L5 1 5

=A variety of communication channels used to provide in-depth and contextual feedback. =

Evidence
The type of feedback and the way it is given can be differentially effective (Hattie & Timperley 2007). Varying interaction can have effects on style of learning, attrition rates (Muilenburg & Berge 2001), workload perception and educational outcome.

Feedback in groups may have diluted effects (Hattie & Timperley 2007). That said students from collectivist cultures preferred indirect and implicit feedback, while students from individualist cultures preferred more direct feedback. They also found that the most effective forms of feedback provide cues and reinforcement in the form of video, audio, or computer-assisted instructional feedback. Therefore a variety of feedback channels should be used, not merely written feedback.

There are many potential problems with the operation of course communication systems, for example, unless students receive prompt feedback they feel they are posting to the network without response (Vrasidas & McIsaac 1999). Responsive and timely teacher-learner communications significantly effect positive learning experiences and outcomes (Blignault and Trollip, 2003; Bolliger and Martindale, 2004). Therefore all users of communication channels need to be aware of the intended use, conventions, and outcomes of each communication channel.

Resources
Garrison & Cleveland-Innes (2005) administered the study process questionnaire to online course participants to measure changes in learning strategies. They compared four different course designs with varying degrees of teaching structure and instructor involvement. They found that teaching presence contributes to the adoption of deep learning strategies. The quality of the interaction between staff and students must therefore be a specific design goal.

‘It is important to define clear participation requirements in terms of length, content and timeliness (Pawan et al. 2003). It is important to provide engaging questions, focus discussion, challenge and test ideas, model appropriate contributions, and ensure that discourse is progressive’ (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes 2005, p. 145).

Salmon (2000) considers examples of e-learning communication and states that (for synchronous communication) "the role of the e-moderator in online synchronous discussion reflects some of the qualities of the asynchronous e-moderator, especially to focus the conference at the beginning, keep it roughly on track and summarize it" (p. 46). Course design should be undertaken with intent to facilitate this sort of interaction.