Mixed-methods Inquiry into Interpersonal Interaction in Online Teaching——The Perspective of Shanghai University Teachers

Li Linlin

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.07.005

Volume 39 Issue 7

Jul. 2021

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences) > 2021 > 39(7): 50-61

Li Linlin. Mixed-methods Inquiry into Interpersonal Interaction in Online Teaching——The Perspective of Shanghai University Teachers[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(7): 50-61. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.07.005

Citation:

Li Linlin. Mixed-methods Inquiry into Interpersonal Interaction in Online Teaching——The Perspective of Shanghai University Teachers[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(7): 50-61. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.07.005

Citation:

PDF( 938 KB)

Mixed-methods Inquiry into Interpersonal Interaction in Online Teaching——The Perspective of Shanghai University Teachers

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.07.005

Li Linlin

Institute of Higher Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China

Publish Date: 2021-07-01

Abstract

Abstract

Interpersonal interaction is a key factor affecting the effectiveness of online teaching. The SOTL-T project analyzed the characteristics and effects of the negative aspects of online teaching through a questionnaire survey of 8850 university teachers and 23 in-depth interviews with teachers. The study found that: In terms of interactive media, text interaction accounts for the largest proportion because of its retention and visibility. The written expression ability is exercised through careful consideration of words and sentences, and there is a trend of emoticon assistance and conciseness. Audio and video interactions have high requirements for internet speed and in-depth performances. Due to the pressure of image decoration in the background, some teachers do not turn on the camera frequently. In terms of interaction time, the time characteristics of synchronous interaction and offline interaction show some similarities in respect of time rigidity, short intervals, clear boundaries, uniform rhythm and single direction. Also, time utilization efficiency is relatively high. In contrast, the time rigidity of asynchronous interaction is weak, the interval is long, the boundary is blurred, the rhythm can be adjusted, and it can be undone and edited. The time efficiency is lower. In terms of interactive space, the dispersion of online teaching space limits the diversity and sufficiency of interaction, but also it can form a safe distance for anonymous protection. In courses with special space requirements, online teaching shows unique advantages or disadvantages. More than half of the teachers believe that the frequency and effect of interpersonal interaction in online teaching are lower than offline teaching. Teacher-student interaction is worse than student-student interaction. Based on analytical results, the research suggests possible actions in future for universities, teachers, and platform developers.
- online teaching,
- temporal and spatial characteristics,
- teacher-student interaction,
- student-student interaction

FullText(HTML)

References(29)

References

[1]	戈夫曼. (2008). 日常生活中的自我呈现(冯刚译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[2]	方柏林. (2020). 利用屏播反馈提高个性化学习效率. 开放教育研究,26(06),47—56.
[3]	卡斯特. (2000). 网络社会的兴起(夏铸九等译). 北京: 社会科学文献出版社.
[4]	康卉, 史子明. (2014). 匿名约束网络反馈平台在EFL写作教学中的实证研究. 现代教育技术,24(09),65—71. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2014.09.009
[5]	李挺. (2020). “希望之星”到“人间疾苦”: 抗疫语境下网络教学的角色重构. 当代青年研究,(06),83—89.
[6]	李晓文, 叶伟剑, 章秋红. (2020). “互联网+教学”环境下师生互动行为指数模型研究. 高等工程教育研究,(03),157—162.
[7]	刘振天, 刘强. (2020). 在线教学如何助力高校课堂革命?—疫情之下大规模在线教学行动的理性认知. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),38(07),31—41.
[8]	刘智, 张文静, 孙建文, 刘三女牙, 彭晛, 张浩. (2016). 云课堂论坛中的学习者互动话语行为分析研究. 电化教育研究,37(09),95—102.
[9]	吕林海. (2020). 中国大学生课堂“沉默”背后的“谨言慎行”倾向—“中华传统文化”视域下的概念诠释与实证分析. 苏州大学学报(教育科学版),8(01),85—97.
[10]	马莉萍, 曹宇莲. (2020). 同步在线教学中的课堂互动与课程满意度研究—以北京大学教育博士项目为例. 现代教育技术,30(08),15—25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-8097.2020.08.002
[11]	梅龙宝, 张生花, 彭斌. (2004). 信息技术创造远程教育竞争优势. 远程教育杂志,(04),11—13. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0008.2004.04.002
[12]	田静. (2010). 远程教育中交互影响距离理论的扩展应用与启示. 中国电化教育,(09),47—51. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9860.2010.09.010
[13]	王小英. (2020). 论人类传媒史上的表情包“拟在场”表演. 西北师大学报(社会科学版),57(04),29—35.
[14]	邬大光, 李文. (2020). 我国高校大规模线上教学的阶段性特征—基于对学生、教师、教务人员问卷调查的实证研究. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),38(07),1—30.
[15]	吴安艳, 熊才平, 黄勃. (2011). 网络通讯环境下的师生互动变革研究. 远程教育杂志,(3),60—65. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0008.2011.03.011
[16]	张东海. (2019). 大学生课堂动机性沉默的影响因素及其效应. 教育发展研究,39(01),40—46.
[17]	张峰. (1998). 略谈教学时空观. 高等教育研究,(03),42—44.
[18]	周开乐, 陆信辉, 丁涛, 杨善林. (2020). 高校大规模在线教学存在的问题与对策. 天津师范大学学报(社会科学版),(06),7—11.
[19]	Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243—1289. doi: 10.3102/0034654309333844
[20]	Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., & Huang, F. B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379—439. doi: 10.3102/00346543074003379
[21]	Dresner E, Herring S C. (2010). Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249—268. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01362.x
[22]	Githens, R. P. (2010). Understanding interpersonal interaction in an online professional development course. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(2), 253—274.
[23]	Hochschild, A R. (2003). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[24]	Lee, J., & Recker, M. (2021). The effects of instructors’ use of online discussions strategies on student participation and performance in university online introductory mathematics courses. Computers & Education, 162, 104084.
[25]	Murphy, E., Rodríguez-Manzanares, M. A., & Barbour, M. (2011). Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 583—591. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01112.x
[26]	Thorpe, M. (2008). Effective online interaction: Mapping course design to bridge from research to practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 57—72.
[27]	Tynan, B., Ryan, Y., & Lamont-Mills, A. (2015). Examining workload models in online and blended teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 5—15. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12111
[28]	Van de Vord, R., Pogue, K., & Anderson, T. (2012). Teaching time investment: Does online really take more time than face-to-face?. International review of research in open and distance learning, 13(3), 132—146. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1190
[29]	Yang, Y. C. (2008). A catalyst for teaching critical thinking in a large university class in Taiwan: asynchronous online discussions with the facilitation of teaching assistants. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(3), 241—264. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9054-5