Jaishree K. Odin, Ph.D
Liberal Studies Program
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
odin@hawaii.edu

[A shorter form of this article appeared in the WebNet 1999 Proceedings under the title:
Effective Online Teaching/Learning: A Case Study. WebNet (2) 1999: 1381-1382 ]

Only in recent years new technologies are beginning to be creatively used to reintegrate the learner-instructor as well as learner-learner interaction in teaching at a distance. The focus is increasingly on rethinking teaching-learning processes so that all distance students become active learners, and not only the self-motivated ones. This trend in reconceptualization of distance education is bringing back the need to define the nature of interactions possible in technology mediated learning (Keegan 1996; Shale 1990; Sammons 1990; Dwyer 1990).

In an attempt to isolate the types of interaction possible in distance learning, Charles Moore identifies three types of interaction: learner-content interaction, learner-teacher, and learner-learner. Little learning take place unless the learner genuinely engages the content of the course. Moore regards the teacher interaction as important "to stimulate or at least maintain the student's interest in what is to be taught, to motivate the student to learn , to enhance and maintain the learner's interest, including self-direction and self-motivation" (Moore 21-22). The learner's engagement with the content of the course can be facilitated with the learner-teacher interaction which can occur in a distance situation in a variety of ways, the weekly overviews of the course materials, advance organizers, inserted questions or discussion topics, the instructor's responses sent to individual students, or synchronous interaction on the Internet. The direct or indirect instructor-learner interaction thus can be used to enable learners to find out whether they have understood the concepts or ideas clearly. Finally, peer interaction can be used as a valuable tool to help students validate each other's learning.

Current research on learning effectiveness shows that learner-centered environments, based on the understanding that any knowledge is a social construction, are more conducive to long-term learning. In online environments, students acquire knowledge in a social context where they are given opportunities to verbalize and articulate what they have learned as they relate it to what they already know. "Collaborative learning means that both teachers and learners are active participants in the learning process; knowledge is not something that is 'delivered' to students in this process, but something that emerges from active dialogue among those who seek to understand and apply concepts and techniques" (Hiltz 135). Linda Harasim identifies the collaborative learning among peers as important since it allows learners to process information through reflection which facilitates "formulating arguments or reorganizing material to introduce new (previously unrecognized ) relationships, thereby advancing the knowledge of the participants" (45).

Online education is shown to be effective in creating collaborative learning situations. But it has also been seen that unless specially designed activities are integrated to promote learner-content interaction, the nature of peer interaction can be quite superficial. Some of the basic questions that need to be addressed when designing an online course are:

1. What kind of activities or interactions are crucial in promoting not only peer interaction, but also learners' greater engagement with the course content?

2. What is the role of the instructor in holding the community of virtual learners together, so that the peer interaction in fact facilitates the learning of the content as well as application of knowledge?

3.What kind of design consideration must an instructor consider to manage the course efficiently?

The details of our efforts to resolve these questions as we designed and delivered our experimental asynchronous learning course are as follows: The Course: CAS 403-Information Technology and Culture was an upper division interdisciplinary course on Information Technology and Culture. The development and teaching of this course was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The course was intended to serve as a model for other liberal arts courses to be delivered to outer islands of Hawaii from the UH Manoa campus. For participating in the course, students had to visit the course site regularly and participate in all activities on a weekly basis.

Students: Twenty one outreach students were initially enrolled in the course which contributed to their Bachelor's degree. One student dropped out within the first few weeks because of lack of access to a computer. The students accessed the course via the internet from the islands of Maui and Molokai whereas the instructor was located on the island of Oahu. Of the twenty students, eleven were full-time and nine were part time students and all of them successfully completed the course. None of them had taken any online course before. Seventeen students were 25 or older.

Course Materials: The course materials used in CAS 403 came from a variety of sources: print resources, the instructor's online overviews of weekly reading assignments, books, journal articles, various online resources, and even online student projects from previous courses. The course was divided into four units and each unit lasted about three to four weeks.

Course Delivery Software: The ease with which we created an asynchronous environment which students soon began to experience as an electronic classroom was possible due to the sophisticated interface of Lotus Notes' LearningSpace with its interlinked databases, the Schedule, the MediaRoom, the CourseRoom, the Profiles, and the Assessment Manager.

Course Management: As we designed weekly class activities for students, we kept in mind the changed pedagogical assumptions, a shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered classroom. The class lectures or lecture notes were replaced by weekly overviews and specific discussion topics. Even students' detailed responses became part of the reading materials.

We focused our attention on creating a learning environment that would allow the following three types of interaction on a regular basis:

1. Learner-Content Interaction 2. Learner-Teacher Interaction 3. Learner-Learner Interaction

To match these three modes of interaction, we devised the following three types of activities:

1. Reader Response; Sent privately to the instructor and later on made available to the entire class to read (primarily learner-content and learner-instructor interaction)
2. Instructor's weekly overviews of the reading assignments as well as the feedback on Reader Responses (learner-instructor interaction)
3. Class and Team Discussions (learner-learner interaction)

Assessment: As far as assessment was concerned, we incorporated both formative as well as summative assessments into the course design as follows:
Formative: based on the weekly Reader Responses and monitoring of Class and Team Discussions
Summative: Two Quizzes-Midterm and Final Quiz (Not graded)
One short Paper (graded)
One long Research Paper (graded)

Distribution of Grading: One Short Essay: 20%
Final Research Paper: 30%
Participation in Class Discussion (included weekly responses and work assignments) 40%
Team Work: 10%

Results
Total Number of Students: 20
Total Number of Student Submissions during thirteen weeks: On the average 80 submissions per week
Total Number of Instructor entries: Between 23-25/week (includes individual feedback on Reader Responses as well as message posted on the CAS 403 class list.

Quantitative Course Evaluation:
The end of the semester evaluation consisted of an anonymous survey with twenty five questions. The anonymous survey was completed by fifteen students and some of the highlights are as follows. The percentages represent Strongly Agree/Agree response by the students who participated in the survey.

Effectiveness of the Course:
Content of the course was interesting. 80%
Course requirements/objectives as well as procedures were clearly spelled out. 86%
Textbooks web resources articles and class assignments were very relevant to understanding the course. 86%
The course content was covered in the same depth as in a traditional classroom. 86%
The online course material and assignments were organized in a clear manner. 86%

Learning Effectiveness:
Weekly class assignments tested students for course understanding, not memory ability. 93%
Course room discussion, team discussions along with the opportunity I was given to read individual student responses further enhanced my understanding of the course materials. 86%
I received the instructor's feedback from assignments and other course evaluation in a timely manner. 86%
I was given sufficient time to finish assignments/essays. 100%
I contributed a lot more myself and I read a lot more contributions by other students in this course than in any other traditional class. 86% As a result of this course I better understand my position in society and the political, cultural, and economic factors that affect my life. 86%

Teaching Effectiveness:
Instructor demonstrated mastery of the subject matter. 100%
Weekly discussion assignments and overviews of the reading assignments prepared by the instructor were of high caliber. 100%
Instructor created the context where all students actively contributed toward learning experiences and thereby created a virtual community of learners where students helped each other learn. 93%

Qualitative Course Evaluation:
Half-way through the course, students were given a self-reflexive assignment where they were asked to comment on the mode of teaching and learning in the asynchronous setting. Students felt that participating in the course was a real learning experience for them-the format and the content made it unique and challenging for them.

Given below are student comments as they were asked following questions regarding Learner-Instructor and Learner-Content Interaction:
Is learning/teaching in an asynchronous (anytime anywhere access) as effective as a face-to-face (same time same place) class. Does this format motivate you to keep up with your weekly reading assignments? Do you think you are learning a lot more and contributing a lot more in this course than in your face to face classes?

On the whole, almost all felt that the asynchronous format was an effective mode of teaching/learning. Some of them expressed how unusual it was for them to post their opinions, thoughts, and their unique perspectives about the reading assignment for everyone to read and how it "emphasized accountability." One student wrote: "This course has been unique, enriching and exciting for me. I have definitely learned as much or more as I would have in a standard classroom setting. The format motivates me to keep up with the readings, as there is black and white accountability ....You can't "fake it" in this class as there is not just the professor reading our writings, but twenty other students. Also in that vein, we learn from each others' comments and reader responses which in any standard class would not be available to us. ...other people bring up different viewpoints that I might never have considered, broadening my perspective." Another student pointed out, "Most lecture format class settings do not really allow for much discussion. If it does occur, you must be quick, outspoken and forward. What if that is not your nature? I have been in many classes at MCC and UH where I and many others have not spoken out at all. It is not for lack of an opinion or understanding." Yet another student thought that the asynchronous format was wonderful for those "who [are] not comfortable speaking out in class." Now, they "can express themselves as much as they want. Or, [for] the people who want to contribute but they feel that other classmates may think they are getting off track, the pressure is off."

Regarding the multiple types of interaction in this course, one student felt that "students can explore each classmate's reaction and go as far off the subject as they want without bothering other classmates .....Yes, this format motivates me to keep up with weekly reading assignments? Actually, you have to or you will not be able to participate in team discussions, class discussions, or your response to the instructor. Yes, I feel I am part of a group."

Students comments to the following questions regarding Learner-Learner Interactions are given below:
Do you feel a sense of community with other students in this course? Do you think the course room discussion space gives you a sense of togetherness?
Almost all students felt that they did not feel isolated in this course, because everybody was there to assist. One student wrote that asynchronous learning "is great in this respect. I do feel a sense of community with many of the students, but especially the ones who put their thoughts and feeling into the class and take risks. I still feel frustrated that I don't have faces for some of the students which throws me off a little." Another student felt that comments by her peers were of interest to her. She said: "by reading someone else's comments on a subject sometimes helps me see the reading assignment in a whole new perspective and puts a whole new slant on the subject." Somebody else wrote, "Having an online community was very motivating for me. I looked forward to reading what everyone else had written and contributing my thoughts. This material was very new and challenging for me and I got the feeling everyone was thinking and learning about these new ideas together. I felt my team worked out really well."

Right in the beginning of the semester, students realized the necessity of time management since all assignments came with due dates. One of them pointed out, "Some of the most crucial concepts that one can learn is time management and how to be productive. This class literally thrusts you in this situation. This course doesn't have any "walls" in the traditional sense, rather a lot of windows instead." Students saw the need to feel self-motivated and to cultivate self-discipline to succeed in the course. They were also grateful that they could submit their assignments anytime during the week.

Discussion:
As far as the general format of the course was concerned, each student was required to read the assigned reading material and respond to it on a weekly basis. The Reader Response activity was a way to foster the instructor-learner connection and create a learning environment where learners were motivated to become active learners by genuinely engaging the content of the course. The learner's engagement with the content of the course was facilitated by the weekly overviews of the reading assignments that were posted in the Schedule. The purpose of the Reader Responses was to see that the instructional goals were being achieved and when they were not, timely intervention became crucial in maintaining student interest in the subject matter or in the learning situation as such. By the end of the second week, it became clear that the quality of a great number of responses was so good that other students should be given an opportunity to read them. So starting from the second week, the instructor started posting the responses in the course room for everybody to read, initially, just the best ones, but as the semester progressed, all of them. As students saw their work being read by the instructor and later by other students, it was a unique form of validation of their knowledge-making which was further enhanced as they applied these ideas to other situations in team and class discussions. Different perspectives helped them understand ideas that they had missed or not understood in their own reading.

Whereas the Reader Responses were focused exercises to evaluate students' understanding of the content, the discussion assignments were meant to serve as a platform for the application of ideas. We initiated one or two discussion threads every week and these were directly linked to the content overviews for that week. The student were free to initiate other discussion threads which they frequently did. We reinforced right from the beginning that there was no wrong or right answer to the discussion assignments, only different perspectives and different levels of understanding. So their arguments could change as they learned more about the topic or as they read what their classmates had to say about a specific topic. This open-ended nature of discussion gave students freedom to choose how they wanted to respond to the entries. In this controlled, yet very open discussion space, students got actively involved and responded to each other in creative and sometimes, provocative ways. A lot of faculty who have incorporated electronic conferencing tend to complain that it takes too much of their time since messages come pouring in at different times. In CAS 403, discussions were primarily a space where students interacted, even as they were constantly aware that their discussion was being monitored by the instructor who intervened only when students needed help or if they simply went off track. Since the instructor held back, soon more advanced students began to help the ones that were having difficulties with ideas or concepts or their relationships. The instructor's occasional strategic intervention reassured students that the instructor was indeed monitoring all class discussions even though she did not actively participate. This strategy was very useful in handling on the average 80-90 submissions/week.

Both the Reader Responses as well as the discussion entries became modes of formative assessment that were built into the course design. Bottom-up assessment techniques that focus on students are in the long run more effective in terms of increasing the quality of learning than top-down techniques that test whether teaching has been effective. In order to increase learning effectiveness, we integrated assessment activities into the course design right from the beginning which allowed us to monitor on a weekly basis if the learning goals were being achieved. For example, a background test before the course actually began gave us an idea about students' prior knowledge. Similarly the work and discussion assignments that students were required to submit on a weekly basis showed us if students were learning the concepts or skills that were part of the course objectives. The Paper-Prep quiz at the end of the first two units and the second one at the end of last two units allowed us to see if students had in fact mastered the assigned texts at the conceptual level. If some students were having difficulties understanding the subject matter, the instructor intervened in a timely fashion before it was too late. As in a face-to-face course, students were also required to write two essays. The gradable assessments, for example essays were thus only one aspect of the course where the focus had shifted from teaching effectiveness to learning effectiveness. In light of the fact that students did such long reader responses on a weekly basis, the number of essays assigned in this course was reduced from three to two. Students were required to write one short essay in the middle of the semester and one long research paper at the end of the semester. Except for one or two essays, all the essays were posted in the MediaRoom for everybody to read.

It was obvious both to the instructor and the students by the end of the second week about the importance of time management. Each week the twenty students enrolled in the course generated on the average a total number of 80 submissions which were dispersed over different days of the week. Some sort of time-frame was needed to be developed in order for the course to run efficiently that would keep the students motivated to participate regularly in class discussion which was asynchronous, but nonetheless followed its own timeline since the course was externally paced. The external pacing, it was obvious, was crucial for the collaborative work to take place. In CAS 403, all weekly assignments came with a due date. All assignments for the week were due by the Sunday of that week. Similarly, the instructor provided individual feedback by the Tuesday of the following week. The instructor checked on the course discussion everyday, only occasionally participating. The course room discussion become primarily a space for peer interaction. All the new assignments and weekly overviews of the reading assignments were up on Monday of every week. As the instructor strictly followed the schedule herself, the students too were motivated to do so. She provided feedback to students' individual responses on a weekly basis. It created a context where each student felt directly linked to the instructor while at the same time feeling a part of the community of learners. It also created a classroom dynamics where students felt that the instructor was monitoring all class discussions and individual submissions, even though she did not participate actively in class discussions.

Conclusion : The learning-teaching act need no longer be separated in distance courses even as self-learning is still one of the important aspects of distance learning as students independently engage with the content in the absence of elaborate lectures. In this respect, asynchronous online education can be compared to face-to-face seminar classes which usually focus around student discussion rather than the instructor lectures. Through teaching this course, it became obvious that the role of the instructor is crucial as the content expert if deeper learning is to take place-to explain, to clarify, to direct and to guide as students apply new knowledge. In an asynchronous course, it is easy for the instructor to devise specific activities to encourage students to take the lead and assert themselves occasionally, both in terms of the ideas that they encounter in the reading materials and the way they relate them to their world. An effective multi-layered learning environment incorporates learner/content, learner/ instructor and learner/learner interaction which creates a social context for receiving, exchanging and transforming knowledge. The process of teaching/learning becomes a complex mode of interaction amongst the learners, the instructor, and the content of the course. Since all the work done by students in an asynchronous course is in writing, it can be reviewed both by students and by the instructor anytime from anywhere. Students can indeed feel a sense of ownership in such a course, as the energy they invest in their assignments does not dissipate at the instructor's desk, but is passed on to their peers.

Dwyer, Frank M. "Enhancing the Effectiveness of Distance Education: A Proposed Research Agenda." Contemporary Issues in American Distance Education. Eds. Michael G. Moore with Peter Cookson, Joe Donaldson and B. Allan Quigley (Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press, 1990).
Harasim, Linda M. "Online Education: An Environment for Collaboration and Intellectual Amplification." Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. Ed. Linda M. Harasim (New York: Praeger Pub, 1990).
Hiltz, Starr Roxanne. "Evaluating the Virtual Classroom." Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. Ed. Linda M. Harasim (New York: Praeger Pub, 1990).
Keegan, Desmond. Foundations of Distance Education. (New York: Routledge, 1996).
Moore, Michael. "Three Types of Interaction." Distance Education: New Perspectives. Eds. Keith Harry, Magnus John and Desmond Keegan. (New York: Routledge, 1993).
Sammons, Morris. "An Epistemological Justification for the Role of Teaching in Distance Education." Contemporary Issues in American Distance Education. Eds. Michael G. Moore with Peter Cookson, Joe Donaldson and B. Allan Quigley (Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press, 1990).
Shale, Doug. "Toward a Reconceptualization of distance Education" Contemporary Issues in American Distance Education. Eds. Michael G. Moore with Peter Cookson, Joe Donaldson and B. Allan Quigley (Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press, 1990. 8