Interaction in Group-based and Individualized Instruction 1

Running head: INTERACTION IN GROUP-BASED AND INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION

Interaction in Group-based and Individualized Instruction

Jennifer Maddrell

Old Dominion University

IDT 810 Trends and Issues in Contemporary Instructional Design

Dr. Gary Morrison

April 14, 2009

 Interaction in Group-based and Individualized Instruction 2

Instructional Load of Interaction Types

This paper compares six types of group-based and individualized instructional approaches
on the basis of planned opportunities for learner interaction. Three types of interaction are
suggested as crucial components of the education process (Anderson, 2003; Moore, 1989) and
frame this comparison, including (a) learner-content interaction, (b) learner-instructor
interaction, and (c) learner-learner interaction. The following considers how these six group-
based and individualized instructional approaches distribute the instructional load among the
three interaction types and suggests that the differences in interactional emphasis across the
approaches reflects a value judgment regarding the relative advantage of each type of interaction.
However, it is further suggested that additional research is needed to evaluate whether a relative
advantage exists or whether the perceived advantage relates to the efficiency of instructional
delivery rather than the effectiveness of the instructional strategy to support the processing of the
to-be-learned material.

Distribution of Instructional Load by Interaction Type

Group-based Instruction
Traditional classroom. While it is impossible to generalize the interaction that exists
across all face-to-face and virtual classrooms, some critics of the traditional classroom
characterize the instruction as dominated by the learner-teacher interaction where learner-content
and learner-learner interaction play smaller supporting roles (Hannafin, Land, & Oliver, 1983).
In such a classroom, the teacher-learner interaction focuses on teacher presentation, guidance and
help during learner practice, and feedback following practice. Learner-content interaction
incorporates standardized forms of content, such as textbooks and hand-outs, prepared for and
utilized by all learners in the group. While learner-learner interaction includes classroom
discussion, research suggests a very small percentage of classroom time is spent in learner-
learner discussion (Nunn, 1996). Figure 1 suggests a distribution of the instructional load based
on this view of the traditional group-based classroom.

Figure 1. Distribution of Instructional Load – Traditional Classroom

Group-based learning environments. In contrast to the traditional classroom described

above, some advocate group-based learning environments in which the learner-teacher
interaction shifts from a mediating to a scaffolding role the instruction (Hannafin et al., 1983).
As suggested in Figure 2, the group-based learning environment places significant emphasis on
the learner-content interaction. While the learner-learner interactions are recognized as being
 Interaction in Group-based and Individualized Instruction 3

supportive of the learner-content interaction, learner control over the learner-content interaction
is paramount .

Figure 2. Distribution of Instructional Load – Group-based Learning Environments

Group-based communities of inquiry (CoI). The objective of a CoI model is to support

critical thinking and critical discourse though a mix of learner-learner, learner-content, and
learner-teacher interactions designed to optimize (a) teacher presence, (b) social presence, and
(c) cognitive presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 1999). As suggested in Figure 3, the CoI
places high value on all three forms of interaction.

Figure 3. Distribution of Instructional Load – Community of Inquiry

Individualized Instruction
The Keller Plan. As depicted in Figure 4, Keller (1968) suggests a personalized system of
instruction (PSI) which incorporates learner-content and learner-tutor interaction where the tutor
(or proctor) can be a peer who has mastered the material. As such, the learner-tutor interaction is
a hybrid of the previously described learner-teacher and learner-learner interaction as the peer
has already successfully completed the instructional material. In Keller’s approach, learner-
content interaction is the critical design consideration. Learners work independently and at their
own pace working toward personal mastery of the presented instructional content. Learner-tutor
interaction is considered as motivational and administrative rather than for the delivery of critical
information (Grant & Spencer, 2003).
 Interaction in Group-based and Individualized Instruction 4

Figure 4. Distribution of Instructional Load – Keller’s PSI

Distance education independent study. Early distance education approaches were based
on independent study (Garrison & Shale, 1987; Keegan, 1996). Wedemeyer (1981) characterized
independent study as a teaching-learning arrangement which allows learners the freedom and
opportunity to self-direct their learning within their own environment. Unlike more recent group
forms of distance education which incorporate expanded learner-learner interaction, independent
(or private) distance education approaches rely on significant learner-content interaction with
added support for two-way learner-teacher interaction (Garrison & Shale).

Figure 5. Distribution of Instructional Load – Distance Education Independent Study

Personal learning environment. The April 2008 special edition of the Interactive
Learning Environments journal was dedicated to a discussion of the personal learning
environment (PLE). Concurrent with the explosion of web-based communication technologies,
two views of technology enabled PLEs have emerged, including (a) a learner-centered but
provider-driven approach, and (b) a learner-driven approach where the role and control of the
institution (as provider of education) is diminished (Johnson & Liber, 2008). Within the learner-
centered provider-driven approach, personal web-based communication and interaction tools,
such as instant messaging, content aggregation and management, and authoring tools, enable
personalized learning activities within the institution’s virtual environment (Johnson & Liber,
2008; Severance, Hardin, & Whyte, 2008; Van Harmelen, 2008). In contrast, a learner-driven
PLE approach challenges the centralization and institutional control and ownership of
instructional tools and content and shifts the instructional focus to life-long learning beyond the
classroom and to individualized construction of portable instructional artifacts which the learner
 Interaction in Group-based and Individualized Instruction 5

retains and maintains over time (Severance et al., 2008; Wilson, 2008). In either form, a PLE is
generally conceived of as a technology-enabled network which connects the learner with people
(inside and outside the classroom) and resources (Wilson, 2008). As such, the learner-content and
learner-peer interactions dominate the PLE instructional approach with the learner-teacher
interaction playing a supporting role, as depicted in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Distribution of Instructional Load –Personal Learning Environments

The Quest for the Right Interaction Mix

Value Judgment
It is suggested that the interaction within the noted designs represents the beliefs of the
designers regarding the relative value of the interaction types. As suggested in Table 1 these
beliefs manifest themselves within the design of the instruction with the three interaction types
being either (a) emphasized, (b) viewed as necessary, but emphasis neutral, or (c) de-
emphasized.

Table 1. Interaction Type Emphasis within Instructional Approach

Learner- Learner- Learner-

Content Learner Teacher
Group-based Instruction
Traditional Classroom   
Learning Environments   
Community of Inquiry   
Individualized Instruction
Keller PSI   
Distance Education - Independent Study   
Personal Learning Environments   

 = Emphasized;  = Recognized as needed, but emphasis neutral;  = De-emphasized

Given the range in interactional emphasis across these instructional approaches, it is

suggested that interaction is not value neutral across instructional designers. Inherent in the
highlighted group-based and individualized instructional approaches is a value judgment
regarding the right (or optimal) interactional mix. An important question for future study is
 Interaction in Group-based and Individualized Instruction 6

whether the use and mix of interaction types within the design of instruction makes a difference
in terms of instructional effectiveness? Or, can learning occur as effectively through any
combination of learner-learner, learner-content, learner teacher interaction? If so, is the primary
interactional consideration instructional efficiency versus effectiveness?
Interaction as Instruction Delivery Mode or Instructional Strategy
To conduct such an evaluation, it is necessary to consider whether interaction is a way to
facilitate instructional message delivery (as in an instructional delivery mode) or if interaction is
a method to facilitate the processing of the to-be-learned material (as in an instructional
strategy). As is suggested within research regarding the comparative ability of various media to
effectively deliver instruction (Clark, 1983), it is conceivable that the ability of various
interaction types to deliver the instructional load is equivalent. For example, is it just as effective
for a learner to independently read instructional content in a book (learner-content interaction) as
it is to have a teacher present the same content in a lecture to the class (learner-teacher
interaction)? Anderson (2003) suggests within his equivalency theorem that a designer can
substitute one type of interaction for another. If this is the case, then selection and mix of learner-
content, learner-learner, and learner-teacher interaction in the delivery of instruction should not
impact instructional effectiveness and the design consideration centers on efficiency.
However, if interaction is conceived of as something other than a means to deliver the
instruction, but rather as an instructional strategy which supports the learner’s processing of the
instructional material, is there a difference in effectiveness across these interaction types? Some
suggest a significant difference in the opportunities for critical thinking in learner-content
interaction involving unresponding course material and critical discourse in two-way learner-
learner and learner-teacher interaction (Garrison, 1990).
Summary
The field has forwarded a variety of group-based and individualized instructional
approaches incorporating a range of learner-content, learner-learner, and learner-teacher
interactions. Inherent in these forwarded approaches is a value judgment regarding the relative
advantage of one type of interaction over another. However, it is suggested that further study is
needed to evaluate whether there is an advantage of one form over another or if the perceived
advantage relates to the efficiency of instructional delivery rather than instructional
effectiveness. Additional research is needed to consider whether there a comparative difference
in terms of how the interaction types effect the processing of the to-be-learned material or
whether any form of interaction be an equivalent substitute for another to deliver instruction.
 Interaction in Group-based and Individualized Instruction 7

References
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for
Interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning; Vol 4,
No 2 (2003). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering the research on media. Review of Educational Research,
53(4), 445-459.
Garrison, D., & Shale, D. (1987). Mapping the boundaries of distance education: Problems in
defining the field. American Journal of Distance Education, 1, 4-13.
Garrison, D. R. (1990). An Analysis and Evaluation of Audio Teleconferencing to Facilitate
Education at a Distance. American Journal of Distance Education, 4(3), 13-24.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:
Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3),
87-105.
Grant, L., & Spencer, R. (2003). The Personalized System of Instruction: Review and
Applications to Distance Education. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning; Vol 4, No 2 (2003). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/152/705.
Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1983). Instructional-design Theories and Models. In C. M.
Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design Theories and Models (Vol. 2, p. 728).
Johnson, M., & Liber, O. (2008). The Personal Learning Environment and the human condition:
from theory to teaching practice. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 3-15. doi:
10.1080/10494820701772652.
Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Keller, F. (1968). "Goodbye teacher...’. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79-89.
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction [Electronic version]. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 3(2). Retrieved April 8, 2008, from
http://www.ajde.com/Contents/vol3_2.htm#editorial.
Nunn, C. E. (1996). Discussion in the College Classroom: Triangulating Observational and
Survey Results. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(3), 243-266.
Severance, C., Hardin, J., & Whyte, A. (2008). The coming functionality mash-up in Personal
Learning Environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 47-62. doi:
10.1080/10494820701772694.
Van Harmelen, M. (2008). Design trajectories: four experiments in PLE implementation.
Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 35-46. doi: 10.1080/10494820701772686.
Wedemeyer, C. (1981). Learning at the back door : reflections on non-traditional learning in the
lifespan. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Wilson, S. (2008). Patterns of Personal Learning Environments. Interactive Learning
Environments, 16(1), 17-34. doi: 10.1080/10494820701772660.