1. Information Technology and interaction in learning interaction in learning Nikos Mattheos Centre for Educational Technology and Research in Oral Health Malmö University

2. interaction  learning

4. learner-content vicarious learner-learner ? learner-tutor

5. learner-interface student slides videos teleconference multimedia textbooks seminars television Internet

6. human-human interaction human-interface interaction in blended learning scenarios

7. human – human interaction via computer

8. 8 participants (2 groups) Hybrid structure 5 PBL cases Distance from 5 to 600 km No previous experience with PBL or Distance Learning

9. 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 Internet Asynchronous In Classroom Internet Synchronous

10. Speed of interaction Tutor involvement Participation of individual student Interaction elements evaluated:

11. Interaction speed Class Sync Async 2,1 inputs/min 15 inputs/min -

12. Interaction speed Class Sync Async 2,1 inputs/min15 inputs/min - Tutor involvement (max) 9 % 48 % 10 –35 %

13. Interaction speed Class Sync Async 2,1 inputs/min15 inputs/min - Tutor involvement 9 %48 %10 –35 % Uneven distribution +++

14. Student 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 sometimes ”frustrating” on-line discussions more ”superficial” and sometimes ”frustrating”

15. Inputs in the web board (asynchronous)

16. The messaging threshold in 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.”

18. In-classroomInternet text- based

19. Text based interaction through Internet is : ”filtered” ”superficial” ? Less spontaneous More tiring different…different..! threshold Mattheos et al, Interaction in Virtual versus traditional PBL Classrooms. American Journal of Distance Education 2001

20. §3rd Semester Examination §2hrs group meeting: l self- asessment l discussion with examiner l discussion with peers l discussion with resource persons

21. One cohort of 2 nd year students in Periodontology §face to face : 15 Students §over internet: 24 Students l Webcams l Headphones, microphones l Speakers l Multimedia, webdocuments l Facilitators in Malmö l Fax l Questionnaire evaluation

22. One cohort of 2 nd year students in Periodontology Same performance results Attitudes significantly more positive when face-to-face

23. 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.

24. and so...

25. Computer mediated interaction with the presently available technology appears to have significant differences, strengths and weaknesses compared to face to face interaction.

26. Computer mediated interaction should ideally supplament and not exclude face to face interaction

27. The Interactive Examination

29. The Interactive examination: Engage in a dialogue Engage in a dialogue Reflect on actions, process, outcome Reflect on actions, process, outcome Compare to standards, objectives Compare to standards, objectives Identify weaknesses Identify weaknesses Define new learning objectives Define new learning objectives

30. The Interactive examination: A. Preparatory phase ( 2 weeks) B. Group meeting (2 hours) C. Individual feedback – follow up

31. A. Preparatory phase: A. Preparatory phase: a. On-line self-assessment

32. A. Preparatory phase: A. Preparatory phase: a.On-line self-assessment b. Instant feedback

33. A. Preparatory phase: A. Preparatory phase: a.On-line self-assessment b.Instant feedback c. Forward data to assessor

34. B. Group meeting: B. Group meeting: a.Written essay b.Discussion c.Evaluation d. Comparison with the expert

35. Student’s essay Primary feedback: Expert’s essay reflection Secondary feedback: Teacher’s comments improvement written essay and comparison: written essay and comparison:

36. discussion: discussion: a.Self-assessment as starting point b.Students’ elaborate on own judgements c.Subject related knowledge and understanding d.Discussion – expert and peer feedback

37. ... not enough ?

38. Data available after exam a.Self-assessment - elaborate comments b.Instructors assessment - comments c.Written essay - argumentation c.Discussion – argumentation d.Comparison text with the expert answer and self – defined learning needs

39. 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

40. differencesarguments needs

41. human – interface interaction

42. The Leo: A free Internet-based platform for assessing and training of self-assessment skills in oral health education (A. Nattestad – R. Attström) http://tmk.odont.ku.dk/leo/

47. self assessment skills The Leo: reflectionfeedback

48. 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

49. Leon=26 Staticn=26 BaselineBaselineBaselineBaseline week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week 5 AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment Case1 Case1 1 1 Case2Case3Case4 Case2Case3Case4 2 23 3 4 4

50. Improved performance in general Improved performance in general No significant difference between groups No significant difference between groups (moderate agreement between assessors) (moderate agreement between assessors) Time on task correlates to written performance Time on task correlates to written performance Computer competence correlates to written Computer competence correlates to written performance performance Results :

51. 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 some complains about workload appeared students were positive on Internet cases, but some complains about workload appeared Results :

52. Some reflections… Time is an important factor Time 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 factor Face to face interaction important motivation factor Assessment procedure not sensitive enough ? Assessment procedure not sensitive enough ?

53. ...and where to from here?

54. Next moves… 39 students attended this year the Interactive Examination 39 students attended this year the Interactive Examination Personal folder – portfolio for each student. Personal folder – portfolio for each student. More complicated cases, focus on reflective learning More complicated cases, focus on reflective learning Total content management through e-zone Total content management through e-zone

55. Next moves… Time for a … Time for a … meta –evaluation ? ? ? meta –evaluation ? ? ? individual individual learning styles learning styles

56. nikolaos.mattheos@od.mah.se