INSTRUCTORS’ EXPERIENCES ON THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH STUDENTS AT THE

DISTANCE LEARNING UNIVERSITY IN TANZANIA

Authors : 1: Zamzam I. Nyandara: Email: masatuzamzam@yahoo.com 2: Lu Lijie: Email: lvlj@nenu.edu.cn Northeast Normal University

3rd International Conference of the African Virtual University.Theme: Integrating Mobile Learning to Open Up Access to Quality Education and Training

Opportunities in Africa.

Introduction• DE is the teacher-learner relationship that exists when learners and

instructors are separated by space and/or by time” (Moore, 1993 p.22).

• This pedagogical separation affects the interaction between students and teachers (Moore, 1993).

• Interaction is a mutual relation that exists between two or more people facilitated by whatever means of communication to provide feedback, that is useful in knowledge construction and learning achievement (Garrison & Claveland,2005; Ekwenife-Orakue &Teng, 2014).

• Kinds of interaction: learner-instructor, learner –learner, and learner- content (Moore,1989)

Background of the problem• The separation between T&L has created challenges to students’

learning like the feeling of isolation (Bouhnik & Marcus, 2006), limited academic support, as well as delayed feedback and information (Niwagila, 2014).

• These challenges affect the students’ learning motivation in DE (Temba, 2011; Rwejuna, 2013; Anderson & Dron, 2011).

• The effects sometimes are extremely serious to an extent that some students face delays in graduation or opt to drop out of the college (Chang & Smith, 2008; Temba, 2011).

Statement of the Problem• ICT has been used to reduce the effect of the separation.

• However, due to access & affordability challenges of ICT facilities, the practice has not been able to improve interactions especially in developing countries and Tanzania in particular (Komba, 2009; Nihuka 2008; Nyandara, 2012; Rumanyika, & Gulan, 2015).

• Since there is a relationship between learner-instructor’s interaction and students’ learning motivation, retention, and satisfaction (Inkelaar and Simpson,2015), low rates of retention and graduation at DLU (OUT,2014; OUT, 2015), has been attributed to the limited interaction (Temba, 2011; Niwagila, 2014).

Accumulative enrolment and graduation rates from 1994 up to 2014/15 academic year (OUT, 2015)

• In this regard, this study was important to explore and describe instructors’ experiences on their interactions with students at DLU and in their perspectives (instructors) how that influence students’ learning in a distance education.

Purpose and Research Questions of the Study• The purpose was to explore and generate knowledge on instructors’

experiences on their interaction with students at DLU, and how that influence students’ learning, in order to reflect on the practice and improve pedagogical interactions with students to create positive learning experiences in DE.

• Research questions1.In what ways do instructors interact with students at the DLU?

2.How do instructors perceive the influence of such interactions on students’ learning?

Significance of the Study• This study was conducted because of the limited student-

instructor interaction at DLU, which is one of the factors contribute to students’ low rates of retention and graduation (Temba, 2011; Niwagila, 2014).It is significant because:

It contributes to the existing literature on interaction processes in distance learning based on instructors’ experiences.

Points out major issues that need to be addressed in order to improve the interactions and create positive learning experiences in distance education for developing countries with similar conditions as Tanzania.

Theoretical Framework• Social Constructivism theory of Learning (Vygotsky) which emphasizes

on the role of social interaction to facilitate human cognitive and intellectual development (Atherton, 2013; Kim, 2001; Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002 ).

• Zone of proximal development : interaction facilitates meaningful learning to a greater level compared to what one can learn individually without assistance from a knowledgeable expert/teacher.

• It emphasizes the role of the student-teacher interaction in students learning processes.

Methodology• Qualitative case study.• Semi-structured interview: from 13 (5 male, 8 female) instructors at

DLU (HQ).• Purposive sampling was used to select those participants out of 348

academic staff at the institution.Criteria -working experience (at least four years and

above),&education level (master level and above). • Audio-taped 12 interviews; whereas one interviewee refused to be

recorded. • Duration 28 to 45 minutes (average of 33 mns).

FindingsThe major themes • Means or ways that instructors use to interact with students;

• Issues of concern in that interaction;

• Instructors’ role to facilitate interaction;

• How instructors used face-to-face sessions to interact with students;

• Instructors’ perceptions about the influence of their interaction processes to students’ learning;

• Challenges they encountered when interacting with students

Means or ways that instructors use to interact with students;

• Face-to-face sessions; invigilation and marking of examinations; emails; mobile phones (most convenient); as well as e-learning platform.

Ms Auma: “…we interact through face to face for those who manage to visit the HQ; I also use email and mobile phones…”

Ms Aida: “I use mobile phones or emails and …mobile phones are more convenient because almost every student owns a mobile phone …”

Mr Raphael: “…I prefer mobile phones because you can give immediate response when called…email sometimes is limited with internet access…”

Issues of concern in that interaction;• For both administrative and academic issues

• Academic related issues were on research and few cases on difficult areas.• More queries were on missing of examination scores, course

registrations, as well as requests on course outlines / study materials.

Ms Auma: “With undergraduate students, interaction is very limited …even when they communicate with me mostly they are looking for course outlines or their missing scores…”

Mr Mkude: “…they mostly come when they don’t see their scores or if they get lower marks than they expected…they will come to complain but not to seek academic assistance…”

Instructors’ Role in Facilitating Interaction :• Had mixed experiences on who initiates the interactions, and also on

how they make students to know each other

Ms Joyce: “…I remember it happened that I met two students who were taking Biology living in the same region and tried to connect them so they could communicate, but then it is not easy to make follow up to see if that really worked or not…”

Ms Sessy: “…when examination session is about to start you have to remind them about that so that they register on time…”

Ms Girraffe: “…that is difficult…I don’t know them…they are far away from me …in different regions…its only their names or registration numbers…how will I connect them…”

how instructors used face-to-face and field practice sessions to interact with students

• Duration for field practices : one week to four weeks, • Instructors and students had to travel to different places where field

practices had to take place.

Ms Sakina: “…apart from the aims of those activities, we also use that opportunity to communicate with them regarding their learning difficulties and help them to solve…”

• Formal F2f for 3 to 4 days; one instructor represents the faculty at a particular regional centre

• The main activity of face to face was to assess students’ portfolios .

their perceptions about the influence of their interaction processes on students’ learning;• Facilitated learning to some students who maintained frequent

interaction with them • However, generally they confirmed that interactional processes at the

institution were limited and had little contribution on students learning, giving examples of weaknesses on face-to-face practises, and the limited use of MOODLE

Mr Raphael: “…of course for those I have been in touch with, I feel that I have helped them to improve learning

Ms Aida: “…I would say that in one way it helps, but in another way it holds them back… like face to face sessions are too short…and …sometimes you interact with a student not from your area of specialization, so it is not that helpful…”

challenges they faced when interacting with students• Lack of financial support to meet the airtime cost of calling students. • Odd hour calls from students (weekends or after office hours)Mr Alhaji: “…sometimes they call when it is not convenient for me

like early in the morning, at night or even weekend.”Ms Aida: R: “…many times actually they call me at night…”• Few days allocated to f2f sessions was not enough to meet all the

individual students’ learning needs• the expertise challenges when responding to students queries out of

their area of specialization during face to face. Ms Joyce: “…sometimes I focus on the area that I am an expert

because you cannot master all…”

• Access and coverage of internet facilities in other regions apart from big cities is difficult for email and internet based interaction

Ms Aida: “…I sent the guidelines to students…and later after six months, they came complaining that they had not received the guidelines…”

Ms Sakina: “…I sent an email to a student and it took like a month without any response, and then I received a call from that student asking for the feedback, I was surprised by that…”• The separation between students and instructors posed a challenge in

establishing rapportMr Alhaji: “…we don’t know even what are difficult areas for them…

actually we don’t know our students … they are always new to us…”Mr Mkude: “…because of their number and the separation, I know little

about their learning behavior or the difficulties they face…”

Discussion• Social Constructivism emphasizes that, the extent to which a person can

learn alone is low when compared to what that person can learn with assistance from others (Kim, 2001; Pritchard & Woollard, 2010).

• However, findings show that there was limited students- instructors interaction whereas only few students were benefiting from the role of interactions.

• Students’ late responses through email, is an indicator that internet based interaction alone is not appropriate to majority, other means of communication like frequent F2F & mobile phone technology needs to be integrated.

To change consultation time to accommodate working students eg from 9 am to 5pm instead of 8 am to 04 pm.

• It is not bad for Face-to-face sessions to be used for portfolio assessments, however, since the focus of portfolios is to improve teaching and learning, then expertise issue is important to achieve that.

Literature has established that effective portfolio assessments, require instructors’ thorough understanding of their subject areas to review, discuss, and comment on students work (Sweet, 1993: Thome, Hovenberg & Edgren, 2006).

• Both students and instructors have the role to play in interaction process, but since social constructivist place the role to an expert, instructors do not need to depend on event/ problems that arise for them to communicate with students.

As Inkelaar and Simpson (2015) suggest, instructors’ proactive motivational messages to distance students raise students’ satisfaction and retention rates.

Implications for the practice• Distance-learning institutions need to improve students- instructors

interactions by adopting a blended learning strategy.

• However, blended learning will not just work without some transformations like:

To formalize mobile phones use by considering financial assistance, pedagogical use, and consultation hours;

To redesign formal face to face sessions to address both academic (Focus on subject expertise), and administrative needs of students.

• Since students depend on instructors assistance for effective learning experiences, thus instructors should not forget their facilitative role.

Otherwise, dropout and delay to graduate cases will continue to persist.

Suggestions for further research:• To recruit students and instructors in order to study their interaction

processes in relation to learning achievement.

• To use mixed methods to study the same phenomena.

• To study students’ view and experiences on the role of face-to-face/mobile phones interactions in relation to their learning achievements.

• Lastly, researchers should strive to research on students’ perceptions about the contribution of written comments on learning achievement.

Conclusion• It was revealed that there was a minimal student-instructor interaction, which

was mainly event or problem based and beneficial to few students.

• Blended learning is recommended to create positive learning experiences (Frequency and duration of F2F sessions, mobile phones technology)

• Instructors to be proactive initiators of interaction and communication like sending text messages fortnightly to encourage, remind, and motivate students to learn.

• To design flexible schedule on consultation hours in order to accommodate students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

• Otherwise, few students will manage to complete their study in DE which might demotivate new comers to enroll in DE.

Acknowledgments• Special thanks to the AVU for sponsoring my participation.

• Thanks to anonymous reviewers for their valuable inputs and comments to improve this work.

• Thanks to participants for their willingness to be part of this study.

• Thank you all for your participation

Key references• Abrami, C. P; Bernard, R.M; Bures, M.E; Borokhovski, E & Tamim, M. R. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: using the evidence and

theory to improve practice. JComput High Educ 23:82-103, DOI 10.1007/s 12528-011-9043

• Anderson, T. (2003).Getting the mix right again: an updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). p.1-14.

• Atherton,J.S.(2013).Learning and teaching: constructivism in learning. Retrieved on 28th June 2015 from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/constructivism.html

• Chang, S.H & Smith, R.A (2008). Effectiveness of personal interaction in a learner centered paradigm distance education class based on student satisfaction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40 (4), pp 407-426.

• Dagarin, M. (n.d). Classroom interaction and communication strategies in learning English as a foreign language. English Language and Literature Teaching, 1, (1-2), pp.127-139.

• Denscombe, M (2007). The good research guide for small scale social science projects; 3rd Ed, Open University Press.

• Ekwunife-Orakwue, K.C.V & Teng, T (2014). The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computer and Education, 78, pp 414-427.

• Garrison, D.R & Claveland-innes, M (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning. Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19 (3), pp 133-148.

• Greenberg, G. (1998). Distance education technologies: Best practices for K-12 settings. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, (Winter) 36-40.

• Holmberg, B (1995) Theory and practice of distance education. 2nd Edition, Routledge Studies; London & New York.

• Inkelaar,T. & Simpson, O.(2015).Challenging the distance education deficit through motivational emails. Open Learning: Journal of Open, Distance and e-learning, 30 (2) pp. 152-163.

• Kim, B. (2001).Social constructivism. In Orey, M. (ed), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching and technology. Retrieved on30 June 2015 from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/

• Komba, W.L.M. (2009).Increasing education access through open and distance learning in Tanzania. A critical review of approaches and practices. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 5 (5).pp.8-21.

• Kumpulainen, K. &Wray, D. (2002).classroom interaction and social learning: from theory to practice, Routledge-London/New York.

• Miliszewska, I.( 20070. Is it fully “on” or partly “off”?The case of fully online provision of transactional education. Journal of Informational Technology Education, 6 pp. 499-514

• Moore,M.G.(1989).Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, Vol 3. (2). pp.1-6

• Moore, M.G & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: a system view. Wadsworth Publishing Company.

• Moore, M.G. (1993).Theory of transactional distance. In Keegan (Ed) Theoretical principles of distance education, New York, Routledge, p. 22-38.

• Ng.umbi, M.W. (2013) Instructor-student interaction through mobile phones at the Open University of Tanzania. Journal of Issues and Practice in Education. 5 (1), pp 78-89.

• Nihuka, K. (2008).The feasibility of e-learning integration in course delivery at Open University of Tanzania, Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Twente, Netherland.

• Niwagila, L. M. (2014).Rural students experiences at the open university of Tanzania. Unpublished PhD dissertation, the University of Edinburgh.

• Nyandara, Z. I. (2012).Challenges and opportunities of technology based instruction in Open and distance learning: a comparative study of Tanzania and China. ISSN 2223-7062 Proceedings and report of the 5th UbuntuNet Alliance annual conference, pp. 130-145, Retrieved from http://www.ubuntunet.net/sites/default/files/nyandaraz.pdf

• Open University of Tanzania. (2014). Facts and figures 2013/2014

• Open University of Tanzania. (2015). Facts and figures 2014/2015

• Price, L., Richardson, J. T. E., & Jelfs, A.(2007). Face to face versus online tutoring support in distance education. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (1). pp.1-20.

• Pritchard, A. & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom constructivism and social learning. Routledge; Taylor and Francis e-library.

• Rumanyika, J.D. & Galan, R.M. (2015).Challenges for Teaching and learning information and communication technology courses in higher education institutions in Tanzania: A review. Information and Knowledge Management, 5 (2). pp.1-13.

• Simpson, O. (2015).Face to face teaching in distance education: a review and case study. In Chinese trans, Xiao, J (Ed) distance education in China, p.14-24.

• Simpson, O. (2013).Student retention in distance education: are we failing our students? Open learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-learning, 28 (2). pp. 105-119

• Snadden, D. & Thomas, M. (1998).The use of portfolio learning in medical education. Medical Teacher, 20 (3). pp.192-199

• Sweet, D. (1993).Student portfolios: classroom uses. In Zimmerman, J (Ed) 8th Research consumer guide: a series published for teachers, parents, and others interested in current education themes. OERI US department, retrieved on December 2015 from www2.ed.gov/pubs/OR/consumerGuides/Classuse.html

• Temba,C.A.(2011).Factors influencing students protracted duration for completing study programmes: The case of OUT students registered between 1994 and 2002. MA Unpublished Thesis, the Open University of Tanzania.

• Thome, G., Hovenberg, H. & Edgren, G. (2006).Portfolio as a method for continuous assessment in an undergraduate health education programme. Medical teacher, 28 (6). pp. 171-176