Anderson (2003) sugere ainda que:
“There are a number of other corollaries and implications based on the current post-industrial education context that can be drawn from this theorem, and I have attempted to provide a start at this process in the following lists.
Student Interaction
-
Quality educational programming requires high levels of interaction by students in at least one area, and can substitute for minimal to no interaction in the other two.
-
Student-teacher interaction currently has the highest perceived value amongst students, and thus commands highest market value.
-
Some student-teacher interactions can be automated, and thus substituted in whole or part, through the development and use of content resources, and especially those utilizing autonomous teacher agents. This practice migrates Net based forms of student-teacher interaction (emails, conferencing discussion, etc.) to student-content interactions (teacher videos, virtual labs, personalized FAQs, etc.).
-
Most forms of student-content interaction can be recorded and displayed asynchronously to substitute for student-student interaction by time or technology bound students.
-
Student-student interaction is critical for learning designs based upon constructivist learning theories, but less critical to cognitive and behaviorist learning theory based approaches.
-
Student-student interaction is critical for skill proficiency needed for collaborative or cooperative tasks. Thus, most effective learning to reach these goals maximizes student-student interaction.
-
Student-content interaction is most accessible, and most readily adapted, via individualized “student portfolios,” that can influence design, assessment, or delivery customizations (mass customization).
Teacher Interaction
-
Traditional approaches to teaching of each discipline, biases teachers towards different mixes of interaction.
-
Teacher-student interaction is generally the least scalable type of interaction, and thus is usually substituted for by student-content interaction in mass education systems.
-
Teacher agents can perform many of the functions that currently consume teacher time, especially those of a bookkeeping, clerical, or organizational nature, thus migrating teacher-student and teacher-content interaction to content-student and content-content interaction.
-
Some teacher interaction can be transformed into learning objects (videos, animations, assessment programs etc.), thus migrating student-teacher interaction to student-content interaction.
-
As professional students of their discipline, teachers, need professional development and knowledge building opportunities throughout their careers. Deep and meaningful learning to a professional, requires high levels of interaction in at least one of teacher-teacher; teacher-learner; teacher-content domains. High levels of one, allow for reductions in the other two.
-
Teacher-teacher collaboration is critical to the current model of university based research production and evaluation.
Content Interaction
-
Content, having only volition ascribed to it by humans, is the most flexible of actors, “willing” to undertake any combination and quantity of interaction.
-
The cost and restrictions on value of content interaction is falling much faster than interaction involving the other two forms of interaction (Moore’s and Metcalfe’s Laws), and thus is expanding in all areas, putting a premium value and cost on human based interaction: student-student, student-teacher, and teacher-teacher.
-
The semantic Web (Berners-Lee, 1998) provides an environment in which content can be formalized and manipulated, stored, searched, and computed automatically through autonomous agent technologies. Such capacity will allow development of much more useful teacher and learner agents, encouraging migration to content-based forms of interaction.
-
The value of the content is dependent on the extent to which it engages students or teachers in interaction, leading to relevant knowledge construction. There is also a direct relationship between this capacity for interaction and resulting engagement, mindfulness, and motivation.”
Como Anderson (2010) afirma:
“
Interaction stands at the centre of the educational experience. As distance educators we are both allowed and compelled to use mediated forms of this interaction. In some cases the media is costly and gets in the way of learning. In other cases it can result in hyper learning that easily surpasses non-mediated forms of learning. In all contexts we seek a balance of student-teacher, student-student, and student-content interaction that is cost - and learning-effective .”
Bibliografia
Anderson, T., and Garrison, D.R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibson (Ed.),
Distance Learners in Higher Education. (p. 97-112). Madison, WI.: Atwood Publishing. Retrieved from:
http://auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/2149/801/1/learning_in_a.pdf
Anderson, T. (2002) An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. Posted on ITFORUM on September 20, 2002. Retrived from:
http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/AECT_ITF_PDFS/paper63.pdf .
Anderson, Terry. (2003) Getting the mix right again: an updated and theoretical rationale for interaction.
The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , [S.l.], v. 4, n. 2, oct. 2003. ISSN 1492-3831. Retrived from:<
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230 >
Miyazoe, T.,&Anderson, T. (2010a). The Interaction Equivalency Theorem.
Journal of Interactive Online Learning (JIOL), Summer, 94-104. Retrieved from:
http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/9.2.1.pdf
Miyazoe, T.,&Anderson, T. (2010b). Empirical research on learners’ perceptions: Interaction Equivalency Theorem in blended learning,
European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning (EURODL). Retrieved from:
http://www.eurodl.org/?p=archives&year=2010&halfyear=1&article=397
Miyazoe, T. (2012) Getting the Mix Right Once Again: A Peek into the Interaction Equivalency Theorem and Interaction Design. Posted on 27 February 2012. ALT Online News Letter. Retrieved from:
http://newsletter.alt.ac.uk/2012/02/getting-the-mix-right-once-again-a-peek-into-the-interaction-equivalency-theorem-and-interaction-design/
Wagner, E.D. (2002). Interactivity: From Agents to Outcomes.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning . Volume 1997, Issue 71, pages 19–26, Autumn (Fall) 1997
