Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Teacher-Learner Interaction in an Online Distance Education

Course: Implications for Future Charter School Teachers
by
Dr. Penelope Wong

The teacher-learner interaction was surprisingly rich for an online course. I had more contact with you than most of my professors including those on campus. (Kristen, online student)

For many educators, the student-teacher relationship is at the heart of the learning-teaching process, and while this relationship can manifest itself in a variety of ways, one significant dimension is the interaction between a teacher and his/her students because the educational process is fundamentally relational and interactive (Noddings, 1992; Ayers, 2001, Vygotsky, 1978, Dewey, 1938). Therefore, when technology, in the form of computer mediated classes, assumes a significant role in the educational process, one must consider its impact on teacher-learner interaction and the possibility of a potentially negative impact on quality and quantity of teacher-learner interaction (Berge 2002; Northrup, 2002; Phipps & Merisotis, 2000; Vansickle, 2003).

It was precisely this concern that prompted a small study to examine pre-service teacher experiences and perceptions concerning teacher- learner interaction in an online, asynchronous introductory education course. While many pre-service teachers may feel quite proficient in using technology in their classrooms and incorporating it into their curricula, few have thought about how technology can impact the more subtle aspects of their teaching, such as teacher-learner interaction. Having positive experiences and perceptions toward online teacher-learner interaction can positively influence pre-service teachers’ own technologically related classroom practices.

The participants in this study were thirty-two pre-service teacher candidates enrolled in a teacher education credential program. There were seventeen females and fifteen males who ranged from twenty-two to forty-nine years of age with the vast majority of subjects (n=29) being in their mid to late- twenties. In terms of race and ethnicity, the subjects were overwhelmingly Caucasian (n= 29) with the remainder being Latino/a (n= 3).

In obtaining participants’ perceptions of teacher-learner interaction, the prospective teachers were given a survey which asked them to first rate the quality of teacher-learner interaction on a Likert scale ranging from “1” to “10” with “1” being negative and “10” being positive and then describe the quality and quantity of the interaction. Thus, there was both a quantitative and qualitative dimension to this study. Because of the distance and ease of emailing, most students emailed the surveys back to me; however, a few students opted to send their surveys back via snail mail.

When the survey ratings were tabulated, an intriguing result emerged. A mean score of 9.6 out of 10 was the rating for teacher-learner interaction. As a group, the pre-service teachers were very satisfied with the teacher-learner interaction they experienced in their online course. There were no differences with respect to gender or ethnicity in the pre-service teachers’ responses about teacher-learner interaction qualitatively or quantitatively. This result was a little surprising because it is in opposition to generally assumed perceptions that face-to-face courses provide higher levels of interaction than do online courses (Havice, Havice & Isbell, 2000). Examining their comments and thematically coding them the pre-service teachers’ comments fell into three categories: 1) availability (n=30), quality of feedback as a function of caring (n=26), and “good interaction but will never be a 10” (n=4).

In terms of the first qualitative category, “Availability,” all the online students (n=32) commented on this dimension of teacher-learner interaction. This was not surprising as they could not count on “seeing” the instructor (i.e., the author) at a set time each week unlike in a traditional course. Nevertheless, their comments illustrated that they had the perception that I was available on a regular and predictable basis. As one student put it, “you were always easy to get a hold of online and you responded quickly and clearly” (Doug). Email was essentially the main way that I interacted with students. While they could contact me by phone, only one student in both semesters availed herself of this option, and this was due to some extensive computer problems.

Another dimension of availability that was raised by online students was revealed in five students’ comments about my participation in chats, which were originally set up to increase learner – learner interaction. I participated in the first chat to facilitate discussions, but students wanted me as their teacher to participate more.

It is significant to note that chats offer a qualitatively different kind of learner-teacher interaction than email due to the real-time element. Chats provide a seemingly more direct interaction with someone even if mediated by a computer, a little like a telephone conversations. Thus, the impression is that the teacher is not quite so distant.

Availability addresses the issue of the quantity and timeliness of the interaction; feedback speaks to students’ perceptions of the quality of the interaction. Because teacher feedback on student work accounted for such a large portion of teacher-learner interaction, it was not surprising it was mentioned by twenty-eight of the thirty-two students. Providing constructive feedback that is related to improved learning achievement (Jung 2000) must be timely, user friendly, specific, and credible takes time no matter what the format of the course. However, providing feedback with these qualities seems an even more daunting task online. First, there is simply the sheer act of commenting on papers online versus a hard copy. On the computer, it just seems more laborious and not as intimate. On the computer, one can’t write in the margins or draw arrows as easily than on a hard copy assignment. Also, one has to be constantly vigilant that what is actually written is conveying the intended meaning. While the same challenge could be said of teachers providing feedback on papers in traditional classes, in an online class, one has no definitive sense of how the student is receiving the comments because all learner-teacher interactions have been online unlike in a traditional class. Therefore, it is so important to have established at the outset of the course a climate of safety and trust.

On another level, feedback in a more immediate form, such as in chats, also provides some challenges. In the absence of all the traditional non-verbal cues that mediate communication, such as body language, the teacher has to be extra careful that all the (written) feedback is as clear and intended in its purpose as possible to prevent any possible misunderstanding simply due to computer mediated communication.

Not surprisingly, in the absence of any kind of face-to-face or real-time interaction (except through chats), students perceived feedback I provided them as a measurement of my “caring” for them.

An interesting sub-theme that emerged among the online students’ comments was how many of them were actually surprised at the amount of feedback and quality of it. One noted, “it was apparent that a lot of time went into grading assignments.” Another noted, “I do not get this much feedback in actual courses offered on campus.” These last comments were revealing and suggest the possibility that students might enter online courses with lower expectations concerning teacher-learner interactions than when they enter face-to-face courses.

One of the most significant and interesting themes to emerge from this study is the theme best characterized as “good interaction for an online course, but it will never be better than in a face-to-face course.” Two students’ comments capture this sentiment well.

The above-mentioned student is basically saying that no matter how excellent the teacher-learner interaction could be, it would never merit a “10” rating because it couldn’t be possibly be comparable to the kind of learner-student interaction found in face-to-face courses. Another student who rated the teacher-learner interaction a 7.5/10 had this to say.

Both students suggest that some online students have a completely different set of expectations when taking an online course than when taking a traditional face-to-face course and that traditional courses are serving as the de facto standard by which to evaluate the quality of teacher-learner interaction. It also seems that “different” is being equated with “lesser” or “not as good” and this is potentially problematic. Interestingly, many students are quite cognizant of this double standard when it comes to evaluating teacher-learner interaction. One online student who rated teacher-learner interaction as a “9” qualified his response this way.

Unlike the other students, this student did not rate his interaction with the teacher lower solely because it was in an online class, but like the other two students he is expressing the idea that teacher-learner interaction in a face-to-face class is qualitatively different (and possibly better) than that of an Internet course.

While these three students felt the teacher-learner interaction was significantly different in online courses versus face-to-face courses, they didn’t explain how it was different. And while it is a guess, it is probably quite simply the real-time, direct face-to-face interchange that the students missed. A fourth student suggested this might have been the missing element when he said, “we [students] lost the element of human expression and personal interaction.”

In short, it seemed that no matter how satisfied online students were with the teacher-learner interaction they experienced, there was always a missing element – the direct, face-to-face, or “human” connection. While nothing can be done about this particular element in a fully online course, the results indicate that this challenge is not entirely insurmountable even when students enter online courses expecting teacher-learner interactions to be less rich and satisfying than in face-to-face students.

While the pre-service teachers were quite satisfied with the teacher-learner interaction they experienced in their online course, it was clear that some of them could not believe that the teacher-learner interaction could be as “good” as that in a traditional face-to-face course mainly because a real-time human connection was missing. It could be argued that such pre-conceived notions might have prevented students from fully experiencing all the possible benefits of an online teacher-learner relationship, but their comments were real and suggested how I might improve the delivery of online courses because the quality of teacher-learner interaction is an extremely important variable related to student satisfaction and motivation (Berge, 1999). Therefore based on the students’ comments, I came up with the following possible modifications to the delivery of my online courses in a way that enhances teacher-learner interaction.

Clearly a positive teacher-learner relationship is critical to any educational situation, but for pre-service teachers the situation is especially critical because they will be working with k-12 students. Additionally, it is especially important that pre-service teachers experience and have some understanding of a positive online teacher-learner relationship because in all likelihood they will find themselves involved in some kind of online public school education in the near future.

References

Berge, Z.L. (1999, January/February). Interaction in post-secondary web-based learning. Educational Technology, 39, (1), 5-11.

Berge, Z.L. (2002). Active, interactive, and reflective e-learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 181-190.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: MacMillian.<

Havice, P, Havice, W & Isabell (2000). Rubrics and a strategy for integrating traditional instruction and distributed learning. In C. Mann, B.L. (Ed.), Perspectives in web course management (pp. 199-210). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.<

Jung, J(2000). Technological innovations and developments of distance education. Open Learning, 15 (3), 217-231.
Mupinga, D. (2005). Distance Education in High Schools. The Clearinghouse, 78 (3), 105-108.

Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. New York: Teachers College Press).

Northrup, P.T. (2002). Online learners’ preferences for interaction. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 219-226.

Phipps, R & Merisotis, J. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in internet-based distance education. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444407).

Texas Education Agency (2002). A Report to the 78th Texas Legislation on Electronic Courses and Virtual Learning Programs. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 477704).

Vansickle, J. (2003). Making the transition to teaching online: Strategies and methods for the first-time online instructor. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479882).

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

---

Penelope Wong is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Education at California State University, Chico. Her research and teaching interests include multicultural education, service-learning, and curriculum and instruction. Formerly, a high school English teacher, she has taught overseas, on the Navajo Reservation, and in a charter school in Arizona. She may be contacted at pwong@csuchico.edu.