Mitchell Guido

Self Assessment #2
Total: 26/26

Post 1 Assessment
Post content/quality: 7/7
Language: 2/2
Outside Reference: 1/1
In-class References: 2/2
Citation: 1/1
Total: 13/13

This post is well written and effectively balances the positives and negatives of
interactions in online-learning situations. I also include a study that identifies problems
associated with online-learning and explains why they occur. The post ends with a summative
question that allows for the reader to easily respond to the post.
Some of the quotes in this post are rather large and could probably be better used as
paraphrased sentences. I always feel like paraphrasing is weaker to use in a post though,
especially when presenting data in a study. However, upon rereading this post, some of the
quotes seems rather unwieldy.

Post 2 Assessment
Post content/quality: 7/7
Language: 2/2
Outside Reference: 1/1
In-class References: 2/2
Citation: 1/1
Total: 13/13
 This post is well written and responds to multiple points from the original post. First I
address something in Michelle's post that I found interesting, and then I answered her question.
To back up my answer, I used an outside source and clearly explained my reasoning.
Though I made all the points that I wanted to in the post, I have to acknowledge this post
is much shorter than most of posts. This may not be a negative, but it defintely stands out.

Post 3 Assessment
Post content/quality: 7/7
Language: 2/2
Outside Reference: 1/1
In-class References: 2/2
Citation: 1/1
Total: 13/13

This post is well written and effectively argues for the use of two-way audio with one-
way video technology in a classroom. Both sides of the argument are stated in the post, and an
extremely on-topic source (which I was very pleasantly surprised to find) was included to add
credibility to my claims.
Overall, I do not see any glaring negative with this post. The only thing I noticed is that
some of my sentences are a bit wordy. In the future, I can try to be more concise with my
sentence structure.

Post 4 Assessment
Post content/quality: 7/7
Language: 2/2
Outside Reference: 1/1
In-class References: 2/2
Citation: 1/1
Total: 13/13
 This post effectively presents my personal opinions of video technology, while not
conflating them with fact. Though I personally do not like most 2-way video/audio technology,
the data that I found shows that students tend to prefer it. I effectively present both points and
come to a logical conclusion that answers the question presented by the original post.
I could have improved this comment by adding another source with data on student
perceptions or interactions with video-chatting applications.

Original Posts
Post 1: How Can Distance Effect Interactions?, Module 3, June 21, 2018 9:30 PM
I would first like to highlight that Simonson, Smaldino, and Zvacek (2015) state: “The specific
medium [used for learning] does not matter” (p. 63). Instead, “the focus of future research
should be on instruction itself…” (Simonson et al., 2015, p. 63). I am glad that we can conclude
that distance education is as effective and important as other traditional methods of education.
There have been many classes I have taken where I have to defend distance learning and the
usage of technology in the process. After reading these few sentences I breathed a sigh of relief
knowing that would not be the case here. As stated by Bernard et al. (2009), asking to make a
comparison “between such starkly different forms for achieving the same end” is ridiculous (p.
1245). Comparing traditional education to distance education only highlights the different effects
of these methods, not their individual merits (Bernard et al., 2009, pg. 1245).

It is obvious that interaction is important to any learning experience using any method of
education. Traditionally, interactions are viewed as face-to-face, but with the development of
distance education, there are many different manners of interaction available. The three main
forms of interaction are student-student, student-teacher, and student-content (Bernard et al.,
2009, p. 1247). Logically, it seems that an online class that promotes all three of these will be
the most effective. Someone can learn from reading a book, but the point of taking a class is to
interact with others in some fashion. Before finishing the class reading, I would have stated that
student-student interaction is the most important, as it allows for students to take control of their
learning. The following quote, taken from a study performed to see the effectiveness of using a
flipped classroom on student evaluations of online classes, supports this:

The course experience was perhaps no longer merely a matter of memorizing

information and regurgitating it for a course grade; now the student became intentionally
engaged in the material as successful participation in the learning activities necessitated
it. (Baker & Stephen, 2017, p. 22)
Baker and Stephen discovered that the evaluations of the instructors often increased initially
only to decrease in later semesters, as the instructors “did not dedicate sufficient attention to
getting the course environment correct” (Baker et al., 2017, p. 22). Thus, a balance must be
struck between the three previously stated forms of interaction in distance education. As
suggested in A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education,
“[Student-Teacher] interaction may be directed toward providing motivational and emotional
support, activities that may register on attitude instruments more than measures of
achievement” (Bernard et al., 2009, pg. 1248). From these two studies, we can see that we
must take into account the effect that learning interactions have on students’ mindsets, not just
their achievement.

The conclusion of the study performed by Bernard et al., 2009, states that “a designer’s first
consideration should be to provide strong associations with the content” (p. 1266). As proven by
Baker and Stephen’s study, students learn better by interacting with the material on a personal
level (2009, p. 22). Thus, increasing student-content and student-student interactions should be
the desire of a distance education class. Unfortunately, the situation is not quite that simple.
The most difficult part of creating a distance education class is determining the role of the
teacher. The students need to learn using online materials and class discussions. This seems
fairly obvious. However, what exactly is the role of the teacher? Now that the teacher is no
longer the sole bearer of information and is no longer a constant presence as in a traditional
classroom, we are forced to examine precisely how much input is needed from the teacher.
Anderson (2003) addresses this head on. He states that future models of education will
“drastically reduce the amount of teacher-student interaction, and substitute it with increased
student-student and student-content interaction” (p. 11). I completely agree with this analysis
and welcome this change. As the research I have presented in this post has shown, multiple
forms of interaction increase not only student achievement but also their perception of
achievement (Bernard et al., 2009, p. 1248). While we must avoid inflating solely student
perception, increasing both perception and achievement is fantastic.

Anderson eloquently states the importance of balancing different types of interactions in

distance education: “Getting the mix right involves a series of tradeoffs, and knowing how one
type of interaction can effectively substitute for another” (Anderson, 2003, p. 10). I personally
believe that the role of the teacher should be reduced as much as possible. The more students
learn how to interact with each other and the material without the aid of the teacher, the more
successful they will become at learning. The teacher is merely there to facilitate learning and
should not become a crutch that students depend on. Distance education naturally enforces this
concept and can lead to student-teacher interaction depreciating too far. The key is to make
sure students know that you appreciate their work and are vested in their learning process.

I have taken many online and hybrid courses and often feel like I am taking an online test rather
than a class. The level of interaction that Dr. Vickers incorporates into his online class is one of
the reasons I have chosen to sign up again for a class of his. He reads and comments on every
assignment and provides ways for me to improve my work, rather than just assigning a grade.
Occasionally Dr. Vickers will engage in class discussions, but he generally allows us to interact
with both each other and the content on our own terms. This seems like a healthy balance of the
three interactions.

To conclude: Can you see yourself reducing your student-teacher interactions? I know that
I (especially in traditional classroom settings) find it difficult to sit back and watch students work.
Resisting the urge to impulsively help students is surprisingly difficult. It seems strange and
counter-intuitive to consider the fact that a teacher should not personally engage and aide their
students all the time. After all, most people become teachers because they want to help others
improve.

References:

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for
Interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 1-14.

Baker, E. W., & Hill, S. (2017). Investigating Student Resistance and Student Perceptions of
Course Quality and Instructor Performance in a Flipped Information Systems Classroom.
Information Systems Education Journal, 15(6), 17-26.

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., &
Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in
Distance Education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and Learning at a Distance:
Foundations of a Distance Education (6th Edition). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.

Post 2: RE: Module 3 - Thoughts on a quality DE Experience, Module 3, June 26,

2018 7:24 PM EDT

Hi Michelle,
I agree that it is necessary for students to have a desire to learn in distance education. As a
public school teacher, I am used to thinking that I need to ignite my students interest in my
subject. However, it seems that this is much harder for distance education. Instead, the students
should take a class that they are interested in. Though it feels somewhat like a cop-out, I think
this is again an instance of comparing distance education to traditional education. As Bernard,
Abrami, and Borokhovski, et al., (2009) state, “little more can be gained through comparisons
between DE and CI” (p. 1268). Instead of holding onto my habits gained from traditional
teaching, I am trying to think about distance education as something completely separate. Since
distance education makes it easier to provide a multitude of classes, perhaps it is no longer up
to the instructor to invigorate the students. Instead, the students should take classes in a subject
that interests them, to begin with.

To answer the question at the end of your post, I think high-level interaction depends on the
subject matter and way it is presented. There are a wide variety of methods by which students
learn. As a teacher, it is nearly impossible to incorporate all of them into your teaching. Brown,
(2014), discusses how teaching to learning styles has not been proven to be effective in his
bookMake It Stick. First of all, there are too many styles to even begin considering. But when
distilled down to the major styles that most educators discuss “you still fail to find a consistent
theoretical pattern” (p. 144). When searching for data on the subject, Brown discovered that
“virtually none validate it and several flatly contradict it” (p. 145).

While I believe that some people learn better through different styles, the teacher is better off
focusing their time on creating assignments and content that allow for a variety of interactions.
The interactions between the students, the content, and the teacher will naturally cover an array
of learning styles. Moreover, the students can discover which style works best for themselves,
as they work on the class material. As Anderson (2003) states, “interaction in formal education
contexts is specifically designed to induce learning directed towards defined and shared
learning objectives or outcomes” (p. 2). Interaction is not focused on learning styles, but rather
learning objectives. The teacher doesn’t need to control how the students reach a destination,
but rather what that destination is. This is especially true in distance education, where the
teacher is not constantly present.

Reference:

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for
Interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 1-14.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., &
Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in
Distance Education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.

Brown, P. C. (2014). Make It Stick. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.

Post 3: How Much Technology Is Too Much?, Module 4, July 5, 2018 8:30 PM

Often, I find that distance education tries to utilize technology to mimic traditional classroom
teaching methods. When considering which technology to choose, my first instinct was two-way
audio and video. There are a plethora of free options--such as Skype, Google Video, and
ooVoo--that are robust and easily accessible. However, the more I thought about using those to
teach a class of thirty (or more) students, the less appealing it seemed. Why is the video
component necessary? Do I really need to see thirty low-resolution boxes of my students faces
on my screen while trying to juggle my presentation material? Instead of being sensible, this
seems like a knee-jerk reaction to try to force DE to be similar to traditional learning. As Means,
B., Yukie, T., Murphy, R. Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009) state in their case study, “The meta-
analysis findings do not support simply putting an existing course online, but they do support
redesigning instruction to incorporate additional learning opportunities online (p. 71). Rather
than trying to mimic the face-to-face instruction of a traditional class, I looked at which
technology would work best for distance education.

I have picked the synchronous technology of two-way audio and one-way video to research for
this post. It allows for a good balance of interaction, while not becoming unwieldy for anyone to
handle on their screen. The professor will still discuss materials and show content to the
students. He can do this by talking into a camera, or by talking while screen-sharing what is on
his computer. As the students listen they “have a packet of instructional materials, including
interactive study guides, that they use and complete during the class” (Simonson, 2015, p. 89).
This still leaves room for students to ask questions and interact with each other using audio.
With the right program, the professor can even create discussion groups where students can
only hear others in their group. Last year when I taught in the Bronx, I had technology that
allowed me to do this in the classroom. It was incredibly useful, even for in an in-person class,
as the students didn’t have to get up or change seats to be in groups. For distance education, it
is crucial, as there is obviously no option to change seats.

Childress, M. D. (2001) performed a study, looking for the link between learning style and
achievement in a class using two-way audio and one-way video. The idea was to find which
learning styles performed best when using this technology. Surprisingly, though, no correlation
was found. Instead, “the diverse learning styles of the distance students were accommodated,
which was reflected in the lack of significant findings in this study” (Childress, 2001, p.10). Thus,
it seems that this technology works for a wide variety of learners. In this study, student
demographics were analyzed as well. Though there was a trend in older students scoring better,
Childress stresses “the relationship between life status, confidence, and other influences” as
factors that highly affected the students' achievement (Childress, 2001, p. 9). The author
explains that the older students have “strong support mechanisms” since “along with age,
comes more success and confidence” (Childress, 2001, p. 9-10). So while this technology works
for a variety of learning styles, it seems to be best for older students.

One negative of two-way audio and one-way video is that it seems to favor older students. As
long as this is used with college-level students that is okay, but it should not be used for
younger grades. The students don’t have the confidence or self-efficacy to complete a course
designed around this technology at a younger age, according to Childress. When used
appropriately, though, it works very well.

The second negative of two-way audio and one-way video is that there are often too many
students in one class. Since the students just have to listen to the instructor and watch the video
feed, it seems sensible that a large number of students could use this technology at once. While
this is certainly possible, it is not optimal. Students need to have interactions of all kinds, and if
there are too many students, each student does not have enough interaction. Simmonson
(2015) states that “Interaction between instructor and students is stressed in these kinds of
courses, even ones where hundreds of students are enrolled (p. 89). While student-instructor
interaction is important, the students also need to have time to interact with each other and the
material. This technology makes it easy to create a class that is lopsided in favoring student-
teacher interactions.

If handled with care, two-way audio and one-way video can be a fantastic addition to an online
class. However, it is easy to fall into the trap of misusing the technology.

To conclude: If teaching an online class, would you want to see every students’ face? Do you
think it would negatively impact your teaching if you could only hear the students’ voices? What
would you do differently when teaching a class if you can’t see your students’ faces?

Reference:

Childress, M. D. (2001). The Relationship Between Learning Style and Achievement in a One-
way Video, Two-way Audio Preservice Teacher Education Computer Literacy Course.
International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(1), 57.
Means, B., Yukie, T., Murphy, R. Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based
practices in online learning. U.S. Department of Education.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and Learning at a
Distance: Foundations of a Distance Education (6th Edition). Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing.

Post 4: RE: Video Conferencing, Module 4, July 10, 2018 2:37 PM

Hi Ashley,

I agree with your analysis of video conferencing! It is a great tool that allows for meaningful
interactions with classmates and the instructor. Additionally, with the advent of laptop and even
cell phone video conference apps, it is easy to video conference anywhere. Simonson,
Smaldino, and Zvacek (2015) state that “One major advantage of compressed video systems is
their portability” (p. 90). Since this textbook was written a few years ago, I can imagine that this
quote is even more applicable today.

Another positive aspect of video conferencing technology is that it can promote student
engagement. As you stated, the professor can divide the class up into groups and allow them to
discuss the material. This extra reflection is critical according to Means, Yukie, Murphy, Bakia,
and Jones, (2009): “The practice with the strongest evidence of effectiveness is inclusion of
mechanisms to prompt students to reflect on their level of understanding as they are learning
online” (Mean, 2009, p. 72).

However, the technical aspects often hamstring the technology. Every time I use Skype I have
either audio or video problems. This would be especially annoying as a student who is trying to
receive a good grade, but can’t complete assignments due to technical issues. Even when video
conferencing apps work, the video quality is often very poor. Often, I would rather just have a
phone call rather than a video call when the quality is so poor.

Charron and Raschke (2014) performed a study that analyzed how students perceived video
conferencing software such as Skype. They discovered that “the use of technology, virtual
instruction support is at least equally as effective as in-person support in a traditional on-
campus class” (Charron, 2014, p. 4). Thus, it seems that most students did not have as much of
an issue with the video conferencing software as I do. Perhaps this is just a personal pet-peeve
of mine, as I love technology but find it maddening when it does not work as intended.
Furthermore, Charron and Raschke state that video conferencing allows for “more theoretical
discussion during class time lectures instead of answering questions regarding the mechanics
of working with the practical software” (Charron, 2014, p. 5). Thus, students can receive the
support they need instantly as they are taught the material through instructor-student
interactions. These synchronous interactions increase the feeling that the students’ thoughts
and opinions matter. As a matter of fact, Charron and Raschke state that “the results show that
students are actually more satisfied with this assistance than if they had come to campus for
help” (Charron, 2014, p. 5).

Though I personally do not love Skype, I see the merits of using it in an online classroom. As a
teacher, part of my job is learning to go outside my comfort zone and utilize any educational tool
that I think will benefit my students. I have never personally taught using it but would be open to
using it since it seems to be effective for achieving meaningful interactions with students.

References

Charron, K., & Raschke, R. (2014). Student Perceptions and Experiences Using Jing and Skype
in an Accounting Information Systems Class. Journal Of Education For Business, 89(1),
1-6.

Means, B., Yukie, T., Murphy, R. Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based
practices in online learning. U.S. Department of Education.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and Learning at a
Distance: Foundations of a Distance Education (6th Edition). Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishing.