|
Article Excerpt
This article suggests that researchers need to reconfigure their conception of multimedia based interactivity. By integrating and extending earlier conceptions of the construct, it is argued that the cognitive processes of users should be central rather than peripheral to interactivity research. A model is presented in which interactivity is described as a continuous dynamic interplay between instructional events, students' actions (functional interactivity) and their cognition (cognitive interactivity). The relationships between these components of the model are discussed, as are two potential benefits of interactivity--increased intrinsic motivation and more favourable learning outcomes. The way in which the model can be used to frame and structure further research on interactivity is discussed and emphasises the need to simultaneously assess functional and cognitive interactivity for specific instructional events.
**********
Common Conceptions of Interactivity
One of the most often stated reasons for employing multimedia for teaching and learning is that it provides students with an interactive learning experience (1). Yet despite the promise and ubiquity of the term, interactivity has been an elusive construct for educational multimedia researchers to define. A scan of the literature quickly reveals a degree of variability in how interactivity is conceived. Schwier and Misanchuk's (1993) taxonomy defined it as a series of levels, functions, and transactions. Sims (1997) by the elements of the interface, Plowman (1996a, 1996b) in terms of narrative, and Borsook and Higginbotham-Wheat (1991) in reference to communication. Reflecting on this variation, Aldrich, Rogers, and Scaife (1998) suggested the most common conceptions of interactivity are based on either a reactive-proactive continuum (the "instructional" approach) or design classifications of users' actions and activities (the "functional" approach).
The instructional approach is exemplified by Thompson and Jorgensen's (1989) three instructional models. Each model in this framework exists on a continuum and describes the nature of the relationship between the user and the instructional source (whether a person or a computer). More particularly, it describes the role of the learner and the technology in an instructional event. At the "reactive" end of the continuum the learner is a relatively passive receiver of information and knowledge. Conversely at the "proactive" end of the continuum the learner is an active participant in the construction of his or her own knowledge. These two opposing views have a clear correspondence with the polarised instructivist and constructivist philosophies of teaching and learning. However, Thompson and Jorgensen (1989) introduced a third category and placed it between the reactive and proactive poles. Labelled the "interactive" model this type of instruction draws on the two previous conceptions and suggests an interplay between "information transmission and simpler levels of learner manipulations of the material and activities that are grounded in the learner's own evolving understanding of the experience" (p. 25) [italics in original].
The second common classification of interactivity focuses much more on the functional affordances of the interface. Interactivity is defined by the physical actions of the user and the purposes of these actions (Sims, 1997, see also Schwier & Misanchuk's (1993) functions and transactions). Sims' hierarchical developers' classification of interactivity outlined 11 "interactive concepts," which describe what happens when a student uses elements of the interface. For example, "linear interactivity" refers to the functionality of the interface that allows the user to move forward and back in the program. "Update interactivity" describes the process whereby users respond to predetermined problems (questions or tasks), which the system subsequently provides feedback on while "construct interactivity" requires users to manipulate elements of the interface to achieve specific goals.
While these two conceptions of interactivity emphasise distinct components of the construct, a degree of communality exists between them. Both define interactivity as a dynamic relationship between two entities. From the instructional perspective the two entities are the user and the instructional source, while the functional perspective is more specific, describing the dynamic as a relationship between the user and elements of the interface. While seemingly obvious, this is an important point as interactivity is often described as an attribute of educational multimedia programs. But an educational multimedia program cannot be interactive; it only has the potential to be so. A user is required to release this potential, thus establishing the dynamic relationship. In addition to being conceived as a dynamic, both conceptions of interactivity recognise that the design of instructional events or tasks--their content and instructional design--is an important factor in students' learning. Increasing a program's potential for interactivity through the careful design of instructional events is almost universally seen as a benefit to students' learning processes and outcomes (for dissenting voices see Plowman, 1996a, 1996b; Rose, 1999).
Yet, despite offering these insights both conceptions of interactivity have a fundamental shortcoming: they fail to adequately consider the internal cognitive processes of users (Sims, 2000, Aldrich et al., 1998, Draper, 1996). Aldrich et al. argued that neither conception adequately addresses users' "engagement" with the learning material or learners' "internal" processes. These internal processes are seen by many authors as the critical component of interactivity (Aldrich et al.; Draper; Spector, 1995; Hannafin, 1989). The value and merit of interactive learning designs should, therefore, be determined by the degree to which they encourage beneficial cognitive processes and strategies in students. While these cognitive processes are the result of a dynamic interplay between the user and the interface, they reside in the user, not the interface. Given the potential benefits of interactive learning designs are ultimately reflected in the cognitive processes of the user, these processes should be central rather than peripheral to researchers' conception of the construct.
Cognitive Conceptions of Interactivity
One of the first models of interactivity to explicitly address students' cognition was Jonassen's (1985) three-dimensional Taxonomy of Interactive Lesson Design. Within the "levels of interactivity" axis Jonassen introduced the categories of "task analysis," "level of processing," and "type of interactive program." These three categories emphasise that the structure and content of an instructional task and, more generally, the type of interactive program (drill and practice, problem solving, etc.) affect the depth with which students process content material. However, while recognising the importance of considering students' cognitive processing, Jonassen's (1985) analysis did not go much further than suggesting that drill and practice learning designs promote shallow processing while problem- and simulation-based learning designs promote deeper processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).
In a later chapter on the design of educational technology Jonassen (1988) dealt more extensively with cognition. He argued that "Because knowledge is mediated through student thought processes and not the medium itself, instructional design should focus on the thought processes activated by learning activities" (p. 155). Jonassen suggested that generative learning is underpinned by students' use of cognitive strategies which can be promoted by incorporating "learning strategies" into the instructional design of courseware (where learning strategies are defined as the cognitive activities that support learning). Students may be explicitly instructed to use a particular learning strategy (labelled "detached") or,...
|
