Information Technology and Information Technology and interaction in learninginteraction in learning

Nikos MattheosNikos MattheosCentre for Educational Technology and Research in Oral HealthCentre for Educational Technology and Research in Oral HealthMalmö University Malmö University

interaction interaction learninglearning

learner-content

vicarious

learner-learner?

learner-tutor

learner-interfacelearner-interface

student

slides

videos

teleconference

multimedia

textbooks

seminars

television

Internet

•human-human interaction•human-interface interaction

in blended learning scenarios

human – human interaction via computerhuman – human interaction via computer

•8 participants (2 groups)

•Hybrid structure

•5 PBL cases

•Distance from 5 to 600 km

•No previous experience with PBL or Distance Learning

1. Define the problem

2. Generate hypothesis

3. Formulate learning goals

4. Collect information outside the group

5. Synthesise newly aquired knowledge

6. Test Hypothesis

The Hybrid model

InternetAsynchronous

In Classroom

InternetSynchronous

•Speed of interaction

•Tutor involvement

•Participation of individual student

Interaction elements evaluated:

Interaction speedInteraction speed

Class Sync Async

2,1 inputs/min2,1 inputs/min15 inputs/min15 inputs/min --

Interaction speed

Class Sync Async

2,1 inputs/min15 inputs/min -

Tutor involvement (max)Tutor involvement (max) 9 %9 % 48 %48 % 10 –35 %10 –35 %

Tutor involvement in the on-line discusion

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5

sessions

percentage

Group 1

Group 2

Interaction speed

Class Sync Async

2,1 inputs/min15 inputs/min -

Tutor involvement 9 % 48 % 10 –35 %

Uneven distributionUneven distribution ++ ++ ++

Student attitudeStudent attitude + ++ + + + ++ ++

Interaction speed

Class Sync Async

2,1 inputs/min15 inputs/min -

Tutor involvement 9 % 48 % 10 –35 %

Uneven distribution + + +

• on-line discussions more ”superficial” and on-line discussions more ”superficial” and sometimes ”frustrating”sometimes ”frustrating”

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5

ContentTechnologyPresentationsMisellaneous

Inputs in the web board (asynchronous)

The messaging thresholdin computer mediated

communication.(Reid 1996)

Reid, J. M. F., V. Malinek, J. T. Stott, and J. B. T. Evans. 1996. Ergonomics 39: 1017–37.

”We only communicate through

a medium,when our need to communicate

exceeds the ”cost” of using this medium.”

In-classroomInternet text- based

Text based interaction through Internet is:

• ”filtered”

• ”superficial” ?

• Less spontaneous

• More tiring

•…differentdifferent..!

threshold

Mattheos et al, Interaction in Virtual versus traditional PBL Classrooms. American Journal of Distance Education 2001

3rd Semester Examination 2hrs group meeting:

self- asessment discussion with examiner discussion with peers discussion with resource

persons

One cohort of 2One cohort of 2ndnd year students in Periodontology year students in Periodontology

face to face : 15 Students over internet: 24 Students

Webcams Headphones, microphones Speakers Multimedia, webdocuments Facilitators in Malmö Fax Questionnaire evaluation

One cohort of 2One cohort of 2ndnd year students in Periodontology year students in Periodontology

• Same performance results

• Attitudes significantly more positive when face-to-face

• Hindered body language?

• Increased stress?

• fear of misunderstandings?

Feasibility and satisfaction with the use of teleconference for examination of undergraduate dental students. A comparative study. Mattheos et al, Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2003.

and so...

Computer mediatedComputer mediated interaction with the presently interaction with the presently available technology appears to have significant available technology appears to have significant

differences, strengths and weaknessesdifferences, strengths and weaknessescompared to compared to face to faceface to face interaction. interaction.

Computer mediated interaction should Computer mediated interaction should ideallyideallysupplament and not exclude supplament and not exclude

face to face interaction face to face interaction

The Interactive Examination The Interactive Examination

Lifelong Learning attitude f or a clinician:

Act

Assess - process - outcome

Identify Needs

Increase Competence

Search Resources

The Interactive The Interactive examination:examination:

• Engage in a dialogueEngage in a dialogue

• Reflect on actions, process, outcomeReflect on actions, process, outcome

• Compare to standards, objectivesCompare to standards, objectives

• Identify weaknessesIdentify weaknesses

• Define new learning objectivesDefine new learning objectives

The Interactive The Interactive examination:examination:

A. Preparatory phase ( 2 weeks) A. Preparatory phase ( 2 weeks)

B. Group meeting (2 hours) B. Group meeting (2 hours)

C. Individual feedback – follow upC. Individual feedback – follow up

A. Preparatory phase: A. Preparatory phase:

a. On-line self-assessmenta. On-line self-assessment

A. Preparatory phase: A. Preparatory phase:

a.a. On-line self-assessmentOn-line self-assessment

b. Instant feedbackb. Instant feedback

A. Preparatory phase: A. Preparatory phase:

a.a. On-line self-assessmentOn-line self-assessment

b.b. Instant feedback Instant feedback

c. Forward data to assessorc. Forward data to assessor

B. Group meeting: B. Group meeting:

a.a. Written essay Written essay

b.b. Discussion Discussion

c.c. EvaluationEvaluation

d. Comparison with the expertd. Comparison with the expert

Student’s essayStudent’s essay

Primary feedback: Primary feedback: Expert’s essayExpert’s essay

reflectionreflection

Secondary feedback: Secondary feedback: Teacher’s commentsTeacher’s comments

improvementimprovement

written essay and comparison: written essay and comparison:

discussion: discussion:

a.a. Self-assessment as starting pointSelf-assessment as starting point

b.b. Students’ elaborate on own judgementsStudents’ elaborate on own judgements

c.c. Subject related knowledge and understandingSubject related knowledge and understanding

d.d. Discussion – expert and peer feedbackDiscussion – expert and peer feedback

... not enough ?

Data available after exam

a.a. Self-assessment - elaborate commentsSelf-assessment - elaborate comments

b.b. Instructors assessment - commentsInstructors assessment - comments

c.c. Written essay - argumentation Written essay - argumentation

c.c. Discussion – argumentation Discussion – argumentation

d.d. Comparison text with the expert answer Comparison text with the expert answer and self – defined learning needsand self – defined learning needs

What did the students compare

1. Form and structure:

Length, text diagramme or flow chart,

Use of images, language, style etc

2. Content:Additions, emissions, terms etc

3. Attitude:

Prioritising, elaborating, depth of detail etc

ACT ASSESS

IDENTIFY NEEDS

Student essay

1…. 2…. 6….. 8…..

”Expert” essay

1…. 2…. 3…. 4…. 5….

comparison

differences

arguments

needs

Lifelong Learning attitude f or a clinician:

Act

Assess - process - outcome

Identify Needs

Increase Competence

Search Resources

human – interface interactionhuman – interface interaction

The Leo:The Leo:A free Internet-based platform for assessing and A free Internet-based platform for assessing and

training of self-assessment skills training of self-assessment skills in oral health education in oral health education (A. Nattestad – R. Attström)(A. Nattestad – R. Attström)

http://tmk.odont.ku.dk/leo/http://tmk.odont.ku.dk/leo/

                  

self assessment self assessment skills skills

The Leo:The Leo:

reflectionreflection feedbackfeedback

Method : Method :

One cohort of 2nd year students (n=54)

4 internet cases in Periodontology in a month

• 26 through Leo

• 26 through a static web page

LeoLeon=26n=26

StaticStaticn=26n=26

BBaasseelliinnee

week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5

AAsssseessssmmeenntt

CaseCase

11

CaseCase

11 1

1CaseCase

22CaseCase

33CaseCase

44

CaseCase

22CaseCase

33CaseCase

442

2 3

3

4

4

• Improved performance in general Improved performance in general

• No significant difference between groupsNo significant difference between groups (moderate agreement between assessors)(moderate agreement between assessors)

• Time on task correlates to written performanceTime on task correlates to written performance

• Computer competence correlates to written Computer competence correlates to written

performanceperformance

Results : Results :

• students judged 3 out of 4 cases as “easy”students judged 3 out of 4 cases as “easy”

• students were positive on Internet cases, but students were positive on Internet cases, but some complains about workload appeared some complains about workload appeared

Results : Results :

Some reflections…Some reflections…

• Time is an important factorTime is an important factor• human feedback irreplaceable human feedback irreplaceable • Content and cases too easy ? Content and cases too easy ? • Face to face interaction important motivation factorFace to face interaction important motivation factor• Assessment procedure not sensitive enough ?Assessment procedure not sensitive enough ?

...and where to from here? ...and where to from here?

Next moves…Next moves…• 39 students attended this year the 39 students attended this year the Interactive Examination Interactive Examination

• Personal folder – portfolio Personal folder – portfolio for each student. for each student.

• More complicated cases, More complicated cases, focus on reflective learning focus on reflective learning

• Total content management through e-Total content management through e-zonezone

Next moves…Next moves…

Time for a …Time for a …

meta –evaluation ? ? ?meta –evaluation ? ? ?

• individual individual • learning styleslearning styles

nikolaos.mattheos@od.mah.se