Online instructors and course designers can enhance existing online courses and create active, engaging courses by considering five elements included in an adapted version of Robyler and Ekhamil’s “Rubric for Assessing Interactive Qualities of Distance Courses” described (and embedded) below.
Interactivity is a much discussed topic in online learning. It’s considered the essential ingredient for quality learning. It’s also considered the missing element in online learning—an element that critics claim make face-to-face learning superior. There is no question that interactivity is a necessary component of online, for-credit education. Three out of seven principles presented in Chickering and Gamson’s seminal paper “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” (1987) stress interaction and active learning: Principle 1. encourage contact between students and faculty, 2. develop reciprocity and cooperation among students, and 3. encourage active learning. Chickering and Gamson’s principles are just as relevant to online education as they are to face-to-face instruction. Also worth noting is that several institutions use these same principles as a foundation for their best practices in both traditional and online education today.
Few would argue that interactivity is necessary for quality online education, yet many educators are unsure how to make an online course interactive. Adding to the challenge is the fact that there are few resources outlining strategies and examples on how to go about developing a course that stresses active learning.
Fortunately there is an excellent, instructive tool that serves as a starting point, “How Interactive are YOUR Distance Courses? A Rubric for Assessing Interaction in Distance Learning”. I like this resource because of the clear language it uses, the specificity of behaviours and its self-scoring capabilities. The rubric below is based on concepts of the original rubric published in Robyler and Ekhamil’s paper. The revised rubric adds a fifth element ‘Evidence of Instructor Engagement’ to the existing four, where each element defines interactive qualities of an online course. The updated version further develops each element—an improvement over the original; the elements are now worded so they are specific to interactive qualities brought about by:
- course design (element 1 and 2)
- technology support function (element 3)
- facilitation of the course (element 4 and 5).
The three-page Rubric embedded below is a PDF in Google Docs (hover your cursor over the right corner to expand the Rubric). If unable to view the embedded file, click here to go directly to the doc on Google Drive.
Are we measuring Interactivity or Interaction?
There is a critical distinction between interactivity and interaction in the context of online education. It’s important to clarify—one concept involves technology and the other human behaviors. Wagner in Interactivity: From Agents to Outcomes (1997) describes interactivity as involving attributes associated with a technological application that delivers an interactive experience to learners, e.g. an interactive timeline embedded within a course home site, or a multiple choice quiz that gives automated feedback. On the other hand interactions usually involve human behaviours of individuals or groups that influence one another (Wagner, 1997). Discussion within a forum where there is exchange between students is an example, an email exchange between student and instructor, or a live video conference chat are others. As Wagner discusses in her paper, the differences are noteworthy, and relevant today as the term interactive is often used without clarification when describing online education courses in discussions for assessment and accreditation purposes.
Creating and facilitating an online class that is interactive—that promotes student activity and engagement is challenging and complex. There are many variables involved; several beyond the control of the instructors and course development team. The rubric presented here does provide a good starting point for considering some of the factors that contribute to creating active and meaningful learning experiences for students. If you have or use resources or strategies that are helpful for creating active learning, consider sharing by leaving a comment so other readers may benefit. Thank you!
- Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3-7. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED282491.pdf
- Roblyer, M. D. & Ekhaml, D. (2000). How interactive are YOUR distance courses? A rubric for assessing interaction in distance learning. The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3(2)
- Rubric for Assessing Interactive Qualities of Distance Courses Detail, HandsOn With Technology, 3e. Retrieved from wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2448/2507611/…/IAF14.PDF
- Wagner, E. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71. Jossey-Bass Publishers. Retrieved from the Wiki of University of Wisconsin-Madison