Anderson's article Getting the Mix Right Again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction discusses interaction and the development of "distance education systems that are both effective and efficiant in meeting diverse student learning needs" (Anderson 2003).
Before reading Anderson's deifinition of the article, I wanted to try to define interaction on my own. In my opinion, interaction occurs in language learning when a student takes input and finds a way to use it. As for Anderson, he agrees with Wagner's 1994 definition of interaction as "reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions. Interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence one another." According to the author, "interaction between students and content has long been recognized as a critical component of both campus-based and distance education" (Anderson p. 3).
The author continues by discussing the different categories in which interaction can be divided into teacher-student (such as a lecture lead by a teacher), student-student (such as a conversation between two students), and student-content (such as a student sending an e-mail) interactions, known as the equivalency theorem. We also learn that the amount of each interaction type depends on its learning community and that at least "one of the three forms of interaction is at a high level" (Anderson p. 7). Anderson's equivalency theorem is meant to help teachers evaluate the effectiveness of their lessons and other material so that they may attempt to amelioriate their students' learning.
Before reading this article, I never even thought about interaction in a formal education subject matter without the presence of a teacher. When reading about Anderson's equivalency theorem, I asked myself what type of interaction was the dominate type for our CALL course (student-teacher, student-student, student-content) and my answer was student-content. I think that this is the case because the manipulation of the course resources and assignments appears to be the main contributor in furthering my education in CALL (especially through these reactions). In this class, the student-teacher and the student-student interactions certainly add to and improve my learning experience but certainly do not provide as much as the student-content. This is my first time in a dominate student-content learning environment. I enjoy it because I feel like I am in more control of what I am going to learn, unlike in a student-teacher environment where I follow the teacher.
As for the French classes that I have taught and teach, I believe that there is a pretty good balance between the different types of interactions. The student-teacher interaction is of course the dominant type because I provide a lot of information to the students but at the same time, there is a high level of student-student interaction and student-content interaction. There are even moments where multiple students interact with content while I provide input when needed. In order to keep the students' level of participation high, I think it is necessary to constantly change the types of interaction.
Question:
What is the level of a conversation class when thinking about Anderson's equivalency theorem? I think that in order to get the most out of a conversation class, a perfect balance between the three types of students' interactions is needed. This summer, I taught a French conversation class and I found it rather difficult to find that perfect balance between the three and I found myself leaning towards a student-teacher interaction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Brian,
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is necessary to constantly change the types of interaction in order to keep students engaged. All types of interaction are necessary at some point during a class. I think the easiest and most natural interaction for teachers to use is the student-teacher type, simply because of the nature of teaching and wanting to "teach" our students and finding that delicate balance can be difficult. For some teachers this is problematic in that they don't utilize the other types of interactions to compliment the learning. I think that one's personal "style" goes back to the training they received because I work with a few teachers who are, unfortunately, reliant upon the student-teacher interaction, so much so that they do not even welcome the help of others.
Hey Brian,
ReplyDeleteYour question at the end peaked my attention for two reasons. One, my first teaching experience was as an assistante in France; secondly, I enjoy having conversational lessons with my students, in French or in English. I had a terrible time getting my French students in France to speak to me in any language. I'm doing much better now, but I'm generally speaking in my native language. However, it is difficult as a teacher to refrain from dominating the conversation or even from having a 25% share. There is a trick to getting the students to speak freely and to respond to each other without using the teacher as the middle-man or strainer!
Brian,
ReplyDeleteYou said "I asked myself what type of interaction was the dominate type for our CALL course ... and my answer was student-content."
I agree with that, because most of the time in CALL class, students need to download materials, reads them, and post their thoughts--just like our CALL class. In this kink of class, and if the class is a workshop type class, I also agree that student-content interaction is dominant. Howerver, there are some online classes wherer student-student interaction is more dominant. When I took a semi-online class--on-campus plus online discussion, I remember the online discussion forum usually gets several comments after one posting, and the instructor had to aced like some kind of referee or judge of the discussion.
You are right about student-content interaction is dominant in CALL classes. But based on my teaching/learning from online courses, when student-student and/or studnet-teacher interaction are addes, I think students learn effectively.
Hi Brian,
ReplyDeleteI find your comments about the conversation class interesting. I often see teachers trying to dominate conversations in a conversation class - mostly because the instructor wants to ensure the students are (1) talking about the topic and (2) not making errors.
I think it is very important for the teacher to think about the main objective of a conversation class, which usually is to increase fluency in the language. If that is the case, then if the students are speaking in the target language, whether or not they are on task, then they are (theoretically) increasing fluency. Also, if our goal is to increase fluency, then we should not be concerned with error correction. In fact, the best thing to do is just let students talk while the teacher walks around as a silent observer writing down the most common errors heard. At the end of the class period, the teacher can spend a few minutes correcting common errors heard.
This way, the conversation class remains focused on student-student interaction. And in my opinion, there would not be equivalency in a conversation class. It is my thought that a conversation class should be heavy on the student-student interaction side and light on the other two dimensions.