An interactive conundrum: Constructs of interactivity and learning theory

The role and function of interactivity within computer enhanced learning is undergoing increased scrutiny. Through a reappraisal of learning theories in terms of their implications for interactivity and identifying the major interactive constructs, this paper provides a context for better understanding computer based interactivity and achieving its potential for enhancing the learning process.

Interactivity in conflict

Computer based instruction provides greater potential for truly interactive instruction than any mediated teaching device to date, excluding in many instances, the human tutor. (Jonassen, 1988:97)

... deconstruction essentially reveals interactivity to be not a conceptual unity, defined in terms of clear distinctions between antithetical terms, but as a fragmented, inconsistent, and rather messy notion encompassing both privileged and marginalised binaries, and the range of meanings in between. (Rose, 1999:48)

I argue that a conundrum exists because the perceived advantage of interactivity in CEL is based on its equivalence to real life learner-learner or teacher-learner communication. But can (or should) computer based applications attempt to replicate this level of communication? The evolution of educational technology has been reinforced by rhetoric (from both manufacturers and developers) that computers are inherently interactive and therefore beneficial, especially to learning. In reality however, the interactivity demonstrated is frequently little more than mouse clicks and generalised, repetitive, non-adaptive feedback. And while overtly interactive, to what extent do threaded discussions and so called learning communities contribute to interactivity in web based environments?

Given the current interest in interactive constructs (Sims, 1997; Aldrich, Rogers & Scaife, 1998) contrasted by the argument that interactive and interactivity lack "denotive value" (Rose, 1999), it is therefore important to reassess not only the notion of interactivity but its role in enhancing the learning process in its various forms. To better understand this role, this paper revisits the relationships between interactive constructs and learning theories, proposing a classification that substantiates interactivity as a viable mechanism to support learning. Using this framework, the discussion reassess how these interactive constructs might be applied to contemporary forms of CEL applications, including online initiatives, and provides a research framework for an in depth investigation of interactivity. In developing this argument, much of the research is based on stand alone CEL environments (i.e. human-computer interactions); however, the conclusions drawn are equally relevant to computer mediated (online) human-human interactions.

From learning theory to interactivity

Interactive prescriptions

Texts based generally on learning theories separate the work of behavioural, cognitive and contemporary theorists (e.g. Bower & Hilgard, 1981), while those more focused on the educational technology field offer a more specialised analysis. For example, Romiszowski (1986) acknowledges that one's particular philosophical position will influence the structure of learning activities, differentiating the Humanist (with an emphasis on useful content), Behaviourist (emphasising outcomes), Cognitivist and Developmental (emphasising the process) and Cybernetic (emphasising the system) approaches. More recently, Kearsley (1999) compiled the Theory into Practice database, documenting an extensive range of learning theories, concepts and domains. From my synthesis of these theories, a process which identified the major focus of the theoretical position, the means by which it might be implemented in a learning environment and the likely interactive constructs which would be manifested in a CEL environment, I have derived four dimensions linking the prescriptions of interactivity from those theoretical positions.

In presenting these dimensions, it is argued that learning should not be linked to any single strategy or intervention, but viewed as a complex interaction between circumstances, conditions, environment, motivation and culture. While no one theory or paradigm can explain learning completely, this analysis does provide a framework and foundation for considering the constructs of interactivity in the context of CEL.

Deriving interactive constructs

• Learners - the who of the learning process
• Content - the what of the learning process
• Pedagogy - the how of the learning process
• Context - the when and where of the learning process

Interactivity and learners

Focus	Interactive Constructs	Related Theories
Goal Navigation; Exploration	Select navigational paths Retrieve appropriate content Move within a simulated environment Explore conditions of rule operation Compare results	Sign Learning (Tolman, 1932); Constructivist (Bruner, 1966); Information Pick Up (Gibson, 1966); Structural Learning (Scandura, 1973); Androgogy (Knowles, 1984); Adult Learning (Cross, 1981); Soar (Newell, 1990)
Making Selections	Access manageable pieces of material Modify content structure	Information Processing (Miller, 1956)
Tools	Access help or support tools	Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957)
Control: to Construct or Deconstruct	Construct or modify properties of and/or relationships between learning objects Create personal narratives	Gestalt (Wertheimer, 1959); Lateral Thinking (de Bono, 1967); Experiential (Rogers, 1969); Dual Coding (Paivio, 1986); Levels of Processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972); Script (Schank, 1982); Component Display (Merrill, 1983); Cognitive Flexibility (Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson & Coulson, 1992)
Prompt for engagement	Generate original responses	Originality (Maltzman, 1960); Constructivist (Bruner, 1960);
Scaffolding; Modelling	Assemble or disassemble support tools as required Adapt dynamic scaffolding according to individual schema Access exemplars to support knowledge acquisition	Constructivist (Bruner, 1966); Social Learning (Bandura, 1971); Script (Schank, 1982)

Interactivity and content

A tangential element of this dimension is the importance of including learner representatives in the design process, as they are the group who can verify the effectiveness of the interactive experience in terms of participation, engagement and learning outcomes.

Focus	Interactive Constructs	Related Theories
The more the better	Present questions frequently	Connectionism (Thorndike, 1913)
Essential	Ensure interactions implemented	Contiguity (Guthrie, 1930); Drive Reduction (Hull, 1943)
Engagement	Integrate meaningful engagement through access to different content representations Enable the means to control displayed media elements	Dual Coding (Paivio, 1986), Levels of Processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972)
Content Dependent	Vary structural presentation as a function of content domain Enable learner elaboration of epitomes	Algo-Heuristic (Landa, 1974); Component Display (Merrill, 1983); Elaboration (Reigeluth, 1992)
Multimedia	Enable the means to select media used to display content structures Enabling access to and manipulation of content	Symbol Systems (Salomon, 1979); Dual Coding (Paivio, 1986); Cognitive Flexibility (Spiro et al, 1992)
Minimalist	Include only necessary content	GOMS (Card, Moran & Newell, 1983); Minimalist (Carroll, 1990)

Interactivity and pedagogy

Focus	Interactive Constructs	Related Theories
Vary according to learner	Vary as a function of developmental stage Vary according to individual skills Integrate contextual and socio-cultural elements	Genetic Epistemology (Piaget, 1929); Conditions of Learning (Gagne, 1985); Subsumption (Ausubel, 1963); General Problem Solver (Newell & Simon, 1972); Androgogy (Knowles, 1984); Adult Learning (Cross, 1981); ACT (Anderson, 1976); ATI (Cronbach & Snow, 1977); Triarchic (Sternberg, 1977);
Question- Answer- Feedback	Adopt a cyclic question (stimulus), answer (response) and feedback loop	Operant Conditioning (Skinner, 1950)
Self pacing	Enable learner control Enable self testing of achievement (mastery)	Mathematical (Atkinson, 1972); Criterion Referenced (Mager, 1988)
Problem Based	Enable assessment of individual success Enable testing and problem solving of currently held beliefs or concepts Provide tools to solve problems	Experiential (Rogers, 1969); General Problem Solver (Newell & Simon, 1972); Double Loop (Argyris & Schon, 1974); Repair (Brown & Van Lehn, 1980); Mathematical Problem Solving (Schonfield, 1985)

Interactivity and context

For example, while a group of army specialists may be taken to a bombing range to practice disarming explosives, recreating the same scenario on a computer is complex because time and space constraints associated with the task are difficult to replicate. One of the challenges therefore, if attempting to develop a CEL environment incorporating a contextual metaphor, is to provide learners with adequate visual cues and support tools to establish a realistic and meaningful learning experience.

Focus	Interactive Exemplars	Related Theories
Contextual, Situated	Enable access to people (real or simulated) to provide assistance Focus on action-consequence model Relate contextual controls (tools) to support facilities Enable social operations	Functional Literacy (Sticht, 1976); Social Development (Vygotsky, 1962); Symbol Systems (Salomon, 1979); Phenomenography (Marton, Hounsell & Entwistle, 1984); Cognitive Flexibility (Spiro et al, 1982); Situated (Lave & Wenger, 1990)
Learning Styles	Enable learner and program adaptation strategies	Modes of Learning (Rumelhart & Norman, 1978); Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1993)

A case for reason

Given this potential, the following discussion reviews the classifications of interactivity and demonstrates that a better understanding of the interactive process is required in order to maximise engagement within CEL environments. Although many products have been marketed as representing effective applications by the development teams or through competitive awards, the real effectiveness of any application will only be achieved when representatives of the target group praise its worth. How we might achieve this is the purpose for attempting to better understand this interactive conundrum.

Constructs of interactivity

Revisiting the concept

In recent years, the concept of interactivity has become so firmly entrenched within the discourse of educational computing that it is a truism to say that instructional software is interactive and that interactivity promotes learning, and a kind of heresy to dispute it. (Rose, 1999: 43)

An alternative perspective focusing on narrative and play as a model for interactive endeavours (Plowman, 1996; Sims, 1999) focuses on the strategies which might be implemented to enable the user (learner) to become an integral part of the narrative or story being promoted by the developer. Not only will the learner be offered activities for participation and engagement, but the underlying structure (scaffolding) will ensure they have a clear orientation and sense of purpose for moving within the application, regardless of its explicit structure. In offering this as a potential success factor for interactivity, it augments those issues that must be considered by the development team to include strategies to enable the learner to be integrated into the interactive world as the lead character.

Taxonomy of Interactivity (Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993)	Levels of Interactivity (Sims, 1997)	Dimensions of Interactivity (Aldrich et al, 1998)
Levels Reactive Proactive Mutual Functions Confirmation Pacing Navigation Inquiry Elaboration Transactions Keyboard, touch panel Pointing device Voice	Levels Object Linear Hierarchical Support Update Construct Reflective Simulation Hyperlinked Non-immersive contextual Immersive virtual	Visibility and accessibility Visualise content in different ways Access content in different ways Manipulatability and annotatability Construct content Make notes Creativity and combinability Create new content by combining media Experimentation and testing Run a simulation Build a model

So despite the criticism levelled by Rose (1999), for those actively developing CEL applications, a resurgence of interest in the value of interactivity can only help to ensure the quality of the products are ensured. As advocated by Reeves (1999), the promise of effective interactivity will be achieved by focusing on the ways in which we can make the applications work better rather than relying on empirical research or technological developments to prescribe the solutions.

And moving online?

Moving to an online environment, with the perceived benefits of human to human communications, can from one perspective be seen to diminish the importance of overt human to computer interactions. However, I maintain that it is the engagement and learning that interactivity can enhance that is the critical component of any computer facilitated learning artefact and that this interactivity needs constant maintenance regardless of the medium of delivery.

Conclusions

In many ways it appears that too little research has been undertaken to actually determine what is happening during the interactive experience. Much of the praise for this has come from the popular press that has adopted the term as one of the positive indicators of a productive digital future. Similarly, it is not simply a case that we need to move ahead with the technology as promoted by Kearsley & Shneiderman (1999).

It is not the technology that is at fault but the implementation of the interactivity demanded by users. Indeed, computer based interactivity is not a promise unfulfilled, but rather a promise not yet realised.

References

Anderson, J. (1976). Language, Memory and Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Atkinson, R. C. (1972). Ingredients for a theory of instruction. American Psychologist, 27, 921-931.

Ausubel, D. (1963). The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press

Bower, G. H. & Hilgard, E. R. (1981). Theories of Learning. (5th Edition). New York: Prentice Hall.

Brown, J. S. & Van Lehn, K. (1980). Repair theory: A generative theory of bugs in procedural skills. Cognitive Science, 4, 379-426.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Card, S., Moran, T. & Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg Funnel. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Craik, F. & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

Cronbach, L. & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and Instuctional Methods: A Handbook for Research on Interactions. New York: Irvington.

Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DeBono, E. (1967). New Think: The Use of Lateral Thinking in the Generation of New Ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress.

Gagné, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning. 4th Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. NY: Basic Books.

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Guthrie, E. R. (1930). Conditioning as a principle of learning. Psychological Review, 37, 412-428.

Hull, C. (1943). Principles of Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Jonassen, D. (1988). Instructional Designs for Microcomputer Courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kearsley, G. (1999). Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database. http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/ [5 May 2000].

Kearsley, G. & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Engagement Theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/engage.htm [5 May 2000].

Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Landa, L. (1974). Algorithmization in Learning and Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mager, R. (1988). Making Instruction Work. Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing Co.

Maltzman, I. (1960). On the training of originality. Psychological Review, 67(4), 229-242.

Mandel, T. (1997). The Elements of User Interface Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Marton, F., Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, N. (1984). The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component Display Theory. In C. Reigeluth (ed.), Instructional DesignTheories and Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Newell, A. (1990). Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Newell, A. & Simon, H. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Piaget, J. (1929). The Child's Conception of the World. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Plowman, L. (1996a). Narrative, linearity and interactivity: making sense of interactive multimedia. British Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 92-105.

Reeves, T. C. (1999). A research agenda for interactive learning in the new millenium. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds), Proceedings of EdMedia 1999. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Reigeluth, C. (1992). Elaborating the elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(3), 80-86

Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Romiszowski, A. J. (1986). Developing Auto-Instructional Materials. London: Kogan Page.

Rose, E. (1999). Deconstructing interactivity in educational computing. Educational Technology, 39(1), 43-49.

Rumelhart, D. & Norman, D. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In. J.W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds), Semantic Factors in Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of Media, Cognition, and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scandura, J. M. (1973). Structural Learning I: Theory and Research. London: Gordon & Breach.

Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical Problem Solving. New York: Academic Press.

Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press.

Schwier, R. & Misanchuk, E. (1993). Interactive Multimedia Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Shedroff, N. (1994). Information Interaction Design: A Unified Field Theory of Design. http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/ [5 May 2000].

Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A Forgotten Art? Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157-180.

Sims, R. (1999). Interactivity and narrative: Strategies for effective learning. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds), Proceedings of EdMedia 1999. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57(4), 193-216.

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, Information Processing, and Analogical Reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sticht, T. G. (1976). Comprehending reading at work. In M. Just & P. Carpenter (Eds), Cognitive Processes in Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thorndike, E. (1913). Educational Psychology: The Psychology of Learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive Thinking (Enlarged Edition). New York: Harper & Row.

Author: Rod Sims School of Multimedia and Information Technology Southern Cross University rsims@scu.edu.au http://multimedia.scu.edu.au/ Phone: (02) 6659 3310 Fax: (02) 6659 3612 Please cite as: Sims, R. (2000). An interactive conundrum: Constructs of interactivity and learning theory. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 45-57. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/sims.html