24
Pergamon Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 157-180, 1997 © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0747-5632/97 $17.00 + 0.00 PII: S0747-5632(97)00004-6 Interactivity: A Forgotten Art? Rod Sims Faculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney Abstract- Interactivity has received a great deal of attention in the instructional science literature and has been a much discussed topic on ITFOR UM. The attention is well deserved since, by most accounts, interactivity plays a crucial role in knowledge acquisition and the development of cognitive skills. Nevertheless, there has been inadequate analysis of the ways interactivity can be effectively achieved in learning environments. This paper is intended to promote further discussion and analysts of interactivity in learning environments and contains a classification of interaction types appropriate for consideration in multimedia settings. Through an examination of related factors associated with navigation and control, a matrix of interactive dimensions is proposed. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd Interactivity in learning is "a necessary and fundamental mechanism for knowledge acquisition and the development of both cognitive and physical skills" (Barker, 1994, p. 1). It is no longer adequate to see our field of practice (or are we bold enough to label it a profession?) being limited to products where interactivity is trivialized to simple menu selection, clickable objects, or Requests for reprints should be addressed to Rod Sims, School of Multimedia and Information Technology, Southern Cross University, Hogbin Drive, Coifs Harbour, NSW 2457, Australia. 157

Interactivity: A forgotten art?

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

P e r g a m o n Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 157-180, 1997

© 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain

0747-5632/97 $17.00 + 0.00

PII: S 0 7 4 7 - 5 6 3 2 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 0 4 - 6

Interactivity: A Forgotten Art?

Rod Sims

Faculty of Education, University of Technology, Sydney

A b s t r a c t - Interactivity has received a great deal of attention in the instructional science literature and has been a much discussed topic on ITFOR UM. The attention is well deserved since, by most accounts, interactivity plays a crucial role in knowledge acquisition and the development of cognitive skills. Nevertheless, there has been inadequate analysis of the ways interactivity can be effectively achieved in learning environments. This paper is intended to promote further discussion and analysts of interactivity in learning environments and contains a classification of interaction types appropriate for consideration in multimedia settings. Through an examination of related factors associated with navigation and control, a matrix of interactive dimensions is proposed. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Interactivity in learning is "a necessary and fundamental mechanism for knowledge acquisition and the development of both cognitive and physical skills" (Barker, 1994, p. 1). It is no longer adequate to see our field of practice (or are we bold enough to label it a profession?) being limited to products where interactivity is trivialized to simple menu selection, clickable objects, or

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Rod Sims, School of Multimedia and Information Technology, Southern Cross University, Hogbin Drive, Coifs Harbour, NSW 2457, Australia.

157

Page 2: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

158 Sims

linear sequencing. Interaction is intrinsic to successful, effective instructional practice as well as individual discovery. The implementation of interactivity can be perceived as an art because it requires a comprehensive range of skills, including an understanding of the learner and an appreciation of software engineering capabilities, the importance of rigorous instructional design and the application of appropriate graphical interfaces. If we are to be recognized as developers with professional capabilities, as competent practitioners, then it is critical to understand what makes an application interactive, instructional, and effective.

By way of providing a context for the discussion, the ideas are largely based on extensive work as an active multimedia developer of applications to support education and training in the postsecondary and vocational sectors, rather than those specifically designed for school applications. The concepts of interactivity presented relate as much to the complexity of development and implementation as they do to the quality, effectiveness, and engagement of human-computer communications. Given this position, I hope this paper will challenge ITFORUM subscribers - - contributors and lurkers alike. This challenge is to consider, reconsider, and perhaps even reformulate your notion of the use of interactivity within computer-based multimedia applications - - designed to support the teaching and learning process - - within all educational and training environments.

MULTIMEDIA

As educational technology is increasingly being referred to as interactive multimedia, it is perhaps fitting to include a short reference to the term multimedia. For this paper, I shall use the description presented by Ambron and Hooper (1988), where multimedia is said to consist of the media (text, audio, visuals), the technology (computers), and the products (kiosks, education, games, information). The essential implication which can be drawn from this description is that multimedia itself is not inherently interactive, as many of you already appreciate. In fact, multimedia represents no significant challenge to developers who understand that quality in an instructional resource is a function of the design effort, not the technology.

It is the use of the products which integrate multimedia elements where interactivity becomes important. Interactivity is generally at a basic "point and click" level for kiosks and information applications, whereas games and educationalproducts require a higher degree of interactivity. This is not to say that basic interactivity is inappropriate - - but rather that the level of interaction may not be adequate or relevant to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge or the development of new skills and understanding. On the other

Page 3: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

lnteractivity: A forgotten art? 159

hand, educational products will likely require more complex forms of interactivity, depending upon the particular strategy employed for the application.

THE HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERFACE

An initial approach to the study of interactivity can focus on the relationship between the human operator and the technology - - the human-computer interface (HCI) perspective. In brief, this involves interactivity as relating to a wide range of disciplines including software engineering, computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, cognitive science (understanding, thought, creativity), sociology, ergonomics, organizational psychology, mathematics, cognitive psychology, and social psychology (Booth, 1989).

For the purposes of this discussion and in the context of HCI, interactivity might be simplified to refer to a user who has access to a range of input devices (keyboard, drawing, pointing, touchscreen, or speech) which can activate the technology being used; the result of this action is some form of visual or audio output (text, graphics, printing, or speech), and the sequence of actions form an interaction. As noted by Bork (1982), instructional technology is about making that interaction both meaningful and engaging to the user, and interactivity can be viewed as a function of input required by the learner while responding to the computer, the analysis of those responses by the computer and the nature of the action by the computer.

WHY INTERACTIVITY?

Interactivity is the one element which can distinguish what we do as educational technologists from other so-called interactive products. But what are the characteristics which make instructional software interactive? Are there inherent qualities or structures by which a product's interactivity can be measured and evaluated? Damarin (1982) identified a series of interactive options, which included watching, finding, doing, using, constructing, and creating. Similarly, Ambron and Hooper (1988) described interactivity as a state in which users are able to browse, annotate, link, and elaborate within a rich, nonlinear database. While focusing very much on the user aspect, these comments do not specifically identify a component of interactivity which includes analysis and response generation. Perhaps a more useful description is that provided by Jonassen (1988), where interactivity is described as implying an activity between two organisms, and with a computer-based

Page 4: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

160 Sims

application, involving the learner in a true dialog. If this dialog is successful, a quality interaction results:

Generally, the quality of the interaction in microcomputer courseware is a function of the nature of the learner's response and the computers feedback. If the response is consistent with the learner's information processing needs, then it is meaningful (Jonassen, 1988, p. 101).

Echoing the ideas of Jonassen (1988), Crawford (1990) argues that "a good program establishes an interaction circuit through which the user and computer are apparently in continuous communication" (p. 104). It is this dialog or circuit which we must pursue, enabling the users to be continually and productively active while working with the instructional content. However, as late as 1990, criticisms continued to be directed at interactive products: "compared to what it should and will be, today's interactive software is wooden, obtuse, clumsy, and confused. The pervasive lack of imagination and good design is appalling" (Nelson, 1990, p. 235). While we have learnt much over the past 5 years, such comments are still not uncommon, and we are continually encouraged to extend our ideas of interactivity:

Interactive multimedia has to be more than just software that you click on to bring up a different pop-up or text menu. "Interactive" has to mean more than point and click - - it should be involving and personal. It all comes down to concepts. A brilliant idea that works interactively ... is a way that makes sense, and that makes it a more appropriate tool than a book or a video or a set of crayons (Dickinson, 1995, p. 145).

Another view of interactivity was revealed in the guidelines for applicants for funding of Australia on CD projects, which resulted from the Australian Government's 1994 Creative Nation statement, in which some $84 million was allocated for multimedia initiatives. In this instance, products proposed were to have a:

Level of interactivity ... sufficiently complex to provide for the use of the title in a variety of contexts. Interactivity being taken to mean objectives in using the title, the users' active participation in navigation and opportunities provided for creative involvement (Department of Communication and the Arts, 1995, p. 3).

This concept of interactivity includes not only navigational components but also some form of user engagement.

LEVELS OF INTERACTION

Interactivity is important, but there appears to be no consensus of what interactivity actually represents or involves (remember the recent ITFORUM

Page 5: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

Interactivity: A forgotten art? 161

debate?). Even so, over the past years there have been a number of attempts to identify levels of interactivity, with the underlying assumption that the higher the level, the better the product. For example, Rhodes and Azbell (1985) identified three levels of interactivity, ranging from reactive (where there is little learner control of content structure with program directed options and feedback) to coactive (providing learner control for sequence, pace, and style) to proactive (where the learner controls both structure and content). In this case, interactivity was perceived as being extended or improved when the learner had more control, although that control would appear to refer more to navigation than to instruction, a distinction which will be expanded on later.

In contrast, Jonassen (1988) identified five levels of interactivity which focused more on the user's involvement with the application and the subsequent effect on learning. The five levels included the modality of the learner's response, the nature of the task, the level of processing, the type of program, and the level of intelligence in design. In relation to these levels, it was also suggested that the level of interactivity would affect whether surface or deep learning would occur.

More recently, Schwier and Misanchuk (1993) introduced a detailed taxonomy of interactivity based on three dimensions: levels (reactive, proactive, mutual), functions (confirmation, pacing, navigation, inquiry, elaboration), and transactions (keyboard, touch screen, mouse, voice). The "levels of interaction [are] based on the instructional quality of the interaction" (Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993, p. 11), which reinforces the idea that the higher the level, the better the instruction. However, this definition must be taken in context as Spector (1995, p. 531) asserts that "creating more conversational interfaces should enhance the level of interactions in courseware ... [but] the critical factor [of learning effectiveness] is more likely the learner's mental engagement or involvement with the subject material." Regardless of the complexity or level of interaction, we do not know the extent to which cognitive processing is occurring.

The taxonomy however does provide a useful starting point for developing our understanding of interactivity. The three levels, which significantly extend the definition of Rhodes and Azbell (1985), range from basic stimulus-response interactions (reactive) to learner construction and generative activity (proactive) to mutual "artificial or virtual reality designs, where the learner becomes a fully franchised citizen in the instructional environment" (Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993, p. 12). The associated functions include verification of learning (confirmation), learner control (pacing), learner interrogation and performance support (inquiry), instructional control (navigation), and knowledge construction (elaboration). However, from my reading, the terminology and brief examples tend towards the traditional behaviorist approach to instructional software, and do not extend

Page 6: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

162 Sims

the opportunities for interaction using the power and flexibility of the technology.

A DEVELOPER'S CLASSIFICATION

When developing multimedia applications, significant emphasis must be placed on the ways in which users can access, manipulate, and navigate through the content material. The following analysis identifies a range of interactive concepts (based on the seven levels of interactivity proposed by Sims, 1994), which may be used as a guide to different modes of communication between computer and person. By applying these interactive concepts to multimedia courseware design, the various media elements can be integrated based on instructional decisions rather than visual appeal, allowing more effective communication and therefore potentially more educational effectiveness.

An important aspect of the following classification of interactive concepts is that they are not mutually exclusive events, but elements which can be integrated to provide comprehensive and engaging instructional transactions. In addition, the implementation of such interactions is not only dependent on the skills of the designers and developers, but also on the extent to which the interactions are independent (that is, will perform identically on each encounter with a user) or consequential (where the functionality of the interaction is dependent upon previous actions or performance by the current user). To provide a context for these concepts, the levels and functions of interactivity defined by Schwier and Misanchuk (1993) have been noted in brackets within each concept description.

Object Interactivity Object interactivity (proactive inquiry) refers to an application in which objects (buttons, people, things) are activated by using a mouse or other pointing device. When a user "clicks" on the object, there will be some form of audio-visual response. The functionality of such objects can be varied according to consequential factors such as previous objects encountered, previous encounters with the current object or previous instructional performance/activity.

Linear Interactivity Linear interactivity (reactive pacing) refers to applications in which the user is able to move (forwards or backwards) through a predetermined linear

Page 7: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

lnteractivity: A forgotten art? 163

sequence of instructional material. Often termed electronic page-turning, this class of interaction does not provide response-specific feedback to learner actions, but simply provides access to the next (or previous) display in a sequence. Overuse of linear interactions in learning environments may reflect inappropriate use of the technology. From a development perspective, the linear interaction is simple to generate and can be used to maximize courseware development ratios. However, its use as a major form of interaction in an application is not recommended as the level of learner control is restricted, and learner-initiated branching may not be accessible.

Figure 1 illustrates a screen with object interactivity in which the user can get simple information by clicking one of the three buttons, and linear interactivity in that the two arrow buttons can be used to move between information pages. The info and listen buttons provide support interactivity.

Hierarchical Interactivity

The hierarchical (reactive navigation) class of interactivity can provide the learner with a predefined set of options from which a specific course of study may be selected. The most common example of this interaction is the menu and, in its basic format, learners will be directed to a linear interaction after selecting an item and returned to the original menu on completion of the sequence. This interaction is relatively simple in terms of development effort, especially if no conditions are attached to menu selection. However, if prerequisite and mastery conditions are required, the instructional strategies

Figure 1. Object and linear interactivity. From Train Management Computer-Assisted Learning. © 1995 by the NSW State Rail Authority. Reprinted with permission.

Page 8: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

164 Sims

will require more careful specification. Figure 2 illustrates a screen with hierarchical interactivity - - the six "topic" buttons generating the list of "subtopic" buttons.

Support Interactivity

One of the essential components of any software application is the facility for the user to receive performance support, which may range from simple help messages to complex tutorial systems. The inclusion of support interactivity (reactive inquiry) in the classification extends the options of the developer to include both generalized and context-sensitive support.

Update Interactivity This is one of the more powerful classes of interactivity (although its significance is not consistent with the comparatively low proactive confirmation category), as it relates to individual application components or events in which a dialog is initiated between the learner and computer- generated content. For this concept, the applications presents or generates problems (either from a database or as a function of individual performance levels) to which the learner must respond; the analysis of the response results in computer-generated update or feedback. For example, when a question is posed to assess knowledge, the answer provided by the trainee is judged and responded to. The instructional rigor of the judging will determine the extent to which the update or feedback provides a meaningful response to the user.

i:..... :..~,.~. ::..~ ......... If k ~ ~ T ~ ~ I

Figure 2. Hierarchical interactivity. From Train Management Computer-Assisted Learning. © 1995 by the NSW State Rail Authority. Reprinted with permission.

Page 9: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

lnteractivity: A forgotten art? 165

Update interactivity can range from the simple question and answer format to complex conditional responses which may incorporate artificial intelligence components. While updates to both complex and simple interactions may be indistinguishable to the learner, the processing and strategies used to generate the update may vary considerably. The more the update is based upon the current learner's responses, the more individualized these updates will appear. The planning of update interactivity is extremely important in developing interactive multimedia applications, as the quality and format of media as a component of the update and feedback will affect the overall effectiveness of the instruction.

Construct Interactivity

The construct class of interactivity (proactive elaboration) is an extension to update interactivity, and requires the creation of an instructional environ- ment in which the learner is required to manipulate component objects to achieve specific goals. A classic example of this form of interaction is a lesson created for the original PLATO system, which required the learner to construct distillation apparatus from component parts. Unless the construc- tion was completed in the correct sequence, the task could not be completed. Construct interactions require significantly more design and strategic effort, as many parameters affect the successful completion of an operation. This class of interaction can also provide a link between nonsituate learning and simulated environments by introducing the learner to real-world actions.

Reflective Interactivity

This class of interaction (proactive elaboration) has been included to cater for the many situations in which instructional designers wish to include text responses to prompts or questions. A general rule I have used is that if N correct alternatives are provided to a text response, the user will enter the N + lth correct response which will be judged "incorrect". To prevent this, reflective interactivity records each response entered by users of the application and allows the current user to compare their response with that of other users as well as recognized "experts". In this way, learners can reflect on their response and make their own judgment as to its accuracy or correctness. This technique was used successfully in an interactive-video project. (Farrow & Sims, 1987) as well as a more recent commercial Computer Based Training (CBT) project. Similar strategies are also being used in Internet-based instruction. Figure 3 illustrates reflective interactivity. In this case, the user has entered responses to a question asking for five

Page 10: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

166 Sims

Figure 3. Reflective interactivity. From Win-Win Negotiations Computer-Assisted Learning. © 1994 by Fujitsu Australia Limited. Reprinted with permission.

instances where negotiation is required; the nature of the user's answer can then be compared with both other students and "the experts".

Simulation Interactivity

Simulation interactivity (which ranges from reactive elaboration to mutual elaboration, depending on its complexity) extends the role of the learner to that of controller or operator, where individual selections determine the training sequence. For example, setting a range of switches to certain values to enable the functioning of a production plant, with the settings selected determining the presentation or update sequence. The simulation and construct interactivity levels are closely linked, and may require the learner to complete a specific sequence of tasks before a suitable update can be generated. The interaction sequence can also be varied according to the specific instructional strategy required; for example, the simulation may be controlled with the learner progressing only after making a correct choice. On the other hand the sequence may be consequential, where the actions of the learner generate an update which mimics the actual operation or process being simulated. As with all interactions, if the update is to relate to individual learner responses, the design and development will require more effort.

Hyperlinked Interactivity With hyperlinked interactivity (proactive navigation), the learner has access to a wealth of information, and may "travel" at will through that knowledge base. The provision of linked information can provide a means to present problems which are solved by correctly navigating through the "maze" of information. From the developers' perspective, the major design effort involves defining, maintaining, and integrating appropriate hyperlinks to insure all possible (or relevant paths) are accessible. While providing a flexible environment for information access, this concept of interactivity may

Page 11: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

lnteractivity: A forgotten art? 167

diminish the motivation of the learner to explore if required links (from the learner's perspective) are either unavailable or inoperative.

Nonimmersive Contextual Interactivity

This concept combines and extends the various interactive levels into a complete virtual training environment (mutual elaboration) in which the trainees are able to work in a meaningful, job-related context. Rather than taking a passive role in which they work through a series of content-oriented sequences, they are transported into a microworld which models their existing work environment, and the tasks they undertake reflect those of the work experience. Nonimmersive contextual interactions require significant effort in design strategy and work well with a rapid prototyping methodology. Figure 4 illustrates contextual interactivity where the user can almost walk through an 18th Century warship, interacting through simulations and hyperlinking to move to other sections of the ship.

Immersive Virtual Interactivity Often perceived as the ultimate in interaction, immersive virtual interactivity (mutual elaboration) provides an interactive environment in which the

Lower deck Training fbr battle

: 41: ;i. , . . • , o ~v

otcK ~tAN$

~ G e t t ' i n g a ( : h e d e e d $ h f r t

Gun drill

• t

Each member of the crew lind his own job to do ~ r ~ in battle, Regttlar exercises and drills meant tlmt , ~ tile ship cotdd be ready for act ion in le.~ than ten r~ i: ~r minutes. The gtm crew in p~tictdar had to w o r k as efficiently as possible together.

Figure 4. Nonimmersive intsractivity. From Stephen Biesty's Incredible Cross- Sections StowawayL © 1994 by Dorling Kindsrslsy. Reprinted with permission.

Page 12: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

168 Sims

learner is projected into a complete computer-generated world which responds to individual movement and actions. Although this concept has yet to be used in typical instructional settings, the notion of working in virtual worlds continues to gain popularity.

An Engagement-Control Model

Having identified these interactive concepts, it is evident that the individual concepts relate to different tasks which might be performed during an instructional event or transaction. Therefore, the next phase is to place them in a more logical context based on the range of activities which might occur during a learner's encounter with courseware. To achieve this, I have used the work of Waterworth (1992), who defined a three-dimensional model of information exploration, describing the interaction between a user and the system (Figure 5). The first dimension, structural responsibility, identifies navigation as a state in which the user controls a search process compared with mediation, where the system performs the actual search. The second dimension, target orientation, differentiates the browsing or querying user while the third dimension, interaction method, contrasts the descriptive and referential interface. As a result, the information-seeking mode in which a user is operating might be referred to as referential-navigational-query or descriptive-mediated-browse.

Using the basic structure of this model, I am proposing three dimensions by which interactive instruction may be viewed. The first dimension, engagement, refers to interactivity which is either navigational (where the

I V /."°'- Target Orlentatlon

Figure 5. Information exploration model.

Page 13: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

Interactivity: A forgotten art? 169

user moves from one location in the application to another) or instructional (where the user is involved with the content in a way designed to facilitate learning). The second dimension, control, refers to the extent to which the system (program control) or user (learner control) is making the instructional or navigational decisions. The third dimension, interactive concept, provides an indication of the type of interaction which might be expected under the varying conditions defined by the model. Figure 6 provides a generalized view of the model, with each of the interactive concepts assumed to be associated with a relevant engagement/control category.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has examined a range of options for interactivity, based on the desire to continue to develop our understanding of implementing effective instructional technology applications. I contend that the art that we have lost is working towards and implementing interactions at the mutual-elaboration level (Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993) or the learner-controlled instructional engagements proposed here. By focusing on instructional design, graphic design, and communication design to implement interactions which will motivate and engage the learner, the ongoing success of functional and effective interactive instructional applications is assured.

Spector (1995) reminds us that "making automated learning environments highly interactive is a multi-disciplinary art ... however, the level of interactivity as measured on anyone's scale does not approach the level of interactivity in a human tutoring situation" (p. 531). I am sure most of the ITFORUM community would agree with this, so our challenge is to make

E &

Control

Figure 6. Engagement control model.

Page 14: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

170 Sims

best use o f the technology, not to replicate human behavior and communication, but to enhance human-computer communications - - and this is what interactivity is all about.

REFERENCES

Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (1991), Computer-based instruction: Methods and development (2nd ed., pp. 9-10). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ambron, S., & Hooper, K. (Eds.). (1988). Interactive multimedia. Redmond, WA: Microsoft. Barker, P. (1994). Designing interactive learning. In T. de Jong & L. Sarti (Eds.), Design and

production of multimedia and simulation-based learning material. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bates, B., Leary J. J., & Saadat, S. (1995). Virtual laboratory experimentation: A review of the state of the art and current research. Hypermedia in Sheffield 1995.

Booth, P. (1989). An introduction to human--computer interaction. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bork, A. (1982). Interactive learning. In R. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in the school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Crawford, C. (1990). Lessons from computer games design. In B. Laurel (Ed.), The art of human-computer interface design (pp. 103-111). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Damarin, S. (1982, April). Fitting the tool with the task: A problem with the instructional use of computers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Department of Communication and the Arts. (1995). Australia on CD - - Round Two: Information for applicants. Canberra, ACT: DoCA.

Dickinson, D. (1995). Multimedia myths. Australian Personal Computer, 16(10), 144-145. Farrow, M., & Sims, R. (1987). Computer-assisted learning in occupational therapy.

Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 34(2), 53-58. Galliani, L. (1993). The technological text: Hypertextual, hypermedial and didactic

applications. In M. Giardina (Ed.), Interactive multimedia learning environments (pp. 221-225). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Gredler, M. B. (1986). A taxonomy of computer simulations. Educational Technology, 26(4), 7-12.

Jonassen, D. (Ed.). (1988). Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (in press). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London, UK: Routledge.

Lin, X., Bransford, J. D., Hmelo, C. E., Kantor, R. J., Hickey, D. T., Secules, T., Petrosino, A. J., Goldman, S. R., & The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Instructional design and development of learning communities: An invitation to a dialogue. In B. Wilson (Ed.). Constructivist learning environments (pp. 203-220). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Nelson, T. H. (1990). The right way to think about software design. In B. Laurel (Ed.), The art of human-computer interface design (pp. 235-244). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Rhodes, D. M., & Azbell, J. W. (1985). Designing interactive video instruction professionally. Training and Development Journal, 39(12), 31-33.

Robbins, T. (1994). Half asleep in frog pajamas (pp. 116--117). New York: Bantam.

Page 15: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

Interactivity: A forgotten art? 171

Schwier, R. A., & Misanchuk, E. (1993). Interactive multimedia instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Sims, R. (1994). Seven levels of interactivity: Implications for the development of multimedia education and training. In M. Ryan (Ed.) Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Information Technology in Training and Education (APITITE) Conference, Volume 3 (pp. 589-594). Brisbane, Australia: APITITE.

Spector, J. M. (1995). Integrating and humanizing the process of automating instructional design. In R. D. Tennyson & A. E. Barron (Eds.), Automating instructional design: Computer-based development and delivery tools. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Waterworth, J. A. (1992). Multimedia interaction with computers: Human factors issues. Chichester, Sussex: Ellis Horwood.

APPENDIX A. EXCERPTS FROM THE ITFORUM DIALOG

Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:24:35 + 1100 From: Barney Dalgarno

Do you think that Hyperlinked Interactivity is an example (or subset) of Object Interactivity? I don't think Support Interactivity needs to be a separate category. I think it is likely to fit into the Hierarchical Interactivity or Object Interactivity category depending on the method of delivery. Do you think Construct Interactivity, Simulation Interactivity and Non- Immersive Contextual Interactivity are actually a continuum, with system control over the goals at one end, and complete freedom to explore the environment at the other end?

Tue, 14 Nov 1995 10:43:14 + 1000 From: Rod Sims

As a teacher and developer of interactive courseware for many years, I disagree with Harry - - we are about H-C communications - - I 'm not sure that technology will ever be able to do what WE do better, but it can do things (instructionally) better that we might have difficulty with. For example, the vocational teacher whose students have difficulty understanding the operation of Thermostatic Control valves may benefit from a short, traditional instructivist CAL lesson which allows them to gain a better understanding of its functionality. I have always perceived that the technology can best be used if the learner is allowed to develop (construct?) their knowledge through a series of dialogs/interactions with the instructional database. There is also considerable difference between developing a constructivist environment for children (say to discover/develop/create knowledge about prime numbers) and adults (for example, hazardous chemicals). In the latter case, it may not be practical to allow the learners to work in a constructivist environment. We should not see constructivism as THE way to use computers in learning (much in the same way as multimedia

Page 16: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

172 Sims

is often perceived as THE way to improve education), but as an approach which can be more appropriate in certain environments or content domains.

Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:03:56 + 1000 From: Rod Sims

In response to Barney's comments ... Do you think that Hyperlinked Interactivity is an example (or subset) of Object Interactivity? Definitely not. I was thinking of OI being represented by products such as Living Books - - click on the letterbox, the frog jumps out. HI is when the "click" takes you off somewhere else in the application. I don ' t think Support Interactivity needs to be a separate category. I think it is likely to fit into the Hierarchical Interactivity or Object Interactivity category depending on the method of delivery. *** Possibly. However, from the user's perspective, an interactive request for support would appear to be different from an HI or OI. However, if the object was a HELP button and some context-sensitive help appeared then yes, it is OI. Do you think Construct Interactivity, Simulation Interactivity, and Non-Immersive Contextual Interactivity are actually a continuum, with system control over the goals at one end, and complete freedom to explore the environment at the other end? *** I think I should use a word other than Construct for this class of interactivity, as it may be confusing for the theorists. In this instance CI would be a variation of Update Interactivity - - I was thinking of it like putting together a piece of equipment, rather than constructing knowledge about something. For SI and N-ICI I agree.

Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:19:23 + 1000 From: Rod Sims

As we have been discussing interactivity, and the renewal of the C/I debate (no, I won' t mention their names!), it seemed if I could show a C environment in which all (or most) of the interactive classes were evident, then Tom would be happier and Mike vindicated. So here goes - - an environment in which the learner will be allowed to develop (construct?) their own understanding and knowledge about the bastion of instructivism. - - Instructional Systems Design. We begin by placing the user/learner into a Non-Immersive Contextual (NIC) environment which is based on a typical office of training developers - - desks, computers, noticeboards, people, doors, offices, books, folders, drawers. The user is able to "wander" round this environment (perhaps I need another classification called Roaming Interactivity?) and when the pointing device used (i.e. the transaction defined by Schwier and Misanchiak) highlights selected items, the user is able to use Object Interactivity (OI) to have their properties presented. Without going any further, the user might have an idea of who and what are required within a functional ISD environment - - is this constructing knowledge or is this

Page 17: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

Interactivity: A forgotten art? 173

instruction? (As an aside, this scenario assumes there is something about which knowledge can be constructed or developed, that is, there are some predefined objects and resources which might be considered essential foundations for ISD.) So the user wanders around the office and like any normal person unsure at their first day at work, heads to the staff room where there are virtual refreshments (i.e., Support Interactivity - - help, etc.) through people who are talking. As soon as the user "asks" one of their colleagues about the place, they are welcomed as the new ISD person and told about their project b r i e f - to develop a course on topic X - - and that they might like to start in the library. Off the user goes to the library where there are a range of books detailing the many approaches to learning - - behaviorist, constructivist, cognitive, social development, situate, conversa- tional, experiential. The user can browse these at leisure, reviewing what other users have thought and record their preference to learning (Reflective Interactivity). This of course reveals my own philosophy that there is no ONE WAY - - there are many paths to achieving goals. However, and this is where Control issues enter, if the user selects one preferred approach, then the application parameters must be set so that the "office" knows about their particular preference. Is this Artificial Intelligence - - I think not, just a simple task of setting a variable to a certain value! As the user returns to various parts of the office, the objects around may randomly change as a result of the work of others. In some cases, selecting these may Jump (Hyperlinked Interactivity - - HI) to another location in the organization. The interface design and metaphor is intuitive and transparent enough for the user to return to their origin (it works in Myst). Of course, the user would also be provided with a set of "tools" to help in the voyage of discovery - - just as in Kings Quest (or Leisure Suit Larry for the more mature). The "?" for example would allow the user to interrogate a person, a magnifying glass an object. The result may simply be an OI or it could be an Update Interaction, where additional information is provided as a result of the interrogation. I don ' t think these ideas are new (I've been calling them Learner Integrated Teaching Environments for some time) and they represent situational or contextual applications. However, I 'm hoping that this expands some of the ideas behind the paper.

Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:02:11 +0800 From: Nick Jenkins

I think Rod's post illustrates an important point which is often missed by many "instructional developers". Rod used existing computer games as a demonstrat ion of how an immersive, instructional program would work. He mentioned games like Myst and King's Quest. I 'd be interested to know how many instructional developers have formed alliances with games companies? It seems an obvious approach to me. The truth of the matter is that games

Page 18: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

174 Sims

developers face much of the same challenges that instructional developers face, but at much greater risk. The legacy of the games industry is one of explosive growth, fierce competition, and a requirement for innovation. Any game which doesn't outstrip its predecessor by a large margin is destined for failure. Any games developer who can't produce interesting, engaging games is destined for bankruptcy. The legacy of the teaching industry is considerably different. Who heard of the last time a lecturer was fired for being boring? From what I've seen over the past few years, interactive multimedia and instructional software in general is slowly sliding towards game style applications. Shouldn't we just shortcut the whole process and embrace the games industry?

Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:45:36 PST From: Michael Spector

Rod has suggested three dimensions for viewing interactivity, and I believe these are headed in a useful direction. As I understood his remarks, these dimensions are: engagement, control, and interactive concept. Rod indicates that the first dimension refers to the extent to which the learner is involved with the content; the second refers to the extent to which the learner is involved with instructional decisions; the third refers to the "type of interaction which might be expected under the varying conditions defined by the model". I guess the third dimension was less clear to me than the other two. What I was thinking was that Rod's dimensions might fit nicely with what we had in mind with our system dynamics based learning environment. My question is this: Is the third dimension to be construed as the extent to which the learner is involved in designing the learning environment? This is not necessarily the same as what I understand to be the second dimension, which involves the extent to which learners are involved in selecting and sequencing and perhaps also in viewing and responding decisions. Jonassen and others have used an active design activity as an integral part of a course (have learners design a learning environment for some topic as an instructional activity), and this is exactly what Paal and I were trying to suggest. In any case, I very much agree with Rod's comments that there is something of value in both the C and I camps which should be used when appropriate. I do not regard these as fundamentally different camps which define all design activities once one has chosen sides - - which is what someone seemed to be suggesting in this discussion.

Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:44:39 -0500 From: Tom Reeves

I have been converted to a position that in many (not all) contexts, learners themselves can better function as designers or codesigners of their own

Page 19: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

Interactivity: A forgotten art? 175

learning environments, using technologies as tools for analyzing the world, accessing information, solving problems, interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge, and representing what they know to others. The research foundation for this conversion is summarized in a chapter I recently wrote with Dave Jonassen (Jonassen & Reeves, in press). As with any convert, I may sometimes be overly enthusiastic about my newfound faith, but I certainly don't advocate crucifying the unconverted ... not yet anyway.;-) For a much more articulate attempt to bridge the gap between the ISD and the Learning Environment communities, I recommend reading Instructional Design and Development of Learning Communities: An Invitation to a Dialogue (Lin et al., 1996). Ironically, I cut my interactive teeth in the early 80s building computer-based tutors and simulations for the U.S. Army. For example, I directed a large-scale project aimed at training soldiers to operate a target Reference Screen Generation Facility (RSGF) for the Pershing II missile. The challenge of that project was that there was only one of these RSGF systems in the USA available for training ... all the others were in Europe on the "front lines" of the Cold War. These targeting systems were located in small mobile shelters into which no more than two or three people could fit, so hands-on tutoring with a qualified instructor and trainees was physically impossible. Hence, we built an instructional simulation (using an interactive videodisc touch-screen system) which allowed trainees to move about the shelter to practice and learn all the complex sequences of steps involved in generating targets. In terms of Rod's interactivity classification, we included: - - Hierarchical Interactivity (for reference material); - - Support Interactivity (when trainees wanted to see an expert perform a subset of the procedures); - - Construct Interactivity (based upon student divergence from the correct sequence of steps in the targeting sequence); and - - Simulation Interactivity or Non-Immersive Contextual Interactivity (I am not sure which because although the RSGF program tried to simulate "a complete virtual training environment", it certainly did not include the wonderfully serendipitous nature of the best of these types of virtual environments ... e.g., the ecology simulations created by John Hedberg and Barry Harper at the University of Wollongong in Australia or the medical simulations developed by Joe Henderson at the Interactive Media Lab at Dartmouth Medical School in the USA.). It would have been very useful to have a paper like Rod's available to our development team when we were creating the RSGF simulation replete with examples of the different types of interactivity. As it was, we "imagineered" these different interactions and refined them through rigorous formative evaluation. An external effectiveness evaluation later revealed that the soldiers who used the simulation reported that when they first entered the actual shelters in Europe, "they felt like they had been there before". Needless to say, I would not now advocate that we should have set

Page 20: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

176 Sims

up an constructivist learning environment for the missile trainees in which they would have "discovered" the procedures for establishing their targets. The trainees might have constructed a mental model of their role akin to that of the mad General Jack D. Ripper in Stanley Kubrick's classic film, Dr. Strangelove. No, an instructivist approach was absolutely necessary. At the same time, when I consider the enormous needs in education and training today, especially the demand for lifelong learning and knowledge workers, I see a great deal of merit in contrasting instructivist and constructivist views of the world. Further, considering the small payoffs resulting from the millions of dollars that have been and are being spent on efforts to automate ISD or build intelligent tutoring systems, I don ' t think any of us can afford to be neutral.

Tue, 14 Nov 1995 21:45:21 -0600 From: "T. Kent Thomas"

I think the answer to increased utilization is to develop better tutorials not to declare defeat and take up the ivory tower notion that constructivistic open ended learning tools are the key. Instruction is a purposeful activity and will always demand a certain, in my opinion, a large, degree of structure and purpose. I agree with Daniel - - let's improve our use of tutorials. This paper provides a mechanism for categorizing and discussing how we could. For example, the "richness" of a tutorial experience is frequently in the type/ depth of mental processing required to interact and the feedback to that interaction that corrects or reinforces the mental response.

Thu, 16 Nov 1995 00:34:29 + 1000 From: Rod Sims

I recently had the good fortune to meet novelist Tom Robbins (Even Cowgirls Get the Blues) at the launch of his new book Half Asleep in Frog Pajamas. During the launch he read the following passage ...

Sarah Bernhardt was such a powerfully popular, awe-inspiring actress that when she toured in North America her performances invariably sold out, even though she spoke hardly a word of English. Whatever play she did, Shakespeare, Molirre, Marlowe, or whatever, she did in French, a language few nineteenth century Americans could comprehend. Theatregoers were provided with librettos so they might follow the action in English. Well, on at least a couple of occasions, ushers passed out the wrong libretto, a text for an entirely different drama than the one that was being staged. Yet, from all reports, not once did a single soul in those capacity crowds ever comment or complain. Furthermore, no critic ever mentioned the discrepancy in his or her review. We modern human beings are looking at life, trying to make some sense of it, observing a "reality" that often seems to be unfolding in a foreign tongue - - only we've all been issued with the wrong librettos. For a text we're given the Bible. Or the Talmud or the Koran. We're given Time magazine and Reader's Digest, daily papers and the six o'clock news; we're

Page 21: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

lnteractivity: A forgotten art? 177

given school books, sitcoms, and revisionist histories; we're given psychological counseling, cults, workshops, advertisements, sales pitches, and authoritative pro- nouncements by pundits, sold-out scientists, political activists, and heads of state. Unfortunately, none of these translations bears more than a faint resemblance to what is transpiring in the true theatre of existence, and most of them are dangerously misleading. We're attempting to comprehend the spiraling intricacies of a magnificently complex tragi-comedy with librettos that describe barroom melodramas or kindergarten skits (Robbins, 1994, pp. 116-117).

It seems to me (at this early hour) that there are a lot of librettos out there - - who's got the right one for this performance?

Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:46:00 +0000 From: Bill

However I think this argument can mask some of the more important issues you raise in your paper - - i.e. how can we more successfully categorise the work we spend our lives producing and improve our methodologies for design and evaluation. I think the idea of separating the navigational engagement from the instructional engagement is very important distinction because it clearly delineates access from content and understanding. The article by Galliani (1993) views interactivity as a function of the learning technological environment, it has an impact on media (technical representa- tions), languages (presence of different symbolic systems and languages), and methods (teaching and learning processes). In seeking to quantify the axes of a taxonomy for multimedia simulated experimentation, (my area of interest) I have identified three axes that interactivity impinges upon. These are media/modeling, teaching-learning process and motivation/challenge. I 'm really not sure whether interactivity is a fourth axis or is just a function of the interrelated characteristics of the other three. You quote Laurillard (1993) in your paper but omit to mention the contribution the author makes in classifying the learning delivery process - - namely the dialog that is necessary between delivery system (teacher and/or technology) and the learner which is divided into four types; discursive, adaptive, interactive, and reflective. Whilst the author's work is not exhaustive or prescriptive it does point developers and users to identify appropriate media and their limitations in the delivery of learning. I think interactivity could be considered at two levels; surface and deep. Surface interactivity is predominantly associated with navigation, whereas deep interactivity engages the user in what you describe as learning engagement. Instructional technology designers need to separate the appeal of media and technology from the nature of the teaching-learning process. This I fear is what we are not very good at because we do not have an effective evaluation mechanism. Gredler (1986) attempted this process and whilst the paper is a bit dated, with respect to technology, it

Page 22: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

178 Sims

attempts to classify micro computer simulation systems (very like modern multimedia systems) into a number of distinct types, by separating media, instructional process, and feedback mechanisms. I attempted to update this in a paper this summer Bates, Leary, and Saadat (1995) the process is ongoing. What I 'm looking for is a taxonomy that can remove some of the subjectivity from our evaluations and provide developers and users with a framework to classify and compare applications that look similar but deliver totally different levels of learning. Ideally I 'd like to be able to identify something like Alessi and Trollip's (1991) five major types of CBI and then to have some comparative measure of the media/modeling, teaching-learning process and the motivation/chaUenge incorporated in each implementation. How could your three views of interactive instruction help me with this? I agree with Mike Spector's comments ... I guess the third dimension was less clear to me than the other two ... please could you elaborate?

Thu, 16 Nov 1995 11:15:40 + 1100 From: Clark N

I think interactivity could be considered at two levels; surface and deep. Surface interactivity is predominantly associated with navigation, whereas deep interactivity engages the user in what you describe as learning engagement. This comment has helped throw me out of pondering and into spewing forth this stream-of-consciousness set of concerns crossing several recent topics. Thanks to Rod and all for stimulating conversation: The first issue I've been puzzling over is just this issue of levels. In what I call "task- oriented" interactions, which is mostly what the field of HCI is concerned with (where you want to minimize the cognitive overhead to accomplish a task as opposed to learning interactions where you deliberately want a cognitive challenge aimed carefully at the ZOPD), they distinguish between different levels of linguistic analysis of dialogs or interactions: syntactic, semantic, etc. (sorry, I 'm in my "work" office, not my academic environs, so I can't pull the references off the shelf). My concern here is that the categories of interactivity are confounding several levels: at a low level is the question of differentiating between clicking and dragging, at a higher level the distinction is between filling out forms versus executing commands, and ultimately we have the choice of knowledge browsing versus experimentation versus explicit model construction. I haven't been able to convince myself that this discussion doesn't cut across levels.

I realise Rod is not talking about just clicking versus dragging, but I begin to believe you can almost implement any high-level activity in any interaction modality. When I consider AGenT, the genetics experiment simulation, it seems very constructivist, in that you have to get out the equipment and use it properly to accomplish your goal. Yet it ends up being fairly linear. You struggle until you turn on the help, and then it's fairly straightforward

Page 23: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

Interactivity: A forgotten art? 179

(granted, I haven't used it in the course). How/where does this fit? It's construct, but it's also simulation. How could you have a construct that's NOT simulation? I guess I, too, am looking forward to examples. I note that it's not clear to me where model-building fits. I think the extreme end of constructivism is students using knowledge representation tools (from hypermedia databases, through dynamic modeling tools, to programming languages) to explicitly model their understanding. I don't see a category that qualifies, yet I believe it's important. As an aside, I 'd like to criticise the difference between "non-immersive" and "immersive". To me, the cognitive immersion takes place whether or not there's physical immersion. I don't think kids playing "Doom" are really any less "inside" that world just because they don't have headsets on. They ARE in that world. Unless it means whether it's a first-person versus a third-person view ... I 'm also concerned with the setting. Take, for example, reflective interactivity. One of the most intriguing ways I've seen to generate reflection through Rod's mechanism of comparing responses, is for students to, post hoc, examine a trace of their activities through the learning environment. How does this fit in the picture? It seems that part of this depends on the context in which the activity happens, so it's hard to construe the interactivity alone ... Consider: Rob Phillips touts his muscle simulation hypermedia system, but what *motivates* the further exploration of this system? We know that browsing hypermedia databases doesn't lead to learning without some overarching goal around which to organize the information integration. Liz Tancred's Brainstorm project is a lovely multiple representation of neuroanatomy, but it's a pretty toy until it's embedded in tutorial activities with goals. If the motivation is external to the program, how does that affect the interactivity? Which brings up one other issue; that of games. I think the power of a game is that it provides a thematically coherent motivation for experimenting to discover the underlying rules. Of course, the definition of an activity as a game is in the mind of the player, and the boundary between simulation and game is hardly clear. If Tom's simulation was set in context, it would be up to the users to determine whether it was a game or not (for some, flight simulators are training, for others it's gaming). Well, I'll leave off on these discursive ramblings. I think Rod's raised an important issue, and he's to be congratulated for tackling this difficult issue of categorising interactivity, and suggest that one way to view it is as different forms of "cognitive engagement with learning tasks" or somesuch. I think we can all benefit from grappling with this issue.

Fri, 17 Nov 1995 07:18:10 + 1000 From: Rod Sims

On reflection, my classification of interactivity (which I remind you came from the perspective of a developer) was an attempt, from one perspective, of

Page 24: Interactivity: A forgotten art?

18o Sims

providing developers (not designers) with some indicat ion of which interactions are easy to build and which are hard. The next step may be to see to what extent the "easy" interactions inhibit or enhance learning, and the same with the "ha rd" ones ... (Laurillard, 1993).