Critique 1 - Applying the Interaction Equivalency Theorem to Online Courses in a Large Organization

     In academic settings, social interaction and communications between people have been an important factor to foster learning.  According to the author, research studies have accumulated which highlight the importance of social interaction in an academic environment.  However, the author states that this is not the case in a business context.  Even if considered important, personal exchanges aren’t always possible in online courses.  Whether it be poor design or the demand for just-in-time content, it’s common for corporate learning programs to have very limited opportunities for social interaction.

     The authors question if an online course without opportunities for social interaction can be effective in a business environment.  They go on to describe the interaction equivalency theorem which suggests that that the answer to this question is yes, any online learning program can be effective as long as the course is designed with at least one of three types of interaction – learner-content interaction, leaner-teacher, or learner-learner. (Anderson, 2003)  If one of these is achieved at a high level, the other two can be minimal or even missing altogether without sacrificing quality or for learning to occur. If the theorem was well-supported by evidence, this would be extremely attractive to corporate organizations that can easily achieve one of these types of interaction - learner-content interaction.  However, according to the authors, there are very few research studies that specifically test this theorem. The authors highlight a handful of studies that have been conducted to test the interaction equivalency theorem specifically.  The generic results, however, claimed that these different types of interactions were basically equivalent. In other words, not one of the types of interactions outlined in the theorem were any more important over the other.  However, in the few studies that are mentioned initially, none of them were conducted in a corporate setting.  They were all conducted in an academic environment, which doesn’t really answer the original question.

     The authors recognized there were many unanswered questions with previous studies that actually touched upon effectiveness of interaction in a business context. The focus of this research was to test the interaction equivalency theorem and determine if online courses were effective in a business context as long as one of the three types of interaction was featured predominantly in the design of the course.  Their research focused on a Mexican commercial company with over 6000 employees and offices spread out over the whole country. Three courses were designed that focused on one of the interaction models in the interaction equivalency theorem.  There were 147 participants in the study and they were split into three groups to participate in just one of the three courses without knowing the type of interaction their course focused on.  Teacher manuals were created to specially outline acceptable levels of instructor interaction. At the end of the course, each student took a final exam and participated in a 5-point scale survey.

     As I was reading the description of the research study, my initial thought was that it was very well done – from conception to deployment.  It seemed that each course design was belabored to ensure the type of interaction assigned to that course was encouraged and the others were not inadvertently increased.  It was evident to me that there must have been a major time commitment in designing each course so each type of interaction was clearly studied. However, there was a question nagging me throughout the entire article – how would the researchers actually measure effectiveness?  I kept scrolling back to the beginning to confirm that was in fact what they were trying to determine.  A multiple choice exam at the end of the course could show that participants did acquire the right knowledge to pass a test on the topic regardless of the type of social interaction.  An evaluation could also show just how much a person liked the course, or was satisfied with the course.  It could also indicate their perceived readiness to transfer knowledge to the workplace.  But I didn’t see any real way to measure effectiveness of the course itself given the different types of interaction.

     I do think the questions this study attempted to answer were outlined at the very beginning.  However, it’s my belief that “effectiveness” was used synonymously with “participant satisfaction” and a perceived readiness to transfer their knowledge in the workplace. I also feel the objectives of this study were met based on the questions it was attempting to answer but I don’t feel this study has proven that different types of social interaction during a learning course can increase or decrease an actual knowledge transfer when a participant returns to the job. The results showed that participants in ALL three courses/interaction types showed high levels of satisfaction.  I was left wondering if the participants had equal levels of knowledge transfer or were they just confirming they all really liked their course and believe they would eventually use what they learned on the job.

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230

Armellini, A., Padilla Rodriguez, B.C., Applying the Interaction Equivalency Theorem to Online Courses in a Large Organization. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 13 (2). Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/issues/jiol/v13/n2/3