Backchannel Interactions

The focus of this report is to review the literature for assessments of the effect of computer-mediated backchannel interaction during live instructional presentation. The goal is to consider the impact on the learner as both a receiver of instructional messages sent from the instructor, as well as an active participant within the learning process.

Read this document on Scribd: Backchannel Research Paper Jennifer Maddrell
Backchannel Interactions Running head: THE EFFECT OF BACKCHANNEL INTERACTIONS 1 The Effect of Backchannel Interactions on Cognitive Load Jennifer Maddrell Old Dominion University IDT 895: Message Design June 25, 2008 Backchannel Interactions Backchannel Interactions Computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies offer instructional designers new ways to design and deliver instructional material to learners. New forms of web conferencing technology allow live audio and visual presentation of instructional material. Beyond a one-way or single channel broadcast of the primary instructional message, these web conferencing technologies also support simultaneous multi-channel communication among all participants and support the learners’ real time interactions with the instructional content, with the instructor, and with peer learners. A by-product of the latest synchronous CMC technologies is the appearance of what are being termed backchannel interactions which occur simultaneously with the primary instructional presentation (Yardi, 2006). No longer a passive recipient of the single channel instructional message, a learner within a web conferencing session has the ability to interact directly with the content, with peer learners, and with the instructor during the instructional presentation. The interactive features included with the newest forms of web conferencing technologies allow learners to annotate directly on the presentation slides while the presenter is speaking, to route or receive files, to send and get links to web sites during the presentation, to type viewable notes to the class in the margins of the presentation window, or to conduct text based conversations while the live instructional presentation is being delivered. 2 While the term backchannel is used in other contexts and is spelled as backchannel, backchannel, or back channel, a consistent definition within the context of synchronous CMC does not exist. Cogdill, Fanderclai, Kilborn, and Williams (2001) suggest that backchannel interactions tend to fall into the following five categories: 1) process-oriented interactions which steer the main channel discourse, 2) content-oriented interactions which respond to the content in Backchannel Interactions 3 the main channel, 3) participation-enabling interactions which include assistance to participants, 4) tangential interactions which branch from or continue a completed main channel discussion , and 5) independent interactions which are private and unrelated to the main channel. These backchannel interactions are well outside the norm of learner behavior in traditional face to face lecture settings. However, the availability of this form of computermediated interaction, as well as ongoing discussion about the classroom role of the learner as either an active participant or passive recipient, is sparking debate among practitioners regarding what interactions learners should engage in during both face to face and computer-mediated instructional presentation (Fried, 2008). As written in an April 2008 article entitled Hey, You! Pay Attention! at InsideHigherEd.com and in the approximately 50 ensuing comment posts to the article, learners computer-mediated interactions during lecture are viewed by educators as both a bold step forward in instruction and a tremendous distraction to the learning task at hand (Guess, 2008). In what one commenter to the article called a “ridiculous debate”, one side views computer-mediated interactions during instructional presentation as nothing more than virtual note passing which is a distraction to the learning task at hand and a symbol of the growing lack of respect for teachers during lecture. In contrast, the other side views these backchannel features as a powerful opportunity to facilitate increased content and human interaction. The focus of this report is to review the literature for assessments of the effect of computer-mediated backchannel interaction during live instructional presentation. The goal is to consider the impact on the learner as both a receiver of instructional messages sent from the instructor, as well as an active participant within the learning process. Unfortunately, there has been little research conducted to specifically assess this relatively new phenomenon. In reviewing prior literature on computer-mediated backchannel Backchannel Interactions interactions in the classroom, Yardi (2006) found nothing beyond qualitative reviews assessing the use of text chat during live conference proceedings or essays considering the potential advantages and disadvantages of utilizing synchronous CMC to facilitate classroom discussion. While a body of theory and research exists assessing the effects of interacting in computermediated learning environments, the focus is largely on asynchronous computer supported interactions rather than synchronous interactions (Paulus, 2007). Further, as noted by Moore, Burton, and Myers (2004, p. 998) within their extensive review of multiple-channel communication research, “We feel that instructional designers, looking for simple rationale, methods, or guidelines for effective multimedia (multiple-channel) presentation will be disappointed in the relevant research” which they feel is “confusing at best.” While there is little research to report from direct studies on computer-mediated backchannel interactions in the classroom, the objective here is to glean information from other areas of research regarding learner interaction with instructional content, other learners, and the instructor to begin to assess how this new form of backchannel interaction could impact the student’s ability to learn from the instruction. The following presents a review of literature in both traditional and computer-mediated instructional settings. While multiple theories of learning, communication, and instruction are presented in the review of literature, this review is presented within the context of cognitive load theory (CLT). Cognitive Load Theory CLT Described CLT suggests that working memory faces important processing limitations which ultimately impact a learner’s ability to process, encode, and retrieve information (Sweller & Chandler, 1994). CLT has evolved over the past two decades and is concerned with a learner’s 4 Backchannel Interactions limited working memory processing capacity and the combined effect of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load (Pociask & Morrison, 2004). Intrinsic cognitive load is imposed by the inherent nature of the to-be-learned information (van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005). Extraneous cognitive load is imposed by inappropriate instructional design choices. This includes the instructional message design, the instructional presentation, and interface choices related to the delivery mode (visual or verbal), modality (text or narration), and spatial arrangements on the page or screen (Lee, Plass, & Homer, 2006). Germane cognitive load is associated with processes to assist in learning, including processes to facilitate schema acquisition and automation (van Merrienboer & Sweller). Fundamental to CLT is the notion, as summarized by Sweller and Chandler (1994, p. 5 192), that the learning environment should eliminate “irrelevant cognitive activities”, defined by them as “any activity not directed to schema acquisition and automation” which they deem to be significant learning mechanisms. They note that such irrelevant activities may unnecessarily increase cognitive load and hamper the processing of to-be-learned material. Kester, Kirschner, and van Merrienboer (2005, p. 168) suggest that the instructional design of the learning environment should “properly manage intrinsic load, minimize extraneous load, and optimize germane load within the boundaries of working memory capacity.” Framework for Review Given that cognitive load is a central consideration in multimedia learning (Mayer & Moreno, 2003), the primary task of this review is to assess where computer-mediated backchannel interactions during instructional presentation fall within the cognitive load equation. While the review is presented within the context of CLT, theories and findings from research in areas both inside and outside of learning and instruction are also considered. By taking into Backchannel Interactions account research in a range of areas, this review attempts to highlight prior findings which may shed light on the following questions. Extraneous cognitive load. Do backchannel interactions increase extraneous cognitive 6 load? Are these interactions unnecessary instructional activities imposed by poor instructional or message design that could and should be eliminated to reduce extraneous load? Germane cognitive load. Are backchannel interactions germane to the learning process as part of effective presentation, communication, and dialogue to support the learner? Do these interactions help learners reflect upon the material, create meaning from the presented content, and process the to-be-learning material within memory? Intrinsic cognitive load. Does interaction within the backchannel help presenters to more effectively sequence and segment instruction based on the cues of learner understanding found in the backchannel responses? In turn, could these interactions be used to manage intrinsic cognitive load? Extraneous Cognitive Load The focus of this section is to assess whether the incorporation of backchannel interactions during instructional presentation is a poor design choice that takes away from the processing of to-be-learned information, creates unnecessary interactivity, and results in high extraneous cognitive load. Given the similarity between backchannel interactions and practices which are outside acceptable norms within a traditional face to face classroom, such as note passing, whispering to peers in class, or talking while the presenter is speaking, it is understandable why some would predict that backchannel interactions are distraction to the learning task at hand. Beyond seemingly obvious violations of traditional classroom norms, there is evidence from research on interactivity, split attention and redundancy effects, and laptop use Backchannel Interactions in the classroom which may suggest how backchannel interactions impact extraneous cognitive load. Interactivity in Learning Environment Sweller and Chandler (1994) suggest that high cognitive load is directly related to 7 interactivity caused by either the nature of the to-be-learned material (intrinsic cognitive load) or by the presentation (extraneous cognitive load). The to-be-learned material is considered to have high interactivity if there are numerous elements which must be processed simultaneously (van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2003). If the element interactivity is low (hence the intrinsic cognitive load is low), then extraneous load may not be a concern; but in complex learning situations where the intrinsic element interactivity is high, it is necessary to carefully manage the learning environment to avoid unnecessary instructional interactivity in order to reduce extraneous cognitive load (Sweller & Chandler). Moreno and Mayer (2007) examined interactivity as a characteristic of the learning environment in which the interactivity results in a variation in the instruction based on the learners’ actions. They suggest five types of learner interactivity, including 1) dialoguing in which the learner asks questions and receives feedback, 2) controlling in which the learner establishes the pace or order of presentation, 3) manipulating in which the learner sets aspects of the presentation 4) searching in which the learner seeks new information, and 5) navigating in which the learner selects from among content choices. They suggest the interactivity can be considered a continuum of no interactivity to high interactivity. Moreno and Mayer note that the challenge for designers working in interactive multimodal learning environments with ever increasing opportunities for interactivity is to reduce extraneous cognitive load imposed by the interactivity while at the same time using the interactivity to increase generative cognitive Backchannel Interactions processing, as discussed below in the section on germane cognitive load. Therefore, the unanswered question becomes whether the interactivity involved with backchannel interactions is extraneous load within the learning environment or germane to the process of learning? Cognitive Load Effects 8 Decades of research have provided findings that suggest a number of instructional effects which increase extraneous cognitive load. Three effects which may be most applicable to backchannel interactions found within the synchronous computer-mediated learning environment are 1) split attention effects, 2) redundancy effects, and 3) expert reversal effects. Split attention effect. The learners’ text based backchannel interactions which occur concurrently with the instructor’s audio and visual presentation may result in a split attention effect. While research suggests that dual presentation from both auditory and visual sources may distribute the processing of information and increase working memory capacity, other research suggest that instruction requiring learners to devote their attention to multiple sources of information may unnecessarily cause extraneous cognitive load (Sweller & Chandler, 1994). Redundancy effect. The discussion about the instruction content within the backchannel occurring concurrently with the instructional presentation may result in a redundancy effect. Research suggests that as learners must attend to and integrate sources of overlapping or redundant information, unnecessarily extraneous load is imposed (Sweller & Chandler, 1994). Expertise reversal effect. Cognitive load research findings also that suggests an expertise reversal effect in which the conditions which are appropriate for a novice learner may not be appropriate for a more experienced learner (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, & Sweller, 2003). Kalyuga et al. note that many CLT effects, including split attention and redundancy effects, are not applicable to experts who possess schemas in the domain being presented. These learners Backchannel Interactions may find the instruction to be redundant with their existing schemas and the integration of the redundant information is seen to be a source of extraneous cognitive load. 9 Research on split attention, redundancy, and reversal effects suggest that instructional design choices should be appropriate for the expertise level of the intended learners and that methods must change as learners’ expertise increases (van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005). While backchannel interactions could increase extraneous load for some learners, could backchannel interactions be used as a means for the presenter to gauge the level of expertise of the learners during instructional presentation? If so, is it possible that the same backchannel interactions which may cause extraneous cognitive load effects in novice learners could act to reduce extraneous cognitive load as the learners advance by providing signals to the presenter of the learners’ level of expertise? Laptops in the Classroom Research on laptop use in the classroom lecture setting may provide one of the closest bodies of research to backchannel interactions. It may be possible to draw a parallel between backchannel interactions in a synchronous computer-mediate instructional presentation with laptop use in face to face classroom lecture settings. As noted in a recent review of classroom laptop literature by Fried (2008), contradictory research results abound. Yet, there is a body of research which suggests that laptop use in the classroom lecture setting is a source of overload and distraction. Included in Fried’s review are her own research findings which suggest that students using laptops during classroom lectures regularly use the laptop for things other than taking notes. Further, the students’ laptop use was negatively related to several measures of learning and was reported to be a distraction from fellow students. Backchannel Interactions 10 Fried (2005) viewed the results as clear support for prior research that suggests classroom performance is negatively related to the learners’ laptop use within the classroom. However, it is important to note that in Fried’s research the students’ laptop use was in no way integrated into the classroom lecture. The students were informed that the laptops would not be needed during the semester in lectures, the presenter made no attempts to guide the learners’ use of the laptops, nor were their laptops used to display instructional presentation. Apparently, the assumed sole purpose of the laptops in the studied classroom was as a note taking device given that any other activity outside of note taking, including the 45% of the students in the study who reported regularly using instant messaging, was dismissed within the study as an unnecessary and distracting activity. However, Fried did acknowledge that the primary limitation to the generalization of the findings was that laptop use was not integrated into the lecture. Further, as Fried suggests, the findings associated with learning measures may also reflect that struggling students are more likely to be diverted from the lecture. Germane Cognitive Load Instructional activities that encourage mental effort in schema construction and automation are viewed as processes that increase germane cognitive load (van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005). As suggested by Winn (2004), advances in computer-mediated technologies make it possible to do more than direct teaching and to use the technology to assist learners as they actively select, organize, and integrate new information. Some suggest that synchronous computer-mediated discussion helps learners to move from surface understanding to more deep learning as they reflect and respond to questions from peers and the instructor (Havard, Jianxia & Olinzock, 2005). Moreno and Mayer (2007) view this as a difference between facilitating information acquisition and supporting knowledge construction. Could backchannel interactions Backchannel Interactions optimize germane cognitive load by aiding the learners’ understanding of the instructional 11 content, adding context to the presentation narrative, providing opportunities for reflection, and promoting engagement? Laptops in the Classroom - Revisited In contrast to the laptops in the classroom research cited above, other research suggests that computer use during classroom presentation can facilitate classroom interactions and class participation which, in turn, increases engagement, motivation, and active learning (Fitch, Partee, Stephens, & Driver, as cited in Fried, 2008). In summarizing their research on laptop use during classroom instruction, Barak, Lipson, and Lerman (2006) suggest that computer use by students during class facilitates construction of understanding of the learning material, immediate feedback and help, multiple interactions among learners and instructors, and the ability to share work, ideas, and learner interpretations. Computer Mediated Communication In a review of literature related to CMC processes, Marshall and Novick (1995) suggest that CMC differs from face to face communication and is generally characterized by longer turns, fewer interruptions, less overlaps, and increased formality in switching among speakers. DeSanctis and Monge (1998) report research that suggests electronic communication tends to decrease levels of communication as compared to face to face communication. They note that this may be the result of reduced use of speech acknowledgements, such as “Uh-hmm”, or typical social greetings. DeSanctis and Monge also cite findings that suggest participants engaging in CMC conversation may experience difficulty in establishing meaning of information and managing feedback in conversation which may negatively affect message understanding, but that attention to maintaining mutual understanding across the group can help to ensure effective Backchannel Interactions communication. Could synchronous backchannel interactions help to overcome some of these obstacles associated with CMC and foster mutual understanding across the group? Marshall and Novick (1995) also note that the characteristics of CMC may affect conversational effectiveness which they describe as the degree to which the mutual conversational goals are achieved. They cite a large body of research which supports a collaborative theory of conversation which focuses on the joint construction of conversation in 12 which interactive and collaborative aspects of the conversation help to support full understanding and to achieve the overall expectations for the conversation. In summarizing their own research findings, Marshall and Novick (p. 75) suggest CMC is “enhanced by the addition of a channel which allows conversant to share relevant visual context, particularly where visual context is relevant to the task” thereby allowing users more control over the social distance or presence. Do backchannel interactions offer learners more control over social distance and help to improve CMC effectiveness? Pelowski, Frissell, Cabral, and Yu (2005) conducted research to identify various immediacy behaviors within synchronous text chat logs with the hope of shedding light on learners’ feelings of social presence and the impact on learning. The authors indicate that while a positive relationship has been found between perceptions of immediacy and performance in face to face environments, little immediacy research within synchronous computer-mediated instruction has been studied. Citing various research findings from traditional face to face classrooms, Pelowski et al. note that immediacy behaviors, such as calling others by name, smiling or engaging in eye content, have been shown to enhance perceptions of closeness or immediacy to others. Backchannel Interactions 13 Pelowski, et al (2005) found significant variation in overall chat participation, as well as in immediacy behaviors. Acknowledgement, salutations, and questions were observed in nearly all students at least once. Agreement or disagreement was shown at least once by over 80% of the students. Humor, self-discloser, and value statements appeared less frequently, but at least once by over 60% of students. However, no significant correlation was found between immediacy behaviors in the text chat environment and learner performance. Could this be an indication that while backchannel interactions may facilitate more effective communication, the communication may mean nothing in terms of learner performance? Constructing Meaning Do learners gain context and insight from the commentary of students within the backchannel interactions? Some social constructivists view synchronous CMC technologies as vehicles to support student to student co-creation of meaning and understanding, including Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson (as cited in Paulus, 2007) who suggest knowledge construction via CMC consisting of five phases: 1) sharing and comparing of information, 2) discovery and exploration of cognitive dissonance, 3) negotiation of meaning and coconstruction of knowledge, 4) testing and modification of proposed co-construction, and 5) agreement and applications of newly constructed meaning. Yet, as Paulus notes, the research literature suggests that learners in most CMC supported environments, which tend to rely heavily on asynchronous interactions, rarely move beyond sharing and comparing of information. Could the synchronous backchannel provide support for more immediate meaningful reflection and cocreation of knowledge? In noting the small, but growing body of research on synchronous CMC tools in learning, Stein, Wanstreet, Glazer, Engle, Harris, and Johnston (2007) investigated if and how shared Backchannel Interactions meaning is achieved in a synchronous text based chat. Their review of formal small group synchronous text chat logs suggest that text chat can lead to a shared understanding from a pattern of interaction which establishes a) social presence, characterized by group inquiry and integration, b) teaching presence, characterized by the teacher’s efforts to focus and organize, 14 and c) cognitive presence characterized by the learners’ patterns of reflection and revision. Stein et al. observed: In a more casual, immediate environment than asynchronous discussion boards, chats give learners the opportunity to transform their personal meaning into shared solutions through a nonlinear process of asking questions, exchanging information, connecting ideas, and defending solutions … In addition, the group as a whole has the ability to see the progression of logic and higher-order thinking as the text unfolds on the members' computer screens and is revised, amplified, and integrated into shared understanding through feedback. (p. 113) Would synchronous text based backchannel interactions during instructional presentation result in similar findings? Or would the larger group size and split attention from the presentation to the screen alter the results? Learners as Presentation Co-narrators Research in dialogue and communication suggests a joint role for learners as co-narrators in the instructional presentation. Could learner responses in the backchannel enhance the main channel message of the presentation? Does the backchannel provide on-the-fly reflection which the instructor can monitor to check for learners’ understanding and adjust the presentation based on the learners’ responses? Backchannel Interactions Bavelas, Coates and Johnson (2000) explore the various conceptions of information 15 communication models beginning with the classic Shannon and Weaver model which focuses in on a single channel from sender to receiver. They cite Schober and Clark who referred to this conception as an autonomous view of conversation in which the listener passively receives information delivered from the speaker. In contrast to this view, Bavelas et al. note other conceptions and research which focus on dialogue as a joint activity, including Yngve’s focus on a reciprocal effect of a backchannel which recognizes the impact of listener responses. In this view, communication is not just for information transmission, but also for co-construction of the message wherein dialogue is considered collaborative and evolves from the reciprocal influence between narrators and listeners (Bavelas et al). Generic and specific listener responses within in the reciprocal dialogue was the focus of research for Bavelas et al., (2000) in which they studied what listeners do (backchannel) during narration to form an integrated message with the narrator. Table 1 compares the generic responses to specific responses that were observed. Table 1. Generic versus Specific Listener Response. (Bavelas et al., 2000) Generic Responses Listening Made to or at the story or narrator Generally related to narrative External to the narrative Respond to the narrative Communicate general understanding Indicate understanding of the Specific Responses Co-telling Made with the story or narrator Specific to the narrative Internal to the narrative Add to the narrative Communicate specific understanding Indicate understanding of the words implications of the words As represented within Table 1, generic listener responses (discussed in the context of project markers below), do not convey narrative content, but allow the speaker to track the listener’s comprehension. In contrast, specific listener responses closely relate to the speaker’s Backchannel Interactions content and allow the listeners to become co-narrators who add to the narrative as they 16 communicate comments regarding their understanding. If learners were encouraged to contribute responses of confusion or understanding in the backchannel, could their responses help to conarrate the message being delivered by allowing the presenter to tailor the message to the audience, as is suggested by this research? Task Engagement Given the lack of research on backchannel interactions, it is unclear whether learners chatting in the backchannel are engaged in the presentation at hand. Do their comments reflect that they are receiving the intended message or that they are heading off in another direction? Zimbardo (as cited by Coleman, Paternite, & Sherman, 1999) suggests that due to factors such as increased anonymity, a sense of altered responsibility, and novel or unstructured situations, participants in synchronous CMC tend to become more engaged in the task at hand and less concerned with self-monitoring. Coleman et al. report similar findings from their research in which some (but not all) participants in synchronous CMC were more group focused, more selfdisclosing, and reported feeling that the physical separation provided a freedom from distraction! Do these findings suggest the text based backchannel may lead to greater task engagement? Intrinsic Cognitive Load The focus of this section is to assess whether the dialogue and interaction within backchannel interactions could help to manage intrinsic cognitive load. Research suggests intrinsic cognitive load can be more effectively managed if content is presented in segments (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Further, presenting declarative information separately, either during presentation or during practice, from procedural information has been shown to increases the effectiveness and efficiency of learning (Kester et al., 2006). Research findings also indicate that Backchannel Interactions 17 content sequencing should be based on the learners’ level of expertise and that the preplanning of content sequencing becomes less important if the sequencing can be continuously adapted during the instructional presentation based upon observation of the learners’ expertise (van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005). Therefore, could cues from the learners’ dialogue in the backchannel help the presenter to segment and sequence the presentation of content based on the learners’ responses of either understanding or confusion thereby helping to manage intrinsic cognitive load? Also, could the backchannel be used to segment presentation and practice opportunities though the use of formal problem statements, learner responses, and feedback? Based on dialogue analysis research it seems feasible that the backchannel can provide presenters with signals or markers from the learner to gauge their level of understanding which would allow an adjustment to the presentation based on the cues from the learners. Tied to the research noted above, research on self and other monitoring during dialogue suggests that speakers monitor their own speech and adjust their presentation based on their assessment of the listener’s level of understanding (Clark & Krych, 2004). As such, dialogue includes two activities, including support for the primary presentation of information and management of the dialogue itself. As described by Bangerter and Clark (2003), dialogue exists in both the front (or main) channel which includes the primary speaker and in the backchannel which includes the speech and signals from others occurring at same time as primary speaker’s turn. As discussed above, these backchannel responses, also known as project markers, play a role in shaping the presentation and include a) acknowledgement tokens in which the listener acknowledges the presentation through utterances, such as “uh-huh”, b) agreement tokens in which the listener Backchannel Interactions 18 agrees with the presenter’s position, such as “right”, and c) consent tokens in which the listener approves of the presenter’s comments, such as “okay”. Bangerter and Clark suggest that these project markers provide the primary speaker with marks to chart progress and signal to the presenter that the listener is ready to transition with the presentation. For example, the listener can offer the speaker a) continuers, such as “yes”, which signal the listener is ready to hear more, b) assessments, such as reactions of “wow” or “gosh”, which signal comprehension and evaluation of what has been said, or c) recipiency markers which signal the listener wants to speak. If backchannel interactions are considered signals from the learner as listener, it is conceivable that the presenter could use the responses as project markers to gauge how to segment and sequence the presentation. By monitoring the learners’ backchannel conversations and by assessing when the learners are ready to make transitions within the presentation, the presenter may be able to use the backchannel interactions to manage intrinsic cognitive load. Summary While no research was found that specifically evaluates backchannel interactions in the computer-mediated classroom, findings in areas that share key features with this relatively new instructional phenomenon may shed light on the effects the backchannel has on cognitive load. In evaluating this prior research from synchronous text based discussions, laptop use during live face to face classes, CMC, and dialogue analysis, the findings seem to suggest support for both negative and positive effects on cognitive load. The potential for distraction, split attention, and redundancy effects may indicate backchannel interactions place unnecessary extraneous cognitive load on learners. However, findings may also suggest that the backchannel interactions directly facilitate learning through more effective and efficient processing of the to-be-learned Backchannel Interactions material. Further, the signals and cues within the dialogue may help presenters to more 19 effectively and efficiently sequence and transition within the presentation of content which may help to manage intrinsic cognitive load. These findings have implications for both instructional designers and researchers. Clearly, the new features of synchronous computer-mediated classrooms necessitate a closer review of these new types of interactions. The noted findings offer many stepping stones for future research and suggest a host of research questions. Do backchannel interactions distract the learner from the task at hand and interfere with their receipt of the instructional message? Could backchannel interactions be used as a means for the presenter to gauge the level of expertise of the learners during instructional presentation? Could the synchronous backchannel provide support for immediate meaningful reflection? Do backchannel interactions help to foster mutual understanding and co-creation of knowledge across the group? Does this mutual understanding ultimately lead to better individual performance? Do backchannel interactions offer learners more control over social distance and help to improve CMC effectiveness? Do backchannel responses help to co-narrate the message being delivered and allow the presenter to tailor the message to the audience? Do these findings suggest the text based backchannel may lead to greater task engagement? Answers to all of these questions may help us to one day address the primary question raised at the beginning of this report. Is the interactivity involved with backchannel interactions extraneous load within the learning environment, germane to the process of learning, or helpful in managing intrinsic cognitive load? As we gain more insight into these backchannel interactions, a new set of heuristics and online classroom norms (netiquette) will evolve. Teachers in traditional classes are already trying Backchannel Interactions 20 laptop up / laptop down procedures where the instructor asks for uninterrupted attention during presentation of material and then invite increased computer-mediated interaction and dialogue from learners during breaks in the formal presentation (Levine, as cited in Fried, 2008). In the same way learners in traditional classrooms know when it is time to speak in class and when it is time to listen, learners and instructors will one day know when it is appropriate to backchannel in class. Backchannel Interactions 21 Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27(2), 195. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00118-0. Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless Laptops as Means For Promoting Active Learning In Large Lecture Halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 245-263. Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 941-952. Clark, H. H., & Krych, M. A. (2004). Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(1), 62-81. Cogdill, S., Fanderclai, T., Kilborn, J., & Williams, M. (2001). Backchannel: whispering in digital conversation. In System Sciences, 2001. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Coleman, L. H., Paternite, C. E., & Sherman, R. C. (1999). A reexamination of deindividuation in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 51-65. DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1998). Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4), 0-0. Fried, C. B. (2008). In-Class Laptop Use and Its Effects on Student Learning. Computers & Education, 50(3), 906. Guess, A. (2008, April 18). Hey, You! Pay Attention! :: Inside Higher Ed: Higher Education's Source for News, Views and Jobs. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/18/laptops. Backchannel Interactions Havard, B., Jianxia Du, & Olinzock, A. (2005). DEEP LEARNING The Knowledge, Methods, 22 and Cognition Process in Instructor-led Online Discussion. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 125-135. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The Expertise Reversal Effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31. Kester, L.; Kirschner, P. A.; van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2006). Just-in-Time Information Presentation: Improving Learning a Troubleshooting Skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31 (2), 167-185. Lee, H., Plass, J., & Homer, B. (2006). Optimizing Cognitive Load for Learning from ComputerBased Science Simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 902-913. Marshall, C. R., & Novick, D. G. (1995). Conversational effectiveness in multimedia communications. Information Technology & People, 8(1), 54 - 79. doi: 10.1108/09593849510081602. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52. Moore, D. M., Burton, J. K., & Myers, R. J. (2004). Multiple channel communication: The theoretical and research foundations of multimedia. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd Ed. Chapter 36, pp. 9791005. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 19(3), 309-326. Paulus, T. M. (2007). CMC Modes for Learning Tasks at a Distance. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 12(4), 1322-1345. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00375.x. Backchannel Interactions Pelowski, S., Frissell, L., Cabral, K., & Yu, T. (2005). So Far But Yet So Close: Student Chat Room Immediacy, Learning, and Performance in an Online Course. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(4), 395-407. 23 Pociask, F. D., Morrison, G. (2004). The Effects of Split-Attention and Redundancy on Cognitive Load When Learning Cognitive and Psychomotor Tasks. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://www.aect.org. Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Glazer, H. R., Engle, C. L., Harris, R. A., Johnston, S. M., et al. (2007). Creating shared understanding through chats in a community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(2), 103-115. Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(30, 184-233. van Merrienboer, J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147. Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 2nd Ed. Chapter 4, pp. 179112. Yardi, S. (2006). The role of the backchannel in collaborative learning environments. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 852-858). Bloomington, Indiana: International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from http://crlt.indiana.edu/iclsvideo/index.html and http://dream.sims.berkeley.edu/groups/classchat/papers/SaritaYardi_ISLS2....