Interactivity - The Lifeline of eLearning

Well, so what’s new?
All eLearning is interactive! It can’t be otherwise!
Do you really think so?!

If you do, you probably haven’t seen enough. Most eLearning that you see around is fairly non-interactive; or at best poorly interactive. I would also venture to call some eLearning that I have seen, behaviorally interactive instead of being cognitively interactive! You click a Next button – you do so because you’ve become habituated to it. You have also become habituated to clicking tabs to cycle through them; or to dragging objects when the instructions ask you to…but then, do these interactions stimulate your mind? In other words, does your mind interact with the course; or is it only that your fingers interact with the keyboard?

Let us today unravel the mystery that is contained in the term “interactivity.” The traditional way to begin, of course, is to find an existing definition of the word interactivity, while another, though non-traditional way is to construct our own definition for this term and compare with the existing definitions – thereby analyzing our own understanding further! What would you like to do? I suggest the second option.

The word “Interact” is formed of two words, “inter” and “act,” and so it can be understood to mean action between two different objects/organisms. If we try to recollect our experiences from our Science classes in school, it would not be difficult to recall phrases such as “how this reagent interacts with the solution”, “how students in a class interact with one-another”, and so on. If you’ve done some computer programming in the past, you will recognize sentences and phrases, such as “a program interacts with another”, “a system interacts with a database,” and so on.

Thus the term interact is used to explain a set of action and the corresponding reaction, between two entities (objects/organisms.) Humans being logical entities interact with a pre-defined goal in mind. So you interact with the shopkeeper to buy something at what you consider is a fair price, with the schoolteacher to determine your child’s progress, and with the computer to gain, provide, or transfer information. When you interact with a computer to gain knowledge, you are engaged in interactivity for eLearning!

Lo behold! There stands a fully formed definition of eLearning interactivity that we generated through discussion (of course, the discussion here took place with you as the imagined reader of this article…but think about it…did it not make the definition more yours than simply reading through a definition that was plucked from Webster’s!) No method of imparting learning works better than the method of constructing learning, comparing it with the given tenets (if any exist; often you may construct new knowledge!)

Nevertheless, here’s the definition from Webster’s to take the point further home.
According to Merriam – Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, “To interact” means “To act upon one another.” It is the extent and the level of “interaction” that determines the compatibility of two entities that interact with each other! If the interaction between the two entities is not at a level, which both find interesting and stimulating; the relationship usually collapses. In the eLearning scenario, same is true for the interactions between the learner and the computer system.

Let’s not deviate too far from our original course of action…we were bound towards creating an understanding of eLearning interactivity that crosses beyond generating behavioral impulses and enters the arena of cognitive stimulus and learning.

Technically Speaking…
Interactivity for eLearning course be encapsulated in the following few types interactions:

• Navigational Interactivity
  • Linear Navigation
  • Branched Navigation
• MCQs/MMCQs
• DnDs
• True/False

Let us discuss these examples is some detail, and try to determine how these simple interaction types can lead us to the utopia of compatible learner-learning relationships!

Navigation:
We often come across courses that have one or more of these interaction types. In fact, in almost all computer courses, whether online or not, Navigational Interactivity of both types exists. The Wavelength site is a good example of Branched Navigational Interactivity. The menu at the left as well as the tab at the top takes you to different sections of the site. Some of these sections have further sub-sections built in. In this manner, you can navigate the whole site, without losing your place. Linear Navigation allows you to move linearly through the course. This navigation is often implemented through Next and Previous buttons.

Navigation of course, should be easy and should not tax the learner too much. The learner should not be spending a lot of time understanding the navigation for a course. The use of navigation to learning massive but quite standard…it is to help the learner access the course content.

Yet think of this simple Next-Previous Navigation. Can we not use it to develop themes and stories, to build cases and scenarios, which present the learner with problems related to decision-making? There are innumerable possibilities that each of these mundane interaction types provide…all we need to do it – learn to look for them!

MCQs / MMCQs:
The most harried, tarried, and over-used interactivity method is the MCQ/MMCQ method. Its omnipresence in eLearning makes learners become habituated to them, not only in the psychomotor sense of clicking away, but also in the cognitive sense of expecting answers to be direct. The mind begins to work like this – read the stem, read option 1, option 2…stop at whichever option seems correct.

Now think of MCQs in a different manner. Think of the gaining the learner’s involvement beyond a few clicks. Think of moving beyond Bloom’s levels 1, 2, and 3! MCQs and MMCQs are excellent vehicles for higher-level reinforcement and assessment of learning. Instead of gaining the learner’s involvement at merely a physical and probably a superficially cognitive level; use them to help the learner mull over concepts, organize thoughts, and synthesize answers. Who says that the stem for an MCQ should always be a statement that can be answered through a clear-cut “yes” or “no”? Why can we not use this beautiful tool to help the learners arrive at a solution from their viewpoint?

Here is an example:
A management problem when solved by different managers result in different solutions. Though each of these solutions may be effective yet their genesis as well as implementation are different. The manager, of course, is able to provide this solution only through synthesizing a lot of academic and practical knowledge from his or her own experience. Now imagine the problem-solving process(es) that this manager may choose to follow. A brain-storming session with the alter-ego or with peers, a group discussion to generate ideas, or even a prototype run before large-scale implementation – all these are the possible tools that this manager may want to use, yet the primary thought-process, which will streamline all these processes; will differ from one individual to another.

Now, in the eLearning environment, we can use MCQs to simulate that environment. Provide a case. Determine at least four different solutions possible for the case. Record the kind of facts that you would need to arrive a workable solution and embed them into the case study write-up. Not provide the workable solution with variations that may result in one or another unpleasant byproduct. Provide the learner, the four options and ask the learner to choose the best option. Remember that the best option is one, which would result in less number of unpleasant byproducts.

It is quite obvious that the implementation of this case in the eLearning environment would require many design reiterations that will ensure that the case study provides enough material to the learner for synthesizing the solution. It is important that you provide constructive feedback to the learner for each option selected. The feedback should aim at clarifying the “anticipated” doubt that may have led the learner to select that particular option.

The above illustration exemplifies how a mundane eLearning interaction such as an MCQ (or MMCQ) could involve the learner. This is a very basic example. Through a chain of such MCQs the learner can be provided an opportunity to simulate the decision-making. This can be implemented extremely well through the storytelling method.

DnDs (Drag and Drop Exercises):
The DnDs are often used for classification; and hence at lower Bloom’s levels. For example, identify regular verbs from a jumble of regular and irregular verbs (why bother – why not use a simple click interaction to identify them?) Another example, which makes more sensible use of DnDs is that of sequencing information (Generally used for Bloom’s level 3 courses – sequencing steps in a process, sequencing on the basis of complexity, and so on.)

Drag and Drop can be used for a variety of reasons, but the most insipid reason that I can think of is for segregating two types of data. Every interaction has to have an aim, only then it will be focused; and only then will it result in learner engagement. I have nothing against using small games for helping the learner memorize information or sequence. I rather think that it’s a good idea to combine entertainment with education for lower Bloom’s levels. At least the learner doesn’t have to go through the rote method and be bored to clicking the Exit or Quit button! Yet for comprehension level onwards, I seriously feel that we should judiciously choose the tool (interaction type) through which we should enable learning.

DnDs, like the MCQs can be woven into cases, can be made dynamic; can be more responsive than just having the incorrectly dragged label fly back to its original position. It’s best to use a DnD when it’s clear that no other interaction would satisfy the purpose.

An example of DnD is “Experiencing Dale’s Cone of Experience.” You can also read about this interaction at:

True/False:
I’ve come across clients that have many instructional degrees stashed under their belts, who have worked with the generic rule of “True/False are not allowed.” I hope that we never have to find ourselves in situations that do not have a “Yes” or “No” as answers. Each of us live through our lives with standards that we carve for ourselves, and within ourselves we always say either “yes” or “no” to everything. This is true for our ethical beliefs, our social functions, and our moral values. Learning is the process that is probably one of the most personal experiences that we go through. How can we stop ourselves from saying “yes” or “no”?

Coming back the use of True/False …they are magnificent. They give the learner an opportunity to decide. They help us make the learning experience a constructive one, instead of the replicating another. True/False is extremely useful in stimulating recall of prior information, thus activating the learner’s schema and improving the assimilation of new knowledge. Providing two options and asking the learner to select one is also akin to implementing a True/False type interaction.

Of course, using the True/False type interaction for assessing learning is not a good idea at all!

Here we saw a few examples of how eLearning interactions can be made truly interactive for the learner. It is the instructional designer who has the Midas touch, who can transform a usual everyday interaction into an involving cognitively interactive affair for the learner. Its you and I, who together can make learning a pleasure for the learner! Let’s say goodbye to the prosaic and try to figure out new ways to reach our learners and meet them face-to-face…through the best and fastest mediums of all…through the medium of thought reflected through cognitive interactivity!

Author: Shafali R. Anand