Before I start the proposed reading on interactivity, I will give a brief overview of my current thoughts on interactivity and the value this adds to teaching and learning.
Over the years the term “interactive” learning has been promoted by a variety of educationalists, however, they all seem to have differing views on exactly what the term means. To me, although I recognise interactivity occurs in every lesson – when a tutor asks a question and gets a response from a learner for example, the term interactive refers to a physical act of interaction. This doesn’t, however, need to be via the use of technology – this can occur with all manner of physical teaching resources, where some sort of assessment takes place and feedback is provided to the learner.
To clarify my current position, when a learner writes on an interactive whiteboard, this isn’t interactive learning, unless by doing so they receive instant feedback. For example, if they complete a gap fill exercise and they receive instant feedback related to their answer, this is “interactive”, if they don’t receive feedback it isn’t.
One of the major misconceptions teachers make, in my opinion, is that they believe the introduction of technology is enough to add value to the learning experience. This simply isn’t true, replacing an old whiteboard with an interactive whiteboard does not add value, unless it changes the teachers practice and it starts to be used it interactively by learners.
I see interactivity as a key pedagogical tool, as it provides the opportunity for teachers to offer personalised learning, at a level that wasn’t possible before. The level of interactivity can also support the engagement of learners, lower level learners may perhaps require more interactivity, via games for example, to keep them interested in their learning, while higher level learners may require simple interactivity which provides them with instant detailed feedback.
Is interactivity a useful notion for elearning?
Yacci, (2000), describes interactivity as a “message loop” and goes on to state that instructional interactivity occurs “from the learner’s point of view”, which supports my own interpretation, that it is the feedback which a learner receives in relation to their action which makes the interaction, interactive. It follows, therefore, that an action by a learner which doesn’t trigger a response/feedback isn’t interactive. Therefore, a tutor who introduces an Interactive WhiteBoard into the classroom and simply asks the learners to write on it, isn’t engaging the learners in interactive learning. In order to do so, there would need to be a feedback loop introduced, this could be achieved either via the addition of ‘on click’ feedback or by the tutor making a response once an action is taken by the learner.
Diana Laurillard’s ideas on ‘conversational frameworks’ (explained here) expand on Yacci’s “message loop” as she explores interactivity via feedback loops which relate to learners conceptions and actions, while she also introduces media to the process. Laurillard’s framework, however, only take account of three types of “interactive” media, hypermedia – which consists of fixed links to text, graphics and multimedia, enhanced hypermedia – which Laurillard suggests is adaptive personalised learning which learners are able to explore with the support of guidance and web resources which are hypermedia available via the world wide web, which I interpret as Web 1.0. This model, in my opinion, is now outdated as there is, I believe, now a requirement to include at least 2 additional interactive medium. These are Web 2.0 resources, which would be enhanced hypermedia as explained by Laurillard available via the world wide web and semantic web resources which are “intelligent” hypermedia resources available via the world wide web, i.e. resources which use meta data and semantic web analytics to provide learners with personalised guidance as they follow their own individualised learning path online.
I believe Laurillard’s model should be expanded further to include additional feedback loops as learners “curate” their own independent understanding/learning via their interactivity within their own communities of practice or personal learning networks.
thoughtsaboutdmz2430
Jan 22, 2011 @ 14:55:18
I think you make a very valid point about the practice of teachers, regarding to the use of interactive whiteboards. I agree, if the IWB is used in the same way as the old white board, or even older blackboard(!), the technology is not being used interactively.
I do feel though this has been influenced in past years by the likes of OFSTED looking for technology in the classroom (i.e. PC’s on desks), and the way funding ‘pots’ have been structured. What I mean by this is, several years ago it was enough to have PC’s and IWB in the classroom and it recieved a ‘tick in the box’ however now the technology has to shown to enhance teaching and learning by being interactive.
ann harris
Jan 29, 2011 @ 18:44:02
Hi Paul sorry I wasn’t there last weekend. I think your systematic approach is impressive and does allow depth of reflection. Considering where we were allows us more directly to identify where our journey has taken us. I agree wholeheartedly that adding technology does not, by definition, add value (and I speak as someone who had her first computer in 1982). From our point of view, I think that is at least in part the reason for theories and evaluation of e-learning. You’ve got to look not just at what you’re doing, but why you’re doing it, and what value it might have in any given context. (The latter being quite an important consideration).
mark8n
Jan 30, 2011 @ 14:28:33
Paul,
We missed you at the last day school. Hope you’re feeling better now.
I think you’ve opened up an interesting line of thought by considering that response times in an interaction affect the perceived level of interactivity. My original thought was that if there is an exchange of information in response to a prompt that would be an interaction. For me the level of interactivity for an entity would be determined by the number of different ways it could react with other entities. The expectation of interaction time, even for asynchronous interactions, once considered is impossible to dismiss.
Many thanks, Mark.
razrazraz
Oct 18, 2011 @ 08:49:38
Paul,
I like you post. I struggle with really long posts, and this to me is a perfect blog size post. Enough info to stimulate me, not too many words to bore me ;-).
I fully understand your comments that instant feedback is what defines interactivity. What about Wikis and Blogs though? Are they not interactive social media, even though the feedback is not synchronous? I’d also like to explore your statements that “replacing an old whiteboard with an interactive whiteboard does not add value, unless it changes the teachers practice and it starts to be used it interactively by learners”. Although on the whole I agree with this, I have seen the introduction of technology stimulate learner engagement without vast changes in teaching practice. We’ve all seen it. How keen are learners to come up and write on an interactive white board as opposed to a standard white board. I think there are instances where the simple “magic” of technology can foster engagement.
reportfolio
Oct 18, 2011 @ 17:43:07
Hi Andy,
Thanks for your comments. I take your point about Wikis & Blogs having the ability to be interactive, this only occurs though when ‘dialogue’ takes place a ‘monologue’ post isn’t interactive is it? I’m asking a question here as I’m questioning myself.
Although I recognise what you are saying about the “magic” of technology fostering engagement, however, I think this is where I am of the opinion (rightly or wrongly) that by a learner simply writing on a IWB it isn’t interactivity. Yes they have become engaged in an activity but has there been a transfer of knowledge or the recognition of understanding?
Paul
blogging4education
Oct 21, 2011 @ 13:54:35
I agree Andy. Having recently been “certified” as an IWB trainer in the UK I think that using this technology, even in a small way, can engage some learners. For teachers who are still using flipcharts it is a big leap and there are signficant benefits for tutors in relation to planning and preparing for lessons.
The problem now is that most younger learners have been brought up with “magic boards” since primary schools so the novelty has worn off.
Technology will never make a poor teacher a good teacher BUT it could make a good teacher a more effective teacher.
Also, from a personal perspective, if I was 16 and learning A level History would I prefer to be in a classroom with an interactive whiteboard or a flipchart / ordinary whiteboard? No competition.