Oct 04, 2002
- Interactivity and Best Practices in Web Based Training
- Interactivity: Another Tack On It (Part 1)
- Interactivity: Another Tack On It (Part 2)
- Interactivity: Another Tack On It (Part 3)
- Interactivity: Another Tack On It (Part 4)
Posted to the E-Learning Course List October 1, 2002
George Siemens wrote,
Thanks for the links to your articles, Stephen.
I've distilled the points in your articles as follows (let me know if
I'm way off base):
computer-computer)
or asynch.), number of people, location (proximate, distance)
for)
participants as one measure)
(aka learner)
include, first, the quality of information transmitted, and second, the
degree of interactivity afforded by means of transmission."
This is a good summary. But Siemens continues,
Here is a definition of interaction I'd like to draw to your attention:
"Interactions occur when these objects and events mutually influence one
another. An instructional interaction is an event that takes place
between a learner and the learner's environment. Its purpose is to
respond to the learner in a way intended to change his or her behavior
toward and educational goal. Instructional interactions have two
purposes: to change learners and to move them toward achieving their
goals." (Wagner 1994)
More below, but it is important not to confuse interaction itself with:
- the goal of interaction (eg, leading students to reflection)
- the effect of interaction (eg., changing behaviour)
On my account interaction is nothing over and above the exchange of information.
Siemens continues,
The goal of interaction is to lead students to a point of reflection
that causes them to evaluate existing assumptions and then choose to
integrate or discard the new information. By itself, interaction has
very little value. I've often interacted at length with concepts, only
to find that I've not been focused - and everything I read/heard was a
blur. Why? Because I was not engaged in reflecting/validating the
content I was exposed to. Effective (effective being defined as
achieving the intended purpose of interaction stated earlier)
interaction, then, is a process of awakening a students' internal
reflective processes.
OK, this discussion looks at the role of interaction as it relates to learning. The suggestion
here is:
- effective learning requires reflection and validation
- reflection and validation require interaction
- therefore effective learning requires interaction
This sounds like a good argument. However, though the premises are sometimes true, they are
not always true.
- suppose, for example, I wanted to learn how to make microwave Kraft
Dinner. I read the instructions, follow them, and assuming I've measured
my water correctly, successfully demonstrate that learning. Reflection
and validation are not required to learn how to make microwave Kraft Dinner. - suppose, for example, I want to work out a concept for myself. I write
a draft, review it, make changes, think about it, trace implications,
and finally convince myself that I have it. I have engaged in reflection
and validation, but have not engaged in interaction.
This is not to invalidate the original argument. But it is important to keep in mind
that the need for reflection, validation and interaction varies according to context.
Rather than simply say that we need them, we need to say why we need them. This in
turn leads us to a greater understanding of the goals of interaction in a given
context, and therefore, to the best mode of interaction to employ (as defined by my
variables above.)
To expand on this a bit:
- It is one thing to learn how to make Kraft Dinner and quite another to
learn the essentials of integral calculus, and quite another to comprehend
the importance of Descartes's Meditations, and quite another again to learn
how to play darts.
Different types of learning require different methodologies (which is why
I lose patience with people who say things like 'The key to learning is...'
of that 'Learning is essentially about...'
Various accounts of different types of learning exist, the most quoted
of which is Bloom's taxonomy. But we can approach the subject with a
rougher taxonomy:- Learning of skills, methods, processes, etc ('knowing how')
- Learning of facts, data, statistics, dates, etc. ('knowing that')
- Learning of concepts, representations, abstract systems, etc ('knowing why')
To express the relation very roughly, imagine a gradient between learning
by rote and learning by understanding. In the former, the emphasis is on
observation and experience, recitation and practice, while in the latter,
the emphasis is on the formulation of abstracts and the placement
of new information within an overall mental model or conceptual scheme (and
involves the construction and refinements of these mental models and schemes).
Then from the list above, the first relies most of all on learning by rote,
and the best means of learning is by doing - by repeating multiplication
tables, by memorizing key dates, etc. Reflection and validation are of
minimal importance; repetition is the order of the day. The second relies
on learning by association - one thing is like another in just this way. In
such cases, reflection and validation are of maximal importance as it is
necessary to constantly refine and adapt one's conceptual model.
- Learning of skills, methods, processes, etc ('knowing how')
- While interaction has a role to play in rote learning ("watch and then
repeat after me") most discussion of interaction deals with its role in
learning by understanding (hence the argument that began this section).
In such cases, interaction plays a role in the four major forms of reasoning:
- Definition - acquiring, through conversation, a common understanding of
language and syntax - Description - acquiring, through conversation, a common understanding
of reference and representation - Argument - acquiring, through conversation, a common understanding of
what beliefs may be inferred from definition and description - Explanation - acquiring, through conversation, a common understanding
of the theorietical constructs, world views, or models within which
definition, description and argument operate
Again, as in the previous case, we obtain a gradient. Definition, for example,
may proceed by stipulation (in a learning environment, it almost always
operates by stipulation). Description involves a mutual sharing of stories
and other experiences, but the contents of each person's message are (typically)
unrelated to each other. In argument and explanation, the messages begin to
inform each other, affecting the truth or meaning of previous messages. - Definition - acquiring, through conversation, a common understanding of
To approach the question of interaction, then, is to take the following steps:
- To identify the type of learning involved, and therefore, the degree of
reflection and validation required - To identify the type of reflection and validation required, and therefore,
the degree of interaction required.
The typical learning scenario will not be unidimensional. That is, it may involve
a bit of 'learning that' and a bit of 'learning why'. It may involve some definition
of key terms and a bit of argumentative reasoning in order to derive a new statement
of fact (a typical math class, for example, is very much like this. Then you get
a list of problems to solve, learning by rote the concepts you explored in class).
Siemens continues,
Learning is essentially communication with an objective or goal. As
such, it is helpful to modify existing communication models as an
"interaction cycle".
I disagree with the definition of 'learning' proposed. If pressed, I would define learning as
the acquisition of new knowledge. Specifically, there can be different types of learning,
corresponding with the different types of knowledge:
- learning that
- learning how
- learning why
The phrase 'communication with an objective or goal' is a description one way to
facilitate learning. But even the requirement of an 'objective or goal' is not necessary
in all cases of learning. Consider:
- You are teaching someone how to speak French by uttering words and having the
learner repeat them. This type of learning by rote is most clearly goal-defined: there
is a specific outcome (correct pronounciation) intended. - You are leading a class discussion in which each participant advances his or her
views on animal rights. This is an instance of reflection and validation, with the use
of argument as the reasoning form. There is no clearly defined goal or outcome
definable for this exercise, and yet the process of interaction is likely to help some
people more clearly articulate the conceptual model governing morality in their
world view (and it may help others revise their conceptual model, and it may
help others develop a conceptual model, and it may give others practice in oration,
and it may allow others some necessary space in which to vent).
In general: the clearer the objective or goal of the learning activity, the more concrete
the learning (that is, it is more likely to be by rote than by understanding, and the more
likely it is to be definition or description than it is to be argument or explanation).
In a certain sense, interactivity and learning objectives are in opposition to each
other: the more interactive, the less certain the outcome. Indeed, if an instructor
has clear learning objectives, then interaction (especially unfettered interaction among
the students) can be an impediment to that goal.
Siemens now begins to describe the interaction cycle. (Note here - and interestingly - that Siemens, like Anderson, wants content to be an agent:
The interaction cycle is as follows:
- Sender - this can be: content (content has two components - the
content itself, and the expression of content - i.e. html document - in
this case it is the latter. Content itself is the message),
student-student discussions, student-instructor, or interface (i.e.
computer/software)- The message (generally content expressed via one of the four
senders listed above). The nature of the message is influenced by the
conditions mentioned in Stephen's articles- Receiver - this is the learner who receives the message
(content)... (list continued below, after my comment)
Now let me turn to the interaction cycle as described above. We need to draw out
and explicate some of the components:
- The agents - these are the entities (the people or the computer programs) that
are actually doing the communicating
- The medium - this is the means by which the communication takes place (eg.,
by internet, by telephone, by tapping on a water pipe) - The data - this is the actual message being sent - binary code, analog audio
transmission, tapping noises) - The expression - this is the manner in which the data is encoded. It has the
following components (in many communications, these are implied):- structural information - message headers, chapter headings, spaces
- syntactic information - an account of the language being used, eg text/html, pdf, gif
- presentation information - eg., font size (may be empty in some communications)
- structural information - message headers, chapter headings, spaces
- The content - this is the part of the data that is not part of the expression and
is identifical by having a semantical rather than a syntactical or structural import
(that is, we recognize content by the fact that it has meaning) - The information - this is the part of the content that is new to the receiver, that is,
the part that (to allude to my previous posts) reduces in the receiver the number of
possible states of affairs in the world
We now continue with Siemens's cycle...
the intended learning. Some are controllable by the sender (e.g. through
good design (content), instructor training) others are controllable by
the receiver (the state of mind of the learner), and others are not
controllable (i.e. internet traffic).
This part of the taxonomy is intended to distinguish between
those parts of the communication that are not a part of the message
and those parts that are. Of course, we can see by this phrasing
that this phrasing is vague. We can identify the following types
of interference or distractors:
- agent interference - either in the sender (speaking without
thinking) or in the listener (not listening, busy elsewhere) - medium interference - non-data noise that is a property of
the medium itself and not the data being sent (though it
often becomes a part of the data received): the hiss of a
tape recorder, packet loss, pipe noises caused by the
movement of water
- expression interference - this may include the effects
of encryption, but also includes those meaningless
strings of HTML text that MS word imports into HTML
documents; it also includes coding errors, grammatical
and spelling mistakes, mispronounciations, and the like - content interference - any of a variety of logical fallacies
including vagueness, ambiguity, faulty reasoning, personal
attacks, and the like - informational interference - that part of the content that
is not information - restating the obvious, for example
In other words, an account of interference is not something which is described as a part or a step of
the interaction cycle, but rather, is an additional layer of description applied to all parts of the
interaction cycle
Continuing with Siemens's interaction cycle...
intended message (learning) has been received and
integrated/validated/rejected by the receiver/learner.
As in the case of interference, feedback / verification mechanisms
operate at all points in the cycle. Specifically:
- agent verification - introductions or handshakes (in both the
technical and non-technical sense), presentation of identification
or authentication (PGP, coded 'shave-and-a-haircut' taps) - medium verification - test patters, pings, and other sorts of
calibration - expression verification - syntax checkers, people who complain
about grammar and spelling, requests for resend - content verification - parity bits, acknowledgement (by restating)
that the content received was the content sent - informational verification - application against known information,
response in the form of questions or requests for clarification,
assessments of verisimiltude (eg., a response asserting that the
information sent is fase)
Siemens's cycle, continued...
change/expression by the learner (this validates not only that
reflection occured via interaction, but that the reflection was
significant enough to evoke a change in behaviour in the learner). This
is often neglected in many learning models...because learning is
evaluated via a test/essay, rather than through a more authentic
assessment approach - like performance, portfolio, presentation
This lies outside the interaction cycle. Arguably, evaluation of learning by changes
in behavious are useful in learning, but are not essential in interaction. An
interaction may occur with no manifest change in the receiver (this is why we need
a separate testing or evaluative process).
That said, there are two very different forms of evaluation (as is
well known), and they play very different roles:
- formative, or correective - this is the sending of information
in direct response to the display provided. It is best thought
of as 'back propogation' - a reflection of the original content
with an evaluative addendum to be integrated into the learner's
thinking
- summative, or evaluative - this is an assessment for external
purposes of the degree of learning attained. It is best thought
of as 'forward propogation', and may consist of the evaluative
addendum (a grade, for example) alone (that is, not containing
any part of the learner's display
The mode of evaluation - test, essay, protfolio - most usefully
employed depends on the type of evaluation being performed and the
type of learning being assessed. In general (and with exceptions):
- 'learning that' is usually measured with some sort of test
- 'learning how' is usually measured with some sort of demonstration
- 'learning why' is usually measured with some sort of creation
Note: parts of this note are original to me (eg., the four basic types of reasoning), parts borrowed (eg., references
to Bloom) and parts probably previously stated in other works about which I have no knowledge. Supply your
own references.
