Interactivity continues to be one of the most frequently discussed topics among distance educators and researchers (Saba, 2000). Simply stated, interactivity may consist of a learner accessing a page of text via a web interface and reading some content (Carlson & Repman, 1999). Relatively complex interpretations require the learner and learning system to respond dynamically to one another. For instance, Borsook (1991) suggested that, to be interactive, programs should simulate seven characteristics of interpersonal communications (i.e., immediacy of response, non-sequential access of information, adaptability, feedback, options, bi-directional, and interruptability). Others focus on the quality of the interaction rather than the number, type or modality of responses. Jonassen (1995), for example, depicts interactions as a function of the type of learner response, the meaningfulness of those responses, and the quality of the feedback provided. Evidently, the term, “interactivity” may be used to describe a wide range of phenomena. What is common is that interactivity is considered a defining characteristic of education that is vital to distance learning (Moore, 1989).
Kearsley (1997) suggested that the single most important element of successful distance learning is interactivity among participants. Interactions enable both the instructor and learners to communicate and respond to each other’s needs and interests. Interactions may help reduce feelings of isolation and anonymity that can result in dissatisfaction, poor performance, and dropouts among distance learners (Berge, 1999). Interactions are also seen as one of the keys to transforming traditional teacher-directed instructional methods to learner-centered approaches (Cuban, 1993). Learners’ avoidance of learner-instruction interactions can harm academic achievement (Booher & Seiler, 1982) and learner’s perception of the level of interactions has been found to be a critical predicator of learner satisfaction (Fulford & Zhang, 1993). Without interactions, instruction may simply become “passing on content as it if were dogmatic truth, and the cycle of knowledge acquisition, critical evaluation and knowledge validation, that is important for the development of higher-order thinking skills, is nonexistent” (Shale & Garrison, 1990, p. 29). Even with its apparent necessity and purported benefits, some still question the significance of interactivity in distance education.
In a review of distance education research, Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek (2000) noted studies indicating that different technologies allow for varying degrees of interaction. “However, similar to [media] comparison studies examining achievement, research comparing differing amounts of interaction showed that interaction had little effect on achievement (Beare, 1989; Souder, 1993)” (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2000, p. 61). It is important to note that, like media comparison research (c.f., Clark, 1994), these conclusions are based on investigations that compare the effects of interactivity across delivery systems (e.g., traditional vs. two-way audio and video vs. two-way audio). The effects of interactivity may be better ascertained by studying varying degrees or types of interactions within one, rather than across, delivery systems. Further research is needed to support the intuitive sense that interaction is important and necessary (Moore, 1995) and effort must be made to synthesize what is known into useful guidelines for research and practice.
This issue examines current perspectives on interactivity and eLearning (defined here as learning that is facilitated predominately through the use of telecommunication technologies such as electronic mail, electronic bulletin board systems, chat, desktop videoconferencing, and the World Wide Web).
The opening articles are presented to provide a flavor for the range of interactions that may be used to facilitate eLearning and an overview of related research. In the first article, I posit a three-level framework for classifying planned eLearning interactions and illustrate how the framework may be used to design and sequence eLearning interactions, analyze the frequency and quality of eLearning interactions, and organize research on interactivity and eLearning. Bannan-Ritland then reviews research related to asynchronous and synchronous computer-mediated communications (CMC) as a key feature of eLearning, analyzing the instructional strategies and activities presented in the reviewed studies, their relationship to interactivity and the findings from the research.
The second set of articles utilizes social and constructivist learning theories as a foundation for addressing contemporary issues associated with eLearning interactions. Berge discusses interactions in context of learner-centered educational environments, focusing on the theoretical foundations for and importance of promoting active learning, interactivity, and self-reflection. Metros and Hedberg examine the relationship between the graphical user interface and the cognitive demands placed upon the learner. They describe ways educators can design or direct the design of functional, usable, communicative, and aesthetically appropriate interfaces to facilitate meaningful interactions with educational content. Tu and Corry discuss critical factors that impact the development of eLearning communities by examining social presence, social eLearning relationships, eLearning collaboration, community of practice and eLearning moderation from social-cognitive and social-cultural aspects.
The final article examines the effects of eLearning interactions on student achievement and attitudes. Northrup investigates types of interactions that students perceived to be important for eLearning within the context of two graduate level online courses and found that self-regulating learning and timely feedback from the instructor was most valued by participants.
Together, the articles seek to provide distance educators and researchers with insights on the concept of interactivity and how it is being applied to study and enhance eLearning. Alternative frameworks, foundations, research and guidelines for design are examined to provide current perspectives on interactivity in eLearning. An effort was made to present a balance of both conceptual and data-driven articles in the special issue. However, like the preponderance of literature on distance education, there is a relative lack of evaluation data or empirical studies (Hanson, Maushak, Schlosser, Anderson, Sorensen, & Simonson, 1997). Readers are encouraged to reflect on the concepts presented in this issue and examine key variables in a systematic and theoretically grounded fashion (Saba, 2000). Through such disciplined research, distance educators may define methods to realize the potential of emerging technologies for increasing access to and the quality of eLearning opportunities.
