Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

The tower of teaching-learning interactions in online live classes: Considering the impact of class size

Article Sidebar

Schematic diagram
Download PDF
Submitted   Apr 4, 2023
Published   May 31, 2023
Issue    Vol 4 No 1 (2023)
DOI   10.25082/AERE.2023.01.001

Views

1264

Downloads

573

Citations

PlumX Metrics

Main Article Content

Xiaojie Niu corresponding author
Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, online learning has become an important and widely used form of education. Many studies have pointed out that interaction is key to online learning. The Interaction Hierarchy Theory categorizes interactions in remote teaching into three types: operational, informational, and conceptual. Operational interaction serves as the foundation for all types of interactions and refers to the interface interactions that learners engage in at the behavioral level through the use of media features and tools in online learning. However, should we simply encourage higher intensity operational interaction? Specifically, live teaching, as a form of remote teaching, has a higher sense of immediacy and synchronicity compared to asynchronous learning. Should we encourage and guide students to engage in more operational interaction during live teaching? How would it affect learners' informational and conceptual interactions? In this study, 137 students from 21 live classes were grouped according to class size and operational interaction intensity, and their levels of informational and conceptual interaction were explored. The results showed that the conceptual interaction intensity of learners in live teaching was higher than the informational interaction intensity, and operational interaction intensity and class size both had an impact on informational interaction, but a weaker impact on conceptual interaction. Operational interaction can affect conceptual interaction through informational interaction, especially through the mediation of student-resource informational interaction. The contribution of this study lies in verifying the establishment of the interaction hierarchy tower in the live teaching scene, that is, there are three different levels of interactive influence chains from operational interaction, informational interaction and conceptual interaction. Operational interaction and class size have a strong influence on information interaction directly and conceptual interaction indirectly. In online learning aiming at high-level interaction such as conceptual interaction, designers should not blindly promote operational interaction, but should pay attention to the promoting effect of operational interaction on informational interaction, and the operational interaction without effect on learners' informational interaction is invalid. In addition to enhancing operational interaction, controlling class size is also a way to facilitate informational interaction.

Keywords
live broadcasting teaching, teaching-learning interaction, class size

Article Details

Supporting Agencies
Beijing Normal University PhD Student Innovation Fund Project (ID: BNUXKJC202201)
How to Cite
Niu, X. (2023). The tower of teaching-learning interactions in online live classes: Considering the impact of class size. Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 4(1), 218-229. https://doi.org/10.25082/AERE.2023.01.001
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. McIsaac MS and Blocher JM. How research in distance education can affect practice. Educational Media International, 1998, 35(1): 43-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952398980350112
  2. Moore MG. Theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.). Handbook of distance education (pp. 89-101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203803738.ch5
  3. Samat NAA, Hashim H and Yunus MM. Live streaming: a new platform for ESL learning. Creative Education, 2019, 10(12): 2899-2906. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.1012215
  4. Chen L. A hierarchical model for student and teacher interaction in distance learning. Distance Education in China, 2004, 5: 24-28.
  5. 5 Cheng X, Pi Z, Hong J, et al. (2020). The Influence of Live Broadcasting Model on the Teaching Effect--Taking the Course ``Career planning'' as an Example. Modern education technology, 30(02), 85-90.
  6. Salmon G. E-moderating. Encyclopedia of Distance Learning. IGI Global, 2005: 814-820. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-555-9.ch117
  7. Skylar AA. A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous interactive web conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher education, 2009, 18(2): 69-84.
  8. Payne K, Keith MJ, Schuetzler RM, et al. Examining the learning effects of live streaming video game instruction over Twitch. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017, 77: 95-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.029
  9. Abdous M and Yen CJ. A predictive study of learner satisfaction and outcomes in face-to-face, satellite broadcast, and live video-streaming learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 2010, 13(4): 248-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.005
  10. Holmberg B. Guided didactic conversation in distance education. Distance education: International perspectives. Routledge, 2020: 114-122. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003033950-10
  11. Laurillard D. A conversational framework for individual learning applied to the ‘learning organisation’and the `learning society'. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 1999, 16(2): 113-122. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199903/04)16:2<113::AID-SRES279>3.0.CO;2-C
  12. Orellana A. Class size and interaction in online courses. The perfect online course: Best practices for designing and teaching, 2009, 117: 135.
  13. Kingma B and Keefe S. An analysis of the virtual classroom: Does size matter? Do residencies make a difference? Should you hire that instructional designer? Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 2006: 127-143. https://doi.org/10.2307/40324327
  14. Abdous MH and Yoshimura M. Learner outcomes and satisfaction: A comparison of live video-streamed instruction, satellite broadcast instruction, and face-to-face instruction. Computers & education, 2010, 55(2): 733-741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.006
  15. Giesbers B, Rienties B, Tempelaar D, et al. Investigating the relations between motivation, tool use, participation, and performance in an e-learning course using web-videoconferencing. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013, 29(1): 285-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.005
  16. Falloon G. Making the connection: Moore's theory of transactional distance and its relevance to the use of a virtual classroom in postgraduate online teacher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 2011, 43(3): 187-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782569
  17. Hrastinski S. Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause quarterly, 2008, 31(4): 51-55.
  18. Watts L. Synchronous and asynchronous communication in distance learning: A review of the literature. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2016, 17(1): 23. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-555-9.ch016
  19. Merrill MD, Li Z and Jones M K. Second generation instructional design (ID$_{2$). Educational Technology, 1990, 30(2): 7-14.
  20. Garrison DR. A cognitive constructivist view of distance education: An analysis of teaching-learning assumptions. Distance education, 1993, 14(2): 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791930140204
  21. Gilbert L and Moore DR. Building interactivity into Web courses: Tools for social and instructional interactions. Educational Technology, 1998, 38(3): 29-35.
  22. Moore MG. Three types of interaction. 1989. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
  23. Roblyer MD and Ekhaml L. How interactive are your distance courses? A rubric for assessing interaction in distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2000, 3(2): 1.
  24. Nippard EC. Social presence in the web-based synchronous secondary classroom. Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2005. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v7i1.317
  25. Ali A, Ramay MI and Shahzad M. Key factors for determining student satisfaction in distance learning courses: A study of Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU) Islamabad, Pakistan. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 2011, 12(2): 114-127. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6047
  26. Thurmond VA, Wambach K, Connors HR, et al. Evaluation of student satisfaction: Determining the impact of a web-based environment by controlling for student characteristics. The American journal of distance education, 2002, 16(3): 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1603_4
  27. Kurucay M and Inan FA. Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers & Education, 2017, 115: 20-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.010
  28. Xiao M, Tian Z and Xu W. Impact of teacher-student interaction on students’ classroom well-being under online education environment. Education and Information Technologies, 2023: 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11681-0
  29. Knapp NF. Increasing Interaction in a Flipped Online Classroom through Video Conferencing. TechTrends, 2018, 62: 618-624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0336-z
  30. Pintrich PR and Groot EVD. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1990, 82(1): 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33