An accepted definition of interactivity in the literature on computer-mediated instruction is a reciprocal exchange between the technology and the learner, a process they refer to as “feedback.” This reciprocal exchange can be categorized into three kinds of interactions:

• Learner-content interaction refers to the interaction between the learner and the content being studied. The action in this type of interaction results from the learners having conversations with themselves regarding the content. The material being studied triggers an internal dialog. Thus, learner-content interaction occurs when the learner reflects on the content and questions the material in order to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate it.

• Learner-instructor interaction refers to interaction in which the learner and the instructor have exchanges in which the instructor seeks to stimulate interest, clarify questions, guide, motivate, and dialog with the learner. This kind of interaction can take place in a class or in a one-on-one setting. The key difference between this and the learner-content interaction is that the instructor can give feedback on the application of new knowledge and assess the learner’s understanding of the material.

• Learner-learner interaction refers to the interaction among students. Given the range of technology options available, learners can experience this type of interaction in real time or asynchronously—as part of a threaded discussion or in an exchange of e-mail; with an instructor present or not present; and one-on-one or one-to-many.

This model of interaction has its critics. It has been argued that there is a difference between “interaction” and “interactivity” (Wagner, 1994). Wagner points out “interaction is an interplay and exchange in which individuals and groups influence each other” . She argues that because interaction requires a reciprocal exchange it is only possible to have this kind of relationship between people, that is, learner(s)-learner(s), and learner(s)-instructor. In contrast, Wagner observes that “interactivity” seems to have emerged from “descriptions of technological capability for establishing connections from point-to-point . . . in real time”. Thus, interaction focuses on people’s behaviors, while interactivity focuses on characteristics of the technology systems.

Collins and Berge suggest there are two kinds of interaction in learning, the student individually interacting with content and the student engaged in social interaction about the content with others. In their view, “Interacting with content means actively processing and combining this content with prior knowledge.” Terry Anderson, a professor and Canada Research Chair in Distance Education at Athabasca University, has developed a theory called the Equivalency of Interaction. His theory sidelines this debate by suggesting that: Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student–teacher; student-student; student- content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience. High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as cost or time effective as less interactive learning sequences.

This theorem implies that an instructional designer can substitute one type of interaction for one of the others (at the same level) with little loss in educational effectiveness—thus the label of an equivalency theory [Anderson, 2003].

Why Use Interaction?

Interaction is a vital part of the learning process, and the level of interaction has an impact on the quality of the learning experience.

Instructional designers should make learners active participants, not passive spectators in the process. Active learning has been described as “providing opportunities for students to meaningfully talk and listen, write, read, and reflect on content, ideas, issues, and concerns”. This is not a small mandate.

Interaction shifts the instructional focus from the facilitator and materials to the learner, who must actively engage with peers, materials, and the instructor. Areview of the literature reveals other reasons for using interactions. It has been shown that higher levels of interaction are associated with improved achievement and positive learning attitudes.

Before we leave readers with the impression that interaction is a silver bullet for online learning, we must discuss the flip side of interaction. Interaction requires that students bring metacognitive skill to the task of learning. Many adult learners are accomplished in the role of passive learning, but the role of active learning is foreign and uncomfortable territory. There is also the issue of motivation. Simply designing interactions does not ensure learners will engage in discussions, read, write, or reflect on the content.

The Benefits and Limitations of Interactions

Understanding the benefits and limitations of educational interactions is essential for educators who are advising clients and developing programs. When client have so many definitions and ideas of interactivity, being able to assess the value of using interaction is an essential skill. As Roderick Sims points out, understanding “interactivity is the one element which can distinguish what we produce as educational technologists [and instructional designers] from what other developers’ of-so called interactive products produce”

The Benefits of Interactions

The value of using interactions depends on your instructional goals, audience, and budget. As discussed earlier, interactions are essential to the learning process and can lead to increased learner satisfaction when used well. This section reviews the benefits of adding interaction to your program.

Motivation

Interactions have a great deal of impact on learner motivation and learner success. In e-learning, as in any distance education, attrition can be high, so strategies need to be used that encourage completion. Research has shown that learner-instructor interaction is perceived as being most highly valued by students .

Gaining Attention

A well-known component of many instructional design models is the need to gain and keep the learners’ attention.

Practice and Increased Retention

Interactions provide the learner with an opportunity to practice new skills in a safe and structured environment. The value of interaction is that it prompts learners to retrieve information from memory, and it’s this retrieval practice that prompts the learning improvements.

Promoting Reflection

Many of the learner-to-learner and learner-to-instructor interactions promote reflections. Opportunities for learners to express their own points of view, explain the issues in their own words, and formulate opposing or different arguments have always been related to deep-level learning and the development of critical thinking.

The Limitations of Interactions

Interactions are not a silver bullet for e-learning. The following section summarizes the limitations.

Not as Fast as Direct Instruction

Engaging in meaningful interaction with other learners and the instructor takes time. If the goal of moving instruction to the Internet is to reduce the time it takes to complete training, interactivity may not deliver. Waiting for reciprocal exchanges with peers and the instructor may mean the dialog takes days or weeks to evolve. Of course, interacting with materials is still a viable option.

Time-Intensive

Those who teach in higher education have demonstrated that online courses with high levels of interaction take more time to teach than traditional classes do. Interacting with students is a critical part of the learning process and has been shown to increase student satisfaction. The challenge of delivering learner-instructor interaction is that instructors must write content-laden, responsive messages tailored to the learner. This kind of written interaction takes longer than verbal interaction provided in the traditional classroom. Students and instructors also find learner-learner interaction time-consuming. These peer-to-peer experiences require effort from learners and instructors to monitor threaded discussions, post responses, and referee group work.

Does Not Scale

Due to time demands, learner-learner and learner-instructor interactions do not scale well. That is, what works well for a small group does not work as well when the group is large. The instructor is over-stretched to respond to a large number of students, and the process for keeping the dialog running becomes more challenging. Students are also at a disadvantage because large classes require students to spend more time reading and responding to threaded discussions.

Unrealistic Expectations Regarding Level of Interaction

It is not unusual for instructional designers to mandate the number of postings a week or to assign group projects in an effort to up the level of interaction. In some cases, the design of the course reflects an unrealistic expectation regarding the time learners have to engage. Instructional designers should consider whether the level of interaction is reasonable when comparable to a traditional classroom program. If a topic would not have supported a spirited in-class discussion, it seems unreasonable to expect the topic to be highly interactive on the Web. There is also no substitute for a good audience analysis. How much interaction is reasonable if the learners are taking e-learning because of demanding work schedules or personal lives? What are reasonable expectations regarding participation in threaded discussions? Do group projects that depend on other learners create undue burdens?

Costly to Develop

The disadvantages we have looked at so far have focused on learner-learner and learner-instructor. These are relatively inexpensive to develop because they rely on existing infrastructure such as e-mail and threaded discussion. The third kind of interaction, learner-content, can be costly to develop. We encourage you to try as many of the learner-content interactions as possible. Even the ones that do not appear to have high production values are deceiving in the amount of effort required to design, test, and write.