Interactivity for effective educational communication and engagement during technology based and online learning Rod Sims School of Multimedia and Information Technology Southern Cross University

The use of technology to support education and training continues to be promoted while it remains a comparatively new field. Through extending existing concepts and understanding of the role of interactivity in educational transactions, within the context of computer-based multimedia applications, research findings (Sims, 1997) have suggested that more effective instruction and learning will be generated, regardless of the strategy (instructivist or constructivist), design or interface. Variations in effectiveness will be manifested through learner-controlled events incorporating a range of adaptive, individualised (and therefore more complex) interactions. The level of interactivity (the interactive construct) will affect the quality and effectiveness of educational communication. Being able to prescribe an interrelationship between interaction and content may result in more effective communication and learning in both desktop and on-line environments. Given this environment, this paper presents findings from a research project to assess the extent to which interactivity, often proposed as fundamental component of educational technology, determines the effectiveness and subsequent success of such applications.

Introduction

First, it is assumed that the interactivity being analysed is that associated with computer-based educational (CAL; CBT; IMM) applications (Gery, 1987; Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993; Sims, 1997). In this context, the examination is focusing on the communication between human and computer in a learning environment and not interpersonal communication facilitated by computer technology. Second, as the environment is educationally based, the methods by which interactivity is defined through its relationship with Instructional Design processes such as skills, methods and management are also significant. (Jonassen, 1985; Merrill, 1997). In the days of rapid prototyping, interactivity can be intuitive rather than designed; the relative benefits and effects of this have yet to be fully understood.

Third, the application of technology to teaching and learning has undergone a paradigm shift in terms of the learning strategies which should be embedded in technology-based instruction. This shift, from the behavioural to cognitive to constructivist (Jonassen, 1988; Laurillard, 1993; Boyle, 1997) has meant that alternative forms of interactivity are required to conform with the required strategy. Fourth, a review of the literature focusing specifically on the nature of interactivity reveals a range of perceived features ranging from individualisation, self-pacing and learner control to feedback, adaptation and multimedia (Dickinson, 1995; Milheim, 1996;). Finally, there is the technology itself (mainframe, PC, network, internet) and authoring tools (programming languages, templates, authoring systems) which can both facilitate and limit interactivity through their relative sophistication and complexity.

Using these elements, the role and characteristics of interactivity in technology-based education and training environments for the adult learner can be identified (Spector, 1995). Through an analysis of research data relating to interactive learning environments a representation of the current state of "interactive" technology can be developed, including any differentiation between desktop and on-line learning applications.

The concept of interactivity within new media applications is often (and simply) portrayed as an inherent quality of the technology. In other words, the acquisition of a computer with internet access provides an interactive environment, regardless of the applications being used. From another perspective, interactivity is used to denote superiority - if you have an interactive product then it is somehow better. But what is it that makes something interactive? Compare the linear, instructivist computer-based training systems to purpose-built applications for learning (such as Exploring the Nardoo) where interactivity refers to the manipulation of virtual tools in a virtual environment to solve specific problems or answer questions. While there is no specific answer to this question, more recent analysis (e.g. Plowman, 1996) suggests that interactivity may in fact be a detriment to users in a technological environment. The dimensions and effects of interactivity remain unclear; this brief analysis therefore attempts to provide an extended classification of interactivity to provide a better understanding of its role in technology-based learning.

Another issue associated with the concept interactivity is that it is applied to communication between humans, the result of which is an interaction. And achieving an interaction requires some form of active participation by the communicators to either initiate or respond to an interaction. In recent times, the immediacy of internet-based learning has been promoted as enabling person-to-person communication and interaction. However, it might also be argued that in this case the technology merely plays the role of communication channel and does not initiate or respond to the individual interactions. Consequently, the main argument of this paper is on interactivity as applied to technology-based learning, where one member of the communication group is the computer, (programmed in some form to accept human prompts and generate a response) and the other member a human, working with the technology in a learning activity of some form. The range of prompts and complexity of responses is a function of both the technology and the software implemented to facilitate the communication.

What is interactivity?

Borsook & Higginbotham-Wheat (1991:11) assert that "its potential for interactivity sets the computer apart from all other instructional devices". But what makes the technology interactive, and what benefits does this interactivity have for the user? Borsook & Higginbotham-Wheat (1991) identify a series of interactivity components including immediacy of response, non-sequential access of information, adaptability, feedback, options and bi-directional communication, and go on to suggest that "two categories of software that truly harness the computer's potential for interactivity are adaptive systems and simulations" (Borsook & Higginbotham-Wheat, 1991:13). The implication from these two statements would appear to be that while the technology has an interactive potential, that potential will best be realised only if the software conforms to certain strategies. Does this then mean that other forms of computer-based instruction (such as the Tutorial described by Alessi & Trollip, 1991) are not suitable for the technology?

However, another element relevant to the success of interactivity is the extent to which design has been applied to the application. Jonassen (1985) and Weller (1988) both assert that only through rigorous instructional design will interactions be effective, and Weller (1988:23) emphasises that "interactivity enables learners to adjust the instruction to conform to their needs and capabilities ... the learner becomes an active participant, rather than passive observer, making significant decisions and encountering their consequences". So through effective design, the learner can have access to active and consequential interactions. But there have also been critics of the behavioural foundations of instructional design which can result in linear, non-interactive applications (Sims, 1996). It can be argued therefore that interactivity does not simply result from design, but also from an understanding of how an interactive communication between computer and human can be effective - and this is the question being pursued.

Fenrich (1997) perceives interactivity as embodied in instructional features that promote active learning, providing increases in learning and retention, and that "interaction implies active learner participation in the learning process ... an essential condition for effective learning ... failure to build interactivity into your program will reduce learning and retention" (Fenrich, 1997:176). This concept is extended with the identification of interactive conditions that highlight the complex nature of interacting with technology: questions that require thinking, active participation in a simulation or an educational game, providing feedback, building on current knowledge and experience, learner control of pace and sequence, student comments and annotations and learner modifications to the computer program, with the conclusion that "effective learning requires interaction that stimulates new thinking" (Fenrich, 1997:178). This latter approach is further extended by the possibility for interactive applications to include a risk factor: "can the user lose something or have something unpleasant happen to them? When there is no risk of consequences for the learner ... the mind runs idle" (Allen, cited by Filipczak, 1996:53).

These comments also raise an important polarity in the analysis of interactivity: engagement and control (Sims, 1997). Engagement associated with the extent to which the learner is working with the content and control determining the options available for accessing and navigating through the content structure. Given this polarity, what other aspects of interactivity can be considered to help develop a more comprehensive picture of its characteristics?

Navigation, control and quality

This concept can be extended to the introduction of rules or standards which amount to a prescriptive environment. Filipczak (1996) goes so far as to define a set of rules for interactivity which include video clips being less than 31 seconds, users should do something every 15-30 seconds, that too much interactivity might be intimidating and that users should have access to different paths. However, when examining these proposals, almost any interactive designer could cite an example when a video clip has extended beyond 31 seconds, and the same designers might well be horrified if the user was not constantly "doing something". Unfortunately, a user may well be engrossed in a particular piece of content for a period of minutes without performing any overt actions. The author would argue that the more one examines interactivity the more complex it becomes, as the user is immersed in an environment which requires multiple processing - with the content, the navigation, the metaphor and the feedback generated by their actions.

One particular aspect of interactivity which has received particular attention is that of learner and program control (for example, Smith, 1983; Sims & Hedberg, 1996), with early optimism demonstrated with statements such as "interactive systems allow trainees to control their own learning, while freeing the trainer to design new programs or handle individual problems" (Smith, 1983:30). The result of control is that the user or computer can initiate branching from opne content location to another, which Weller (1998) suggest is the crux of interactivity. In addition, Weller (1988) also proposes that the very quality of an interactions depends on the degree of learner control, which can apply to both control of both pacing (time) and sequencing (branching). However, Weller (1998) also suggests that merely providing learner control by means of repeated standard statements is to make the program boring, and that a variety of responses are required from the learners to maintain an active state of learning. The quality of an interaction may then be based on both the evaluation of a learner's responses and the consequent feedback. But quality is only one facet of interactivity; another is quantity, usually interpreted as a number of interactions per minute or hour, which has also been used to denote a measure of effectiveness. Overall however, optimal learner control determined by learner characteristics, nature of content and the complexity of learning task (Hazen, 1985).

Interactivity can be defined as a function of the technology, in terms of the control made available to the user, as an expression of quantity or by assessing the quality of learning. However this does not provide a clear answer as to what an interaction consists of to ensure effectiveness of learning. An alternate approach, discussed in the following section, considers interactions from the perspective of levels.

Level of interactivity

Reactive: limited; reacts to predetermined design through question and answer
Coactive: extended control of content or structure; what OR how (not both)
Proactive: extended control of content and structure

Table 1: Three levels of interactivity

The Reactive Design features program controlled branching (whether conditional or not) and feedback both informational and affective). The structure has valid instructional implementations and is defined because users only make a few decisions, and are not limited to a basic tutorial (present, question, response, feedback) model. The Coactive Design provides an environment in which users choose the sequence, pace, feedback and possible even style (didactic, interrogative, dialogic). This model is typically well suited to simulations, where there is control over structure but not content. As Rhodes & Azbell (1985:32) suggest, "extended user control of content enhances learning through the choice of additional examples and illustrations of the content. The program determines what they are to do, but not how (eg how to process casualty patients, where which patient is not at issue)".

The final element of the model, Proactive Design, extends individualisation such that, within constraints, users design their own program of study. In developing these ideas, Rhodes & Azbell identify the importance of a design rationale providing the foundation for any instructional decision, which will in turn determine the characteristics of the interactivity. In other words, it is not interactivity per se which provides the effect, but the manipulation of its many elements to fit a specific instructional requirement.

The notion of levels of interactivity has also been considered by Jonassen (1985), Schwier & Misanchuk (1993) and Sims (1997). In all these cases, the variation in mode of interaction is affected by technological, environmental, instructional and learner factors.

Conclusions

References

Borsook, T.K. & Higginbotham-Wheat, N. (1991). Interactivity: What it is and what it can do for computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 31(10), 11-17.

Boyle, T. (1997). Design for Multimedia Learning. London: Prentice Hall.

Dickinson, D. (1995). Multimedia myths. Australian Personal Computer, 16(10), 144-145.

Fenrich, P. (1997). Practical Guidelines for Creating Instructional Multimedia Applications. Fort Worth, PA: The Dryden Press.

Filipczak, B. (1996). Engaged! The nature of computer interactivity. Training, 33(11), 52-58.

Gery, G. (1987). Making CBT Happen. Boston, MA: Weingarten Press.

Hannafin, M.J. & Peck, K.L. (1988). The Design, Development, and Evaluation of Instructional Software. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Hazen, M. (1985). Instructional software design principles. Educational Technology, 25(11), 18-23.

Jonassen, D.H. (1985). Interactive lesson designs: A taxonomy. Educational Technology, 25(6), 7-17.

Jonassen, D.H. (1988). Integrating learning strategies into courseware to facilitate deeper processing. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed), Instructional Designs for Microcomputer Courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. London, UK: Routledge.

Merrill, M.D. (1997). Instructional Transaction Theory (ITT): Instructional Design Based on Knowledge Objects. http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper22/paper22b.html Sourced June 4th 1998.

Milheim, W.D. (1996). Interactivity and computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24(3), 225-233.

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

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

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

Sims, R. & Hedberg, J. (1995). Dimensions of Learner Control: A Reappraisal for Interactive Multimedia Instruction. In J. Lee (Ed), First International Workshop on Intelligence and Multimodality in Multimedia Interfaces: Research and Applications. Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.

Sims, R. (1996). Engagement, control and the learner: a theoretical appraisal of interactivity. In A. Christie, P.James & B. Vaughan (Eds), Making new connections. Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). Adelaide: ASCILITE.

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

Smith, J. (1983). How to design interactive training programs. Training, 20(12), 30-45.

Spector, M.J. (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.

Author: Associate Professor Rod Sims School of Multimedia and Information Technology Southern Cross University Coffs Harbour NSW 2457 AUSTRALIA Ph: +61 2 6659 3310 Fax: +61 2 6659 3612 Email: rsims@scu.edu.au http://www.scu.edu.au/ Please cite as: Sims, R. (1998). Interactivity for effective educational communication and engagement during technology based and online learning. In C. McBeath and R. Atkinson (Eds), Planning for Progress, Partnership and Profit. Proceedings EdTech'98. Perth: Australian Society for Educational Technology. http://www.aset.org.au/confs/edtech98/pubs/articles/sims1.html