duties under the current Athabasca University Governing Council/Canadian Union of Public Employees collective agreement do not include moderation of online groups. Of course such restrictions could be addressed at the bargaining table, but this may be problematic until the extent of time and skill level necessary to facilitate student interactions is clearer. This question is still unresolved in the literature and likely dependent on the specific design and implementation of particular peer collaboration models (Amiel, McClendon, & Orey, 2003; DiBiase, 2000; Hislop, 2000; Hislop, 2001; Nie & Hillygus, 2002).

Some respondents suggested advantages for independent study models. One noted:

"[An independent study model] lends itself to the competency-based (that is, skill development) model which has its own problems. The federal government spent a lot of money researching competency-based learning and found it to be very successful. Unfortunately, even with federal funding, the provincial governments did not buy into it - largely because the provincial governments were made up of bachelor-level university grads who had not experienced, and therefore, did not understand, the unpaced, competency-based model. Yet England and South America, for example, use this model quite successfully.”

This capacity to support competency-based learning may be important as Athabasca University implements its Strategic University Plan 2002-2006. One objective refers to development of “clear and comprehensive learning outcomes for each of its programs in order to inform its curriculum development and academic policies, improve marketing, and ensure the validity of its assessment processes.”

Some interviewees also noted that Athabasca University’s undergraduate learning model supports independent study. Systems and facilities have been customized to support this model. Changes that either permit or prescribe more collaborative approaches are often seen as “disruptive’ to the institutional culture and difficult to implement. Thus, if ways can be found to increase learner-learner interaction and develop and support community within a model of independent study, these are likely to be more readily adopted. An external respondent from a similar institution noted:

"Our institute has a long history as a correspondence school. This kind of learning tends to focus on independent pacing. Other institutions coming from the virtual classroom metaphor would like to focus more on synchronous communication and common pacing. I think that is a different mind set and a fundamental difference between traditional f-2-f and correspondence schools."

Some respondents also argued that the imperative of lifelong learning implies development of study skills in a variety of modes and styles - not just when enrolled in a formal course, orchestrated by a teacher, and in the company of other students. Individualized study models encourages students to learn independently. This was perceived by some as a valuable skill for all citizens.

Others simply did not support the proposition that peer interaction created learning value. As one respondent noted:

“Student interaction with teachers or students can be beneficial for student support, but is it necessary for learning? I have not seen any research that shows that it is necessary.”

Interviewees commented that students almost never complete discussions or other collaborative activities that are not awarded marks. Requiring participation only makes sense if the learning outcomes that result are sufficient to justify the reduction in learner control and flexibility that accompanies such prescribed activities. In some respondents’ views, collaborative activities must be integrated into the course and accomplish identified learning objectives. One respondent noted:

“If you add the interaction on as an afterthought to the course, then you are missing the whole point of the interaction. Right from the beginning we analyze tasks, determining if they are best accomplished alone, in small groups or whatever. Then we ask, ‘how are we going to make this happen?’”

Noting the apparent dichotomy between constructivist and behavioural/cognitive learning theories with respect to the role of student-student interaction, one respondent suggested a means to justify peer collaboration in an independent study environment thus:

“In my opinion we should distinguish between individual learning, cooperative learning, and collaborative learning. What I promote is cooperative learning, which is somewhere in between, in the spectrum of learning, individual and collaborative learning. Cooperative learning, in my opinion, is to work with others, but you are not really dependent upon their input to complete your assignment or to progress in your studies. You cooperate with other students when they are there, and they can have some input into what you are learning, but you are not really dependent upon them. Here is an example of what I mean. Say I design a task, which asks you to distinguish between independent learning, cooperative learning and collaborative learning. I could do that in three ways: as individual, cooperative or collaborative learning. I would write the task in slightly different ways. In individual learning, I would say, ‘Write down your thoughts on this and submit it to your teacher as an email.’ If I wrote it as a cooperative assignment, I would say something like this, ‘Discuss this with a colleague or a peer student. Using this discussion as a background, you should submit your assignment as an email to your teacher.’ If I should write it as the third alternative, collaborative learning, I would say something like this, ‘Contact a peer student and write the assignment together, and submit it as something you have written together to your teacher in an email.’ My point is that it is quite easy to change the text in an assignment. You can do a lot to change the text to support the learning situation you would like students to be in. I think you can do a lot to support cooperative learning by doing something like this."

Respondents also noted that the need for interaction is reduced because many students (for instance visiting students, who frequently enroll in Athabasca University undergraduate courses) already have established learning communities. One interviewee’s study of students’ desires for interaction found that many students liked studying with friends while out for coffee, for example. The respondent suggested that interaction need not be student-to-student within a particular course to be beneficial, but could consist of employee-employee or employee-employer interaction. Another respondent noted that a community necessary for lifelong learning has to exist outside of a single structure, stating:

“Why should people want to be part of a community? I am not sure that course-based learning, unpaced or paced, is compelling enough to engage the learner in that context because the course is not the thing they are there for - the community is bigger than that. It is something that has drawn them into this field of study. They have to be able to use what they are learning in their workplace.”

A number of respondents described the challenges of creating a critical mass of students necessary to sustain a learning community, noting that is unlikely that sufficient numbers of students will be registered in low-enrollment courses and be at approximately the same place to make collaborative activities possible. One respondent argued that this activity therefore should be used only in large-enrolment courses, commenting:

“A learning community is feasible with undergrad when you have a large number of students in a course. When you have enough students, there will be a certain number that move through at roughly the same pace - a cohort. It is almost like a mini-paced course within a large unpaced course. This cohort then can exchange and learn together as they go through.”

Results from Athabasca University Faculty Solicited by Email

Eighteen Athabasca University faculty members responded to an email request to describe use of online discussion boards in unpaced undergraduate courses in their disciplinary areas. All School of Business courses have had online discussion capabilities built into them if they have been converted from print based to online delivery (about 30 courses at present). However, several of these courses have had the online discussion option subsequently removed because of lack of use. In others, student responses are either un-moderated, or only scanned by facilitators to determine if inappropriate subjects are being discussed. Only three courses use facilitated online discussions at present. Two of these award marks for participation in online discussions. In each course, students are asked to respond to specific discussion questions. Faculty or tutors are paid for this work.

In the School of Computing and Information Systems, online discussions are generally used by instructors to post notes and corrections. Their use may be expanded with e-learning accelerator grant funding during the year ended June 30, 3005. Attempts at stimulating discussion in online forums have not proven successful primarily due to low participation rates.

In the Centre for Nursing and Health Studies, online discussions are used in only a handful of undergraduate, unpaced courses. These are generally optional and unmoderated. In one course, students are required to post an assignment to the discussion board. This assignment is marked by tutors or faculty members, and remunerated in the usual manner.

In the Centre for Psychology, none of the responding faculty members have used discussion forums successfully, despite several attempts to incorporate these.

In the Centre for Language and Literature, an optional, moderated online discussion board has just been instituted in an introductory French language course. It is too early to determine success. One faculty member reported that two senior level English courses have optional discussion boards. Another 400-level English course requires participation, which is worth 10% of the course composite grade. In these three English courses, responses are moderated as part of the coordinator’s duties. However the coordinator stated that direct email and telephone appear to be most useful to students. Another faculty member reported that a 300-level English course will soon incorporate an optional, moderated discussion board in response to requests from students in the course. The faculty member will moderate these discussions as part of current duties. A final faculty member indicated that of two senior level English courses using discussion boards, participation is required and marked in one. However, students in both courses do not proceed at their own pace. Each course has a specific timetable for assignment completion and submission, which enhances the usefulness of the discussion boards. The faculty member moderates responses, again as part of current duties. The discussion boards are useful to the faculty member for posting model examples of other students’ works. Marginal students are reported to largely ignore the boards. Better students find the feature useful.

English 255 is the most ambitious online participation project within the University’s individualized, undergraduate courses. Students may choose to participate in online group activities instead of completing individual, written assignments. If they choose online activity, their participation is marked. Besides engaging in asynchronous discussions, these students are required to evaluate and critique a submission from one peer. Students can self-register in the discussions. In the former version of the course that ran from November 2002 to November 2003, there were 35 discussion groups with an average of 5 students participating in each group. The new version of the course was opened in December 2003. There were 47 discussion groups between December 2003 and May 2004. Activities are moderated by paid facilitators who work a total of about 16 hours per week. Facilitator payments total about $20,000 annually. About 40% of students choose the online discussion option in the current version of the course, compared to about 5% in the prior version, when facilitators were not used.

In the Centre for Work and Community Studies, two faculty respondents indicated that optional, faculty-moderated online discussions in their courses had been attempted but were removed because of lack of student participation. Lack of critical mass and the optional nature of discussions were cited as primary reasons for lack of success. Online discussions are just being incorporated into one other respondent’s course. One contribution in the form of an assignment will be required to be posted for discussion.

In the Centre for State and Legal Studies, one respondent noted that discussion boards are generally optional, un-moderated, and inactive. Posting to discussion boards is required in two courses as part of these courses’ assignment structures, but tutors are not required to read the posts. Instead, students also submit their best responses directly to the tutor for marking.

Several of the faculty as a whole indicated that the perceived needs of students were for increased one-on-one, informal communication capabilities with other students. One faculty member noted that students seem reluctant to be formally connected in discussion boards, as they are often heavily involved with online communication in their work settings and grow tired of the requirements this entails. There is some disagreement among faculty about whether these discussions should be moderated. Unreasonable increases in workloads would result in some cases, it was felt, and this was problematic. Some faculty were concerned about inappropriate discussions - for instance, regarding marked assignments- since these comments would be accessible to others who had not yet submitted responses. Others argued that students will discuss these matters privately in some forum, and that other means (e.g., randomly generated versions of assignments, multiple exam versions) need to be developed at the same time to accommodate increased student-student interaction.

The results of these interviews and email responses indicate that there are both challenges and benefits to building peer collaboration into independent study courses. Below, we review the survey results from students enrolled in several Athabasca University undergraduate, independent study courses.

Results from student survey

As noted above, a sample of students in several undergraduate courses was selected. Students were sent email questionnaires (Appendix 3). The courses and their student registrations for the year ended March 31, 2004 were as follows:

Accounting 453                                      478

Administration 232                              850

Communications 311                              40

E-commerce 320                                    170

English 255                                           1,190

Management Science 368                    132

Math 265                                                 465

Nursing 250                                                6

Nursing 328                                           297

Nursing 438                                              55

These courses were chosen by the investigators because they had some form of online interaction built into them. They also represented a cross section of undergraduate disciplines with a wide range of enrollments. A total of 3,380 students across all courses were asked to participate. Of these requests, 209 email messages were not deliverable. In all, 388 or 12% of solicited students completed the survey. The somewhat low response rate may result from other work and family responsibilities that generally characterize independent study students. Further, a significant number may have completed, not yet started or dropped out of a particular course at the time of the survey. Return rates for online surveys also have been consistently falling in recent years due primarily to spam and other information overload issues (Fraze, Hardin, Smith, & Lockaby 2002; Sheehan, 2001).

The respondents in general were experienced online and distance learners. The average number of online courses completed by each student was 2.1 with a range from 0 to 19. The number of courses that were based on self-study (that included older print-based correspondence model courses) was only slightly lower (m=1.9 range from 0-29). Besides other issues related to the non-random nature of the sample, it might be biased toward higher-achieving students. About 93% of the student respondents predicted that they would receive either an A or a B in the course in which they were currently registered.

About 13% of the respondents reported working on a course at some time with other students registered in the same course, while 24% reported working with friends, family or co-workers. The majority of student respondents (71%) chose not to participate in the interactive components of their courses, which consisted mostly of online discussion groups. Of the respondents who did participate in asynchronous conferences, 24% read or posted responses daily, 53% participated once or twice per week; and the rest only a few times during the course. Most of the respondents (79%) contributed 4-5 postings in each course.

The perceptions of value of the interactions were decidedly split. A summary of students’ perceptions of the value of peer discussions is shown in Table 1 below.

N=104

Table 1. Student Perception of value of online discussion groups.

Those students who did not choose to participate (71% of the respondents) did so for a variety of reasons. 18% felt that participation would take too much time. A further 17% were not aware that discussion forums were available, 14% thought that participation would not significantly increase their learning, and 10% indicated that they felt they had nothing to contribute. About 10% of respondents cited a lack of recent postings. Lack of technology to access the online discussion groups was indicated as a reason for non-participation by only 1% of the applicable respondents.

Significantly, 78% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that they would interact with other students as long as they were able to proceed through the course at their own pace. When queried how they would like to interact, 70% preferred asynchronous media like email and computer conferencing, 27% preferred a combination of synchronous and asynchronous technologies, and only 3% preferred synchronous interaction alone (for example, audio conferences or face-to-face interaction).

About 95% of student respondents reported a desire to access the work of students either currently or previously enrolled in the courses. About 77% of respondents indicated an interest in accessing animated student-content interaction devices such as a “ChatBot.” Only 25% of students felt that participation should be graded.

The survey concluded by asking students if they would take part in any collaborative activities, however structured. About 49% indicated they would not; 29% indicated they would and 22% were unsure. When queried for the reasons that they did not wish to engage in collaborative activities, 58% said they preferred to learn on their own. About 25% indicated that they have a strong support group at work or at home, and 17% provided a variety of other reasons.

From these survey results we can see that most current students choose not to participate in collaborative activities even if these activities are built into the course and participation could result in course marks. However, there was interest in enhanced forms of interaction with content and in the ability to view contributions of other students. Most also indicated an interest in collaborating, but not if such collaboration constrained their freedom to move through the course at their own pace.

Moving Towards Solutions

Anderson (2003a) noted that independent study and more collaborative learning strategies have different economic, pedagogical, and social assumptions. It is unlikely that either of these two strategies alone will meet the needs of all individual learners or educational institutions. Nonetheless, we believe it is both useful and strategically necessary for distance education institutions to continuously investigate and adjust their delivery models to accommodate both the largest number of students, and any significant niche group of learners.

Even though educators described and the literature supported many benefits of interaction, student survey results indicate that peer collaboration in general, at least in the form of asynchronous discussion groups, is not perceived as an important part of the learning experience within Athabasca University undergraduate individualized study courses. Since Athabasca University has created a niche within the North American university system with a rather unique individualized undergraduate instruction model. We do not recommend changes to this fundamental design. Implicitly, this model suggests that sustained group communications are not required for meaningful learning to occur. We support this assertion.

Further, questions of cost effectiveness of group-based collaboration in individualized study courses remain. The predominate model for online group collaborations in universities limits the student-teacher ratio to no more than 30 students. Introducing this form of group interaction in unpaced online environments can significantly increase faculty and administrative costs to the institution (Annand, 1999).

To facilitate the students who desire some level of peer interaction to meet social interaction needs, a “friends of a friend” concept could be incorporated into the online learning environment (see for example systems such as www.evite.com or tribe.net). Students provide recommendations and introductions to their friends that may result in expansion of a student’s support group as needed, and development of personal friendships. Interactions at this level need not be restricted to students in the same course, however. A more efficacious means to encourage development of a learning community with the University would be to develop related technology at a higher level than that of individual courses. Consultations with Athabasca University Students Association should continue with the aim of enhancing a virtual social networking system across the undergraduate community.

Further experimentation and refinement of group collaborations in individualized study courses may decrease the amount of instructor interaction required and hence increase the scalability of collaboration. For instance, online forums may be able to use students, either past or current, to engage other students in meaningful peer collaboration activities. The ability to facilitate this may be enhanced when portal software is accessible to students. However, this still represents another level of programming and administrative complexity. Experimentation with tutors as facilitators in group forums should continue in order to determine effective and efficient means for facilitation of online group-based learning environments in individualized study courses, but only when learning outcomes specifically identify these types of group-based interactions as necessary.

Despite the pedagogical success of English 255 online collaborative actives, the administration of this and other collaborative activities among multiple students in an unpaced online learning environment, and tutor facilitation costs, remains problematic. Even two students who begin a course on the same day can quickly be at different points within it. Further, interactions among learners cannot be easily facilitated, monitored, or evaluated by teachers in most online learning systems. The ASKS (ASynchronous Knowledge Sharing) prototype is an electronic database created by Joram Ngwenya at Athabasca University that is designed to overcome these difficulties (Ngwenya, et al, 2004). Cohorts can be formed spontaneously and without instructor mediation. Students construct responses to teacher-specified “ knowledge sharing topics” in a private online learning space. When these are submitted, the entries are accessible to the instructor for reviewing and unavailable to the originating student for further editing. Students cannot view others’ responses to a topic until they have made and submitted their own. The ASKS system provides several features that streamline instructor review, feedback, and assessment of contributions. The instructor’s comments are viewable only in the originating student’s private learning space. In addition, a list of points not mentioned by the student, but submitted by others in the virtual cohort, can be easily included. At this point, some or all of the student’s responses can be viewed by others in the virtual cohort, and commented upon by peers if desired or required by the instructor. Viewing may be restricted by the instructor to new points not yet raised by the other students, to provide a more succinct knowledge base. As well, the cohort size can be restricted by submission date. This strategy creates online cohorts that are not based on a rigid schedule of submission deadlines, as in a paced environment, but rather are based on students’ similar places within a course within a particular period of time.

The design features of the ASKS system likely can be used as a model to more cost-effectively administer group-based collaborative activities in individualized study courses. We therefore recommend additional development of these types of systems, again with the caveat that these activities need to be presecribed by the stated learning outcomes.

Athabasca University undergraduate learners generally appear to be more interested in just-in-time, one-on-one student interaction than group interaction. To facilitate this, student-initiated computer “agents” might be used to seek out personalized assistance from peers who have been available and knowledgeable on a particular subject in the past. Such an agent can then help students negotiate a fee for this service (Greer et al., (2001). The “I-Help” developed at the University of Saskatchewan is specifically designed to help disbursed groups of students help each other through both course and non course related problems. Although designed in an on-campus context, the developers believe that the system would likely be more effective in a continuous intake, independent study model such as used at Athabasca University.

The ability of students in each course to “see” when other students are online, and engage each other in online chats is available through some Learning Management Systems. This is another example of a cost effective means to provide one-on-one peer interaction in individualized study courses. We recommend increased emphasis on development of these types of capabilities.

Increasingly, students appear to look first to the WWW for answers to routine academic and administrative questions. Thus, we should also continue to ensure that frequently asked question files are available online, and that search engines and their related interfaces are improved. These questions and responses should be written in a personal style that reflects the type of informal support normally provided by questioning supportive peers, administrative support staff or instructors. A number of our interviewees also suggested that the creation of online resources such as simulations, games, and tutorials can reduce the need for both student-student and student-teacher interaction.

The Athabasca University tutor model can provide significant amounts of student-teacher interaction, mostly on an individual basis and based on student demand. This interaction is mediated by both synchronous (telephone) and asynchronous (email) interactions. Though student-tutor contacts can be minimal, Athabasca University’s tutorial system remains an important means to provide customized student support and maintain academic credibility. Efforts by the School of Business to differentiate between administrative and pedagogical tutoring, through use of a Call Centers and electronic frequently asked question databases (Adria & Woudstra, 2001) have shown this to be a cost effective solution to learner support (Adria & Chowdhury, 2002) with no significant reductions in student satisfaction (Athabasca University, 2003). Further refinement of the AU tutor model to enable more cost-effective on-demand student-teacher interaction should also be pursued. To this end, a detailed comparison of the Call Centre and traditional tutor support models should be conducted, with a view of standardizing on one general model across undergraduate centres.

The "equivalency theorem" (Anderson, 2003a) proposes that meaningful learning experiences need only be supported by high levels of interactivity in one of three possible areas: student-teacher, student-student, or student-content. Interactions in the other two areas can be reduced or eliminated without affecting the quality of students' educational experiences. High levels of interaction in two or more areas may be more satisfying, but may lead to cost and learning time inefficiencies. Further, one type of interaction may be substituted for the other types with little or no loss in educational effectiveness.

Student-teacher interaction appears to carry the highest educational value among students, as they are willing to pay a premium for these learning experiences at other institutions and in Athabasca University graduate programs. However, this type of interaction also does not lend itself to economies of scale. As a consequence, student-content interaction has often been substituted for student-teacher interaction in mass education contexts. Ongoing technological advances mean that the cost of learning objects are generally falling, while their learning effectiveness increases. Athabasca University’s industrialized model of distance and online education allows the cost of such learning aids to be amortized over large student numbers. The combined effects of these factors argue for increased substitution of student-content interaction for student-student and student-teacher interactions. For example, the “FreudBot” developed at Athabasca University by Bob Heller and his colleagues is designed to engage students in conversation (with a machine) related to the ideas of Sigmund Freud.

Anderson (2003a) noted that attempts to humanize the distance education process by increasing student-teacher interactions tend to limit access because of their greater costs. Distance education models that are most effective in terms of increasing value – that is, the proportion of learning benefits to cost - must be chosen to meet the global demand for lifelong learning. Given the predominance of an individualized, learner-paced education model within Athabasca University undergraduate courses, the cost-efficiencies inherent in this model, and lack of compelling evidence of inferior learning experiences compared to other forms of online (and even traditional) forms of higher learning, we recommend less emphasis on development of group-based collaborative activities within these courses, and more on development of means to enhance one-on-one student communications and student-content interaction.

In this final section we overview a model of study recommended for Athabasca University that builds upon and expands its current unpaced model of undergraduate student delivery. The goal of the model is to create a system that provides high quality, scalable education that is able to meet the growing demand for life long learning around the world. Figure 1 illustrates this model.

Figure 1. A proposed model of student-paced learning at Athabasca University

The model shows three critical components of an individualized study learning system. The content and student supports services are familiar components of AU’s current delivery model; however, each needs to undergo continuous revision to insure that they exploit the emerging capacity of networked communication and information technologies. The learning community component has been supported informally in the past, but we argue that much more can and should be done to augment and support this critical component of lifelong learning. In particular, systems that enable one-to-one and many-to-many peer support within all undergraduate courses should be actively pursued.

The results of this study suggest that the common model of cohort supported community that is dependent upon active teacher moderation is not effective in Athabasca University’s undergraduate, individualized study courses. Rather than trying to devise additional student assessment incentives and tutor support structures commonly suggested in the literature, we recommend that moderated, group-based discussions should be de-emphasized. There may be rare exceptions where specific learning outcomes are prescribed to meet unique course outcomes – for example, to develop particular collaboration and communication skills in learners. However, in the majority of cases, new types of technologies that support the interaction needs of learners in unpaced courses need to be developed. Some critical features of this model include the ability for students to find and communicate with other students in their courses at learner-determined times, and with a degree of social presence that meets their individual needs. Collaborative activities (when required) should be designed to allow students to work with other students enrolled in the course as well as other non-registered members within and outside of the learning community. Where required, systems should be designed to permit spontaneous formation of groups of 4-5 students at a particular point in a course to perform a specified group task, after which the group would dissolve. Alternatively, design of collaborative activities could involve members of the student’s own virtual or place bound communities.

Learning Community

An informal undergraduate learning community has always existed since the inception of Athabasca University. This learning community is made up not only of students registered in the same courses, but also by professionals, former students, family members, informal lifelong learners, and mentors. Tutors, faculty and other student support services are welcomed into the learning community but they do not control or orchestrate it. Rather, they participate in ways that meet learners’ needs and that support the community at minimal costs. We recommend that this community be formally recognized and supported in the future so that it can play a more prominent role in the provision of cost effective online education.

This type of informal networking is generally referred to as “social computing” (Shirkey, 2003; Davies, 2003). It can be supported through a variety of software tools and learning objects that encourage one-on-one or small group exchange, acquaintance, encouragement, and query. Students can locate learning partners and participate in a variety of informal discussion groups. Some of these may be directly related to course content, others to more general socializing, informal learning, employment and family concerns. This enhanced learning community could provide a referral service to its members for those seeking employment, advice, leads, personal support and resources. The Athabasca University Students’ Association has already implemented a number of these types of services including a “Study Buddy” service, regional coffee groups, mentoring contacts, and various “birds of a feather” groups such as one for students who are single mothers. These services could be improved by providing means for students to contact other students at course and program levels.

Enabling software is evolving rapidly. For example “introducer systems” (MeetUp, Udate, Ryze, Tribe) connect a broad spectrum of web users. These are all first generation systems. Increasingly, they allow students to connect to each other without invading their privacy. WIKIs and systems such as LiveJournal allow the informal creation and ongoing development of group diaries, commentaries and other documentation of individual and group activities. Chat rooms are already in use by the AUSA but more elaborate text, such as those facilitated by MOOs and MUDS, and graphic virtual worlds (e.g.,www.there.com) could also be usefully employed to facilitate real time interaction.

One of the components of social interaction that is notably absent in both collaborative and independent study models is a sense of knowing if and when other learners are simultaneously engaged in a learning activity. In an interesting article based on a theoretical relationship between awareness of co-presence and development of communication episodes at the Open University of the Netherlands, Kreijns & Kirschner (2001) describe a group awareness widget. This device operates in the virtual learning space to afford dialogue and collegial support much as a park bench does on a hiking trail.

Proponents of social software argue that these tools aid social relationships by “illuminating, codifying and tracking communication for good effect” (Davies, 2003). Many of the software solutions for effective online learning communities are still in developmental stages and many students have not had experience with any of these tools. Thus, a sustained developmental and research program is required to incorporate these tools in the real communities of learning that are created in Athabasca University courses. As social software tools become more ubiquitous and learners become more comfortable and skilled in their use, we will evolve new ways to make these learning communities of self paced learners more effective.

Interactive Learning Objects

High quality learning content has always been a defining characteristic of Athabasca University and other distance delivery institutions. However, in the past most of this content has been text based, linear and often didactic in nature. Developments in media technology coupled with greater understanding of pedagogical theory now allow us to create more sophisticated content that engages, motivates and stimulates students using a variety of media and instructional designs. This of course does not preclude text content, but neither does it necessarily rely on textbooks and study guides for nearly all content. Also, new forms of knowledge management and re-use, often referred to as learning objects, are creating an opportunity for greater sharing, re-use, and effectively management of learning content. Athabasca University’s failure (to date) to develop a systematic means to store, search and catalog its content in the form of learning objects is a considerable obstacle that must be eliminated if the benefits of re-use and effective content management are to be realized.

Ways must be developed that allow faculty members, subject matter, instructional designers and media experts to easily revise content so that it remains “ever green.” Continuous enrollment challenges us to develop effective means of version control so that content does not change during an individual’s progress through a course, yet at the same time allows course material to be changed much more frequently and quickly than current production systems allow.

The movement of courses to web based delivery also allows us to enhance content in many ways – some of which are not expensive. For example, streaming videos of interviews with faculty and tutors can be created in house at relatively low cost and can enhance student identification and integration with the course through watching the personal narratives of their teachers. Research on “teacher presence” has shown that this allows students to identify with and model experts, which is a valuable aid to learning, learner satisfaction and motivation (Brady & Bedient, 2003).

Pedagogically, the notion from one of our respondents that there exists a middle ground between independent learning and collaborative learning is worth repeating:

“…cooperative learning, which is somewhere in between, in the spectrum of learning, individual and collaborative learning. Cooperative learning, in my opinion, is to work with others, but you are not really dependent upon their input to complete your assignment or to progress in your studies. You cooperate with other students when they are there, and they can have some input into what you are learning, but you are not really dependent upon them.”

We think this notion is worth pursing. However, it presents a challenge to our team of instructional designers and faculty to create and then assess this relatively unexplored pedagogy. How can we build these types of tasks into courses and measure their effects in multiple dimensions, for instance?

Tutors and Other Learning Support Services

In most current applications of online learning (especially those created in traditional campus based contexts) online learning community assumes the active participation and organization of a teacher within a cohort of paced learners. This is not the case for the vast majority of Athabasca University undergraduate courses because of their flexible and unpaced design. As a result, the tutor role within the AU undergraduate community is much different than in other systems. The way this role changes in an unpaced online environment is certainly not well understood. We suggest that the tutor role should be one of advisor, learning troubleshooter, and assessor. These functions are not much different than their current role. As to their role in the proposed “leaning community”, we suggest further design-based research that prototypes and studies various forms of teacher-student interaction.

The student-teacher interaction component of the AU education model has always provided personalized service when needed. However, online enhancements now also provide a range of automated or streamlined services such as frequently asked questions, library tutorials and responses to Call Center queries. Tutor assessment of student performance remains critical, as well as invigilation of examinations and some other forms of assessments. This ensures quality of student outcomes and subsequent academic credit and award. However, machine generated and marked assignments are being developed in some undergraduate centres like the Centre for Computing and Information Systems and the School of Business. These developments should be supported where related learning outcomes can still be achieved, and costs can be demonstrably reduced. The model presented envisions a continuing role for academic tutors, but this role will be reduced as the development of informal learning communities and interactive learning objects increase in reliability and efficacy. The model thus promises to increase the quality of online learning by means that are scaleable and cost effective. In turn, this will increase access to higher education for large groups of learners, which should be the goal of all open universities.

Management, Research and Evaluation

The outer circle surrounding the learner in figure 1 represents the learning management system (LMS) that links these three learning components and the student. The LMS interface is part portal (an online door to access digital resources) and part monitoring and tracking tool that guides, documents and assists the learner in their interactions with other independent students, content, community and AU staff. The recent decision to adopt a single online learning management system across the institution should provide economies of scale and increased sharing of learning resources across undergraduate centres. In addition, LMS tracking features increase our ability to understand and assess the extent to which these three sets of resources are accessed by students. A common LMS system that permits faculty experimentation and innovation, if adequately supported, is critical for the continuous evolution of the AU undergraduate learning environment. Continuous re-design coupled with multifaceted research and evaluation will ensure that the online learning environment takes advantage of technical and pedagogical opportunities as they arise.

Conclusion

The literature review, quotations from our respondents and data from our student survey indicates that both independent study and collaborative cohort models have pedagogical, economic and accessibility strengths and weaknesses. Athabasca University’s undergraduate instructional model has focused on the learner paced models of distance education delivery. Our increasing student numbers and growing national and international reputation provides some evidence of the success of this approach. Nonetheless, we are convinced that emerging net-based technologies create opportunities for us to create new types of learning communities which will not only allow our university, but more importantly learners around the globe, to “have their cake and eat it too”. The model presented offers a new vision for Athabasca University that can guide our evolution to a next generation of distance education programming. To realize and capitalize on this new form of student-paced learning will require an ongoing commitment to innovation, experimentation and reflective study of our work.

Acknowledgment: The authors wish to acknowledge the support for this study provided by Athabasca University Research Committee’s Mission Critical Research Fund, he interview work by Matt Rymer and the contribution of time provided by our internal and external interviewees and the students who completed our online survey.

References

Adria, M., & Chowdhury, S. (2002). Making room for the call center. Information Systems Management 19 (1), 71-80. Retrieved July 2004 from: http://www.auerbach-publications.com/eJournals/articles/article_synopsis.asp?id=31479

Adria, M., & Woudstra, A. (2001). Who's on the line? Managing student communications in distance learning using a one-window approach. Open Learning, 16 (3), 249-261.

Amiel, T., McClendon, J., & Orey, M. (2003). It's about time: A case study of student time use and behaviors in a synchronous virtual classroom. Eastern Educational Research Association.  Retrieved April 2003 from: http://lpsl1.coe.uga.edu/publications/eera-timeonline/timeStudy.html

Anderson, T. (2003a). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning 4 (2). Retrieved September 2004 from: http://www.irrodl.org/content/v4.2/anderson.html

Anderson, T. (2003b). Telelearning research and the telelearning-network of Centres of Excellence. Journal of Distance Education 17 (3), 119-130.

Annand, D. (1999). The problem of computer conferencing for distance-based universities. Open Learning 14 (3), 47-52.

Ashwin, P. (2003). Peer facilitation and how it contributes to the development of a more social view of learning. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 8 (1), 5-18. Retrieved April 2004 from: http://www.triangle.co.uk/rpe/

Athabasca University (2003). 2003 Report on Implementation of the Strategic University Plan. Athabasca University: Athabasca University Press: 12.

Bailey, M., & Luetkehans, L. (2001) Practical guidelines for facilitating team activities in web-based training. In Badrul Khan (Ed.), Web-Based Training. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

Berners-Lee, T. (1999). Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by its Inventor. San Francisco: Harper.

Bonk, C. J., & Reynolds, T. H. (1997). Learner-centered web instruction for higher-order thinking, teamwork, and apprenticeship. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications: 167-178.

Brady, E., & Bedient, D. (2003). The Effects of Teacher Presence on Student Performance and Attitudes. WebCT Impact 2003, 5th Annual WebCT User Conference.

Carr-Chellman, A., Dyer, D., & Breman, J. (2000). Burrowing through the network wires: Does distance detract from collaborative authentic learning? Journal of Distance Education 15 (1), 39-62.

Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association of Higher Education 39 (7), 3-7.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 42 (2), 21-29.

Conrad, D. (2002). Deep in the hearts of learners: Insights into the nature of online community. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'enseignement à distance 7 (1). Retrieved September 2004 from: http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol17.1/conrad.html

Damon, W. (1984). Peer interaction: the untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 5 , 331-343.

Davies, W. (2003). You don't know me, but. . . Social capital and social software. London: Work Foundation. Retrieved Sept.2004 from: http://theworkfoundation.com/research/isociety/social_capital_main.jsp .

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: MacMillan. Retrieved May 2001 from: http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/projects/digitexts/dewey/d_e/contents.htmlRec #:

DiBiase, D. (2000). Is distance teaching more work or less work? American Journal of Distance Education 14 (3), 6-20.

Fisher, K., Phelps, R., & Ellis, A. (2000). Group processes online: Teaching collaboration through collaborative processes. Educational Technology and Society 3 (3), 484-495.

Fraze, S., Hardin, K., Brashears, M.T., Smith, J., & Lockaby, J. (2002). The effects of delivery mode upon survey response rate and perceived attitudes of Texas Agri-science teachers . Paper presented at the National Agricultural Education Research Conference, December 11-13, Las Vegas, NV. Retrieved September 2004 from: http://www.depts.ttu.edu/aged/research/frazesurvey.pdf

Gabriel, M. (1999). Tracking the change process: Adopting web-based teaching in an education program. Retrieved September 2004 from: http://naweb.unb.ca/proceedings/1999/gabriel/gabriel.html

Garrison, D. R. (1989). Understanding distance education: A framework for the future. London: Routledge.

Greer, J., McCalla, G., Vassileva, J., Deters, R., Bull, S., & Kettel, L. (2001). Lessons learned in deploying a multi-agent learning support system: The I-Help experience. AIED. Retrieved April 2003 from: http://julita.usask.ca/Texte/Aied01-camera.pdf

Hislop, G. (2000.) Working professionals as part-time online learners. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 4 (2).

Hislop, G. (2001). Does teaching online take more time? Frontiers in Education. Retrieved April 2004 from: http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2001/papers/1198.pdf

Holmberg, B. (1989a). Theory and practice of distance education. London: Routledge.

Holmberg, B (1989b). Key issues in distance education: an academic viewpoint. European Journal of Education 24 (1), 11-23.

Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Banaan-Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism and computer mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9 (2), 7-26.

Keegan, D. (1990). The foundations of distance education (2nd ed.) London: Routledge.

Kreijns, K., & Kirschner, P. (2001). The social affordances of computer supported collaborative learning environments. IEEE Computer Society. Retrieved October 2004 from http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie2001/papers/1104.pdf

Laurillard, D. (2000). New technologies and the curriculum. In Scott. P. (Ed.), Higher Education Re-formed, pp. 133-153. London: Falmer Press.

Lock, J. (2002). Laying the groundwork for the development of learning communities within online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 3 (4), 395-408.

McNamee, L., Roberts, T., & Williams, S. (2004). Online collaborative learning in higher education: Online articles. Queensland, Australia: Central Queensland University. Retrieved September 2004 from: http://clp.cqu.edu.au/online_articles.htm

Mason, R. (1998). Globalising Education: Trends and Applications. London: Routledge.

Ngwenya, J., Annand, D., & Wang, E. (2004). Supporting asynchronous discussions among online learners. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumni (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning , pp. 319-348. Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University. Retrieved September 2004 from: http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book

Nie, N., & Hillygus, S. (2002). The impact of Internet use on sociability: Time-diary findings. IT & Society 1 (1), 1-29. Retrieved October 2002 from: http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/itandsociety/Vol01-1-A01-Nie-Hillygus.pdf

Peters, O. (1988). Distance teaching and industrial production: A comparative interpretation in outline. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance Education: International Perspectives, pp. 95-111. London/New York: Croom Helm/St. Martin's Press.

Paulsen, M. (2003). Online Education Learning Management Systems: Global e-Learning in a Scandinavian Perspective. Oslo, Norway: NKI Forlaget.

Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2002 (1). Retrieved September 2004 from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/1/rourke-anderson-02-1-t.html

Sheehan, K. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 6 (2). Retrieved September 2004 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html

Shindler, J. (2004). Greater than the sum of the parts? Examining the soundness of the collaborative exam in teacher education courses. Innovative Higher Education 28 (4), 273-283.

Shirkey, C. (2003). Social software and the politics of groups. Retrieved April 2003 from: http://shirky.com/writings/group_politics.html

Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative Learning Theory, Research, and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Springer, L., Stanne, M., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 16 (1), 21-51.

Sweet, R. (1986). Applying Tinto's model of student dropout to distance education. Distance Education 7 (2), 201-213.

Tinto, V. (1975). Drop-out from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research 45 (1), 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of college attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society, the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education 8 (2), 6-26.

Watts, D. (2004). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: Norton.

Appendix 1
Semi-structured Telephone Interview Questions

-To be used with external respondents and AU faculty.

-Obtain informed consent orally by reading consent script and asking, “ Do you agree to participate in this study?"

Your Name:

Your title:

1. Please describe your involvement to date in online learning:

2. Have you had experience teaching distance education students in unpaced contexts? If so, please describe:

3. What do you see as the educational value in student interaction with other students or faculty?

4. Do you think it is possible to develop a community of learning in unpaced, online learning systems?

5. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations to foster student interaction in unpaced, online courses?

Appendix 2
AU Faculty e-mail Questionnaire

1. Is participation in online discussions required in any of your undergraduate, unpaced courses? If so, how much of the course composite grade is awarded for this activity?

2. About how long has the online discussion component been incorporated into the courses?

3. Do you have problems getting enough critical mass to facilitate interaction?

4. Do you moderate the discussions, or do you pay someone else to do this? If the latter, what is the remuneration scheme?

5. What kind of feedback do you get from students overall about the usefulness/desirability of this feature?

6. Are you planning to make any changes to the way this online discussion component is designed? For example, and if applicable, are you planning to make participation required, and to award marks for postings?

Appendix 3
Online Student Survey

1. The number of online courses (i.e., courses where the Internet mediated some or all of the learning experience) I have completed to date is:

2. The number of online unpaced courses (i.e., online courses that do not have fixed start dates, and through which one can proceed at their own pace) I have enrolled in to date is:

3. The number of online, unpaced courses that I have completed to date is:

4. If applicable, the name and number of the Athabasca University online unpaced course in which I most recently registered in is:

5. If this Athabasca University course is completed, the grade I expected to receive for this course was: (no answer, A, B, C, D, F).

6. I am satisfied with the grades I received in this online unpaced Athabasca University course to date (whether the course is finished or not): (no answer; very satisfied; satisfied; neutral; somewhat dissatisfied; very dissatisfied).

7a. I worked with other students enrolled in this course on course related activities during this time (yes; no).

7b. I worked with friends, colleagues or family members on course related activities while completing this course (yes; no).

8. I took part in the online discussion group for this course (yes; no).

8.1a When I took part in the online discussion group, I visited the discussion site: (no answer; daily; once or twice a week; once or twice a month).

8.1b I posted comments or made contributions to the discussion site: (no answer; daily; once or twice a week; once or twice a month).

8.1c Please rate the following: (no answer; strongly agree; agree; neutral; disagree; strongly disagree)
The discussion group helped keep me moving through the course.
The discussion group contributed to my enjoyment of the course.
The discussion group contributed to the amount I learned during the course.
The discussion group helped me get to know other students in the course.
The discussion group was a waste of my time.

8.1d There was an assigned moderator for this group (someone who was responsible for presiding over or mediating the discussion): (yes; no).

8.1e If there was an assigned moderator, his/her contribution to the effectiveness of the discussion was: (no answer; essential; quite important; important; not very important; insignificant).

8.2 If no (to 8.1.d), the reason I did not participate in the discussion groups was because:

I was not aware that there was an online discussion board available in this course;
This component of the course would have taken up too much of my time.
This component of the course wasn't worth doing for the amount of marks I would have received for it.
I did not think that this component of the course would significantly increase my learning.
This component of the course would have interfered with my ability to complete the course in a timely manner.
I did not have access to the needed hardware/software.
The system was too confusing; I had nothing to contribute to the discussion.
There were no recent comments in the discussion forum.
Other

9. I would interact with other students, as long as I could proceed through a course at my own pace: (no answer; strongly agree; agree; neutral; disagree; strongly disagree).

10. The technology I prefer to use when interacting with others in online unpaced courses is:
No answer.
Asynchronous (independent time - e.g., email or online discussion boards.
Synchronous (same time - e.g., audio and video conferences, virtual classrooms.
Both asynchronous and synchronous

11. When working in online, unpaced courses it would help me learn better if I had access to past students' postings and/or work samples (no answer; strongly agree; agree; neutral; disagree; strongly disagree).

12. If I could access a pre-programmed ChatBot (Artificial Intelligence agent that can be programmed to answer questions, help find information, etc.) in an online, unpaced course, I would probably use it (no answer; strongly agree; agree; neutral; disagree; strongly disagree).

13. I think participation in online discussion board activities should be graded in unpaced courses (no answer; strongly agree; agree; neutral; disagree; strongly disagree).

14. I prefer taking online, unpaced courses that offer opportunity to interact with other students in similar courses (no answer; strongly agree; agree; neutral; disagree; strongly disagree).

15. If I had an opportunity to work on a collaborative group project (for course credit) in an unpaced, online course, I would take it (no answer; strongly agree; agree; neutral; disagree; strongly disagree).

16. I would choose an online, unpaced course that offers interactive opportunities with other students over one that does not (no answer; strongly agree; agree; neutral; disagree; strongly disagree).

17. I feel I do not need to interact with other students in an unpaced online learning community because:
I already have a strong support system at work and/or at home.
I like to learn on my own.
Other.

18. My gender is: (male; female)