Rod Sims, School of Multimedia & Information Technology, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour NSW 2457 AUSTRALIA rsims@scu.edu.au
This paper proposes a set of strategies to maximise learner-content and learner-learner interactions in on-line learning environments. Extrapolating the outcomes of a research study that investigated the ways in which users responded to the interactive constructs embedded within interactive multimedia applications, the concept of encounter theory is introduced. Using observation and interview techniques, participants in the study identified a range of options by which learner-computer interactions might be enhanced. The implications of these findings for on-line and desktop environments are considered, specifically in terms of the independent learner's encounter with content material and other learners. Developing a comprehensive understanding of the interactive phenomenon will not only lead to more effective useability and learning in on-line environments, but also to their working better for the learner.
With the current demand for on-line content and communications, people are making extensive use of the internet for both human-human communication and information retrieval, and within this context there is a substantial and sustained demand for learners to have rapid access to and quick but meaningful responses from content material. The momentum towards on-line learning as a de facto educational delivery system is also emphasising the value of communication and interaction between learners, teachers and content.
This paper derives the concept of encounter theory, which predicts that conceptualising the on-line learning experience as a series of encounters will enhance the overall learning experience, based on the outcomes of a research study that examined the interactive constructs within a series of CD-ROM applications. Given the research data generated, it was evident that people work with the same interactive products in quite different ways, having different expectations, deriving various meanings and achieving various levels of engagement and communication. Consequently, the ways in which producers of on-line applications perceive the learner as undergoing a series of encounters between a fellow learner, a teacher or some digitally presented content will be crucial to learning outcomes being achieved. Conceptualising the on-line learning experience through encounters will potentially make on-line content more intuitive, and therefore more accessible and interactive to the learner.
The following discussion briefly reviews the way in which interactivity in computer-based environments is currently understood and describes the methodology and results obtained from the research study. The implications from the study for on-line learning environments are then addressed in terms of the potential encounters between learner and content or learner and learner, and the how the production team has the responsibility for creating the environments in which these encounters will operate effectively.
Interactivity, in the context of computer-enhanced learning (CEL), can range from simple navigation through web pages to human-human collaborative experiences to immersion in interactive virtual worlds. While the many dimensions of interactivity are well documented (Sims, 1999), considerable uncertainty remains about how best to design and implement interactions to achieve the desired learning goals. In the field of educational technology there has been a distinct shift from interactivity as overt physical reactions to those involving internal cognitive processing. From a broader perspective, Laurel (1991) and Shedroff (1994) have emphasised the potential of theatre, specifically in relation to the way interactive multimedia technology has been implemented within the commercial sector. The use of concepts such as narrative, play and performance were considered a potential source for addressing the complex nature of interactivity, and from the design perspective would involve rethinking the way the learner's position within the learning environment is presented.
To address the ways that people work with interactivity, specifically in relation to learner-content interactions and their effects on useability and learning, a research study was designed to observe people working with the interactions provided in contemporary computer-based multimedia applications. The importance of this research lies not only in developing a better understanding the learner-content relationship in human-computer interactions, but also identifying the means for achieving maximum teaching and learning advantage from the rapid growth of on-line content and communications.
In examining these interactions, it became apparent that the success of learner-content interaction is not so much dependent on the learner's ability to use the technology, but on the strategies implemented by the production team in maximising the communication potential of content, whether it be through a web-site, discussion group or desktop application. Better understanding the ways in which learners interpret the content is the key to the on-going success of computer-based learning environments, especially when that interpretation is expressed as a series of encounters between learner, content and the underpinning design.
To examine the phenomenon of interactivity and provide a baseline for its understanding, seven different CD-ROM titles were selected based on their range of design, interface and interactive elements. Forty-six participants from an undergraduate multimedia program volunteered to contribute to the study and were randomly allocated to one of the titles. Each participant was requested to work through the content for a period of approximately 30 minutes, speaking out loud their interpretations of, and responses to, the interactivity being presented. All participants were videotaped and each video sequence was analysed to generate data identifying the major sections and/or content areas accessed, the duration of that access and the types of interaction undertaken by the participant during that access.
The data relating to content and interaction types were processed using a custom-built software application that not only generated graphical and numerical information for reporting purposes, but also enabled a dynamic view of the participantsÕ interactive experienced working with that title (see associated SWIP presentation [HREF1]). For each participant, an audit trail (Misanchuk & Schwier, 1992; Fritze & McNaught, 1996) of the major content areas visited and a profile of their interactivity was generated by this application. To record the diversity of interactions undertaken by participants, seven different forms of interactivity were derived from the taxonomies of interactivity (Schwier & Misanchuk, 1993; Aldrich, et al, 1998) as illustrated in Table 1.
|
Interactivity |
Description |
Code |
|
Exploratory |
Where the participant is exploring the "information landscape" for details of application structure and operation. |
1 |
|
Navigational |
Where the participant chooses to move from one location to another or selects a menu option |
2 |
|
Presentational |
Where the participant is watching the dynamic presentation of material |
3 |
|
Involved |
Where the participant is purposefully involved in following a set of actions to achieve a goal or assessing the static content being displayed |
4 |
|
Manipulative |
Where the participant is actively manipulating content objects to achieve a goal |
5 |
|
Reflective |
Where the participant is discussing aspects of their overall experience with the observer |
6 |
|
Accidental |
Where the participant initiates an interaction for which there is no program response |
7 |
Table 1: Interaction Types
The audit trail depicted in Figure 1 shows an example of one participant in terms of both the content accessed and types of interaction being undertaken while working with one of the titles. This audit trail highlights that while participants worked through a range of the content available, the form of interactivity varied over the contact time. A second means to represent this data was through a profile of the interactivity, expressed as a percentage of the total session time, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 1: Content/Interactivity Audit Trail
Figure 2: Interactivity Profile: Percentage Over Time
In this example, after the initial presentation, the participant began to explore the various options presented within the application, becoming involved with some of the material at approximately the 10th interaction. This data can be compared with the Content Audit Trail (Figure 1), where the first interaction associated with the user being involved with the content occurs at approximately the 4th minute of the overall encounter. The profile depicted through plotting the percentage of interaction type over time provides a visual representation of an individualÕs path through an application.
The process of collecting and analysing the data provided the opportunity to reflect on the relationship between the design of a title (in terms of interface and interaction) and the ways in which users gained benefit from their encounters with the embedded content. What became evident, and is supported by the data recorded, was an apparent discrepancy between the time a user might work with a product and the time it would take to gain benefit from that product. For example, participants often indicated they had not determined the purpose of the application and I believe this was because it would have taken an extensive amount of time to develop a satisfactory understanding of the application's underlying structure.
The significant outcome from the audit trails generated from the research data is that they both confirm and contradict the theoretical positions of learning and interactivity. In terms of confirmation, the variation in audit trails (see Figure 1) substantiates the claim that computer-based learning products provide for individualised experiences, as participants chose a variety of routes by which to explore and engage with the content. However, when considered in terms of the interactive profile (see Figure 2), this individualisation did not appear to convert into meaning, thereby contradicting the assertion that such individual experiences will also enable engagement and meaning.
Consequently, if a product underwent useability testing such that an interactive profile was generated, the trends presented by that profile would reflect the extent to which those interactions were balanced. From this analysis, achieving a convergence and resultant balance of interactivity, over the shortest period of time and after the fewest number of interactions, would be desirable, and indicative of the user working effectively with the product. Applications that did not achieve a balance, consistent with NormanÕs (1986) gulfs of execution and evaluation, would need to undergo some form of interactive adjustment.
The word encounter is defined as "a meeting with a person or thing, especially casually or unexpectedly" (Macquarie Dictionary, 1998:365). This seems most applicable to what happens when users first activate a CEL application, where they may be familiar with the content and aims of the overriding curriculum, but their first encounter with the computer options will potentially be confronting. As the research participants worked through the titles it became apparent from their interactions and spoken comments that the casual and unexpected aspects attributed to encounters were equally applicable to the interactive experience. This complex integration of audit trail and profile demonstrates that it is not adequate to simply build interactions and trust in the user to interpret and benefit from them. There is also a responsibility for the application (whether web-site, discussion group or CD-ROM) to be created in such a way that it too has a responsibility for maintaining communication with the user, thereby supporting the creation of truly interactive environments. In this context, the relationship between human and computer might better be envisaged as a series of encounters, with both parties responsible for playing the appropriate role within those encounters. Ultimately, this is the challenge for the producers and designers of computer-based learning environments.
When a learner first commences working within an on-line application (whether a web-site, discussion group or management system), an attempt to make introductions between the major players is recommended. Depending on the structure of the application, this may involve actual members of the development team presenting the background to the design and its intended operation. Alternatively, the use of characters within a microworld and the roles they are to play in the subsequent presentations can be introduced. Learners also have the responsibility to introduce themselves and to inform the designer of their experience and expectations, as suggested in the context of negotiation. In this way the application can use the information to configure the way in which it will be presented and the means by which the learner can progress through the associated interactions. The notion of an introductory encounter can also be applied to that of the parting encounter, where the learner is recognised for the role they played and information exchanged. It is a relatively simple technique to record user responses and integrate them into future presentations, placing value on the individual learner is a means to enhance the purposeful nature of the application.
In human-human encounters, the participants may operate equitably or one may dominate the process, and in the case of interactive applications, the research participants demonstrated that the two-way exchange of information is essential. However, based on their observations, there was little opportunity to control the content other than the selection of high-level menu items, the navigation between locations, choosing to activate clickable objects or scrolling through large amounts of textual information. While participants were quite able to operate the various controlling items, the responses made by the application were often unpredictable as well as unvarying. There may be a relatively simple means to address this observation. If interactions were structured so that the user could control or act as a spectator then it becomes more their choice as to how the presentation is revealed. By generalising this to a wide range of content domains and metaphors, independent of the technological environment, there will be a likelihood of achieving even more effective learning outcomes.
It is also important that the encounters between learner and designer be strategically positioned throughout the application in such a way that they can be initiated by either of the two parties. The activation of these encounters will be dependent on the extent to which the user has achieved interactive balance and control over the application. While the use of agents has been applied to personalise the environment and provide contextual advice, the responses provided by those agents are typically defined by the program to operate under prescribed conditions, rather than those conditions being negotiated by the user and designer. Of importance is the extent to which the user has the illusion that they are being communicated with on an individual and personal level. Thus a teacher working with a discussion group has the responsibility to keep learners informed of the strategy in play at any one time.
Finally, the encounters between learner and designer need to manifest a level of empathy and tolerance. There is no reason why an application cannot indicate an inability to undertake a task, or to be apologetic for being limited in its range of responses. The underlying arguments for negotiations and encounters is one of personalising the application, of integrating the designer into the process, and continually ensuring that the learner is comfortable with their progress. A typical response to this form of encounter was when one participant attempted to locate information within a database. Although the search was successful from a technical perspective, the information returned could not be interpreted because he had difficulty linking his request with the material returned. Had the application (as a manifestation of the designer) informed the user of the way in which the search would be performed, the range of data being searched and the potential retrievals, either the search request would have been terminated or the information returned interpreted more easily.
In the same way that Kearsely & Shniederman (1998) proposed that an engagement theory provide a set of prescriptions for successful computer-mediated communication, the encounters presented in this analysis provide a framework for what I have termed encounter theory. If the development of on-line learning applications is considered as a sequence of inter-related encounters, then the interactions provided to the user will be of consequence, as they will have been presented in a conversational framework as integral to the operation of the application. In addition, navigation through the application will be more directed and destinations reached predicted by the user rather than unexpected, and the content subsequently presented generating more value for the learner.
Reeves (1999) declared that we know how to build these applications, we just need to do it better. Envisaging applications as a series of encounters, rather than a means to structure content, is one way this might be achieved.
In recent years, the word interactivity has tended to be applied more frequently to the facilities afforded through computer-mediated communication and the increased promotion of on-line learning and web-based training. Regardless of the computer-based medium, effective interaction between learner-learner or learner-content cannot be assumed to be an implicit facility of computer-based environments. Rather, considerable design effort must continue to be placed on the ways in which learners will both adopt and adapt to the exchange of ideas and engagement with content through computer-mediated resources. Moving to an on-line environment, with the perceived benefits of synchronous and asynchronous human-human communications, can mask the importance of human-computer interactions. However, I maintain that interactivity can enhance engagement and learning, which is the critical component of any computer-facilitated learning artefact and that this interactivity needs constant maintenance regardless of the medium of delivery. Using the concept of encounters is one means to generate this enhancement and facilitate its maintenance.
Developing a comprehensive understanding of the interactive phenomenon will not only lead to more effective useability and learning in on-line environments, but also to those applications working better for the learner.
Aldrich, F., Rogers, Y. & Scaife, M. (1998). Getting to grips with "interactivity": Helping teachers assess the educational value of CD-ROMs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 321-332.
Fritze, P. & McNaught, C. (1996). VisMap: A CD for Exploring Evaluation Issues in Computer-Facilitated Learning. Proceedings of the From Virtual to Reality Apple University Academic Conference, University of Queensland.
Kearsley, G. & Shneiderman, B. (1998) Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23.
Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as Theatre. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Macquarie Dictionary (1998). The Macquarie Concise Dictionary. 3rd Edition. Macquarie University, NSW: The Macquarie Library.
Misanchuk, E.R. & Schwier, R.A. (1992). Representing interactive multimedia and hypermedia audit trails. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1, 355-372.
Norman, D.A. (1986). Cognitive engineering, in D.A. Norman & S.W. Draper (Eds), User centred system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reeves, T.C. (1999). A research agenda for interactive learning in the new millennium, in B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds), Proceedings of the 1999 EdMedia Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Schwier, R. & Misanchuk, E. (1993). Interactive Multimedia Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Shedroff, N. (1994). Information Interaction Design: A Unified Field Theory of Design. [Online]. Available: http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/ [20th April 2000].
Sims, R. (1999). Interactivity on stage: Strategies for learner-designer communication. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 257-272.
[ Proceedings ]